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

The environment was clean and tidy, and the interviewers that day were courteous and offered me a glass of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful toward interviewees after participating firsthand, provided as a reference for those preparing to apply 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.” Its format was similar to a combination of civil service entrance exams, psychological assessments, and university entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge 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 being applied for, and the company did not explain how the results would be incorporated into the hiring evaluation, easily creating unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

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

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

3. No computer equipment provided onsite, yet candidates were required to write code by hand

- Although I was applying for a software engineering position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and required me to write algorithms and system logic by hand with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering candidate.

4. The job functions and position scope were not clearly explained

- The JD did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. It was only mentioned later in the interview that the candidate had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a substantial gap between the expectations for the role and the actual requirements.

5. An additional practical assignment was added after the interview without reasonable specifications or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic, leaving the applicant to determine the entire development direction and details independently.

- This not only created psychological pressure and a significant time burden, but also reflected an arbitrary and inconsistent approach to technical evaluation and raised doubts about whether the company lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no information about a salary range, no assurance of a chance of receiving an offer, and no specific process arrangements after completion. The company merely stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively shifting all costs and risks of the applicant’s efforts back onto the applicant. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participated in good faith.

6. The applicant’s background was not clarified, yet the requirements were later shifted to a different area of expertise

- Although the company knew that the applicant had a backend background, it required an assignment involving UI screens and basic frontend design, making the functional requirements seriously inconsistent with the role applied for.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and institutional rigor

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

8. The company failed 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 whatsoever for more than two weeks, raising doubts about its basic professional trustworthiness and integrity.