Workplace reviews and discussion: 無限創意科技工程有限公司

The environment was clean and tidy, and the staff who conducted the interview that day were courteous and provided a cup of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. Based on my actual participation, the following are aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees, for the reference of those preparing to submit resumes to this company:

1. Overly cumbersome online tests unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required me to complete a comprehensive aptitude test covering “English, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” The format resembled a combination of civil service examination questions, psychological assessments, and college entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a programming algorithms challenge on Codility with an English-language interface, which was particularly unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment in a short time. These tests had limited relevance to the actual position applied for, and the company did not explain how the results would be incorporated into the hiring evaluation, making it easy for candidates to experience unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

2. Lack of trust in its own testing tools, requiring candidates to solve the problems again

- Even after answering the questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve them again on paper onsite, which demonstrated the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and candidates’ abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided onsite, yet candidates were required to handwrite code

- For a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and required candidates to handwrite algorithms and system logic using pen and paper, which was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. Failure to clearly explain the job responsibilities and position scope

- The job description did not clearly state that candidates needed to “have full-stack capabilities.” It was only mentioned toward the end of the interview that the candidate had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

5. Additional practical assignment after the interview, without reasonable guidelines or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly asked the interviewee to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment lacked clear specifications regarding the feature scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The candidate was left to determine the development direction and details entirely on their own.

- This not only created psychological pressure and a time burden, but also reflected the company’s arbitrary and inconsistent approach to evaluating candidates’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no information about a salary range, no guarantee of an offer, and no concrete arrangements for the process after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively shifting all costs and risks of the candidate’s investment back onto the candidate. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers who had limited time but participated in good faith.

6. Failure to clarify the candidate’s background, followed by a request to shift to a different function

- Although the company knew that the candidate had a backend background, it required the practical assignment to include UI screens and basic frontend design, making the functional requirements seriously inconsistent with the position applied for.

7. Overall interview design lacked structure and a sense of process

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and responses, there was no evidence of a systematic process or consistent standards, raising doubts about whether the company had a comprehensive talent recruitment system and organizational processes.

8. Failure to honor its promise to notify candidates regardless of the outcome

- The company initially promised that it would “notify candidates regardless of the result,” but in practice, it provided no response for more than two weeks, raising doubts about its basic workplace trustworthiness and integrity.