[nickjj]

> I was once rejected with "you don't have the technical depth needed". I appreciate that's what they honestly felt, but sending it back like that was just too honest.

Do you think if they were more specific it could have helped?

As someone who does like honesty, that type of response would bother me too because it doesn't feel like an honest reply. It feels like a blanket statement to quickly say something and move on.

If they said something like "when it came to thinking about and writing database queries, we felt like your solutions could have used more thought around performance optimizations and fundamental knowledge about joins".

I'd be really happy with a rejection like that because it's super specific. Now there's 2 action items I can do to improve, such as focusing on query tuning and getting better at joins. These are things you could search for and find tons of content / examples to improve on.

If you think about it like a loop, it's a loop that's complete. You did something poorly, you know what you did poorly, you can level up those specific skills and try again. The problem is when the feedback doesn't let you complete the loop.

[arp242]

> Do you think if they were more specific it could have helped?

To be honest I think it was just a "bad vibe" or whatever you want to call it, and/or didn't meet an exactly pre-defined approach they wanted during the "systems design" interview which was quite badly done IMHO, and felt like stumbling around trying to find the answer he was looking for while he was going out of the way to drip-feed me information.

But who knows...

But yes, I agree with you: it's non-actionable feedback. And also came across as quite personal (that is: the difference with "you're a bad coder" vs. "this is bad code").