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

The environment was clean, and the interviewers on the day were polite and provided a cup of water.

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

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.” The format was similar to a combination of civil service preliminary-exam questions, psychological assessments, and college 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 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 creating unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of confidence 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 at the interview, demonstrating the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and applicants’ abilities.

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

- Despite applying for a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and required algorithms and system logic to be written by hand on paper, which was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. The job responsibilities and position were not clearly explained

- The JD 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 front-end code, resulting in 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 an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment completely lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. 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 evaluating applicants’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent evaluation system.

- More regrettably, the practical assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or specific 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 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 backend background, it required the assignment to include UI screens and basic front-end design, making the functional requirements seriously inconsistent with the applied-for 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 evident systematic process or consistent standard, raising doubts about whether the company had a well-developed talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

8. The promise to notify applicants regardless of the hiring outcome was not fulfilled

- 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 doubts about its basic workplace reliability and integrity.