Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Glassdoor not so anonymous

webworm.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 507 posts

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#381

Post by latexr »

Mandatum wrote: post #2

Glassdoor has posted a notice on ZURU's page regarding this: https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Reviews/ZURU-Reviews-E2286297.h... It appears a few other companies are doing this too, including Kraken ( https://www.kraken.com/ ) as you can see here: https://www.glassdoor.com.au/Overview/Working-at-Kraken-Digi... EDIT: If anyone from Glassdoor is reading this, please advise on a way to either unlink my profile from my ident…

Opened the Glassdoor page and content was obscured (including part of the warning banner) with a large unskippable overlay to “Sign up for free to continue using Glassdoor”. In light of these news, perhaps they should reconsider that policy.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#382

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #355
chasil wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, since Glassdoor's protection can obviously be compromized, anyone posting on their site should do so with Tor Browser, which anonymizes access by routing traffic through a minimum of three relays in the "dark web" of the Tor network. It might also be wise to do this on a public WiFi network (not your own ISP or mobile data provider). Any email provided to Glassdoor should be a burner on a service that is no…

Isn't the entire point of glassdoor that people use their work email to prove they actually work for the company?

I believe that’s Blind.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#383

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

pronlover723 wrote: post #209
koolba wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If so, is this legal? If it’s a company provided laptop then it’s a good idea to assume that every keystroke, DNS request, and network packet is fair game. Laptops are cheap. There’s no reason to mix personal and corporate usage.

Surprisingly I was at a party in SF with a bunch of Apple employees. Somehow some topic came up and I was like "I don't do anything personal on my company laptop. I especially don't look at porn". All 6 of them said they used their company laptops and phones to look at porn all the time. Wow

It's very common. Most IT groups collect this information for HR and don't do anything with it. The truth is the company doesn't care if you look at porn as long as you do your job. Until the day comes that the company wants to fire you. If you claim retaliation/discrimination/etc, company just opens up your file and lists all the violations.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#384

Post by lopis »

chaps wrote: post #35

Once had a contract where my client wanted me to do "security work", which was initially meant to be for pentesting their clients, but it turned into me building their wifi auth system. At some point in the gig, one of their clients went to them asking them if it was possible to de-anonymize someone glassdoor review since someone still-employed worked with them. They then went to me to see if I could do it for them.…

Another query you can use for another kind of alert is "Glassdoor Alert: Inflated Reviews site:glassdoor.com" for companies that were caught trying to fake positive reviews to flood out negative ones.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#386

Post by 8589934591 »

My current company had around 20 or so negative reviews bringing the ratings down to 2. We had a new HR head come in and asked employees to rate 5 stars. Poof. 16 of the negative reviews have vanished. They're now replaced with 5 star reviews. We're currently at 3. HR's goal is to bring it up to 4.

I definitely don't trust glassdoor. :(

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#388

Post by waylandsmithers »

alisonatwork wrote: post #94
amatecha wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, that doesn't correlate with what they say[0] on their support site: "No! Employers cannot pay Glassdoor to remove reviews." That said, it seems like negative reviews can easily end up violating one of the many other terms of use[1] around review content. Specifically that a user will not: "Post Content that is defamatory, libelous, or fraudulent"... and "Act in a manner that is [...] otherwise objectionable (as…

This is what I presume is happening too. I have worked at several companies that received a lot of poor reviews and often what happens if you keep track of those reviews over several months is that they "mysteriously" disappear. Of course by that point the person who left the review has probably moved on to a new job and can't be bothered writing another review that is sufficiently vague as to avoid potential removal…

I’ve noticed what I think is a trick to hide the negative reviews with default filters. When you first go to the reviews page it will say something like “Showing 30 of 35 reviews” and the filters are “English” and “Full Time”. Sometimes reviews don’t have those tags and most people don’t notice they are just being subtly filtered.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#389

Post by quickthrower2 »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #256
Beltalowda wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be useless due to spam, unreasonably disgruntled employees posting lies, forced or fraudulent positive reviews, and even outright scams ("pay up or we will post a negative review every week"), etc. I wish it weren't so, but I'm afraid that will be the reality of it.

All attempts to sell people on a truly anonymous system should begin with an explanation of the plan to not become 4chan.

I thought a little about this. While onchain you cannot censor it, the “view” created for convenience on web2 could just ignore sufficiently flagged responses.

This would still generally allow anonymity.

Of course you could also have anonymity on a traditional platform by not requiring people to sign in with usernames but use a private key instead. So just use that part of web3 but no blockchain storage.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#390

Post by dstroot »

bartread wrote: post #245
rlpb wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would an employer looking to fire you care about plausible deniability? Even if your setup worked technically, if the traffic traced back to you then you'd probably find yourself fired under these circumstances regardless.

I think this talk about tracing traffic could well be missing a bigger point. The last time I left a Glassdoor review I had to provide a company email address to do it. This means, although publicly my review was anonymous, Glassdoor knew (and very likely still know[0]) exactly who left it. If they have to hand over email addresses to the company taking legal action there's no need to get clever with traffic tracing.…

This. One cannot post anything on Glassdoor today without first establishing an account. Nearly all companies that create accounts use services to “enrich” your user data via the IP, email address, etc. so they grab and keep that data. It is certainly no longer anonymous if it ever was.
Post reply on HN