> If you want the candidate to be more likely to reapply feedback would help.

I'd be so happy simply hearing feedback on whether I should bother with the company again.

"You were barely beat out by another candidate, we hope you apply again next time!"

"You are not a fit for this company, don't try again"

> "You were barely beat out by another candidate, we hope you apply again next time!"

If this is true and if the company is half competent they'll be reaching out to you proactively next time, not hoping you might see the position and think to apply :)

Sounds like you met a very particular HR archetype and they likely took delight in the games they played with you. You're better off knowing about those sort of HR depts than not.

> If you want the candidate to be more likely to reapply feedback would help.

Do companies really want that? Presumably they didn't hire the candidate because they believe better candidates exist. Why invest in someone if there are better candidates readily available?

Interviewing is such a crapshoot; just because someone doesn't make the cut the first time, doesn't mean they weren't the better candidate.

That's one reason I hate the "just hire the best person" argument against diversity; usually "the best person" is entirely non-obvious.

Google, Facebook, and Amazon have made a sport of shoving people through their interview pipeline multiple times.

They'll have openings again in the future, and maybe at that time their desires and your skills will be a better match.

Especially when interviewing for non-intro-level stuff...

usually there's only a few open positions. after a long process of phone screens and on-sites, you might have five viable candidates but only two slots at that particular time. if you would have been happy to hire any of the remaining three if the first two didn't accept your offer, you might encourage them to apply again later.

They do want it. A strong signal is when a weak candidate comes back a year later and kicks ass.