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 found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees, provided for friends who are preparing to submit their résumés to this company as a reference:

1. Excessively tedious 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-exam 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 period of 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 causing unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

2. Lack of trust in its own testing tools, requiring candidates to solve the problems again

- 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 candidates’ abilities.

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

- For a software engineering position, the company had not prepared a laptop or any equipment and required candidates to handwrite algorithms and system logic with pen and paper, which was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. The job functions 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 candidates 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 given after the interview without reasonable requirements or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required me 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. The development direction and details were left entirely to the candidate’s judgment.

- This not only created psychological pressure and a time burden, but also reflected the company’s arbitrary and inconsistent technical evaluation process, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the practical assignment provided no information about a salary range, no guarantee of a hiring opportunity, and no specific process arrangements after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively shifting all costs and risks of the candidate’s investment back onto the candidate. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participated in good faith.

6. The candidate’s background was not clarified, yet the role was subsequently shifted to a different function

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

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and institutional rigor

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

8. The promise to notify candidates regardless of the hiring result was not fulfilled

- The company initially promised that it would “notify candidates regardless of the result,” but in practice, it provided no response whatsoever for more than two weeks, calling its basic workplace reliability and integrity into question.