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

The environment was clean and tidy, the staff conducting the interview that day were polite, and they provided a cup of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees after actually participating, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their resumes 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.” The format resembled a combination of civil service preliminary examination questions, psychological assessments, 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 within a short period. 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 trust in the company’s own testing tools, requiring problems to be solved again

- Even after answering the questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still asked to solve the problems again on paper at the interview, demonstrating the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in the applicant’s 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 instead 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 scope 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 substantial gap between the job expectations and reality.

5. An additional practical assignment was added after the interview without reasonable specifications 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 completely lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The applicant had 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 regrettably, the assignment provided no information about the salary range, no guarantee of an offer, and no concrete arrangements for the process after completion. The company merely stated that it would “observe the time and manner of completion,” 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 the practical assignment to include a UI, basic front-end design, and other responsibilities that were seriously inconsistent with the role applied for.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure, and the institutional framework was weak

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

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 at all for more than two weeks, raising doubts about its basic workplace trustworthiness and integrity.