無限創意科技工程有限公司

Many people come to interview you, which feels very professional.

They ask you a whole lot of questions, but in the end, nothing comes of it....

The environment was clean, and the staff conducting the interview that day were courteous 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 toward interviewees, shared for those preparing to apply to this company:

1. Excessively cumbersome online tests that were 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 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 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 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 onsite, which demonstrated the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in the applicant’s abilities.

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

- For a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any equipment at all, instead requiring algorithms and system logic to be written by hand on paper. This 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 candidates had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a major gap between the job expectations and reality.

5. An implementation task was added after the interview without reasonable guidelines or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional technical implementation task, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the task lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic, leaving the applicant to determine the 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 and raised doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the implementation task provided no information about a salary range, no assurance of a possibility of employment, and no concrete 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 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 the applicant had a backend background, it required an implementation task involving UI screens and basic frontend design. The functional requirements were 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 task assignment and subsequent responses, there was no evidence of a systematic process or unified standards, raising doubts about whether the company has a well-established talent recruitment system and organizational processes.

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

- The company initially promised that it would “notify candidates regardless of the result,” but in practice, it did not respond at all for more than two weeks, calling its basic workplace reliability and integrity into question.

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.

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.

The environment was clean, and the interviewers 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 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, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory,” among other areas. The format was similar to a combination of civil service entry-level 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 particularly 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 creating unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of trust in the company’s own testing 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 onsite, which demonstrated 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

- Although I was applying 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 using pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering candidate.

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 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 guidelines 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 for the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic, leaving the applicant to determine the 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 evaluating applicants’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the practical assignment included no explanation of the salary range, no guarantee of a hiring opportunity, and no concrete 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 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 came from 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. The overall interview design lacked structure, and the sense of institutionalization was weak

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and responses, there was no clear, standardized process, raising doubts about whether the company had a well-established talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

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 whatsoever for more than two weeks, raising doubts about its basic workplace reliability and integrity.

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.

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.

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.

The environment was clean, and the interviewers on the day were polite and provided a cup of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are the unreasonable or disrespectful aspects of the process that I identified after actually participating, provided for friends who are preparing to submit their resumes to this company as a reference:

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 was similar to 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 very 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 testing tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

- 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 applicants’ abilities.

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

- Despite applying for a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and 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 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 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 required the interviewee to complete an additional 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 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 evaluating applicants’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent evaluation 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 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 backend background, it required the assignment to include UI screens and basic front-end design, making the functional requirements seriously inconsistent with the applied-for role.

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 evident systematic process or consistent standard, raising doubts about whether the company had a well-developed talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

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 whatsoever for more than two weeks, raising doubts about its basic workplace reliability and integrity.

The environment was clean, and the staff who conducted 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 personally found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees after participating in it, provided as a reference for friends who are preparing to submit their resumes 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." The format resembled a combination of civil service preliminary-exam questions, psychological assessments, and university entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface. This was very unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English-language environment in a short time. These tests had limited relevance to the actual position being 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 repeated problem-solving

- Even after answering the questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve them again on paper onsite, which indicated that the company did not trust its own tools or the applicant's abilities.

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

- Although I was applying 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 position.

4. Failure to clearly explain the job functions and position scope

- The job description did not clearly state that candidates needed to "have full-stack capabilities." It was only mentioned later in the interview that the candidate had to be able to write frontend code, creating a significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

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

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee 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 requirements, 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 lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, no assurance of the likelihood of an offer, and no specific 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. Failure to clarify the interviewee's background, followed by a request to shift to a different function

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

7. Overall interview design lacked structure, with weak institutional processes

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

8. Failure to honor its promise to notify applicants regardless 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.

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 felt were unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their résumés to this company:

1. Overly cumbersome online assessments 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 was similar to a combination of civil service preliminary examinations, psychological assessments, and general scholastic ability tests.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface, which was very unfriendly to non-native English speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment within a short period. 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 causing unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

2. Lack of trust in the company’s own testing tools, requiring duplicate solutions

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

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

- Although I was applying for a software engineering 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 candidate.

4. 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 toward the end of the interview that front-end development skills were necessary, resulting in a significant gap between the job expectations and the actual requirements.

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

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment provided no clear functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic specifications; the applicant had to determine the 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 candidate evaluation, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More disappointingly, the practical assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or specific arrangements for the process after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively shifting all investment costs and risks 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 subsequently shifted to a different function

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

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 an organized process or consistent standards, raising doubts about whether the company had a完善 talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

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

The environment was clean and tidy, and the staff who conducted the interview that day were courteous 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 as a reference for those preparing to apply 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 areas such as “English, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” The format resembled a combination of civil service entrance exam, psychological assessment, 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 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 causing unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

2. Lack of trust in its own testing tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

- Even after answering perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve the problems again on paper on-site, demonstrating the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in applicants’ 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 required applicants to handwrite algorithms and system logic with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. Work 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 later in the interview that the applicant had to be able to write front-end code, resulting in a significant gap between the expectations for the role and the actual requirements.

5. Additional practical assignment added after the interview without reasonable guidelines 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 lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logical requirements, leaving the applicant 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 disappointing still, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or concrete 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 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 an assignment involving UI screens and basic front-end design, making the functional requirements seriously inconsistent with the role applied for.

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

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and subsequent 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 applicants regardless of the outcome

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

The environment was clean, and the staff who conducted the interview that day were polite and offered 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 firsthand, 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, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” Its format resembled a combination of civil service entrance examination, psychological assessment, and standardized 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 within a short time. These tests had limited 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 confidence in its own testing tools, requiring problems to be solved again

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

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

- Although the position was for a software engineer, no laptop or other equipment was prepared at all. I was required to handwrite algorithms and system logic using pen and paper, which is extremely disrespectful toward candidates for engineering positions.

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 later in the interview that the candidate had to be able to write frontend code, creating 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 required the interviewee to complete a technical implementation assignment, such as a full-stack backend management system. However, the assignment lacked clear information about 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 evaluating applicants’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of a hiring opportunity, or specific process arrangements after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively shifting all investment costs and risks back onto the applicant and treating job seekers with limited time who participated in good faith extremely unfavorably.

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 backend background, it required the implementation to include a UI, basic frontend design, and other responsibilities that were seriously inconsistent with the applied role.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure, and the sense of formal process was weak

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and follow-up responses, there was no apparent systematic process or uniform standard, raising doubts about whether the company had a well-established talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

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

- 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 reliability and integrity.

The environment was clean, and the people 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 completion of a comprehensive aptitude test covering “English, verbal comprehension, numerical concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory.” Its format resembled a combination of civil service entrance exams, psychological assessments, and college entrance examination questions.

- In addition, candidates 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 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, making it easy for candidates to experience unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

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

- Even after answering perfectly and providing detailed comments, candidates were still required to redo the problems on paper onsite, which demonstrated the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and applicants’ abilities.

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

- Although the position was for a software engineer, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and instead required candidates to handwrite algorithms and system logic with pen and paper, which was extremely disrespectful toward engineering candidates.

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

- The job description did not clearly state that candidates needed to “have full-stack capabilities.” It was only mentioned later in the interview that candidates had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a significant gap between the expectations for the position and the actual requirements.

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

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the candidate to complete a further technical assignment, such as a full-stack backend system. However, the assignment lacked clear descriptions 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 lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- Even more unfortunately, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or concrete 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 candidate. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers who had limited time and were participating in good faith.

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

- Although the company knew 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 position 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 well-developed talent recruitment system and organizational processes.

8. The promise to notify candidates regardless of the hiring outcome 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, raising questions about its basic workplace reliability and integrity.

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

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are the aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful toward interviewees after actually participating, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their resumes to this company:

1. Overly cumbersome online tests that were unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required me to complete a comprehensive aptitude test covering “English, verbal comprehension, quantitative concepts, spatial concepts, perceptual speed, logical reasoning, and memory,” with question formats resembling a combination of civil service preliminary examinations, psychological assessments, and college entrance exams.

- 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 time. These tests had relatively little connection to the actual position being 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 testing tools, requiring problems to be solved again

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

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

- Although I was applying for a software engineering position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and required me to handwrite algorithms and system logic using paper and pen, which was extremely disrespectful to an engineering candidate.

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 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 specifications or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack backend system. However, the assignment lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logical requirements, leaving the development direction and details entirely to the applicant’s discretion.

- 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 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 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 subsequently shifted toward 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 applied-for role.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and showed weak institutionalization

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

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 provided no response for more than two weeks, calling into question its basic workplace reliability and integrity.

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 to interviewees after actually taking part, 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 containing sections such as “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 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 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 causing unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

2. Lack of trust in its own testing 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 in person, indicating that the company lacked trust in its own tools and applicants’ 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 equipment at all, instead requiring algorithms and system logic to be written by hand on paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

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

- The JD did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. It was only mentioned late in the interview that front-end development skills were necessary, resulting in a major gap between the job expectations and reality.

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

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee 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. The applicant had to determine the development direction and details independently.

- This not only created psychological pressure and a significant 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 salary range, guarantee of a hiring opportunity, 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. Failure to clarify the interviewee’s background, followed by a request to shift to a different function

- Although the company knew the applicant had a back-end background, it required the practical assignment to include a UI, basic front-end design, and other responsibilities seriously inconsistent with the applied role.

7. Overall interview design lacked structure and a sense of institutionalization

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

8. Failure to keep its promise to notify applicants of the result

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

The environment was clean, and the interviewers on the 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 to interviewees after personally participating, provided as a reference for friends preparing to submit resumes to this company:

1. Overly cumbersome online assessments unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required me to complete a general aptitude test including “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 comprehensive 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 in a short time. These assessments 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 a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of trust in its own assessment 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 at the interview, demonstrating the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in applicants’ abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided on-site, yet applicants were required to handwrite code

- Although I applied for a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any equipment at all and required me to handwrite algorithms and system logic using pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful toward an engineering role.

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

- The JD did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. Only later in the interview did the company mention that I had to be able to write frontend code, creating a significant gap between the job expectations and reality.

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

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack backend system. However, the assignment completely lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The applicant had to determine the development direction and details entirely independently.

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

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or specific 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. Failure to clarify the interviewee’s background, followed by a request to shift to a different function

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

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and showed weak institutional processes

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

8. Failure to fulfill the promise to notify applicants regardless of the outcome

- 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 reliability and integrity.

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

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are the aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees after participating firsthand, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit applications to this company:

1. Overly cumbersome online assessments unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required me to complete a comprehensive aptitude test covering items such as “English proficiency, 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 limited 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 the company’s 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, indicating that the company did not trust its own tools or applicants’ 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 equipment at all, instead requiring applicants to handwrite algorithms and system logic with pen and paper. This is extremely disrespectful to engineering candidates.

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

- The JD did not clearly state that candidates needed to “have full-stack capabilities.” It was only mentioned later in the interview that applicants had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a significant gap between the expectations for the role and the actual requirements.

5. An additional practical assignment was added after the interview without reasonable guidelines 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 administrative system. However, the assignment completely lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The applicant had 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 evaluating applicants’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or specific 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 is extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participate 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 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. 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 has a well-developed recruitment system and organizational processes.

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

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

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 the aspects of the process that I found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees after actually taking part, provided as a reference for friends who are preparing to submit their résumés to this company:

1. Overly complicated 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 was similar to a combination of civil service entrance exams, 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 in a short time. These tests had limited relevance to the actual position, and the company did not explain how the results would be incorporated into the hiring assessment, easily creating unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

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

- Even after answering the questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve them again on paper at the interview, which demonstrated the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in the applicant’s abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided on site, yet candidates were required to write code by hand

- For a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment at all, instead requiring candidates to write algorithms and system logic on 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 the candidate 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 imposed after the interview without reasonable guidelines or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional 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 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 evaluations, raising doubts about whether it lacks 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 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 efforts 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 redirected toward a different function

- Despite knowing that the applicant had a backend background, the company required the assignment to include UI screens and basic front-end 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 to the assignment arrangements and responses, there was no evidence of an organized 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 candidates regardless of the outcome

- 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.

The environment was clean, and the interviewers that day were polite and provided a glass of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are aspects of the process that I personally found unreasonable or disrespectful to interviewees, for the reference of friends who are preparing to submit their résumés to this company:

1. Overly cumbersome online assessments 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 entrance exam, psychological assessment, and college entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface. This was very unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment in a short period of time. These assessments 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, making it easy to create unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of trust 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 demonstrated the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in applicants’ abilities.

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

- Although I was applying for a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any equipment and required me to write algorithms and system logic by hand with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. Failure to clearly explain the job functions and position scope

- The JD did not clearly indicate that “full-stack capabilities” were required. Only later in the interview did they mention that I 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 guidelines or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack administrative system. However, the assignment completely lacked clear specifications regarding the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The development direction and details were left 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 evaluations, raising doubts about whether it had an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the practical assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of a hiring opportunity, or 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 applicant’s investment back onto the applicant. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers with limited time who participated 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 a UI screen and basic frontend design. The functional requirements were seriously inconsistent with the role applied for.

7. Overall interview design lacked structure, with weak institutional processes

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

8. Failure to honor its commitment 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, calling its basic workplace reliability and integrity into question.

The environment was clean, and the interviewers that day were polite and provided a cup of water.

Overall, this interview experience was disappointing. The following are the unreasonable or disrespectful aspects of the process that I observed after participating, provided for friends who are preparing to submit résumés to this company as a reference:

1. Overly complicated online tests unrelated to the position

- Before the interview, HR required me to complete a general ability test containing sections such as “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 university 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, making it easy for candidates to experience unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

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

- Even after answering the questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve them again on paper at the interview, which showed a lack of trust in the company’s own tools and in the candidate’s abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided on-site, while requiring handwritten programming

- Although I applied for a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment at all, and required me to handwrite algorithms and system logic using pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering candidate.

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 the candidate had to be able to write front-end code, resulting in a significant gap between the expectations for the position and the actual requirements.

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

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the candidate to complete an additional 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 logical requirements, leaving the development direction and details entirely up to the candidate.

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

- Even more regrettably, the practical assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of a hiring opportunity, or concrete arrangements for what would happen after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and method,” effectively shifting all of the 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 a shift to a different function was subsequently required

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

7. The overall interview design lacked structure, and the sense of institutionalization was weak

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

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

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

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 the unreasonable or disrespectful aspects of the process that I identified after actually participating, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit their résumés to this company:

1. Excessively cumbersome online assessments 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 was similar to a combination of civil service entrance exams, psychological assessments, and standardized 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 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, making it easy for candidates to experience unnecessary psychological pressure and frustration.

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

- Even after answering perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve the problems again on paper at the interview, which demonstrated the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and in the candidate’s abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided on-site, yet candidates were required to write code by hand

- For a software engineering position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment at all, but instead required me to write algorithms and system logic by hand with pen and paper. This 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 the candidate had to be able to write front-end code, resulting in a major gap between the job expectations and the actual requirements.

5. A take-home practical assignment was added after the interview without reasonable specifications or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the candidate to complete a further 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 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 a hiring opportunity, or specific arrangements for the process after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively pushing 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 later shifted to a different function

- Although the company knew that the candidate had a backend background, it required the assignment to include UI screens and basic front-end design, making the functional requirements 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 an organized process or consistent standards, raising doubts about whether the company had a comprehensive talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

8. The promise to notify candidates regardless of the hiring decision was not honored

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

The environment was clean and tidy, the interviewers that day were polite, and they 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 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 proficiency, 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 very 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 causing unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of confidence in its own testing tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

- Even after answering 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 applicants’ abilities.

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

- For a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any equipment at all, instead requiring algorithms and system logic to be handwritten with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. Failure to clearly explain the job functions and position scope

- The JD did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. Only later in the interview did the company mention that front-end development skills were necessary, 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 assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment lacked clearly defined functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic specifications, leaving the development direction and details entirely to the applicant’s own judgment.

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

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or specific 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. Failure to clarify the interviewee’s background, followed by a request to shift to a different function

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

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and demonstrated weak institutional processes

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and responses, there was no apparent systematic process or consistent standard, raising doubts about whether the company has a well-developed talent recruitment system and organizational processes.

8. Failure to honor its promise to notify applicants of the outcome

- 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, calling into question its basic workplace reliability and integrity.

The environment was clean, and the interviewers 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 personally 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 was similar to a combination of civil service entrance exams, 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 particularly unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment within a short time. These tests had limited relevance 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 confidence in its own testing tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

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

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

- Although I applied for a software engineer position, the company had not prepared a laptop or any other equipment and required me to handwrite algorithms and system logic with pen and paper, which was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

4. The job responsibilities and position were not clearly explained

- The JD did not clearly state that “full-stack capabilities” were required. Only toward the later stages of the interview did they mention that frontend development skills were necessary, resulting in a major 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 required the interviewee to complete an additional technical practical assignment, such as a full-stack backend system. However, the assignment lacked clear explanations of the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic specifications, leaving the applicant 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 lacks an effective talent assessment system.

- Even more regrettably, the practical assignment provided no salary range, assurance of a hiring opportunity, or specific arrangements for the process after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the time and method of completion,” effectively shifting all costs and risks of the applicant’s investment back onto the applicant, which 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 later required

- 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 applied-for role.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and institutional rigor

- 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. The company failed to honor its promise to notify applicants regardless of the outcome

- 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, calling into question its basic workplace reliability and integrity.

The environment was clean, the interviewers 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, provided as a reference for those preparing to submit a résumé 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.” Its format resembled 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 connection to the actual position applied for, and the company did not explain how the results would be incorporated into the hiring evaluation, making it easy for candidates to experience unnecessary psychological pressure and 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 required to solve them again on paper onsite, which demonstrated the company’s lack of trust in its own tools and applicants’ abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided onsite, yet applicants were required to write code by hand

- 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 with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

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

- The JD did not clearly state that candidates needed to “have full-stack capabilities.” It was only mentioned late in the interview that applicants had to be able to write frontend code, creating a substantial 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 required the interviewee to complete a further technical implementation task, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the task lacked clear specifications for the functional scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The applicant had 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 evaluating applicants’ technical skills, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the practical assignment provided no information about a salary range, no assurance of a chance of receiving an offer, and no 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 subsequently shifted toward a different function

- Although the company knew that the applicant had a backend background, it required the implementation task 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 a sense of process

- From the initial interview through the assignment arrangements and responses, there was no apparent systematic process or consistent standard, raising doubts about whether the company had a sound talent recruitment system and organizational procedures.

8. The promise to notify candidates regardless of the hiring decision was not honored

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

The environment was clean and tidy, and the interviewers that day were courteous and offered me a glass 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 firsthand, provided as a reference for those preparing to apply 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.” Its format was similar to a combination of civil service entrance exams, psychological assessments, and university entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a Codility programming algorithm challenge with an English-language interface, which was particularly unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment in a short time. These tests had limited relevance to the actual position being 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 testing tools, requiring candidates to solve problems again

- Even after answering the questions perfectly and providing detailed comments, I was still required to solve them again on paper onsite, which suggested that the company lacked trust in its own tools and in the applicant’s abilities.

3. No computer equipment provided onsite, yet candidates were required to write code by hand

- Although I was applying for a software engineering position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and required me to write algorithms and system logic by hand with pen and paper. This was extremely disrespectful to an engineering candidate.

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 the candidate had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a substantial gap between the expectations for the role and the actual requirements.

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 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, leaving the applicant to determine the entire development direction and details independently.

- This not only created psychological pressure and a significant time burden, but also reflected an arbitrary and inconsistent approach to technical evaluation and raised doubts about whether the company lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no information about a salary range, no assurance of a chance of receiving an offer, and no specific process arrangements 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 efforts 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 requirements were later shifted to a different area of expertise

- Although the company knew that the applicant had a backend background, it required an assignment involving 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 institutional rigor

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

8. The company failed to honor its promise to notify candidates regardless of the outcome

- 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, raising doubts about its basic professional trustworthiness and integrity.

The environment was clean and tidy, and the staff who conducted the interview that day were courteous 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, for the reference of those preparing to submit 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 examination questions, psychological assessments, and college entrance exam questions.

- In addition, I had to complete a programming algorithms challenge on Codility with an English-language interface, which was particularly unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment in a short time. These tests had limited relevance to the actual position applied for, and the company did not explain how the results would be incorporated into the hiring evaluation, 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 the problems again

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

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

- For a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and required candidates to handwrite algorithms and system logic using pen and paper, which was extremely disrespectful to an engineering role.

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

- The job description did not clearly state that candidates needed to “have full-stack capabilities.” It was only mentioned toward the end of 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 guidelines or safeguards

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly asked the interviewee to complete an additional technical assignment, such as a full-stack back-office system. However, the assignment lacked clear specifications regarding the feature scope, API examples, response formats, or logic. The candidate 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 evaluating candidates’ technical abilities, raising doubts about whether it lacked an effective talent assessment system.

- More regrettably, the assignment provided no information about a salary range, no guarantee of an offer, and no 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 candidate’s investment back onto the candidate. This was extremely unfriendly to job seekers who had limited time but participated in good faith.

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

- Although the company knew that the candidate 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 position applied for.

7. Overall interview design lacked structure and a sense of process

- 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 comprehensive talent recruitment system and organizational processes.

8. Failure to honor its promise to notify candidates regardless of the outcome

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

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 in it, provided for friends who are preparing to submit their résumés to this company as a reference:

1. Overly cumbersome online assessments 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 was similar to a combination of civil service entrance exams, 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 very unfriendly to non-native speakers or those unable to adapt to an English environment in a short time. These assessments 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, which easily creates unnecessary psychological pressure and a sense of frustration.

2. Lack of confidence in its own assessment tools, requiring repeated problem-solving

- Even after answering 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 applicants’ abilities.

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

- Although I was applying for a software engineer position, the company did not prepare a laptop or any other equipment and required me to write algorithms and system logic by hand on 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 in the later stages of the interview that the candidate had to be able to write frontend code, resulting in a major gap between the expectations of the role and the actual requirements.

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

- Without sufficient communication between both parties, the company directly required the interviewee to complete an additional 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 was left to determine the entire development direction and all details independently.

- 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 lacks an effective talent assessment system.

- Even more regrettably, the assignment provided no salary range, guarantee of an offer, or concrete process arrangements after completion. The company only stated that it would “observe the completion time and approach,” effectively shifting all of the 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 backend background, it required the practical assignment to include UI screens and basic frontend design. The functional requirements were seriously inconsistent with the role applied for.

7. The overall interview design lacked structure and had a weak sense of institutionalization

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

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

- The company initially promised that it would “notify applicants 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.

I’ve never even been to the company, so I don’t know.

They just sent me a job opening out of the blue. When I replied asking for more details, they immediately sent me a test and dumped it all on me. They also imposed a deadline, asking me to finish it by the end of the weekend (they sent it Friday afternoon and said they hoped I could complete it before Monday), without even asking whether it was convenient for me.

After I completed one Codility test, they sent me another conventional IQ test to do. What exactly is an IQ test supposed to tell you???

As for the Codility test, it had three questions. The position I originally viewed was for a “front-end” developer, requiring React, Vue, and Angular skills. However, the Codility test asked a bunch of questions related to jQuery, which has been outdated for hundreds of years. The final question was a hands-on coding test that required implementing AJAX with jQuery. Since I felt this differed from the job requirements, I wrote a React version instead (the system couldn’t install Node.js/npm packages ... making me wonder: are you actually looking for a front-end developer?!). I also clearly informed HR by email that the code could not run on their system because I had written it in React, and asked them to try testing it locally.

The company then directly rejected me for an interview on the grounds that I had failed the test. This shows that the company did not seriously review the applicant’s test responses at all; it only checked the score shown by the Codility system and completely ignored the content of the answers. (Because Codility cannot run Node.js/React code, judging solely by the test result is inaccurate.)

A company that claims to be a startup in the gaming and gambling industry, and to be open-minded and innovative, uses such an inappropriate testing method even for a front-end position. Not to mention the rude HR: they indiscriminately send out tests, then just as indiscriminately reject people based solely on the test results. The experience was truly awful—and frankly, ridiculous.

The company is already far behind other companies in front-end skills alone. (Can someone tell me who is still writing jQuery in 2020?!)

Flexible working hours: start work between 08:30 and 09:30, and finish between 17:30 and 18:30. There is not much of an overtime culture, so you can leave work on time.

The current travel allowance is NT$20,000 for domestic travel and NT$30,000 for overseas travel, or NT$37,500 if accompanied by a companion.

Leave benefits are better than those required by the Labor Standards Act, with an increasing number of types of leave available (9 more days than required by the Labor Standards Act).

Dual monitors are provided, and the office has beautiful decor, making it a very comfortable place to work.

The company has:

Recreational clubs (badminton, movies, video games, and board games; organized by employees themselves, with no subsidy)

Academic clubs (arranged according to professional skills, providing opportunities to try tasks not normally encountered at work; food is provided at the monthly meetings, with a subsidy)

A concierge helps clean the environment and order lunch. There are also four microwaves in the office for heating food, or you can eat nearby (I sincerely recommend Taike Burger).

Related to the gambling industry.

Low salary, although there is a guaranteed 14 months of pay (half a month for the Dragon Boat Festival, half a month for the Mid-Autumn Festival, and one month in year-end bonus).

The company prohibits discussing salaries.

1. The office is beautiful.

2. After submitting your résumé, you first take an online assessment at a time of your choosing, so you do not need to take any additional tests on the day of the interview.

3. The annual salary is guaranteed for 14 months, and you can receive more based on performance.

4. The annual leave is better than the statutory requirement, and the travel allowance is also very good.

1. The base salary is relatively low. Considering the total annual compensation and benefits, it is actually no better than at other companies.

2. The online questionnaire has many questions and a time limit, so it takes quite a while to complete. The aptitude and logic tests (formerly called intelligence tests, but intelligence tests are illegal) are unrelated to job performance and are also easy to fake. I do not understand why domestic companies insist on using these ineffective tests, wasting job seekers’ time.