After filling in an online application form, I got an email from a talent acquisition manager from the company saying they were interested in me. In this email, they mentioned that company had training opportunities available as they were committed to supporting me in "becoming a skilled professional". Based on this, I assumed that, even if I didn't know the job specifics, the company would provide the necessary training for me to excel at this particular position. The talent acquisition manager also mentioned that the next step in the application process would be to complete a test assignment within 1 hour. The test assignment consisted of providing feedback for link-building articles following the company's content guidelines. After that, I had a Google Meets interview with the talent acquisition manager to discuss my profile and position. During this interview, the manager was satisfied with my experience and told me that, because I was so familiar with the tasks, the following interview would likely have a positive outcome. This person was thorough and extremely helpful. My experience had been positive thus far. The following interview was with leadership. I was told it would be similar to the previous one: an interview to discuss my profile and get to know me better. This, however, wasn't exactly the case. I was asked the same questions from the interview basically, "tell me about your background and your previous experience". Again, they seemed interested in knowing about my past work experience - as if this was something important for the role. Then, I was given a series of texts to read and analyze. So this was yet another test assignment I was completely unaware of. I was also asked a series of strange questions, like "how would you describe the colour green to a blind person" and "imagine you received 4000 thousand emails in a day and you could only reply to 400 of them"? I had the sense that these questions were meant to analyze my problem-solving skills as it is one of the role's requirements. However, I was left wondering how useful it is to provide solutions to over-the-top and exaggerated scenarios, as opposed to actual scenarios one might encounter as part of the role. Shortly after the interview, I got a generic and vague email saying that they decided not to continue with you in the application process. This, of course, was puzzling and strange after having exchanged thorough and straightforward emails with the talent acquisition manager, which were completely different from this message. It was also strange because I have done this exact role in the past and they had thoroughly enquired about my previous work experience. So I asked to please elaborate on their decision. The response I got was vague and weirdly worded. I was told that experience was not that important, even though the job description (under "what we expect from you") clearly states that they were looking for a person with "a background in content marketing or copywriting, and previous experience working with texts and languages" and "experience with performing quality checks on texts". It also mentioned that the person should "be fluent in English, with a native-level speaking and writing ability, and be confident in discussing complex projects and business matters with international clients", which is something that only comes with experience. This person also mentioned that the role was "entry-level", which was not mentioned in the role description and was never brought up during my previous communications with the company. They mentioned that everything that needed to be done was job-specific, which entailed using their systems and addressing specific client requirements. However, as mentioned at the beginning of this entry, they initially said that they would be providing training. Hence, I was confused as how this would be an issue. The response concluded by saying that there wasn't anything they could provide as feedback, which comes across as unprofessional. This response suggests that either they don't know what they are looking for or there isn't a consensus regarding which skills are most valuable for the job - experience or something else which they fail to mention. Or, perhaps the wording they used to describe the role (with the emphasis on the importance of experience) does not reflect their actual needs. Overall, the experience was extremely confusing.