> This is the reality in $CURRENT_YEAR and it needs to be dealt with, not bristled at.

I see no reason to not bristle at piss-poor social conventions. Sending a "Thank you for your time. We will not be moving forward with you at this time." doesn't expose you to a single iota of risk.

Though if there is a silver lining, a company not deigning to extend a simple courtesy is a strong signal that they are a shitty group to do business with so it's likely for the best.

I think it's fine to bristle at a company that just goes dark on you; that's still rude (that is, "Any communication is a gift", no, not really). A curt "Thanks, but at this time we're not going to move forward." is all it takes to not waste everyone's time.

But yeah, real feedback is never going to happen for the reasons you mention.

This may be the current reality, but I still think it is a bad one. The feedback could be generic and mostly offered as as a platitude. ("We just felt a few other candidates were stronger in XYZ") If, as an industry, we are going to drag people through 40-60 hour long processes for hiring (which I think is largely unnecessary and a waste of money and energy), we can also learn how to end those relationships (because at that point it is a relationship) with human kindness.

Have you ever been in the hiring manager position? Because what you propose is intenable.

Too many things will go wrong when you provide precise feedback.

First, most people don't react well to negative feedback. The natural reaction is to get defensive.

Tell one person you felt other candidates were stronger in XYZ: they get back to you with arguments and examples that shows that no, actually they know a lot about XYZ. Ok, you're nice, you take a look again. Then you decide their XYZ level is still not up to par and you thank them for their time. Once in a while, someone will not give up. They'll argue with you forever. Until you stop all forms of communications. Only a minority of people do that, but out of the one resume a day you receive, you can be sure to hit this problem almost weekly. So you learn to stop giving feedback. And of course, once a year, you have the candidate who threatens to sue because your answers show that your hiring process is biased/unfair.

We'd love to give good feedback. Others ruined it a long time ago for everyone.

I have been on the hiring side and always try to offer feedback, even through back-channels.

If you tell me, "Hey, thanks for spending so much time with us, the team really loved talking with you, and we were super impressed with your experience in X and we were really impressed with your take-home and the way you dealt with questions about why you decided to go with the architecture that you did. It was a really hard decision, but ultimately we decided to go with someone that we felt had a bit more familiarity with Scala and also had more client-facing experience because it meets our current needs. We'll each out in the future if we think there's a mutual fit, otherwise best of luck in your search!"

That may be mostly bullshit, cause there are things you can't say, but at least it helps me hone in on either areas where you were looking for something I wasn't, or areas where I might be able to improve. Maybe I get feedback from 3 or 4 places that they want more experience with scaling issues so maybe I spend the next 6 months trying to hone those skills.

I really don't think it's hard to offer actionable feedback, as I've done it for every person I've ever interviewed. I'm not gonna tell someone I thought they were annoying, or underprepared, or grossly over-represented their abilities, it's not a perfectly honest feedback system, but i I liked someone enough to spend multiple days with them, I'm certainly going to try to offer them something honest that I feel would make them a stronger candidate, for another company, or for future-us.

and as below comment says, if someone's response is "BUT I'M GREAT AT XYZ" then fine, block their emails. In my experience 95% of the time it is someone that says "Thanks! Sorry it didn't work out this time, but I agree that XYZ is something I need to work on. I'm gonna dive into it thgis year and let's chat in 12 months and see where we are both at"

Why are you burning candidate bridges to someone you clearly liked enough to spend over $10k and lots of time interviewing by sending them a one line canned response?

No, if I tell you that "other candidates were stronger in XYZ", that is not an invitation to show me how strong you are in XYZ. It doesn't matter how strong you are; others were stronger, and we're done. If you try, you just look needy (and unable to respond appropriately to social cues).

I would probably not respond at all to a candidate trying to argue with why they got rejected. Just radio silence.

It should also be considered that they are dealing with exponentially more prospective employees than you are prospective employers.

I don't think being unprofessional in professional situations should ever not be bristled at.

>> any information they give about how they arrive at their decision could potentially expose the company to liability

which says a lot about their hiring process.

Not necessarily. You underestimate the willingness of people to hire trollish lawyers and file suits which are, or should be, frivolous. Even if the company prevails in court, the cost and risk exposure are too much.

And that's not even getting into the people who are willing to go down to corporate HQ with an AR-15.

Ghosting has become acceptable in recent years as a personal safety measure -- in dating, too. It's important not to get too offended by it.

>> And that's not even getting into the people who are willing to go down to corporate HQ with an AR-15.

Has that ever happened?