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

The environment was clean and tidy, and the staff who conducted the interview that day were courteous and provided a cup of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. Based on my actual participation, the following are aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees, provided as a reference for those preparing to apply 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 areas such as “English, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” The format resembled a combination of civil service entrance exam, psychological assessment, 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 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, easily causing unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

2. Lack of trust in its own testing tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

- Even after answering perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve the problems again on paper on-site, demonstrating the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in applicants’ abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided on-site, yet handwritten programming was required

- For a software engineering position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and required applicants to handwrite algorithms and system logic with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. Work 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 applicant had to be able to write front-end code, resulting in a significant gap between the expectations for the role and the actual requirements.

5. Additional practical assignment 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 back-office system. However, the assignment lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logical requirements, leaving the applicant to determine the entire development direction and details independently.

- 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 disappointing still, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or concrete process arrangements 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 was extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participated 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 back-end background, it required an assignment involving 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 institutional rigor was weak

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and subsequent 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. Failure to honor the promise to notify applicants regardless of the outcome

- The company initially promised that it would “notify applicants 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.