From beginning to end, the interview process was disorganized, drawn out, mistake driven, with a lot of "apologies" and "no exceptions" to the process, irregardless of the highly impersonal nature of the "process" or the lack of competence involved. I applied in the fall for a position and the recruiter I spoke with (4 months after my application... cough) warned the "process" takes time, so at least expectations that wall clock time would be exhausted was set, flexibility was required, and certainly acceptable (it's "Google", right?). The problems however started right away: scheduling a simple phone screen was a fiasco as while being asked to provide availability, time of day was consistently overlooked (the coordinators are not in the US and clearly unable to handle time zone differences). The candidate is often asked to overlook the mistake and take the interview anyway (refusing resulted in many rescheduling attempts). I ultimately withdrew from the opening, but seeing a very appealing opening reposted decided to try again... personal mistake. Another 2 months of mis-scheduling persisted before a phone screen finally was correctly scheduled. The On-Site interview was inclusive of confused travel plans with lost or incorrect reservations for transportation to/from the interview (which were resolved, albeit the day of travel on the way out the door... not at all a good impression). Arriving on-site no schedule was provided though at least when the interview would be over was in the e-mail. That's all that was provided regarding the interviews for the day and "going with the flow" seemed paramount if only leaving yet another bad impression. About a week later feedback from the On-Site interview was ready and "positive", so the recommendation was to move on to the Hiring Committee. The process is that a "packet" is created and feedback would come a week or two later. However, no "packet' was created for the interview for well in excess of 2 months, only then to receive the "last piece" of feedback which instead triggered more On-Site interviews. What is "positive" feedback if it takes months to write up the results of an interview? The real regret at this point was not pausing, reflecting, and recognizing the ridiculousness of the "process", and that simply withdrawing from the charade was more sensible when the feedback for the "packet" had mysteriously disappeared for such an extended period of time. Nevertheless, it's "Google" so the next on-site was scheduled, albeit scheduled to start in the middle of the night (which asking for that to be corrected took a week...), and upon arrival the schedule was completely incorrect (the schedule was for 2.5 hours of On-Site interviews, but the interviewer said I was expected to stay for 3.5 to 4 hours... ... really?!). Again, a lost opportunity to simply walk away and move on. The result of the process was a "no", though the other warning was the second On-Site was sold as an attempt to determine the proper hiring level (L3, L4, L5, L6, etc.). That sounded reasonable, but given the end result that statement by the recruiter was a false pretense and so caution is highly recommended _if_ asked for a second interview. Don't believe the recruiter if they state the additional interview is for level setting -- it's not, you're starting over, or perhaps losing a "packet" for over 2 months means no one apparently knows what's going on... not surprising in retrospect but also a sign of general incompetence. On a positive note: the cafeteria was indeed nice, and I now truly understand the term "brilliant jerk" after my experience. I personally can't envision ever applying again -- good life experience, but trying again after the experience would be the equivalent of "fool me twice". The benefits may be supposedly awesome, but some things just aren't worth it. I simply hope my drawn out tale helps someone recognize when Google's "process" is worth withdrawing from... I saw it three times and tried because it's "Google" and sincerely regret that.