[HN Gopher] Layoffs push down scores on Glassdoor - how companie...
___________________________________________________________________
Layoffs push down scores on Glassdoor - how companies respond
Author : EvgeniyZh
Score : 357 points
Date : 2023-05-26 08:48 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com)
| marstall wrote:
| Any hard evidence companies can really get negative reviews taken
| down? This page on Glassdoor suggests otherwise.
|
| https://help.glassdoor.com/s/article/I-m-an-employer-What-ca...
|
| Excerpts from that link:
|
| > You can't pay us to take down reviews and we apply the same
| content moderation rules to our clients that we use for everyone
| else.
|
| > We generally don't consider evidence offered by someone with a
| vested interest in getting a review taken down, because we don't
| know how reliable it is.
| kmod wrote:
| P(them saying this | you can kind of get negative reviews taken
| down) = 1
|
| The lines you quoted give them tremendous wiggle room, and
| nothing from the original article is actually disallowed by
| them.
| cebert wrote:
| Do people generally still put any value in Glassdoor reviews?
| These types of behaviors on the site aren't new.
| maccard wrote:
| Yes. I treat Glassdoor reviews the same as I do hotel reviews
| or restaurant reviews - look at the reviews where people are
| positive but have criticisms, and look to see if those
| criticisms have a trend in the reviews (or if some reviews even
| tell people that thing is a positive - "difficult work life
| balance" "high pressure rewarding environment)
|
| If they're all positive (or negative) then that's a sign
| there's something wrong.
| clnq wrote:
| Yes, I mostly look at critical reviews and really pay attention
| to things mentioned by a few employees in different words. I
| usually do this while interviewing, so I am only interested in
| the negative takes as the company will readily tell me every
| positive aspect they can boast of.
|
| Just apply a bit of common sense to the comments and they will
| be a great source of insight. Some things they say can even be
| verified elsewhere (like if people from management keep getting
| into harassment lawsuits, if the company mistreats its clients,
| and similar).
| hardware2win wrote:
| I think the only reviews I somewhat value are Steam reviews
| Etheryte wrote:
| The only review I trust for any company is a random stranger
| commenting on HN.
| oblio wrote:
| I have bad news for you, marketing teams and co have alerts
| set up for key words and there's a reason tech evangelists
| exist.
|
| HN is actively targeted for advertising.
| saagarjha wrote:
| You don't even need advertising for this place to be
| useless. Do you think everyone singing the praises for
| e.g. Rust here is using it in production?
| rightbyte wrote:
| There are alot of threads about X where there are kinda
| probable insiders writing lame positive stuff about the X
| thing. Like "that is really cool" or interested leading
| questions about it, when there is no way people here would
| naturally write it in such an optimistic manner.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| Yes, ignore all ratings and read the review content. You can
| spot pain points, such as missing remote-flexibility, or bad
| incentives, or impossible deadlines, or bad equipment, or lousy
| onboarding, micromanagement, meetings late in the day, racism
| (like in Tesla factories)..
|
| Reading reviews helps you understand what you should pay
| attention to. You might take some things for granted that the
| company completely violates.
|
| You can then use your knowledge to ask specific questions
| during the job interview. Like: "What's your remote work policy
| and please put 5 days at home in my contract." Or you could
| spot the open office with old computers.
|
| As Tolstoy put it: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy
| family is unhappy in its own way" And it's up to you to spot a
| specific unhappiness at any given company.
| passwordoops wrote:
| Yes, especially non-engineers, like everyone in my family. It's
| why every HR I've encountered has asked employees to put a
| positive review on the site
| lordnacho wrote:
| In the nicest way possible, people who aren't the HN crowd are
| years behind when it comes to understanding how the internet
| works:
|
| - They think Amazon reviews are useful
|
| - They think Glassdoor reviews are useful
|
| - They think hotel reviews are useful
|
| - They think Trustpilot is useful
|
| - They think blog-style product reviews are useful
|
| It hasn't occurred to a lot of people that any content that
| could influence you was probably generated by a computer.
|
| Even further away is the realization that LLMs are about to
| inundate the entire internet with this kind of stuff, it's like
| crack has just been invented and everyone is only just aware of
| milder forms of cocaine.
| ggm wrote:
| God give me strength, this is patronising. Do you really
| believe only the HN cognoscenti know they're being gamed?
| neilv wrote:
| In this particular case... HNers tend to be familiar with
| tech industry business models and investment models, more
| than the average person who doesn't work in tech.
|
| So I think it's plausible we'll tend to have a somewhat
| better awareness of the dynamics around reviews that are
| posted online.
|
| (But I don't think we're more savvy about the world in
| general. If anything, we tend to have STEM-like narrower
| exposure to the world than many, coupled with the
| overconfidence that comes from income level.)
| etothepii wrote:
| No, but I do believe that working with computers all day
| rewires your brain.
| lordnacho wrote:
| It's not meant to be patronizing, it's just a fact that
| people who spend a bunch of time reading about tech are
| going to hear about things before people who don't.
|
| It also makes sense that reviews would have signal. It's
| not like people are dumb, they were just born in an earlier
| world where reviews would actually have some reputation
| attached to them. Movies, restaurants, concerts, that kind
| of stuff would be reviewed by someone capable of writing
| and filtered through a newspaper editor.
|
| Now things have changed and it takes some time for everyone
| to figure it out.
| 2devnull wrote:
| If reviews "have some signal" then wouldn't it be more
| clever to learn to make use of that signal rather than
| dismiss as entirely worthless?
| lordnacho wrote:
| I said it makes sense that they have signal, not that
| they have signal.
|
| Like it makes sense that shaving makes your beard grow,
| it just turns out not be what actually happens.
| asah wrote:
| In the nicest way possible, I am downvoting this reductionist
| and patronizing summary. Reviews are messy signals like
| photos etc: train your wetware neural net and you can smell
| trouble.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| - They think HN comments are all real
| emptyfile wrote:
| [dead]
| treeman79 wrote:
| My grandma, once snapped at my dad when he pointed out that
| something on the news wasn't true.
|
| Grandma: "They aren't allowed to lie on the news so that has
| to be true."
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Grandma: "They aren't allowed to lie on the news so that
| has to be true."
|
| That's the problem with Boomers and earlier generations.
| They grew up (in the US) with first the Mayflower and then
| the Fairness Doctrine that forced at least some _basic_
| ethics standards, and with a media portfolio that didn 't
| consist of a few very rich people and companies controlling
| wide swaths of media (Fox, Sinclair, Murdoch come to my
| mind), leading to actual competition between media, high
| quality journalism and actually well paid journalists.
|
| They didn't realize that the landscape has changed - there
| are no media standards anymore, there is no antitrust
| enforcement anymore, hell Carlson got away with his antics
| because a court ruled that a "reasonable viewer" would be
| skeptic towards his claims [1] despite it being more than
| obvious that Carlson's audience eat up everything he spouts
| as pure truth.
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-
| cant-...
| treeman79 wrote:
| Fairness doctrine was specifically to try and silence
| conservative voices.
|
| Talk radio, prove to be a great venue for conservative
| speech. Countless efforts were made to silence them in
| the name of "fairness" as defined by government
| bureaucrats.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Fairness doctrine was specifically to try and silence
| conservative voices.
|
| Or maybe "conservative voices" have used lies and hatred
| as a political tool for decades? We've seen just how
| incredibly the media landscape has devolved since the
| repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Far-right talking points
| _everywhere_.
|
| Name one, just _one_ case of "progressive voices" doing
| the same that comes even close to what the right wing
| does with people like Tucker Carlson every single day.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| If conservatives were being silenced, what happened to
| socialists and communists? Seems like conservatives
| weren't being silenced at all.
| esja wrote:
| You're right, and it's getting worse, but even in 1962
| there were problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Im
| age:_A_Guide_to_Pseudo-e...
|
| The internet accelerated the decline by 1) destroying
| media business models, leading to seasoned editors and
| fact checkers being replaced by cheaper twenty-something
| Twitter addicts, and 2) driving consumers into filter
| bubbles and feeding their confirmation bias.
|
| Even NPR are deteriorating. For example, this aged
| extremely poorly: https://twitter.com/NPRpubliceditor/sta
| tus/13192811012239400...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Even NPR are deteriorating. For example, this aged
| extremely poorly: https://twitter.com/NPRpubliceditor/sta
| tus/13192811012239400...
|
| It did not. Even a Republican-led investigation didn't
| find any wrongdoing [1]. Not every bullshit conspiracy
| claim of the far right warrants an investigation - their
| entire _modus operandi_ is running a continuous
| "firehose of falsehood" stream [2], and media reporting
| on each and every of their claims like a bunch of flies
| swarming around a pile of poo is actually dangerous to
| society.
|
| When the far right manages to create absurd amount of
| media attention for nothing substantial _every time they
| open their mouths_ , then there's no airtime left to
| report on stuff that actually matters.
|
| [1]
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/us/politics/hunter-
| biden-...
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
| taude wrote:
| As a HN regular, I find Amazon reviews super useful. You just
| have to understand which ones to put more faith in or not.
| And how to poke around for the product you want, and not one
| being paid to be promoted in the search. But it's not
| insurmountable.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| "Package arrived within one day, 5 stars."
| jasode wrote:
| _> They think Amazon reviews are useful_
|
| Amazon reviews are still useful because many times, people
| will point out some negative aspects and nonobvious defects
| of the product that I didn't think of. This helps me avoid
| buying a lot of junk. (My previous mattress shopping example:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24197305)
|
| Yes, reviews can be gamed but there's still some signal in
| the noise.
|
| On the other hand, many product categories on Amazon have
| useless reviews because they _group unrelated SKUs together_
| into 1 page. E.g. different harddrive models of different
| capacities made across different years and manufactured in
| different countries of origin. E.g. everybody writing 1-star
| reviews of the bad Seagate 3TB drives is irrelevant to
| assessing the other 10TB and 16TB drives. E.g. 24000+
| combined reviews for unrelated harddrives released across 15+
| years : https://www.amazon.com/Seagate-IronWolf-12TB-
| Internal-Drive/...
| mercurialsolo wrote:
| Anonymity completely destroys the fabric of glassdoor reviews
| being trustworthy. There definitely is an opportunity to have a
| more open and transparent feedback culture built around this
| system of employee - employer relations.
|
| In an era where we are going to see more of tech jobs
| disappearing (AI and automation kicking in), the effect of
| maintaining a glassdoor presence is no longer even meaningful for
| new age companies. For prospective employees, having a meaningful
| way to have feedback from current employees is a solution that
| does need to be in place.
| ajross wrote:
| This is like a lifecycle thing. Review site startups, in their
| early days, view the reviewers as their customers. People want to
| know whether X is good or bad, so come tell us! So they construct
| systems aimed at making sure the reviews are attractive and
| useful, and everyone loves them.
|
| But over time, ad revenue dries up, the new reviewer stream dries
| up (because most things are already reviewed), and they start
| looking for new revenue sources. And one such source is the
| producers of the reviewed products, who would _love_ to be able
| to have some control over the content. And thus the downward
| spiral begins.
|
| We've seen this again and again and again.
| davedx wrote:
| Roughly matches my experiences with how reviews work on AirBNB,
| which I'm not allowed to talk about because of their legal dept.
| etothepii wrote:
| Does this help the company long term? Surely the cognitive
| disconnect of reading that the company is awesome and then
| finding out it's awful leads people to quit?
| flir wrote:
| People stay in jobs long after they should leave.
| oblio wrote:
| And companies make a lot of money from that delta of:
|
| time when employee actually quits - time when employee should
| have quit
|
| Heck, entire businesses that would never be profitable
| otherwise last for <<decades>> like this.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| Glassdoor encourages employees to review their company, then
| tells the employer (point 4) to take the employee to court? It's
| a wonder Glassdoor don't get themselves sued with that policy.
| oofta-boofta wrote:
| I stopped following Gergely Orosz a long time ago. His tech stuff
| has/had been pretty great, but he's always simping for corporate
| tech to the point of obsequiousness and it's a huge turn off for
| me to read any of his stuff. This tone-deaf, pro-management,
| anti-worker post just further seals the deal.
| haspok wrote:
| They should just remove the scoring. All complainers will do a
| score of 1, all cheerers will do 5.
|
| It is also the case that a company can be a perfect place for
| some, and a completely wrong place for another. And of course,
| this is true for each team within the company.
|
| Actual opinions do have a merit, and it is possible to weigh them
| according to one's perspective or expectations. Eg. a reviewer
| writes that WFH is not allowed or limited to 1 day per week, I
| can decide if that bothers me or not. If it doesn't bother me,
| why would I accept a bad score from someone who wants to WFH?
| jmyeet wrote:
| This should surprise precisely no one. It's called the Yelp
| business model and it's been around for 10-15 years. You allow
| paying customers to remove bad reviews. Shocker. In Yelp's case,
| you also give paying customers better search visibility.
|
| It's never as straightforward as "if you pay, you can remove bad
| reviews". It's always couched in some form of plausible
| deniability, like reviews that violate a ToS or community
| guidelines in some nebulous way.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| Also, there's noone combats fake positive reviews on these
| sites.
|
| Glassdoor won't upset the company buying the fake reviews, the
| company won't review it and users aren't allowed to.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| General rule of thumb for all reviews is to ignore the star
| ratings, read the most helpful negative reviews. Think critically
| about them. See if there are themes or if they're being
| unreasonable.
| Silhouette wrote:
| Although if the reviewed party has any significant ability to
| influence what the review system shows - which appears to be
| the case here - then the whole thing is compromised so you
| can't really trust anything about it at all. The most helpful
| negative reviews might no longer be there and only ones that
| look like someone being unreasonable remain for example.
| layer8 wrote:
| Companies hiring unreasonable people might still be a signal.
| ;)
| [deleted]
| armchairhacker wrote:
| The article says pretty much all of the reviews which got
| removed were the unreasonable ones (rude language, unfounded
| accusations, and TOS violations). Albeit according to the HR
| reps, but with context it sounds believable.
| Silhouette wrote:
| The article also describes numerous unethical-at-best
| practices that some companies have used to skew reviews
| positively. Some of those practices were ways to beat the
| system so that potentially legitimate reviews might get
| removed on one of the reasonable-looking grounds.
| lazide wrote:
| Yelp does that too. The only bad reviews I got to stick
| had clear, unambiguous written evidence and were written
| like a police report with clear, neutral language and
| specifics backed by documentation.
|
| The number of folks who can meet that bar are very, very
| low.
|
| One I did get to stick was the car dealership that tried
| to scam me into ~$1k in unneeded fluid changes, where I
| posted the exact times, amounts, and a photo of the
| written quote (with quote #) they gave me after I
| demanded it in writing - in the middle of their public
| showroom where they couldn't try to avoid it.
|
| It's a jungle out there, and yes the review sites are a
| problem too.
|
| the police are also not very helpful either in many
| cases. I had someone at Bestbuy steal a VERY expensive TV
| from me (I ordered it for pickup, but when I got there a
| few hours later it had 'already been picked up' - and
| definitely not by me), and got clear self serving
| bullshit from the store manager, including 'we'll call
| the police, you don't need to do it' - which they didn't
| - and went home.
|
| When I called the police later, they required me to drive
| there (the store was an hour away), and wait for awhile
| before they'd even dispatch anyone to even take a report,
| let alone do anything. So figure several hours, just to
| get a report in.
|
| This was solid felony territory too.
| grugagag wrote:
| How did your story end? You got your money back
| immediately or it took a while?
| lazide wrote:
| I had other things going on in my life that meant I
| couldn't do what I needed to do in a reasonable amount of
| time - and unfortunately just got screwed.
|
| I couldn't charge back on the card without a police
| report during a specific time window (30 days). Filing it
| after that might have resulted in some action, but I
| wouldn't likely get my money back.
|
| I suspect it was the store manager, and I wasn't the
| first one. But I had no real evidence, just a pattern of
| shifty behavior and lies.
|
| They'd conveniently avoided having cameras in the areas
| to document what actually happened, and my pickup code
| had been used to pick it up, so definitely an inside job.
| I had video evidence I was at home when the supposed
| pickup happened, but that was it.
|
| So the thief won.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Thing is... This is gameable too. A competitor can easily come
| along and post 10 negative reviews all saying similar things
| like "This company says you get holiday, but the reality is if
| you ever take even a days holiday then you will forever be
| blacklisted from promotion. Promotion is strictly for people
| who work 8am till 8pm, 6 days a week, 365 days a year. And to
| trap you in, they'll offer a stock vesting schedule that means
| you have to throw away a lot of money to change companies.".
| brookst wrote:
| Do you think that happens?
| bentlegen wrote:
| Given that Uber was once caught booking (and canceling)
| thousands of fake rides on Lyft -- seems perfectly
| plausible.
|
| https://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-
| ride-r...
| lazide wrote:
| Sure, but that is legally actionable and can be falsified or
| not (as would the company actually doing that). _relatively_
| easy to verify during an interview too (does everyone look
| like a burnt out zombie?).
| BossingAround wrote:
| As if Glassdoor was amenable to going to all the trouble of
| talking to various employees at a company to judge whether
| 10 reviews all saying the same thing are correct or not.
| And then, potentially facing a law suit for their decision.
| lazide wrote:
| I meant easy to verify for the consumer of the reviews.
|
| Like the Amazon reviews talking about a bicycle when the
| produce someone is looking at is a random usb stick.
|
| And if a competitor targeted someone, the Glassdoor
| reviews should be subpeonable, and there is a legal
| framework for extracting compensation in that case. Takes
| a lot of time and effort though.
| layer8 wrote:
| Same as for Amazon reviews.
| jredwards wrote:
| My opinion has always been that Glassdoor is a useless resource
| in every regard.
| smcin wrote:
| It was great pre-2010-ish, and before it was compromised by
| its business model and subsequent acquisition; but those were
| always inevitable.
|
| Consider the proportion of GD's revenue from employer premium
| subscriptions vs from jobseekers (job listings, profile
| views). When there's lots of hiring, the jobseeker-related
| revenue will prevent the worst excesses. But in a downturn,
| there's less disincentive to not live off charging employers
| premium for reputation-washing.
|
| [It's not easy running a for-profit technical jobs board, let
| alone doing it ethically and delivering growth; StackOverflow
| Jobs was sadly killed off in 2022. One of SO Jobs's
| innovations (other than almost zero on-site advertising) was
| it allowed you directly interact with the hiring mgrs, so
| you'd skip days/weeks of non-technical preliminary
| interviews.]
| goostavos wrote:
| Let's not go crazy. It's great for mining which leetcode (or
| class of leetcode) problems you're going to be asked in the
| interview.
| marcinzm wrote:
| I've found this to be pretty indicative of company cultures and
| issues based on companies I've worked at.
| DelightOne wrote:
| Is there a Meta Review for Glassdoor like for Amazon? Something
| that records how many reviews were removed.
| jedberg wrote:
| In summary, if they have a bad score on Glassdoor, they are
| probably a bad place to work. If they have a good score on
| Glassdoor, it tells you nothing, because there are many ways it
| can be gamed up.
| thejackgoode wrote:
| Glassdoor is one good candidate for "disruption". Anyone knows a
| competing alternative for a global workplace review website?
| bradleyjg wrote:
| The business model is garbage. The only possible source of
| revenue is the very companies that are being reviewed. Either
| you offer some benefit to those companies, in which case you
| are untrustworthy, or you don't, in which case you are broke.
|
| See, also, Yelp & TripAdvisor.
| scrame wrote:
| Blind, but I can't imagine why anyone would trust a site that
| requires you to register with your work email.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's a bit of a catch-22: why would they believe you're
| actually an employee of a company if you don't have a work
| email address for that company?
| capableweb wrote:
| Blind is nothing like Glassdoor, two very different platforms
| which seemingly two very different goals.
| cornercasechase wrote:
| Really? Because Blind seems like a much better Glassdoor if
| your goal is to understand what it's actually like inside a
| company.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| Only a small number of very large companies.
| capableweb wrote:
| Blind requires you to have a company email in order to
| even participate, meaning if you left the company, you no
| longer can sign up for Blind. So if you want to review a
| company, how would you?
|
| Blind also targets having communities for people inside
| companies to talk, and facilitating discussion. Glassdoor
| is mainly about reviewing companies.
| cornercasechase wrote:
| If I want to know if a company is toxic, Blind is a lot
| more useful than Glassdoor. People will speak the truth
| while they're at the company.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Will they? If I had something very negative to say I'd
| fear getting fired while working at the company, but will
| have no such fear after I leave.
|
| A site that requires your company email before you can
| post a negative review sounds like a honeypot.
| withinboredom wrote:
| A manager on my old company's blind (they never
| revalidate your email apparently) just posted the other
| day how the CEO asked the managers 'who in their team
| would you not hire today'. They took that list and fired
| all of them.
|
| I imagine HR would absolutely love to take that down.
| cornfutes wrote:
| > So if you want to review a company, how would you?
|
| So have up to a year after you leave the company I
| believe.
| capableweb wrote:
| Let's brainstorm some solutions to some of the problems that
| would arise with another glassdoor clone:
|
| - How do you verify that the reviews are actually from
| current/former employees?
|
| - Can the data be open for the public to verify while
| protecting the people leaving reviews?
|
| - How could the service get funding? Donation model?
|
| - How would you overcome the initial issues with trust?
|
| - How do you prevent companies from manipulating the
| scores/reviews?
|
| - How do you handle legal challenges if you're based on
| something like a donation model? Companies would surely sue you
| at one point or another if they cannot take down reviews
| themselves
| pzo wrote:
| >- How do you verify that the reviews are actually from
| current/former employees?
|
| People who write review would have to upload recent pay slip
| or after when committing review provide their email at
| employee to receive some passcode active within 2 months
|
| >- Can the data be open for the public to verify while
| protecting the people leaving reviews?
|
| Verification explained above. Token to employee at employer
| domain email would be anonymous. Reviews would be randomly
| visible within 1-8 weeks after submission.
|
| >- How could the service get funding? Donation model?
|
| Jobs advertisement ads and website getting commission if
| someone got hired from advertised jobs like most agency get.
| Hired person would get small bonus for confirming got
| accepted.
|
| >- How would you overcome the initial issues with trust?
|
| Just reliable reviews that got verified with payslip and
| domain email and maybe even passport just to make sure
| employer doesn't create dozens of fake payslips and domain
| emails.
|
| >- How do you prevent companies from manipulating the
| scores/reviews?
|
| See above
|
| >- How do you handle legal challenges if you're based on
| something like a donation model? Companies would surely sue
| you at one point or another if they cannot take down reviews
| themselves
|
| Just create account in some law friendly country. Don't store
| any user data such as passport, payslip, user employee emails
| etc - after verifying just delete those
| xaitv wrote:
| > People who write review would have to upload recent pay
| slip or after when committing review provide their email at
| employee to receive some passcode active within 2 months
|
| If I was leaving a review, even if I cared about it a lot,
| and I'd have to upload a recent pay slip I'd just leave the
| site and not bother with it anymore.
| icepat wrote:
| Any data-breach would be an utter nightmare for the users
| with that sort of info on the site.
| pzo wrote:
| The idea would be not to store those data on server only
| process it and keep anonymous data or even only
| aggregated. Some processing maybe could be done also on
| the client or payslip user name masked after verifying it
| matches passport holder locally before sending to server.
| Other option using blockchain with open source repo.
|
| I know a lot of HN users are in theory very distrustful
| about anything new but in practise still:
|
| - using VPNs (even paid one don't guarantee your data is
| safe)
|
| - tor
|
| - open source password managers (w/o reading source code)
|
| - Dropbox etc
|
| - compiling random open source code first without reading
|
| - having no issue telling hour rate or daily rate
| recruiter on linkedin when asked and attaching resume.
|
| So what's so very sensitive in payslip if you already
| providing this kind of information to any recruiter?
| capableweb wrote:
| > So what's so very sensitive in payslip if you already
| providing this kind of information to any recruiter?
|
| I know 0% people out of my circle who would share
| payslips with any potential employers, even less any
| recruiter, while we frequently talk about our pay with
| each other and co-workers at our work.
| pzo wrote:
| Ok but genuine question why? Does in other countries
| payslip has any other more sensitive information than
| name, company and salary? Any more sensitive information
| than CV you attaching to recruiter?
| smcin wrote:
| Yes: in the US, your SSN (or EIN) is on every single
| paystub. (You could always manually redact it if some
| third-party asks for a copy).
|
| By the way, another huge reason: images of paystubs can
| be and have been used by identity thieves to open fake
| accounts/loans, remotely.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >Jobs advertisement ads and website getting commission if
| someone got hired from advertised jobs like most agency
| get. Hired person would get small bonus for confirming got
| accepted.
|
| >Just create account in some law friendly country. Don't
| store any user data such as passport, payslip, user
| employee emails etc - after verifying just delete those
|
| The more you try to detach from the countries that will
| (possibly) make you retain that information (or block you
| from collecting it) the harder it is to do business with
| companies from those countries (or to enforce contracts
| against them for things like commissions).
| Tade0 wrote:
| >- How could the service get funding? Donation model?
|
| I have a more hellish proposal: want to publish a review?
| Pay. Want to see reviews? Pay.
|
| Small amounts of course, but I would like to see someone
| actually sign off assigning a budget for something like
| this in a sufficiently large organization.
| ztrww wrote:
| > Jobs advertisement ads and website getting commission if
| someone got hired from advertised jobs like most agency
| get.
|
| If you rely on income from the same companies that are
| reviewed on your site it will inevitably become just as bad
| as glassdoor
| ghaff wrote:
| >People who write review would have to upload recent pay
| slip or after when committing review provide their email at
| employee to receive some passcode active within 2 months
|
| No sane person is uploading a pay slip so they can leave a
| review on some internet site. In fact, I'd daresay the only
| reviews you'd see at that point are from individuals (or
| companies) with sufficient incentive to generate
| convincing-looking fake pay stubs.
| pzo wrote:
| Would they also risk making convincing fake passport that
| has the same name as fake payslip? Not a lawyer but this
| probsbly could be considered a fraud.
| foota wrote:
| > People who write review would have to upload recent pay
| slip or after when committing review provide their email at
| employee to receive some passcode active within 2 months
|
| The employer controls their email domain.
| oblio wrote:
| Your model would get you a grand total of 5 users.
| listenallyall wrote:
| if we're not counting the internal devs & testers, I'd
| take the under
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| HN has many entrepreneurial types so I don't think this
| suggestion would go over particularly well, but entrusting a
| government body with some of these functions would seem to
| take care of the identity verification and review
| manipulation part of it. The government already knows about
| your income sources and employment status, so it would not
| expose any more information. As for transparency, maybe
| publish review hashes similar to CT logs?
| mathieuh wrote:
| I think any government doing this is very unlikely.
| Governments aim to make things easier for capital, not
| labour. Where I am it's actually technically illegal for
| you to even discuss your salary with your fellow workers.
| ztrww wrote:
| So governments do, some don't, some occasionally try to
| do both.
|
| where I am not only are salary ranges mandatory on job
| ads but company also have to publicly disclose a lot of
| stats wages/salaries. Median, average, quartiles etc. for
| all full time and part time employees.
| oblio wrote:
| Where are you located?
| 2devnull wrote:
| He can't even say that.
| ben_w wrote:
| Make a Glassdoor competitor called "Goodheart" and see how
| many people get the reference.
| capkutay wrote:
| Why is it a good candidate to disrupt? 1 year in, the
| "disruptor" would run into the exact same problems if they
| reach any meaningful scale or adoption.
|
| Asking happy team members to review your company is no
| different than apps asking frequent users to review on the App
| Store.
| blitzar wrote:
| Glassdoor (and similar) is a waste of time, reviews are all
| heavily biased at best or outright paid for lies. Amazon
| reviews are barely useful - that reviews of workplaces, the
| average tenure of which is 4.1 years can be any better is just
| a pipedream.
| janalsncm wrote:
| Before trying to disrupt any product, it would be good to
| identify the failures of competitors, determine whether they're
| actually "failures" (i.e. will people pay for an improvement)
| and make your solutions to those issues part of your core
| identity.
|
| To say Glassdoor is a good candidate for disruption _is not the
| same thing_ as saying they have some problems. Every product
| has some problems.
| 2devnull wrote:
| Meetup is an example. There are many.
| twelve40 wrote:
| here is an actual failure: when i'm looking at say Meta
| salaries, i still see no indicator or filter of how recent
| this data is. Are the numbers that they are showing an
| average of all reports starting from 2007? which may have
| like doubled since then, 15 years ago? This renders the
| salary data _completely useless_ , you can't do apples-to-
| apples with a more recent company like OpenAI that doesn't
| have 15 years worth of old useless numbers averaged into it.
| It could be solved by adding some kind of a pretty basic
| recency filter, but in 15 years of their existence they
| haven't bothered.
| Madmallard wrote:
| companies should not able to do anything other than raise a
| complaint when it seems like they're being unfairly review-bombed
| hathym wrote:
| that is why I only read bad reviews.
| rybosworld wrote:
| A truly honest review site seems like one of the toughest open
| problems to solve.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > I've talked with CTOs and HR professionals at 5 tech companies,
| who all tell me they're doing something similar to having set a
| target score to improve to, or did so in the past. I'm not naming
| these companies as I believe this is a widespread trend that's
| not limited to just a few players
|
| So the author is extrapolating from gossip.
| AngeloAnolin wrote:
| Given that it is Glassdoor's interest to provide employers with
| pretty much the power to veto negative reviews, then the data
| points in terms of satisfaction will greatly be skewed favorably
| to the companies.
|
| While we can acknowledge that a lot of negative reviews will also
| stem from employees who were terminated / laid off / dismissed as
| the company may be undergoing financial / economic challenges,
| there can also be a lot of valid ones.
|
| But then again, each individual (who will do a review) knows the
| adage to _never burn the bridges_, hence, either they use
| Glassdoor as a venting platform, or have the courage to stand up
| and speak their minds.
|
| Unless there's a net benefit upside to the individual providing a
| negative (albeit constructive) criticism, it'll really be hard to
| weed out what's really helpful from what is written out of anger
| and desperation.
| golemotron wrote:
| It would be interesting to compare this to Yelp.
| paulbjensen wrote:
| I kept tabs on a company where I used to work and when I got an
| email from Glassdoor about a review of that company with the
| title "stalled", I naturally wanted to click through, but by that
| point the review was gone.
|
| I then started to screenshot any new reviews, ad saw that some of
| the negative ones also got removed after time.
|
| You could say that Glassdoor is more like a rose-tinted window.
| lopkeny12ko wrote:
| So, for all the critics in this thread: how do you propose we
| deal with current and former employees intentionally
| misrepresenting the company?
|
| If employees have free reign to say whatever they want, truth or
| not, is it not reasonable for employers to be able to vet the
| contents of those reviews?
| jobs_throwaway wrote:
| Let the readers decide for themselves how much stock to put in
| those claims. If a user can prove they worked for the company,
| IMO they should be able to say their piece about the company.
| raymondgh wrote:
| If you work or worked at a startup, wouldn't you want to leave a
| positive review regardless of your experience in order to
| increase the odds of your equity being worth anything?
| hankchinaski wrote:
| Like if leaving a positive review on glass door has any
| meaningful effect on your equity
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| My experience is this: " _Companies encouraging staff to leave
| more positive reviews is a common way to increase the score._ "
|
| I see many reviews that are complete positive BS and are aimed at
| increasing the company's score, either to offset previous bad
| reviews, or because the company is hiring and wants to look good.
|
| I would not say that this is "smart"... You might get people to
| accept offers but if the work environment is bad they'll leave so
| the end result is just to increase turnover and to trash the
| company's reputation (which will make hiring more difficult).
|
| IMHO companies should forget about Glassdoor reviews and focus on
| the actual work environment. But of course the reality is that
| the Glassdoor score is a nice, simple metric that HR can boast
| about improving... so that's what happens, instead.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| I wish more companies also focus on their product instead of
| their marketing. In reality the money is a simple (and
| desirable) metric and become the only one as soon as market is
| reach. Like if the new moto would be << create a great product
| until it sells >>.
| soco wrote:
| As a job seeker I would not just look at the general score -
| that's a very poor preparation for interviews. I would
| recommend reading the reviews and I'd start with the bad. Most
| of this will be obviously disgruntled nonsense but at some
| point you start getting real information as unhappy people have
| less reluctance to share.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" Most of this will be obviously disgruntled nonsense but at
| some point you start getting real information as unhappy
| people have less reluctance to share"_
|
| I could find no way to tell the real from the fake. Anyone
| can write anything.
| soco wrote:
| I read the reviews of my company (big, so many reviews) and
| I find them generally spot-on. Again, with obvious filters:
| if one gives 1/5 on everything it tells me to not take it
| very seriously. Same for 5/5 reviews.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Detecting fakes is the wrong question. You don't even try
| to tell if any particular individual reviews are real or
| fake.
|
| You just read a bunch, and see if they are random, or if
| there is a pattern where many have something in common.
|
| If 70% of the negative reviews say anything at all about
| aimless priorities and never being allowed to finish a job
| properly before being moved to the next thing, that company
| definitely has that specific kind of problem.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| The thing is that it's all the same package: Good scores and
| glowing reviews that have little to do with reality. I agree
| that it is useful to seek the bad reviews to check how their
| content compares with the good ones, but I think it's very
| difficult to get an accurate picture overall.
| eastbound wrote:
| Even with the best intentions, no-one can make a good
| picture of anything in life, because there are so many
| different facets, even two team members can experience the
| same work as an opportunity for careers or a stressful
| experience with a boss expecting too much.
|
| The bad reviews show the failure modes of the company.
| krageon wrote:
| In my experience if you can find a topic most bad reviews
| talk about and all positive reviews avoid (or directly
| contradict), it is probably true. Whether you find this an
| issue is something you can then decide for yourself.
| [deleted]
| oblio wrote:
| > I would not say that this is "smart"... You might get people
| to accept offers but if the work environment is bad they'll
| leave so the end result is just to increase turnover and to
| trash the company's reputation (which will make hiring more
| difficult).
|
| They can kick the can down the road and make money.
|
| IBM coasted on its reputation for decades and even now it's a
| big company and still respected in many arenas.
|
| Reputational damage is hyper overrated.
|
| The average individual doesn't have the time or inclination to
| do research.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" The average individual doesn't have the time or
| inclination to do research."_
|
| I took the time to do research on the companies I interviewed
| with, but the reviews on sites like Glassdoor are completely
| untrustworthy.
|
| Virtually every company had reviews which praised them to the
| moon, and reviews that said they were a company from hell.
| Which to believe?
| lolinder wrote:
| > The average individual doesn't have the time or inclination
| to do research.
|
| This is probably true for small-to-medium sized purchases,
| but for hiring? I suspect people are much more inclined to do
| their research when they're about to trust their livelihood
| to a company, especially in fields where they have other
| options.
| oblio wrote:
| True, but what happens looks a lot like this:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36082954
|
| And then people are back to judging the financial offers
| and their own gut based on the interview, I imagine.
|
| The information asymmetry is massive between companies and
| employees.
| ghaff wrote:
| And the reality is that at large companies people are in
| roles and with groups they love (at least for a time) and
| people are in roles or with groups they can't wait to get
| out of.
| jacknews wrote:
| "Send a reminder to new joiners during the first few months,
| asking them to leave a review on Glassdoor. This is a smart
| approach, as new joiners are often in their honeymoon period, and
| are likely to leave a positive review."
|
| LOL, more to the point, they are often still in a probation
| period, so maybe it's a case of 'make a positive review ... if
| you know what's good for you'
| boringg wrote:
| Is Glassdoor even relevant anymore? Seriously asking. It was
| maybe a decade ago but seemed to limp along badly damaged after
| everyone figured out how to game it and they took money to scrub
| reviews.
|
| It's similar to yelp or any review based app.
| gnicholas wrote:
| How does Glasdoor validate that a reviewer actually worked at a
| given company?
| jschuur wrote:
| Can GlassDoor visualize a company's score over time, including
| the amount of removed reviews to highlight when companies try and
| improve their score by getting reviews removed?
| capableweb wrote:
| The perception of neutrality is very important for platforms
| like Glassdoor, otherwise no one would trust it. Showing any
| sort of visualization that would reveal that they remove
| reviews would be bad for this.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| HR has long since figured out how to game Glassdoor.
|
| A good metrics is # of reviews versus # of employees.
|
| You'll see some companies with such high numbers, that somehow
| 10% of current employees have left glowing reviews. Digging
| deeper they are mostly "less than 1 year" and terse "good
| company" type reviews.
| blitzar wrote:
| > terse "good company" type reviews
|
| "I am in good health and have been well treated and fed since
| my abduction"
| analognoise wrote:
| >> terse "good company" type reviews >"I am in good health
| and have been well treated and fed since my abduction"
|
| I make sure to watch for blinked messages, like T-O-R-T-U-R-E
|
| https://youtu.be/rufnWLVQcKg
| Silhouette wrote:
| _Digging deeper they are mostly "less than 1 year" and terse
| "good company" type reviews._
|
| Some of the practices described in the article are simply fraud
| or gagging. Where that kind of behaviour is not explicitly
| illegal already it probably should be. Preventing employees
| from giving honest and factually correct feedback about their
| employers is almost never in the public interest. That's not
| even an anti-business position because preventing fair
| criticism of bad employers is also against the interests of
| other employers who don't do those bad things.
| Eumenes wrote:
| Companies bribe Glassdoor and those "best places to work" lists
| with fees, ability to remove negative reviews, etc. Hacker
| news/Blind/Reddit seem to be better for discussing how its like
| to work at a company . .. for now
| ouid wrote:
| You just cannot organize a rating system into a company. The more
| trust you accumulate, the more money there is to be made in
| selling out.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Really? I still go to Amazon to read reviews. (Even if I don't
| purchase from Amazon.)
|
| It's not as helpful as it used to be, but it's still helpful
| enough to be worth it.
| emmanueloga_ wrote:
| Maybe we could popularize written reviews and tagging it with
| schema.org data [1].
|
| That way:
|
| * You own the review
|
| * You can decide to take it down or not (harder for HR teams to
| tamper with them).
|
| * It would be on the reader to decide if the review is spam or
| not.
|
| There are plenty of pages where a review can be published for
| free, for instance, github pages.
|
| 1: https://schema.org/EmployerReview
| joshstrange wrote:
| Personally I have no interest in tying my name to a review. In
| fact I've still not reviewed a few places from my past because
| I don't fancy getting a call/email from that employer yelling
| at me for telling the truth. I've mostly worked at smaller
| companies so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2
| together and I'd have to lie about my position/salary to keep
| it from being immediately recognizable, probably even need to
| write "creatively" to avoid them telling it was me.
|
| Even if I hated working somewhere I'd never publicly blast them
| under my real name. Near zero upside and unlimited downside. At
| best I prevent others from going through what I did (IF they
| check reviews, IF they believe me, etc), at worst someone knows
| someone who knows someone who torpedos my career/prospects at
| another company. It doesn't matter if that retaliation is
| illegal, I'd never know or be able to prove it. Lastly, I have
| to put food on the table, if my current job goes under or
| opportunities dry up I'd go back to company that I disliked to
| make ends meet. Why would I burn that bridge?
|
| People rarely leave companies because they are happy where they
| are so I have trouble seeing anyone wanting to sign their real
| name to a review about a company they left. Like I said, near
| zero upside and unlimited downsides.
| emmanueloga_ wrote:
| This is very fair, and since I never pay attention to
| glassdoor reviews, somehow I assumed they weren't anonymous
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| indymike wrote:
| People will tolerate a lot of dysfunction for money. When being
| paid, they'll probably even be willing to say good things, even
| though that's not what they really think.
|
| When you take away the money, they are going to share their
| experiences and real thoughts.
| selimnairb wrote:
| So Glassdoor is running a sort of (reputation) protection racket
| against employers while simultaneously running a potential honey
| pot against employees. Brilliant.
| hankchinaski wrote:
| Glassdoor has become pretty much useless as a source, especially
| salaries and now reviews
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| Levels.fyi for salaries and blind for reviews is what I have
| been doing for a while now.
| marcinzm wrote:
| They require you to add a salary/review every year to keep
| using the site but don't verify anything. So it's actually
| easier to put in some fake numbers than bother putting in real
| ones.
| lastangryman wrote:
| Surely a simple solution here is for Glassdoor to show removed
| reviews with a simple placeholder text and a reason for removal.
|
| Glassdoor could also account for these in its overall rankings,
| and show a graph plotting number of removals against time. That
| way companies legitimately removing invalid reviews can continue
| to do so, but those gaming the system would have that activity
| show up. If they plotted submitted reviews as well you could see
| when these periods of mass removals and "forced" positive reviews
| happened.
|
| Glassdoor could also provide a short summary of "X reviews
| removed in the last Y days - this is lower/higher/inline with the
| average".
|
| All of this is easily within the power of Glassdoor to do and
| keeps the platform fair for both parties.
| shp0ngle wrote:
| You cannot publish libel even if you preface it with "this is a
| libel".
| lazide wrote:
| You can certainly say 'in my opinion...' however, as long as
| you're not making statements that can be factually proven
| false.
|
| 'In my opinion the New York Times is a pile of lying garbage'
| or whatever for instance isn't libel.
| brookst wrote:
| Are you saying Glassdoor should rewrite user posts that the
| company claims are libelous?
|
| Honestly I'm not sure how many negative posts could
| reasonably be considered libel, but for those that
| genuinely could be, Glassdoor is probably better served by
| just removing them than wading into liability both from
| posting and from modifying them.
| lazide wrote:
| Nope. That should be between the company and whoever did
| the post, frankly.
|
| I don't see how Glassdoor would have any liability unless
| they were somehow presenting it as their own opinion.
|
| They might want to take it down as part of overall
| community moderation if it violates their TOS of course,
| say if it includes cursing, or has racist remarks or
| whatever.
|
| I'm pointing out libel has a definition, and posting what
| is clearly an opinion isn't it. It has to be making
| statements which are presenting false facts as true.
|
| That they'll almost certainly find ways to take down
| 'undesired' messages that paying customers don't like
| seems like something they do, which is shitty and
| undermines their nominal reason for existing, is... sad
| but seems to be what is going on. Nothing to do with
| libel.
| chickenpotpie wrote:
| * user posts anonymous review
|
| * Company tells Glassdoor the review is false and to take
| it down
|
| * Glassdoor says the review is from an anonymous user and
| not them, so they should sue the user * Company asks for
| the name of the user so they can sue them for libel.
|
| * Glassdoor refuses to turn over the user because it
| ruins the anonymity
|
| * Company sues Glassdoor for libel because they refuse to
| produce proof they didn't create the libel. Glassdoor now
| has to face the lawsuit or turn over the user and destroy
| the anonymous premise of their website thats fundamental
| to their business model
| idiotsecant wrote:
| This is not how the law works, and if it was no website
| on the entire internet would be able to print user
| comments of any kind.
| lazide wrote:
| Also, Glassdoor has no issues turning over user details
| in case of a subpoena I believe?
| vasco wrote:
| Everything you say is your opinion, the prefix does
| nothing. Even if you're "just stating facts" it's still
| just your opinion of how reality unfolded.
| lazide wrote:
| My understanding is that the courts have a different take
| on it.
|
| Stating 'x killed y', even if _I wholeheartedly believe
| it_ is libel if it turns out someone else killed y, and x
| had reputational damage due to my statement. I'm
| asserting something is true, full stop.
|
| Stating 'in my opinion, x killed y', if I wholeheartedly
| believe it, is not libel, even in the same situation,
| because even if x did not kill y, it is still true it was
| my opinion that it was true, and I was being clear about
| that. I wasn't asserting facts, I was asserting my
| opinion. Opinions are protected, as long as they can't be
| confused with false assertions of facts.
|
| Now, if it turns out there is evidence that I didn't
| actually have that opinion and it was all a game to
| destroy x's reputation, I might still get hit.
|
| It's the same reason 'allegedly' gets used by the press
| so much when someone gets arrested.
|
| Regardless of what the courts find later, it was indeed
| alleged. And that matters if someone tries to come after
| them later. Which happens.
|
| The news sells itself as making factual reports (except
| for 'entertainment' or 'editorial' sections), and can't
| get away with saying it's all just an opinion.
|
| If you have pointers to case law that disagrees, I'd much
| appreciate it!
| barrkel wrote:
| It's not quite the same thing - it's under oath, rather
| than public speech - but in the Alex Jones, Sandy Hook
| libel case, the Judge Gamble admonished Jones:
|
| _"You believe everything you say is true, but your
| beliefs do not make something true," Gamble said. "That
| is that is what we're doing here. Just because you claim
| to think something is true does not make it true. It does
| not protect you. It is not allowed. You're under oath.
| That means things must actually be true when you say
| them."_
|
| Quoted here and elsewhere:
| https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/alex-
| jones...
|
| I'm not a lawyer and don't know American libel law so I
| can't speak to that. I will say there's a big difference
| between using "allegedly" and "believe". Belief in what
| you say being your opinion is implicit (unless, of
| course, you're lying). You have no access to facts
| outside your opinion. It's the nature of your statement
| which indicates whether it's a statement of fact or
| opinion, not whether you say "in your opinion" or not.
| "Allegedly" has a very different purpose; it imputes the
| statement of fact to someone else. Someone else has
| stated (in their opinion) a fact; they _alleged_ it.
| Rather than qualifying a statement as a belief, it
| qualifies it as the truth of it being someone else 's
| responsibility.
| dehrmann wrote:
| They can also detect when employers excessively flag. I'm not
| sure if that means they pause their flagging privileges for 6
| months, show it as a metric, or something else.
| hn2017 wrote:
| [dead]
| lozenge wrote:
| Glassdoor runs a job board, they want the appearance of
| neutrality not the actual achievement of it.
| ritzaco wrote:
| You think glassdoor wants to be fair to both parties when one
| party (business) pays them in order to help exploit the other
| party (employee)?
|
| Maybe it sounds cynical, but that is the business model.
| spacemadness wrote:
| Yelp did (does?) this same thing. So many of these type of
| companies are run by unethical "business leaders" in that
| their business model is to hold data hostage and filter it in
| the right way for higher paying clients.
| dicknuckle wrote:
| BBB as well
| darth_avocado wrote:
| I only refer blind reviews now. Keeps things pretty honest.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| I've been designing a worker-owned (both the startup and the
| user data owned by those 'worker' users) Glassdoor
| alternative. Wonder about how to grow interest in it. Pay
| sharing is another useful feature of Glassdoor that could be
| done better in a worker-centric way.
|
| Another aspect of it is to refer/resell self-hosting for
| users to completely own their own data (such as Bunny CDN
| which has very wallet-friendly prepaid schemes and a referral
| program) so they don't have to worry about what the service
| owner does. It would then be a kind of decentralized network
| of mini Glassdoors about the workers current or past
| employers, where one worker would spin it up and their peers
| can use. Each would decide what to leave public-facing and
| private-facing for the workers, and could even monetize for
| the workers via selling their data as Glassdoor does for
| things like market comp survey data so that workers could
| privately share comp data amongst each other and publicly
| sell access to extra anonymized summaries of that data.
|
| This would be tied together into a user friendly iOS/macOS
| app to manage the deployment of the site. How does that
| sound?
| smoldesu wrote:
| > This would be tied together into a user friendly
| iOS/macOS app
|
| Why? Providing a web client would drastically expand your
| potential customer-base.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| The web client would be for most users, the native
| iOS/macOS client would be for the smaller group that
| manages the deployments (would be one person at a company
| or in a friend group). I'm working on cross-plat Swift
| strategies to bring this to Windows later.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I'm still confused. I can't deploy or buy your app
| without iOS or MacOS?
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| It's a good point, I'll find a good way to start earlier
| with cross-plat deployment management. Between the two of
| us we have strong fullstack skills in web and iOS/Apple
| ecosystem. Apple App Store distribution and IAP are a
| strong part of our typical app strategies (I'm able to
| drive huge user growth via App Store) but this approach
| for this idea needs more thought because the deploy-
| manager person for this app wouldn't be the one we'd
| charge IAP to. I'm not actually sure how to make money
| off this idea yet.
|
| It's also potentially linux-runnable (the management
| tools) with a native apple frontend, then later can
| explore bringing to win/web
|
| I've been moving more of my iOS app core biz logic to JS
| and exploring cross plat Swift for running more across
| web and windows, while still leaning hard into the nice
| parts of Apple ecosystem, so that whatever solution I
| find for this is easier
|
| We're also doing an app using https://github.com/live-
| codes/livecodes to move a lot more languages/envs
| capability into the client which might enable some good
| web and ios cross plat capabilities.
|
| Anyway besides the platform question, interested in any
| other feedback from anyone
| [deleted]
| bazmattaz wrote:
| Yes exactly. Same as TrustPilot. If you pay for their top
| tier you can remove reviews that go against their TOS, funny
| thing is they let you the customer decide if the review goes
| against the TOS.
|
| Complete shambles
| gnicholas wrote:
| Does anyone put stock in TrustPilot reviews? I have seen
| some companies brag about them and wondered if they are
| actually trusted elsewhere (I'm in the US).
| byby wrote:
| [dead]
| okl wrote:
| I think a first question could be if it is in Glassdoor's
| interest to be fair/objective for both parties. I would assume
| that users are more likely to visit and engage when drama,
| conflict and emotions are to be found in the reviews. It also
| gives companies an incentive to respond on the platform because
| of the reputational damage.
| hyperdimension wrote:
| To your first question: not unless employees (as a group) are
| willing to pay Glassdoor more than the employers. The
| economics are biased toward the employers unfortunately. See
| Yelp as another example.
| cgb223 wrote:
| Who pays Glassdoor to keep it in business?
|
| Glassdoor wants to make that group happy so they can keep
| making money
| Lio wrote:
| The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.
|
| If Glassdoor's real customers are companies using it for
| hiring then that's who they will prioritise unless that
| becomes an existential threat to their reputation.
| hedora wrote:
| It looks like archive.org scrapes reviews:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20200625025452/https://www.glass...
|
| (Hey, I wonder why twitter's CEO rating in 2023 is almost
| 100%-(rating in 2020))
|
| I wonder if their scraper goes deep enough to let a third party
| list compute a list of removed reviews. Honestly, that seems
| like better signal than the non-reviewed reviews at this point.
| lisasays wrote:
| _All of this is easily within the power of Glassdoor to do and
| keeps the platform fair for both parties._
|
| Indeed -- assuming that Glassdoor actually wants to be "fair"
| and informative, in some meaningful sense.
|
| Unfortunately its business model stands in the way of that.
| pmoriarty wrote:
| _" Surely a simple solution here is for Glassdoor to show
| removed reviews with a simple placeholder text and a reason for
| removal."_
|
| Completely unverifiable and easy to fake.
| pierat wrote:
| I treat Glassdoor reviews like Amazon reviews.
|
| I immediately go to the 1 and 2 stars, and read all the negative
| reviews. I then look for trends in those negatives.
|
| If I see no real trend, and instead people being dumb, I ignore
| them. If I see distinct trends of faulty thing, or fails to
| perform, then I know to avoid.
|
| I assume (well, rightfully so) that any 4's and 5's are gamified
| and or just outright fraudulent. Companies who run these review
| sections are directly complicit, and usually rely on these
| ratings to "make the sale" or otherwise hold mind share.
|
| There's not much we can do here. Just hope we hit jackpot on the
| employer lottery.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Qualitative trends are the interesting thing, not the
| quantitative result.
| scottLobster wrote:
| The flip side: There are always bad apples at any company. The
| negative reviews may be legit, but not relevant to the
| manager/program you'd be working under.
|
| As someone who's worked at a 100k+ employees company, there
| were literally dozens of programs in the same building living
| largely separate/parallel existences. Unless the reviews called
| out a program/manager by name they'd be completely useless in
| gauging job satisfaction.
| byby wrote:
| [dead]
| pierat wrote:
| Too true, and the larger orgs definitely have that as a
| concern.
|
| And some specific managers who would be better not leading
| people (aka fired) are a weird case where the in-person
| interview can kind of discern that. Basically, one has to
| learn what to ask and how to ask to suss out which team leads
| are good and which ones aren't. Then again, it's a definite
| problem where you are in an org can make or break you.
|
| However, we have to separate "shitty manager" from "shitty
| organization forcing managers to enact shitty policies". And
| this is where I think Glassdoor 1 and 2 star reviews can show
| policy trends (versus bad manager trends).
|
| And of course, you may get a company that avoids most of the
| reviews in scummy ways. I know that the company I worked for
| that got bought out had a clause they wanted us to sign that
| stated "no negative comments about us anywhere". What's funny
| is this is actually illegal under the NLRB. But to me this
| was a massive red flag to get the hell out (and I did).
| thx-2718 wrote:
| Personally in my experience, regardless of the size of the
| organization (small family business to thousands of
| employee orgs) if management is toxic, it's because it's
| tacitly approved from higher ups.
|
| Culture starts at the top.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| Culture is preserved at the top. It starts at the bottom.
| The problem is too many leaders read an Adam Grant or
| Simon Sinek book and all of a sudden think they are the
| latest incarnation of the tech leadership buddha and
| impose their will on the team.
| regentbowerbird wrote:
| What questions should one ask to suss out the good team
| leads?
| pierat wrote:
| 1. Efforts to conceal in an interview reveal potential
| toxic areas. NDA issues aside, this is more about
| concealing and making things look better than they
| actually are.
|
| 2. Ask "What do you like about working here?". If there's
| pushback or defensiveness, red flag.
|
| 3. Ask "If you were in my position, would you take this
| job?". Would they gladly take this job, or is there
| hesitation/defiance/pushback?
|
| 4. Ask "What does your organization know and believe
| about psychological safety?" - This is an institutional
| question about https://hbr.org/2023/02/what-is-
| psychological-safety
|
| 5. Ask "What are your values and how do you hold people
| accountable to live them?" (Does the org follow their own
| guidance, or is it just for show?)
|
| 6. Ask "What happens to employees who make mistakes?" -
| is this a 1 and done? This also pairs with psychological
| safety.
|
| 7. Ask "What happens to employees when they challenge the
| status quo?" (As an engineer or similar lead
| technological role, you will be continually pushing tech.
| How does the company respond to that?)
|
| 8. And for you to ask yourself: "Is the interview
| conversational or scripted?"
|
| 9. Was the interview genuine happiness, or faked? Would
| the people you would work with actually happy what
| they're doing?
|
| 10. How do you feel after the interview? Is there
| something that felt off? Can you identify it?
| winrid wrote:
| What will #8 tell you? as someone that is forced to do
| scripted interviews at current job...
| mikestew wrote:
| And if it is scripted, so what? That might mean every
| candidate gets a somewhat consistent experience, instead
| of whatever off-the-cuff crap my not-as-smart-as-she-
| thinks-she-is interviewer pulls out of her butt. Because
| we've all known that person on the interview team that
| has their bullshit manhole cover question because "I
| think to see how they think".
| bigtunacan wrote:
| Yeah. 8 is just a silly question. First off you can often
| just tell if it's scripted. Secondly if it is scripted
| it's generally just because HR is more mature and is
| trying to be more fair in the hiring processes; this is a
| good practice for diversity.
|
| Organizations that aren't scripted just haven't gotten
| there yet.
| iamdbtoo wrote:
| It's not good practice for diversity. While it might help
| some with racial, ethnic or gender diversity, it
| discriminates heavily against neurodiverse people who
| often do not fit into little boxes a scripted interview
| is designed to check off.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| I hope this comment comes across as helpful rather than
| rude: if you asked me a couple of those questions
| (especially back-to-back) during an interview, I would
| not hire you. It isn't that any of those are bad
| questions per se, but the volume and forwardness of them
| would be a red-flag that this is a person who likes to
| show up, make trouble, and not be held accountable for
| it. Maybe that's not your goal, but remember that in an
| interview you only have a few minutes to communicate
| where you're coming from.
| pierat wrote:
| I'm trying not to take this as rude... But yeah. My
| failing, I guess?
|
| I gave a list of types of questions I use to try to
| discern the manager and the company's perspective.
| Obviously these aren't to be utilized rapid-fire in a
| dismissive attitude. However, that's exactly how
| companies approach interviews. Why _isn 't_ it good for
| me to do the same that's being done to me?
|
| > if you asked me a couple of those questions (especially
| back-to-back) during an interview, I would not hire you.
|
| (The personal response) And there's no way I'd want to
| work with or for you with that kind of "you ask too many
| questions" attitude.
|
| > It isn't that any of those are bad questions per se,
| but the volume and forwardness of them would be a red-
| flag that this is a person who likes to show up, make
| trouble, and not be held accountable for it.
|
| I've also been in workplaces that fired after one fuck-up
| that was due to miscommunication, bad documentation, or
| other 3rd party factors. I'm not normally accustomed to
| making mistakes in my professional area, but they do
| happen. "How are failures and changes handles in your
| org?" is a massive key indicator of how this org
| maintains and grows, and I along with it.
|
| And as an engineer, I get *paid* to ask questions,
| including those pointed ones that get to the root of a
| matter. And I apply those skills and abilities to
| interview processes as I would to any other process. To
| see a hiring manager dismiss this type of interactive
| discussion as "someone who makes trouble", is the very
| type of manager I recommend to be fired on my reviews.
|
| > Maybe that's not your goal, but remember that in an
| interview you only have a few minutes to communicate
| where you're coming from.
|
| And the implied contextural clues you typed here
| indicates that it's the interviewer's to ask the
| questions, and the candidate to shut up unless spoken to,
| except for a softball one-off question at the end.
|
| Interviews are a 2 way street. You're interviewing me,
| and I'm ALSO interviewing you. My questions I ask that
| probe to a company culture and happiness of the
| interviewers is of utmost importance. I've turned down
| higher-paying higher-stress jobs precisely because people
| on the team balked at work-life balance questions.
|
| Another company had a manager roll their eyes when I
| asked if they would work the position they were hiring
| for. Just what exactly did I dodge by discontinuing the
| interview?
|
| One company blatantly stated that "full time ie expected
| to be 50 hours minimum" when I asked how maintenances
| were handled with scheduling. And they're a BIG vehicle
| company. 6 sigma, ISO 20000, yadda yadda. Absoluutely no
| life balance, and the interviewing manager made that
| known.
|
| I've dodged a LOT of crap companies with these sorts of
| questions. Yours sounds like one as well, with your
| response.
|
| No offense.
| ebiester wrote:
| On the other hand, as a hiring manager, I know this is
| someone who is team-focused and wants to be part of an
| organization that is similar rather than a blame-focused
| organization.
|
| An organization that is aligned with the communications
| patterns outlined in those questions would answer those
| questions comfortably.
| ncallaway wrote:
| I'd ask similar questions as the parent poster, and I
| explicitly wouldn't want to work somewhere where asking
| these questions was a red flag.
|
| So, it can actually still be a useful candidate side
| filter. If you don't hire me because I asked these
| questions, that's good for me because I don't want to
| work for you (not in an accusatory manner, just we
| probably don't have compatible workplace expectations).
| ethbr0 wrote:
| As a counterpoint, if someone asks these questions in an
| interview of me, they'd still go to the "Had questions
| prepared" higher slice of rankings.
|
| Prepared questions indicate you have initiative and do
| your homework. I'm hiring thinkers, not drones.
|
| The only turn-off could be in the _way_ they asked the
| questions and followed up -- aggressive? Not listening to
| my response closely? Not clarifying if I asked for more
| information?
| pierat wrote:
| Exactly. This isn't meant to be a Blade Runner Voight-
| Kampff rapid-fire interrogation.
|
| An interview is supposed to be a bidirectional
| conversation to see if you fit with the manager/company
| and the company fits with you. Obviously, how you ask
| (and don't ask), and ask around these questions can
| really give an idea what to expect.
|
| There's also major red flags for places that you probably
| never want to work at. For example, dismissive managers
| are a major problem. What are they going through on a
| day-to-day? They probably can't tell you, but you can ask
| around them.
|
| Why are they interviewing? Is it a new position, or a
| replacement? Why did the replacement leave? I had one
| interview that the person leaving was also on the
| interview committee. Really nice gentleman. He was
| retiring, and wanted to move back with family across the
| US. And he was on the committee to help find a person and
| train them to be there. The job wasn't exactly what I was
| looking for and declined, but I greatly respected how
| they did that interview.
|
| Again, I interview primarily for engineering roles. Maybe
| other non-engineering roles do things differently. But I
| like to try to get a snapshot what the company's like,
| their expectations, my expectations, and how my life is
| working there. Last thing I want to do is accept a
| position and find out they grossly misrepresented the
| position to get me in the door, and make it hard to
| interview/switch to get out.
| pstuart wrote:
| Great questions, as well as the review strategy in your
| OP.
| zdragnar wrote:
| I might hesitate in answering #3 because it's such a
| weird question. I don't know your tolerance for common
| things in young companies like frequently changing
| priorities. I don't know your financial situation (are
| you desperate for a job, or are you holding out for a
| perfect fit?).
|
| Answering "no" could easily land me in hot water,
| regardless of my reasons, and especially if I don't
| explain them very clearly and objectively. Answering
| "yes" doesn't tell you anything; after all, I already
| work here and might have drunk the company kool-aide.
|
| It just seems like you're looking for a reason to not
| work here, instead of looking for reasons to be excited
| about working here. Walking in the door with a negative
| attitude is a good way to poison a team's working
| environment. You are, in effect, the very toxic thing you
| are trying to reveal.
|
| Maybe it's just cultural differences, but I cannot
| imagine a reason to ask that question of anyone other
| than someone who I trust and know well.
| tivert wrote:
| > 4. Ask "What does your organization know and believe
| about psychological safety?" - This is an institutional
| question about https://hbr.org/2023/02/what-is-
| psychological-safety
|
| That's not a good question because it assumes the other
| person if familiar with the jargon term "psychological
| safety," which seems pretty new. That's not reasonable
| because that recent HBR article you posted indicates that
| many people don't know what that term means.
|
| Also "psychological safety" could be easily
| misinterpreted in today's political environment as
| something related a demand for an (ideologically) "safe
| space."
|
| After skimming that article, it would probably be better
| to ask something along the lines of "is it OK to make
| mistakes in this organization and learn from them?"
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| I would actually want to use "psychological safety" to
| see if my manager is the kind of person who, when they
| see a word they don't know, instead of asking they make a
| shit assumption and then react negatively to their own
| projection of the situation.
| brailsafe wrote:
| I would agree with you if it was a more esoteric sounding
| word that doesn't have some kind of intuitive
| interpretation. Physiological safety doesn't sound like
| something that has a concrete definition at all, and if
| asked, I'd probably _either_ ask what the person means by
| it, or come up with my own definition that 's otherwise
| equally valid. Though in the context of an interview,
| probably best to ask what they mean.
| JustSomeNobody wrote:
| It's still a huge red flag against the company that one team
| can be toxic and another great.
| somsak2 wrote:
| i mean, in a sufficiently large organization, this is
| essentially unavoidable
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| cortesoft wrote:
| It depends on what is driving the dissatisfaction. If it is
| something like how the company handles promotions and raises,
| than it doesn't matter which department is providing the
| review.
| importantbrian wrote:
| This is very true. I've worked in an organization where most
| people on most of the other teams would negatively rate the
| company, but I was fortunate to have a great boss. So I look
| back on my time there as positive, although I recognize that
| most other people had a very different experience of that
| company.
| [deleted]
| flashgordon wrote:
| The reality most (all) companies exist for the benefit of well
| the company. And all the power plays, motivations, passive
| aggressiveness, politics, misaligned manager motivations,
| bureaucracy are to be expected (sadly). Yes you could go much
| smaller to reduce process but you are taking that risk or
| loosing out on reward (and as I get older I am realizing how
| much I've been under appreciating peace of mind). I used to
| scoff at a friend when he suggested this - but his strategy of
| choosing a company based on who he knew and who he could work
| with has been looking amazing lately!
| mejutoco wrote:
| In a lot of platforms less than good reviews are removed. Some
| people post 4 or 5 star reviews that sound vaguely positive,
| but in the text itself one can clearly read a bad opinion. I do
| not know how effective this is versus a bad review, but the
| ones that survive are often gems.
| fatnoah wrote:
| > I treat Glassdoor reviews like Amazon reviews.
|
| This is my approach as well. Probably my favorite moment was
| reading a review for my own company. It was very recent and
| mentioned that "management had stupid delusions of being
| acquired by company X." That review was posted literally days
| before the acquisition was publicly announced.
| bigtunacan wrote:
| If they were a public company then 100% that review should
| have been removed. That's leaking insider information.
| Leaking insider information in and of itself is a violation
| of insider trading laws.
| [deleted]
| walrus01 wrote:
| What's fascinating about reading Amazon 1-star reviews for
| anything that's even _slightly_ technically complicated is
| seeing people who clearly have no idea what they 're doing, and
| have broken the thing themselves when trying to install it or
| use it. Or similar.
| bookofjoe wrote:
| I prefer the ones where people have ordered the wrong
| size/color, to wit: "I meant to order a black one but I
| ordered a white one by mistake."
| belter wrote:
| If I want to leave a bad review, I always do exactly the
| opposite. Both for Glassdoor or Amazon reviews. Always give
| five stars, start with innocent paragraph and leave the full
| details and scathing review in the second paragraph. It helps
| reaching the target audience...
| carlivar wrote:
| My company has had legitimate 1-2 star reviews removed. I know
| this because one in particular struck a chord with me, and a
| month later it was gone. At the same time I saw that many other
| lower scored reviews were gone.
|
| Glassdoor is simply compromised by money and can't be trusted
| whatsoever.
| whamlastxmas wrote:
| I've had two employers that are impossible to leave 1 star
| reviews for. Doesn't matter how mundane and kind the review
| is, it never makes it past moderation.
| smcin wrote:
| If only a third-party archived/screenshotted Glassdoor
| reviews to preserve them. Then we could see the pattern of
| deletions by date/location/dept/position/timing of
| layoffs/stock price/etc. Also, someone could construct a
| RottenTomatoes-type aggregate of RealGlassdoor vs
| PurgedGlassdoor (vs Blind) metascore over time. To see when
| things were being manipulated.
|
| [UPDATE: hedora already said archive.org does this earlier
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36084679]
| AaronM wrote:
| Is it possible for a company like glassdoor to not eventually
| be compromised?
| datavirtue wrote:
| No. Cloud compute and egress is expensive.
| lisasays wrote:
| _And so, they got to work flagging negative reviews for removal,
| and encouraging staff to post 5-star reviews to balance out
| negative reviews._
|
| Surprise, surprise.
| francisofascii wrote:
| Glassdoor reviews are filled with subjective phrases that are so
| meaningless. Comments like "great work/life balance" doesn't
| offer much information . A more useful approach would be to have
| users enter more objective figures. For example: "Typical office
| hours: 9-6, Weekends worked per year: 4, Pager evenings per
| month: 2, meeting hours per week: 10. Remote days per week: 3,
| etc.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| > My company is removing Glassdoor reviews
|
| So Glassdoor is useless then.
| game_the0ry wrote:
| > Independent of this article, solution scientist Shikhar Sachdev
| dived deep and investigated The underground economy of Glassdoor
| reviews, finding fake, 5-start Glassdoor reviews have a going
| rate of $10-25 per review on marketplaces, and providers offering
| review removal services - for a price. Review removal is
| something Glassdoor explicitly says should not be possible. It's
| fascinating research to read: check it out here.
|
| Interesting how HR departments and managers resort to gestapo
| tactics instead of fixing the root of their problems, which is
| typically poor management.
|
| Side effect - prospective employees will no longer trust
| glassdoor reviews. That will likely hurt their business model.
| danjac wrote:
| If I see a company with only a list of 5 star reviews, I know
| something sketchy is going on and they're written by HR flunkies.
| tomcar288 wrote:
| i've learned from reading glassdoor reviews, that you have to
| read the review rather than go by the star ratings. the star
| ratings often don't reflect what written in the review. for
| example, you'll see lots of amazon reviews that are 3, 4 or even
| 5 stars but a lot of the time the truth comes out in the text
| review itself.
| ginger2016 wrote:
| They can respond by not caring about glassdoor scores.
| voidfunc wrote:
| Not surprised. I remember a startup I was at telling employees
| several years ago to leave five star reviews. When I left I
| provided a good review as well to avoid any potential for bridge
| burning since at certain sizes its obvious who is leaving certain
| reviews.
| anotherhue wrote:
| They'll remove reviews if you ask right. I've seen it done.
| thisisit wrote:
| I was using Glassdoor until 5 years ago before I realized the
| shenanigans behind the scenes. It is a terrible place to put your
| trust.
|
| I have a speech impairment. About six years ago a company's HR
| communicated to me that they couldn't hire me due to my
| impairment. I indicated this to the company's social media, which
| wasn't active. But I also wanted people to know before they
| interviewed with the company. So, I wrote a review on Glassdoor.
| Couple of months later all my other "contributions" were up on
| the site except this one. So much for companies cannot manipulate
| reviews.
|
| If you need feedback it is better to reach out to people on
| Linkedin and talk instead.
| broguinn wrote:
| I'm sorry they didn't hire you because of your disability.
| IANAL, but I suspect that your disability is a protected status
| in the United States. I'm not saying that you should've pursued
| legal action, but that what they did is both immoral and
| illegal.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I'm old[ish], and wasn't hired, explicitly because of that.
| In fact, a couple of the interviewers made no effort to hide
| it. I suspect that this may come as a surprise to a lot of
| folks here, but age discrimination is every bit as illegal as
| race, sex, or disability discrimination.
|
| If an industry makes a lot of money (f'rinstance, the finance
| industry), all kinds of toxic, illegal behavior is ignored,
| and it's really difficult to effect change.
|
| In industries that don't make much money (teaching, social
| work, etc.), bad behavior is not tolerated in the slightest.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| > age discrimination is every bit as illegal as race, sex,
| or disability discrimination
|
| Oddly, this is not quite true at the US federal level.
| Unlike most protected categories, the one for age only
| applies to a specific subset of people (people over 40
| years old), nor is it generally illegal to prefer an older
| candidate over a younger one [1].
|
| [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/age-discrimination
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| It's funny. In Japan, at my company, there were levels
| that were unattainable, until the applicant was a certain
| age. That would be completely illegal, in the US.
|
| Ah, well, it's all water under the bridge. After a few of
| these hazin- er, _interviews_ , I got the message, and
| accepted that I'm in early retirement, and I work for
| free, these days.
| svachalek wrote:
| I think if you look at race, sex, and disability
| discrimination, there's an implicit direction as well.
| The law is not particularly worried about companies
| refusing to hire people without disabilities.
| ctvo wrote:
| > If an industry makes a lot of money (f'rinstance, the
| finance industry), all kinds of toxic, illegal behavior is
| ignored, and it's really difficult to effect change.
|
| > In industries that don't make much money (teaching,
| social work, etc.), bad behavior is not tolerated in the
| slightest
|
| This falls apart outside of your examples. The health care
| industry makes a lot of money. They don't tolerate this.
| Teaching in primary education? It doesn't make much money,
| but higher education? They do well, and they also don't
| tolerate this. The legal industry? Probably doesn't
| tolerate this. Etc..
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| _> higher education? They do well_
|
| I know quite a few, and none of them make a fraction of
| what they could, outside academia. Some, are, quite
| literally, on public assistance, with Ph.Ds.
|
| The healthcare industry is rife with bad behavior. Their
| practice is restricted, but their behavior ... not so
| much.
|
| Same with lawyers. They have very intense ethics laws,
| but they are about the practice, not the personal
| behavior.
|
| But you are correct. It is a "broad brush," and not
| really a worthy argument.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| My girlfriend worked for a small-ish company (less than 100
| employees) that got ONE negative review on Glassdoor. The
| company executives were so angry about it that they contacted
| Glassdoor, trying to get them to remove it. Denied. Then they
| hired an attorney to try and _force_ Glassdoor to remove the
| negative review. Denied again. Finally, a few weeks later,
| someone from Glassdoor reached out about some sort of premier
| program for employers. Nothing was ever stated directly, but it
| was implied that reviews would be "managed" with the premier
| program. They signed up. Negative review disappeared later that
| day.
|
| I don't know the details about the "premier program", like what
| it was specifically called, but the negative review did
| magically disappear. Also, everything said in the negative
| review was totally true.
| dicknuckle wrote:
| Just like BBB. I'm not sure why people think it's some kind
| of government agency.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Did the company have to stay a "premier" member for the
| review to stay buried, or could they sign up and then churn
| out and have it still be hidden?
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| I would imagine there was at least a 1 year contract. I
| don't know of any outbound sales that would target 1 month
| subscriptions. It's definitely a racket either way.
| pnt12 wrote:
| Hmmm... I'd day restoring a bad review would be even more
| suspicious. Let them come naturally and don't delete them -
| unless the company reconsiders the benefits of premier,
| that is.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-26 23:01 UTC)