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

The environment was clean, and the staff conducting 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 found unreasonable or disrespectful toward interviewees after participating in it, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit a résumé to this company:

1. Excessively 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.” Its format was similar to a combination of civil service preliminary examination questions, psychological assessments, and college entrance examination 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 relevance 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 its own testing tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

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

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

- For a software engineering position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment at all, but required algorithms and system logic to be written by hand on paper. This is extremely disrespectful toward candidates for engineering positions.

4. Failure to clearly explain the job responsibilities and position definition

- The job description 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 frontend code, resulting in a significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

5. Additional practical assignment after the interview, without reasonable specifications or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional technical practical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment lacked clear explanations of the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic specifications, 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 lacks an effective talent assessment 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 is extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participate in good faith.

6. Failure to clarify the interviewee’s background, followed by a request to switch to a different function

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

7. Overall interview design lacked structure, and institutional rigor 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 has a well-developed talent recruitment system and organizational processes.

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 reality, it provided no response whatsoever for more than two weeks, raising doubts about its basic workplace reliability and integrity.