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

The environment was clean, and the interviewers that day were polite 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 felt were unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their résumés 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 “English, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” The format was similar to a combination of civil service preliminary examinations, psychological assessments, and general scholastic ability tests.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface, which was very unfriendly to non-native English speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment within a short period. These tests had relatively little relevance 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 the company’s own testing tools, requiring duplicate solutions

- Even after answering perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve the problems again on paper in person, which suggested that the company lacked confidence in its own tools and in applicants’ abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided on-site, 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 with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering candidate.

4. 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 toward the end of the interview that front-end development skills were necessary, resulting in a significant gap between the job expectations 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 an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment provided no clear functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic specifications; the applicant had to determine the 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 candidate evaluation, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More disappointingly, the practical 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 investment costs and risks 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 to a different function

- Although the company knew that the applicant had a backend background, it required an assignment involving UI screens and basic front-end design. The functional requirements were seriously inconsistent with the applied role.

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 an organized process or consistent standards, raising doubts about whether the company had a完善 talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

8. Failure to honor the promise to notify applicants of the outcome

- 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.