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

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

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

1. Overly complicated 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 very unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment in a short time. These tests had limited relevance to the actual position, and the company did not explain how the results would be incorporated into the hiring assessment, easily creating unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of trust in its own testing tools, requiring candidates to solve the 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 demonstrated the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in the applicant’s abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided on site, yet candidates were required to write code by hand

- For a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment at all, instead requiring candidates to write algorithms and system logic on paper, which 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 significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

5. An additional practical assignment was imposed 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 back-office system. However, the assignment completely lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The applicant had 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 evaluations, raising doubts about whether it lacks an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the practical assignment provided no information about a salary range, no guarantee of a hiring opportunity, and no concrete 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 efforts back onto the applicant. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participated in good faith.

6. The applicant’s background was not clarified, yet the role was later redirected toward a different function

- Despite knowing that the applicant had a backend background, the company 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 institutional framework was weak

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

8. Failure to honor the promise to notify candidates regardless of the outcome

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