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 glass of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are aspects of the process that I personally found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees, for the reference of friends who are preparing to submit their résumés to this company:

1. Overly 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 resembled a combination of civil service entrance exam, psychological assessment, 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 period of time. These assessments 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 to create unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of trust in its own assessment tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

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

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

- Although I was applying for a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any equipment and required me to write algorithms and system logic by hand 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 indicate that “full-stack capabilities” were required. Only later in the interview did they mention that I had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

5. Additional practical assignment 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 assignment, such as a full-stack administrative system. However, the assignment completely lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The development direction and details were left entirely to the applicant’s judgment.

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

- More regrettably, the practical assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of a hiring opportunity, or specific process arrangements 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 switch to a different function

- Although the company knew that the applicant had a backend background, it required the practical assignment to include a UI screen and basic frontend design. The functional requirements were seriously inconsistent with the role applied for.

7. Overall interview design lacked structure, with weak institutional processes

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and responses, there was no evidence of an organized process or consistent standards, raising doubts about whether the company had a well-established talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

8. Failure to honor its commitment to notify applicants of the outcome

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