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 the unreasonable or disrespectful aspects of the process that I observed after participating, provided for friends who are preparing to submit résumés to this company as a reference:

1. Overly complicated online tests unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required me to complete a general ability test containing sections such as “English, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” The format resembled a combination of civil service preliminary examination questions, psychological assessments, and university entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface. This was particularly 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 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 at the interview, which showed a lack of trust in the company’s own tools and in the candidate’s abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided on-site, while requiring handwritten programming

- Although I applied for a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment at all, and required me to handwrite algorithms and system logic using pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering candidate.

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

- The job description 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 significant gap between the expectations for the position and the actual requirements.

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 candidate to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment completely lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logical requirements, leaving the development direction and details entirely up to the candidate.

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

- Even more regrettably, the practical assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of a hiring opportunity, or concrete arrangements for what would happen after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and method,” effectively shifting all of the 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 a shift to a different function was subsequently required

- Although the company knew that the candidate had a backend background, it required the practical 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 sense of institutionalization was weak

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

8. The promise to notify candidates regardless of the hiring outcome was not fulfilled

- 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, calling its basic workplace reliability and integrity into question.