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

The environment was clean and tidy, the interviewers that day were polite, and they 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, 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 proficiency, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” Its format resembled a combination of civil service preliminary-exam questions, psychological assessments, and college entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface. This 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, easily causing unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of 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 onsite, demonstrating the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and applicants’ abilities.

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

- For a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any equipment at all, instead requiring algorithms and system logic to be handwritten with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

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

- The JD did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. Only later in the interview did the company mention that front-end development skills were necessary, resulting in a significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

5. Additional practical assignment 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 clearly defined functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic specifications, leaving the development direction and details entirely to the applicant’s own judgment.

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

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or specific 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 applicant’s investment back onto the applicant. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participated in good faith.

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

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

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and demonstrated weak institutional processes

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

8. Failure to honor its promise to notify applicants 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.