My Meta recruiter three years ago was excellent, answered questions really well and was very flexible, transparent, and responsive with scheduling. Probably my best interview experience so far, although I ended up accepting a different offer for a more senior position. The stars were aligned then, though... I was already working at a prestigious company, had competing offers, and performed well on the interviews (I suspect at least 1-2 "strong hire" or equivalent.)

The market was quite different back then.

They have a ton of highly qualified candidates. Why would they focus on optimizing the experience from the viewpoint of the candidate, when they are spending so much time and money cherry picking?

Because the supply of candidates aren't infinite and people talk and compare notes. At a certain point, a company _will_ become unattractive to the best candidates.

Looking at you, Amazon...

Whenever I hear that kind of argument I think to myself 'Youre right. This kind of thing needs to be regulated.'

6 rounds of interviews is insane. a law that said that prospective employees must be paid for their time to interview at a rate equal to the published salary or wage would go a long way to cutting this kind of bullshit.

I think we should allow companies a lot of freedom in how they hire. Outlaw discrimination in a few clear categories and leave it at that. If their interview process sucks enough then they'll miss out on good candidates and lose in the market. If you feel it's not worth your time then don't interview there.

Personally I've found that the companies with intensive interview processes pay twice as much as everyone else, so in the long run I'm compensated for the extra time.

Went through this recently.

Spent around 4 hours doing a coding homework, followed by 7 interviews, then ghosted for a few days. Chased, and it was then a "thank you for your time, no ta" email.