I bet ones view on this really depends on personal experiences both as an interviewee and an interviewer.
I work for a small start-up and recently went through hiring another developer to our team. I know how awful it is as a candidate to get little or no feedback of what is happening, so my goal was for our process to be more humane.
At first I answered all rejected submissions with a reason why that happened. There was rarely just one, but I would pick those were they clearly did not meet one of few inflexible requirements.
Because of a huge volume applications, vast majority of which poorly matching our requirements, that was almost all I was doing for the first few days, having difficulties finding time to move successful ones further, let alone do any other kind of work. I also quickly learned that many applicants see these feedbacks as an invitation to argue with often the only way to end it is by just not responding any longer.
So, I stopped doing this and resigned myself to sending generic rejection promptly unless I was asked for feedback explicitly. In my opinion candidates still quickly learn where they are at and have opportunity to learn more which is better than with most companies.
Few asked and I send feedback to all of them, but since I am not paid to persuade candidates that my decision is the right one for my company, these feedbacks admittedly were not as detailed as they would have been without that previous experience.
I am not happy with how the whole thing transpired, but I am comfortable with my decisions even though many here are telling "me" how I failed as a human being because I did not spend more of my off-clock time providing detailed feedback to people who mostly seemed to have keyword match our job ad and skipped reading it.
I work for a small start-up and recently went through hiring another developer to our team. I know how awful it is as a candidate to get little or no feedback of what is happening, so my goal was for our process to be more humane.
At first I answered all rejected submissions with a reason why that happened. There was rarely just one, but I would pick those were they clearly did not meet one of few inflexible requirements.
Because of a huge volume applications, vast majority of which poorly matching our requirements, that was almost all I was doing for the first few days, having difficulties finding time to move successful ones further, let alone do any other kind of work. I also quickly learned that many applicants see these feedbacks as an invitation to argue with often the only way to end it is by just not responding any longer.
So, I stopped doing this and resigned myself to sending generic rejection promptly unless I was asked for feedback explicitly. In my opinion candidates still quickly learn where they are at and have opportunity to learn more which is better than with most companies.
Few asked and I send feedback to all of them, but since I am not paid to persuade candidates that my decision is the right one for my company, these feedbacks admittedly were not as detailed as they would have been without that previous experience.
I am not happy with how the whole thing transpired, but I am comfortable with my decisions even though many here are telling "me" how I failed as a human being because I did not spend more of my off-clock time providing detailed feedback to people who mostly seemed to have keyword match our job ad and skipped reading it.