I recently had an interview for a QA Manual position that also involved automation discussions. Unfortunately, the interview did not feel very professional. The panel appeared relatively new and seemed unsure about a few technical areas. The interview began with a task to write a Playwright script for an Amazon login, which I completed successfully. This was followed by several automation and API-related questions that I was able to answer clearly and in detail. The interview lasted around 45 minutes. At the end of the discussion, I asked a genuine question about the team’s tech stack and how they monitor APIs or system health. The response was that the team uses Postman and Newman for daily API checks. While this approach works for basic validation, I was expecting to hear about modern QA practices involving observability tools such as Datadog, Gatus, or automated health monitoring solutions. After the interview, I was informed that my profile would not be moving forward. While I respect the decision, the overall experience left me disappointed. The process lacked structure, and the discussion did not reflect the level of technical depth typically expected for an SDET-focused role. Final Thoughts: I hope the organization reviews its interview process and aligns its evaluation criteria with current QA and automation standards. This would make the experience more consistent, transparent, and relevant for future candidates.