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

The environment was clean, the interviewers that day were polite, and they provided a cup of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees after participating firsthand, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit a résumé 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 resembled a combination of civil service preliminary-examination questions, psychological assessments, and college entrance examination questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface, which was very unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment in a short time. These tests had relatively little connection 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 the company’s own testing tools, requiring problems to be solved 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 applicants’ abilities.

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

- For a software engineering position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment at all, but required algorithms and system logic to be written by hand with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. The job responsibilities and position definition were not clearly explained

- The JD did not clearly state that candidates needed to “have full-stack capabilities.” It was only mentioned late in the interview that applicants had to be able to write frontend code, creating a substantial gap between the job expectations and reality.

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

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete a further technical implementation task, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the task lacked clear specifications for the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The applicant had 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 applicants’ technical skills, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the practical assignment provided no information about a salary range, no assurance of a chance of receiving an offer, and no concrete arrangements for what would happen after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively shifting all costs and risks of the applicant’s investment 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 role was subsequently shifted toward a different function

- Although the company knew that the applicant had a backend background, it required the implementation task to include 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 a sense of process

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and responses, there was no apparent systematic process or consistent standard, raising doubts about whether the company had a sound talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

8. The promise to notify candidates regardless of the hiring decision was not honored

- The company initially promised that it would “notify candidates regardless of the outcome,” but in practice provided no response whatsoever for more than two weeks, calling its basic workplace trustworthiness and integrity into question.