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

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

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful toward interviewees after participating in it, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit a résumé to this company:

1. Excessively cumbersome online tests unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required completion of a comprehensive aptitude test covering “English, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” Its format resembled a combination of civil service entrance exams, psychological assessments, and college entrance examination questions.

- In addition, candidates 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 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 the problems again

- Even after answering perfectly and providing detailed comments, candidates were still required to redo the problems on paper onsite, which demonstrated the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and applicants’ abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided onsite, yet candidates were required to handwrite code

- Although the position was for a software engineer, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and instead required candidates to handwrite algorithms and system logic with pen and paper, which was extremely disrespectful toward engineering candidates.

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

- The job description did not clearly state that candidates needed to “have full-stack capabilities.” It was only mentioned later in the interview that candidates had to be able to write frontend 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 a further technical assignment, such as a full-stack backend system. However, the assignment lacked clear descriptions of the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic specifications, leaving the development direction and details 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 evaluation, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- Even more unfortunately, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or concrete 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 candidate. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers who had limited time and were participating in good faith.

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

- Although the company knew 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 position applied for.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure, and the institutional framework was weak

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

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 practice it provided no response whatsoever for more than two weeks, raising questions about its basic workplace reliability and integrity.