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. Below are the unreasonable or disrespectful aspects of the process that I identified after participating, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their résumés 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, mathematical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” The format resembled a combination of civil service preliminary-exam questions, psychological assessments, and comprehensive academic aptitude test questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming and 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 assessment, making it easy for candidates to experience unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

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

- Even after answering perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve problems again on paper onsite, suggesting that the company lacked trust in its own tools and in applicants’ abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided onsite, yet candidates were required to handwrite code

- 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, which was extremely disrespectful toward an engineering role.

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

- The job description did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. It was only mentioned in the later stages of the interview that I 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 asked me to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment lacked clear specifications for the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic, 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 evaluating applicants’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it had an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or concrete arrangements for what would happen 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 the role was later shifted toward a different function

- Although the company knew that I came from a backend background, it required the assignment to include a UI, basic front-end design, and other responsibilities seriously inconsistent with the role applied for.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure, and the systemization 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. Failure to honor the promise to notify candidates of the outcome

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