I initially interviewed for this position with an external recruiter. Once the recruiter thought I was a good fit, I was passed along to an interview with an internal HR rep. After a brief interview about my background with the HR rep, I waited almost two weeks to be told that I had moved to the next stage on the interview process. The external recruiter kept asking and never got responses. Finally I was told that I was scheduled to interview with the QA manager and two existing QA employees via Skype. That interview went very well. After I was done, I was asked to do a project QA'ing a part of the site, which took a couple of hours. After the external recruiter and I waited for another 2 days for any sort of response, I was told I had a second interview with the QA manager and 2 more analysts via Skype. That interview went as well as the first. I then had to do another project, which took about the same amount of time as the first. After waiting about another week, I was told that they wanted me to fly out to Nebraska for a final round of interviews with multiple teams. I flew out and stayed for two nights. The offices were very nice, new, and young. Everything was really nice with a great energy. I sat in on two sets of interviews with groups of people. I thought the interviews went great and flew back home. When I got back home, I was told that I didn't get the job. I thought I was perfectly qualified and had a great interview, but I understand that is how it goes sometimes. When I asked for feedback on what I needed to improve, it took multiple emails and a week of waiting to receive a two sentence email. I found Hudl's communication process to be severely lacking. The external recruiter I was dealing with said they had many experiences like this and was cutting ties with Hudl after I was passed over.

While I would have wanted to provide a glowingly positive review here, I wanted to use this opportunity to address a particular issue that Hudle seems to have with remote-based workers. In this process, while I was tagged by a coordinator as being able to set up an initial interview with a recruiter (that's an interesting process there -- you have coordinators for your recruiters? I thought that's what recruiters, per se, were for? But I digress...). However, on their web site they state that workers are allowed to be remote from certain States. After initial research on the company, it turns out that other job boards that contain information about their positions state that they will *only* allow remote workers from certain States. I therefore emailed my coordinator (not recruiter) who confirmed this situation. They also mentioned that this had to do with "taxation issues." My first response back to the coordinator was asking what these "taxation issues" are and how we could work around them. I also quite verbosely expressed my concern about why I would move from Georgia to another State for the purposes of ending up working remotely from that State, when I could be working remotely from Georgia to begin with? I really wish Hudl was a bit more honest about their policy. As a freelancer, I know enough about the tax code to know that I've never seen any other company who promotes teleworking but constrains that policy based upon "taxation issues;" after all, if you freelance, you're the one who gets to take home office deductions, not the company. And even if you're a full-time employee for that company working remotely, wouldn't you have more issues regarding worker's comp than you would "taxation issues" (e.g.: income, use taxes, etc.)? So, they simply responded back to me stating that they "understood my frustration" but gave no indication, specifically, as to what these alleged "taxation issues" are for having remote workers only in certain States. Could it be that they have offices only in certain States and, somehow, this impacts remote work? If so, then don't lie about it -- just say something like, "we'd prefer that if you want to be remote, that you live in a State where we have an office so that you can be in the office once every x days or x weeks." That would be a bit more truthful. Therefore, I don't get this "taxation issues" business; maybe either they can see this interview review and let me know *specifics* or maybe someone else can clue me in to this concept. I really did want to go after this position. It seemed very appealing and the company otherwise seemed pretty worthwhile (except for a number of the other interview reviews here). Just don't tell me that there are "taxation issues" when you can't actually state what you mean by that -- it very much comes across like either you don't know what you're talking about or -- dare I say -- you're lying.