Live data from Hacker News

Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

wsj.com

281–290 of 500 posts

Re: Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

#281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imo this is endemic in areas with poor job markets where there's really about 1 or 2 large employers. It's not just time to leave the company; you need to leave the whole area as well.

That's pretty much how it's like in most cities in Europe apart from the few large tech hubs. If you burn yourself with a couple of bad managers you might not have anywhere else to go without leaving your family behind and being accused of job hopping so employees just have to put up with it. At my second to last job I put up with a manager that had severe anger management issues and would swear at employees and thro…

> and being accused of job hopping

As someone who has done, and still does, a lot of recruitment over the years I think people maybe worry about this too much.

What I mean is perhaps best illustrated with some examples:

- When you're fresh out of college/uni, it can be hard to find a job you really like, so in your first few years you might change job several times. No big deal.

- You leave a job you've been in for several years where you may have been happy and productive for quite a long time, but perhaps you're getting bored, need a new challenge, have been enticed away, or whatever. But then your next job turns out to be not so awesome, and neither is the one after that, so again you change jobs two or three times in a short period. Again, no big deal.

- The company your with restructures/gets taken over/relocates/makes redundancies and, without necessarily wanting to, you find yourself in a position where you need to find work fast. Again, you might not find a job you really like out of the gate and, again, no big deal.

These things don't bother me as a recruiter. What does bother me is a 20 year career where I can see you've changed jobs every year or two. It bothers me even more for management and leadership hires: I start to wonder if you're actually any good at anything, or whether your main talent is schmoozing and jumping ship just before the shit hits the fan (or just in time to take all the credit).

I want some evidence of periods of stability in your employment history, because this shows me that you're capable of committing to something for the longer term, which is when you can really make a positive impact. You're expensive to hire, and when I have hired you, I'm going to invest in your development and success (whatever that means for you), so I'd like to see some return on that investment.

DISCLAIMER: I'm fortunate to work in a tech hub that, whilst not large as a place, certainly has a lot of options in terms of companies to work for (Cambridge, UK).

Re: Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

#282

You don't say! I used to work as an engineer at a truly awful little company, the worst I've been at, and when I left I gave them a scathing review. Not long after, several new reviews popped up. Here are some choice excerpts, get a load of this: > Pros: > For anyone reading these reviews, take it from someone who has been at this company for over 10 years, some people just like to use these review sites as a soundin…

That "Cons" is possibly the worst thing someone could post.

That they hold a grudge when someone left is a _huge_ red flag.

Re: Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the policy I implemented with my team and everyone thought it was pretty reasonable. It's basically pick your schedule, but stick to it. Otherwise scheduling meetings becomes unmanageable. That being said, I was also very clear about the policy during the interview process.

Core hours sounds like a more sensible policy to me.

Core hours worked well for me, until one office decided that their core hours would change due to high traffic. Suddenly an office that was only an hour earlier than mine was now leaving just after lunch. I had an office that was 11.5hrs off and we had a great setup where I would do night meetings one week and they would the other. The office an hour off of mine could never get their shit together to schedule meetings.

Re: Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imo this is endemic in areas with poor job markets where there's really about 1 or 2 large employers. It's not just time to leave the company; you need to leave the whole area as well.

I'm in an area with lots of employers, but 20 years ago I did some job-hopping (four jobs in four years between 95 and 99), and that STILL comes up as a negative in job interviews. If you bail on too many bad managers, you can find yourself locked out anyway.

In the Bay Area, it’s the opposite. Interviewers almost look negatively on being at one employer for too long.

Re: Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

imo this is endemic in areas with poor job markets where there's really about 1 or 2 large employers. It's not just time to leave the company; you need to leave the whole area as well.

That's pretty much how it's like in most cities in Europe apart from the few large tech hubs. If you burn yourself with a couple of bad managers you might not have anywhere else to go without leaving your family behind and being accused of job hopping so employees just have to put up with it. At my second to last job I put up with a manager that had severe anger management issues and would swear at employees and thro…

In case of Europe, thankfully it's so dense and EU actually does invest in people transport (even outside the union). USA seems to be out of luck, and probably will need more regulation than the EU.

Re: Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

#286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The negative review was informative enough. Political, negative work environment and old, dead tech. Blah blah. It's the context that is particularly damning. Whenever you see a heartfelt negative review surrounded by obviously fake or reactionary (do you really not see that?) positive reviews, that is a red flag. It is not uncommon.

I totally disagree. When I read reviews (on Glassdoor or anywhere, really) I try to discount any emotionally charged content and focus on the factual elements of the reviews. I mean, "Political, negative work environment"? Every single group of humans since the beginning of time has a level of political interaction, so when I see comments about things being political I pretty much discount them unless there are some…

> factual elements of the reviews

What facts can you really share though? This isn't a court situation, where evidence is scrutinized and held up to rigorous standards. So what are you really expecting? Transcripts of conversations? Financial documents? I don't really understand what kind of "facts" you would be looking for.

Reviews are all about "how was your subjective experience there." If the answer is "awful, the company treated me poorly," then that's a legitimate review. Why would you discount it?

Re: Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

#287
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Reddit, sub mods can be bought, and many are.

As I said above - that's not actually item 4

Well, I suppose you could apply the same to Admins, that would count. I don't know of this happening, but then again I don't think we would have any way to discover it.

Re: Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

#289

Considering salaries listed on Glassdoor for tech companies in my area are about half of what engineers actually make, employers would be much better served by publishing accurate salary info (including RSUs, not just base) if they want to attract candidates.

Glassdoor seems to be very biased toward low salaries globally - unsurprisingly.

That only benefits employers in general.

Re: Companies Manipulate Glassdoor by Inflating Rankings and Pressuring Employees

#290
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with this strategy is you can never go back. Reading all these stories about bad managers and stuff, do managers and employees take things personal in the US? So if you leave for a better deal you actually will make personal problems between employer end employee? Whenever someone under me quits for a better deal or another job that I can't match I tell them "good luck and thanks for the time you shared…

It isn't personal. There are situations where the manner of quitting make it unlikely that I'd want to work with you again. If you joined, people on the team are helping get you up to speed on new tech, and you quit within two months before we even had a chance at a payoff for the work the team put in, that's off-putting because it's inconsiderate. It's not illegal, and you have a right to it. But my team likewise ha…

Well it depends.

When we hire someone there is a six months probation period where both parties can terminate the contract without any questions or obligations. This is mainly to make sure that the new members are compatible with the rest.

So when I hire I do so with the knowledge that it might not work out but they won't be blacklisted by the whole company for that reason.

If course if someone would scream at me and curse and storm out I'd likely not want to hire them again, but luckily that's never happened :)

Post reply on HN