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

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

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are the unreasonable or disrespectful aspects of the process that I identified after actually participating, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their résumés to this company:

1. Excessively cumbersome online assessments 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 standardized college entrance exam 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 its own assessment tools, requiring candidates to solve problems again

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

3. No computer equipment provided on-site, yet candidates 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 instead required me to write algorithms and system logic by hand with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

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 front-end code, resulting in a major gap between the job expectations and the actual requirements.

5. A take-home practical assignment was added after the interview without reasonable specifications or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the candidate to complete a further 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. The development direction and details were left entirely to the candidate’s judgment.

- 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 lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of a hiring opportunity, or specific arrangements for the process after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively pushing all costs and risks of the candidate’s investment back onto the candidate. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participated in good faith.

6. The candidate’s background was not clarified, yet the role was later shifted to a different function

- Although the company knew that the candidate had a backend background, it required the assignment to include 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 the systemization was weak

- 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 comprehensive 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 result,” but in reality it provided no response at all for more than two weeks, raising doubts about its basic workplace reliability and integrity.