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 courteous and 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 participating firsthand, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit applications 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 items such as “English proficiency, 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 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 within a short period. These tests had limited relevance to the actual position applied for, and the company did not explain how the results would be incorporated into the hiring evaluation, easily creating unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of trust in the company’s own testing tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

- Even after answering all questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve the problems again on paper onsite, indicating that the company did not trust its own tools or applicants’ abilities.

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

- For a software engineering position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any equipment at all, instead requiring applicants to handwrite algorithms and system logic with pen and paper. This is extremely disrespectful to engineering candidates.

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

- The JD did not clearly state that candidates needed to “have full-stack capabilities.” It was only mentioned later in the interview that applicants had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a significant gap between the expectations for the role 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 interviewee to complete a further 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 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 evaluating applicants’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it lacked 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 is extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participate in good faith.

6. The applicant’s background was not clarified, yet a shift to a different function was subsequently required

- Although the company knew that the applicant had a backend background, it required the practical assignment to include UI screens and basic frontend 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 through the assignment arrangements and follow-up responses, there was no evidence of a systematic process or consistent standards, raising doubts about whether the company has a well-developed recruitment system and organizational processes.

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

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