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 participating firsthand, for the reference of friends who are preparing to submit résumés 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.” Its format resembled 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 particularly 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 assessment 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 at the interview, which suggested that the company lacked confidence in its own tools and in the applicant’s abilities.

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

- Although I applied 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 role.

4. The job functions and position scope were not clearly explained

- The job description did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. It was only mentioned later in the interview that I had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

5. An additional practical assignment was added after the interview without reasonable requirements or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly asked me to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack backend management system. However, the assignment lacked clear specifications for the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The applicant was left to determine the development direction and details entirely on their own.

- 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, guarantee of an offer, or concrete 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. The applicant’s background was not clarified, yet a shift to a different function was subsequently required

- Although the company knew that I had a backend background, it required the assignment to include UI screens and basic frontend design, making the functional requirements 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 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 processes.

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

- The company initially promised that it would “notify applicants regardless of the result,” but in practice it failed to respond at all for more than two weeks, calling its basic workplace reliability and integrity into question.