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

The environment was clean, and the staff who conducted the interview that day were polite and offered 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 firsthand, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their résumés to this company:

1. Overly cumbersome 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.” Its format resembled a combination of civil service entrance examination, psychological assessment, and standardized college entrance examination 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 time. 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 confidence in its own testing tools, requiring problems to be solved again

- Even after answering the questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve them again on paper onsite, suggesting that the company lacked trust in its own tools and in the applicant’s abilities.

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

- Although the position was for a software engineer, no laptop or other equipment was prepared at all. I was required to handwrite algorithms and system logic using pen and paper, which is extremely disrespectful toward candidates for engineering positions.

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

- The job description 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 frontend code, creating a significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

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 technical implementation assignment, such as a full-stack backend management system. However, the assignment lacked clear information about 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 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 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 investment costs and risks back onto the applicant and treating job seekers with limited time who participated in good faith extremely unfavorably.

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 implementation to include a UI, basic frontend design, and other responsibilities that were seriously inconsistent with the applied role.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure, and the sense of formal process was weak

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and follow-up responses, there was no apparent systematic process or uniform 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 hiring outcome was not honored

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