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

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

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful toward interviewees after personally participating, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their 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 was similar to a combination of civil service entrance exams, psychological assessments, and college 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 within 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, easily causing unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

2. Lack of confidence in its own testing tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

- Even after answering perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve the problems again on paper on site, demonstrating the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and applicants’ abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided on site, yet handwritten programming was required

- Although I applied for a software engineer position, the company had not prepared a laptop or any other equipment and required me to handwrite algorithms and system logic with pen and paper, which was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. The job responsibilities and position were not clearly explained

- The JD did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. Only toward the later stages of the interview did they mention that frontend development skills were necessary, resulting in a major gap between the job expectations and reality.

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

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional technical practical assignment, such as a full-stack backend system. However, the assignment lacked clear explanations of the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic specifications, leaving the applicant 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 technical evaluation, raising doubts about whether it lacks an effective talent assessment system.

- Even more regrettably, the practical assignment provided no salary range, assurance of a hiring opportunity, or specific arrangements for the process after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the time and method of completion,” effectively shifting all costs and risks of the applicant’s investment back onto the applicant, which was extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participated in good faith.

6. The applicant’s background was not clarified, yet a shift to a different function was later required

- Although the company knew that the applicant 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 applied-for role.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and institutional rigor

- 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 has a well-developed talent recruitment system and organizational processes.

8. The company failed to honor its promise to notify applicants regardless of the outcome

- The company initially promised that it would “notify applicants regardless of the result,” but in practice, it provided no response at all for more than two weeks, calling into question its basic workplace reliability and integrity.