Their process was fairly clearly laid out from the start. I had an initial phone screen with a recruiter, followed by a writing test, followed by a final panel interview with their hiring team.
Nevertheless, the process took 6 weeks from start to finish. I was one of 4 out of 300+ candidates to make it to the final round. They had a hang-up on the panel interview about not making any facial expressions or asking follow-up questions because it wouldn't be fair to all candidates if they reacted to anybody's answers. They justified this by saying A) they wanted candidates to have identical interview experiences and B) they wanted to judge candidates on qualifications, not "how well they give an interview." To me, it seems like a counterproductive practice, though, because if you don't ask follow-ups to get the information you need, then you actually have nothing to go off of except for "how well they interview." I understand that it was an attempt at equity, but suffice it to say it was pretty ham-fisted.
After putting us through a 6-week process and unpaid writing assignment - they rejected all of the finalists, sending a generic rejection email that they "went with a more qualified candidate." Lo and behold, that was not true, because they then reposted the job, effectively restarting their hiring process from scratch.
It just seems like they don't know what they're doing and what they want.
