411–420 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, this needs context. You, a current employee of a company, are interviewing a person who listed a skill on their resume, and then you got reprimanded for asking that candidate to demonstrate that skill?
Not by the company, of course; the candidate.
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…
Since you opted to reveal the company's name (Snowbound software), I went ahead and read the reviews on GlassDoor. Your review is very emotionally charged and with very few facts or examples, which makes it difficult to take seriously. Since you were fired I can understand why you would write like this, but it is a bit ironic considering the article is about manipulating reviews. Yours is scathing indeed, but not in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I interviewed with a company just last month that had a string of awful Glassdoor reviews - all mentioning the same internal problem. During the on-site interviews I asked multiple employees about the situation. They had no response, but I got a call from the HR director shortly afterward wishing to clear the air about my questions. Her explanation was that 1) the internal employees don't read Glassdoor so they weren…
"No response" as in "I don't want to/can't comment on that" or "I have no idea what you're talking about"?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also interested in this question. Here's a half-idea for discussion purposes: Review sites must be free for readers and reviewers. So, the revenue either has to somehow come from 1. end-users indirectly (like how HackerNews helps YCombinator attract quality investments) 2. a group that has users' best interests at heart, as well as a financial incentive (google's personalization helps readers find relevant search…
Why must reviews be free? Tech magazines used to do reviews (of gadgets), and they ain't free to read? at least, not the trustworthy ones.
As far as I know Consumer Reports is the only one that does this still. Consumer Reports is a nonprofit, and they're run like a media company. Their staff research and write the content, pretty well!
I don't think this would work for user-generated content -- who would pay to be able to write an anonymous review?
I do think user-generated content is necessary for job reviews; you can't buy the experience of being an employee off the shelf and subject it to objective tests, like with technology products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue with the strategy wasn’t leaving for a better job, that’s fine. It’s quitting on the spot without notice.
You just quote "total break down in trust" caused by manager in the very polite letter you send.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you trust the reviews on Amazon? Especially from cheap Chinese suppliers? Those reviews come from somewhere.
Again - yes, the reviews can be manipulated and they definitely ARE. But that is not in any way encouraged by Amazon as it doesn't get anything from that. "Sell-out entirely and make a lot of money letting people buy influence" - doesn't apply here
If the average customer believes that a lot of positive reviews means the quality of the product is high, they are more likely to buy the product. As long as the product is a least decent, they will probably be happy with it. If they are unhappy, they can complain and Amazon will refund them to make them happy (this is probably rare so not a huge impact on profit). Amazon gets to keep lots of the margin on the lower quality knock-off items, instead of the original IP owners. If the item really sucks and they get a lot of returns, Amazon can then use that as a signal to bury it.
If Amazon produced millions of fake reviews themselves, it would be a huge scandal. But if thousands intrepid sellers invest in making thousands of fake reviews, it’s not as much of a scandal for them. Amazon makes a show of fighting the most obvious fake reviews, so people will continue trusting the platform. But are they really using their top talent to fight the fake reviews? I work on a ML / data analysis team and I feel like we could do a much better job at that task than Amazon seems to be doing, and they ought to have more resources than we do.
I’m not accusing Amazon of doing this strategy intentionally, but perhaps there is an understanding that the ROI of engineering talent spent fighting fake reviews and counterfeit items is low or negative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, th…
Because there is a big difference between "awful, the company treated me poorly" and something like "I got 4 consecutive quarters of positive reviews, including a bonus and a raise, but then when there was a change in management I was let go with the reason being 'poor performance'." Something like that would let me know the company is immature with respect to how it managed employee growth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Flexibility works one way there A former boss put it like this, "Sure we have flex time! You can arrive any time before 8 and leave any time after 6."
Let me guess, he laughed when he said it like he was super funny, too, right? Like when I used to ask one former boss which of the ten tasks he'd just assigned to me was highest priority he'd say, "yes!" and laugh like he'd just told the greatest joke and then run out of the room (seriously) before I could pin him down on an actual decision.
In a year at that place no one finished anything.
Literally, they had 18mths on a project with less than a 1000 useable lines of code and a team of five.
I wrote a similar system on my own in 3mths doing it after work and weekends for a customer as a side gig.