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 provided a cup of water.

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

1. Overly cumbersome online assessments unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required me to complete a general aptitude test covering "English, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory." The format resembled a combination of civil service preliminary-exam questions, psychological assessments, and university entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface. This was very unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English-language environment in a short time. These tests had limited relevance to the actual position being 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 the questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve them again on paper onsite, which indicated that the company did not trust its own tools or the applicant's abilities.

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

- Although I was applying for a software engineer 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 position.

4. Failure to clearly explain the job functions and position scope

- The job description did not clearly state that candidates needed to "have full-stack capabilities." 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. Additional practical assignment 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 lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic requirements, 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.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, no assurance of the likelihood of an offer, and no specific arrangements for the process 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. Failure to clarify the interviewee's background, followed by a request to shift to a different function

- Although the company knew that the applicant had a backend background, it required the practical assignment to include a UI, basic frontend design, and other responsibilities that were seriously inconsistent with the role applied for.

7. Overall interview design lacked structure, with weak institutional processes

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

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

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