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

401–410 of 507 posts

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#401

Post by verelo »

ricardobeat wrote: post #400
verelo wrote: post #399

Someone wrote something very shitty, and damaging about (it wasn’t 100% clear - i suspect on purpose) me or some of the people i worked with. It was categorically false for me to be included in these allegations (i believe the entire claim was untrue but i guess i only really know my truth), and i had no way to even ask the person to omit me or why they felt i should be bundled in. At one point this became such a str…

This doesn't mean they should de-anonymize reviews, but have some moderation to stop any kind of personal attacks or information from being posted on the platform.

Where did i say it should be de-anonymize? I’m just saying they assisted in perpetuating a very damaging narrative against my person.

I agree moderation is key. They were so restrictive on amending the review in any way that it STILL exists. It’s been toned down somewhat, but the current moderation is a joke.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#402

Post by 8589934591 »

brightball wrote: post #396
8589934591 wrote: post #386

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. :(

I don’t trust online reviews in general. I read 1 and 2 star reviews to check for anything I may need to be cautious about but I generally assume that 5 star reviews are intentional padding. Do you find yourself leaving 5 star reviews regularly? Leaving reviews at all? Are you more motivated to leave a review if a bad experience or a good experience?

I do the same as you, check for lower ratings to be informed. I have found it helps if I talk to current/ex employees on linkedin. So far that has been transparent and helpful. The usual 5 stars are just generic "awesome team/great culture" which is useless.

I have left both 5 star and 1 star reviews. Unfortunately some of my 1 stars have been removed. I leave 5 stars when it's good (ignoring any usual corporate politics that might exist, these exist anywhere regardless). My 5 stars are usually descriptive enough to make it authentic and not like "good place to work, friendly ppl, awesome culture". I leave 1 star when things get really bad, like really unethical backstabbing sort of bad.

But then again I don't understand how companies are able to get them removed off of glassdoor. Like, my current company has done everything from removing reviews to having good publicity on glassdoor/linkedin/any social media but they have not tackled one single negative review head on to change their culture. Lol.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#403

Post by throwaway81523 »

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.…

> I had to provide a company email address

You mean you had to currently be working there, rather than formerly? I thought this lawsuit was about people who had already left Zuru, but I may have misread the article.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#404

Post by mbg721 »

brightball wrote: post #396
8589934591 wrote: post #386

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. :(

I don’t trust online reviews in general. I read 1 and 2 star reviews to check for anything I may need to be cautious about but I generally assume that 5 star reviews are intentional padding. Do you find yourself leaving 5 star reviews regularly? Leaving reviews at all? Are you more motivated to leave a review if a bad experience or a good experience?

Glassdoor is different from most other star-ratings because the reviews are really of a bunch of different products. Even in the same department, different bosses can produce wildly different experiences.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#405

Post by andrewingram »

nebezb wrote: post #202

In 2016 I left a very scathing, and very truthful, of my current employer on Glassdoor a couple of weeks before deciding to quit. Two weeks later, Glassdoor sends me an email notifying me that the employer is pursuing legal action and I have two options: 1) delete the review, or 2) stand by the review if it's true and, when it comes down to it, my identity may need to be revealed in court when necessary. That was my…

I (somewhat unhealthily) keep an eye on Glassdoor reviews for old jobs. There was one that was both absolutely damning (about the CTO in particular), and almost completely factually accurate - the only inaccuracy I spotted was inconsequential to the overall message.

I took a screenshot, it was gone a week later. To this day I don't know who wrote it, and whether they get scared into taking it down. But i've never trusted the anonymity of Glassdoor, which is why i've never personally left a review.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#406

Post by lolinder »

andkenneth wrote: post #227
surement wrote: post #99

This is interesting but a more accurate title would be "New Zealand law allows corporations to sue Glassdoor for user data." As the article notes: > statements of “pure opinion” are protected by the First Amendment in America. But New Zealand doesn’t have this. Statements of opinion are not categorically protected. That said, the warning that Glassdoor adds to the pages of companies that do this has to be the biggest…

New Zealand requires the opinion to be "honest opinion", in that you're not allowed to make up an opinion just to cause damage.

That law feels very abusable. How do you prove an opinion to be honest/dishonest? That I expressed a different opinion at other times doesn't mean anything, because opinions change all the time. If my opinion is that your company sucks, I may also want to cause damage, so my motives for posting a negative review can't be used to show the option is dishonest. What metric would a court use to decide?

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#407

Post by Beltalowda »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #389
Godel_unicode wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How will you prevent a company flagging unflattering reviews in an effort to get them hidden (companies will pop up offering these kind of services, employing multiple computers, botnets, etc.)?

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#408

Post by cal85 »

alkonaut wrote: post #262
Someone1234 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually a fantastic response. - Reminds reviewers to avoid libel, since it may undergo legal review. - Tells potential employees or customers that this is how the company responds to bad press/negativity (i.e. disproportionately). - Doesn't subject Glassdoor to potential libel since the statement is objectively true (see court records). Although I won't get too positive about Glassdoor as I've read negative r…

Reminder that libel vs truth is dependent on where you are. In the US you don’t risk libel when speaking the truth but there are places where this isn’t the case.

My understanding is that a statement can only be found to be libellous if it is false. If it’s true, it’s not libel.

You are saying this isn’t the case in some places outside the US. Which places, and how so?

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#409

Post by blantonl »

exabrial wrote: post #397

Where is glassdor located? If it’s not in New Zealand, what are the consequences of giving them the middle finger and saying “No, we will not comply; feel free to block us in your insignificant country”?

Glassdoor Execs could be charged and convicted in NZ, insuring they never could set foot in the country without being arrested.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#410

Post by lazide »

stareatgoats wrote: post #263
lazide wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t apply at all here?

> here I think you need to specify "here" to get an answer to that question.

The thread we are in about companies monitoring people accessing Glassdoor and penalizing them in various ways for using it to say things the company doesn’t consider flattering.

That has nothing to do with putting private email in a private folder on the company mail server, near as I can tell, and nothing in that statement would address the statement about companies monitoring use of company equipment and network etc.

Since they’d need to know even in the private email case what they folder names were, for instance, to know there even WAS private email.

Post reply on HN