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

The environment was clean and tidy, the staff who conducted 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 toward interviewees after actually participating, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their resumes to this company:

1. Overly cumbersome online tests that were unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required me to complete a comprehensive aptitude test covering “English, verbal comprehension, quantitative concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory,” with question formats resembling a combination of civil service preliminary examinations, psychological assessments, and college entrance exams.

- 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 time. These tests had relatively little connection to the actual position being 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 confidence in its own testing tools, requiring problems to be solved again

- Even after answering the questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, the company still required me to solve them again on paper onsite, demonstrating its lack of trust in its own tools and in the applicant’s abilities.

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

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

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 I had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

5. An additional practical assignment was added after the interview without reasonable specifications 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 backend system. However, the assignment lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logical requirements, leaving the development direction and details entirely to the applicant’s discretion.

- 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 practical assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or specific arrangements for the process after completion. The company merely 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. The applicant’s background was not clarified, yet the role was subsequently shifted toward a different function

- 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 applied-for role.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and showed weak institutionalization

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and follow-up responses, there was no evidence of a 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 applicants regardless of the outcome was not honored

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