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

441–450 of 507 posts

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#441

Post by MikeTheGreat »

tpoacher wrote: post #430
m0th87 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. But it could be better: 1) This alert doesn't show up at all on mobile. 2) IMO this should either affect the overall score or be displayed in search results as well, which is not currently the case: https://www.glassdoor.com/Search/results.htm?keyword=ZURU

I didn't know this either. I stand corrected. Having said that, apart from what you also flagged, it's also a bit bland. Like "there's some legal stuff here, exercise caution". Instead the badge could have symbolic character, an emotive icon ... something. Something that strongly implies "Danger Will Robinson" without explicitly saying so. Something any company would want to avoid risking that thing showing next to t…

I hear what you're saying, and I think that it would be good to have more clear language, particularly for people new to white-collar employment (which, I imagine, would be a good portion of Glassdoor's audience)(people with more established careers can check Glassdoor AND ask people in their network, whereas people new to the industry may lack/have less of the professional network).

That said, at least here in the US, a carefully-bland legal statement strongly implies what you're looking for. Like, the more bland, the bigger the warning sign :)

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#442

Post by wutbrodo »

dhosek wrote: post #418
tpoacher wrote: post #415

This is actually an amazing opportunity for Glassdoor. Just put a "badge" next to companies known to sue employees who post reviews on Glassdoor. No reviews are even needed from that point on to signify a shitty company; for all anyone knows all negative reviews may have been taken down through legal action, but the badge stays, signifying that there was at least one review so damaging that they had to get lawyers in…

Except where’s the money in that for Glassdoor? Glassdoor makes money from job listings and it’s in their interests to have positive reviews of companies as that’s going to get companies to pay for job listings because they’ll get more/better applicants if they have positive reviews.

The foundation of the site's usefulness is that the ratings have some signal. The value of job listings to a Glassdoor user is that they're from companies that Glassdoor rates as positive: an undifferentiated mass of ratings would be a completely useless site. The idea that they have no incentive to improve discriminativity (at the expense of company rating) proves way too much.

Eg by that logic, Yelp would have no incentive to allow bad reviews. Hell, they could just be a listing site that puts "5 stars (10,000 reviews)" next to every listing.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#443

Post by kmcnoble »

Glassdoor makes you fill out your own company review in order to view others. However you actually don’t know how anonymous they are and if there is a way to find who wrote it as it can present legal risks to employees

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#444

Post by S_A_P »

Question- how does a company like Zuru think this is a good idea? Suing a former employee because they left a negative review doesn’t exactly give me warm fuzzies. Is this just a case of C level megalomania?

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#446

Post by dllthomas »

Sparkle-san wrote: post #153
dragonwriter wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does this mean you can say whatever you want in the US without risking be labeled libel? No. The question of whether a claim is of opinion or fact is itself an objective question of fact. “Donald Trump is an evil man” is a opinion claim, and cannot be libel. “Donald Trump murdered his bastard son” is a fact claim and could (potentially) be libel.

Something to note is that the standard for defamation is higher in the US if you're a public figure such as a politician and requires you to prove actual malice. So if someone truly believed that Hillary Clinton was part of a satanic pedophile ring and told others as such, it would be almost impossible to successfully sue them.

Though note that the legal use of the term "actual malice" isn't quite what one might expect from the plain English.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#447

Post by silvestrov »

tpoacher wrote: post #430
m0th87 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's interesting, I didn't know they did that. But it could be better: 1) This alert doesn't show up at all on mobile. 2) IMO this should either affect the overall score or be displayed in search results as well, which is not currently the case: https://www.glassdoor.com/Search/results.htm?keyword=ZURU

I didn't know this either. I stand corrected. Having said that, apart from what you also flagged, it's also a bit bland. Like "there's some legal stuff here, exercise caution". Instead the badge could have symbolic character, an emotive icon ... something. Something that strongly implies "Danger Will Robinson" without explicitly saying so. Something any company would want to avoid risking that thing showing next to t…

I think it should also be below the ZURU logo. Right now it looks like a generic warning for the site (e.g. "Glassdoor goes offline for maintenance in 5 mins")

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#448

Post by happyopossum »

babyshake wrote: post #137
atwood22 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s a managed corporate laptop that uses Chrome, then they could remotely check the browser history, likely directly to the review itself.

If you sign into a personal Google account on a new Chrome profile on a managed laptop, can they get access to your entire Google account (drive, emails, etc.) remotely? Can they use an auth token or something to automate the process of downloading all your data? If so, is this legal?

Not specifically through Chrome (managed chrome does not give your employer access to incognito or personal profile data), but if it's a company owned and issued laptop you should assume they have other ways of capturing all activity on the device.

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#449

Post by deadbunny »

patrec wrote: post #303
exodust wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry what? It's trivial to get an email address from legit email provider, create alias addresses, then sign up to something like Glassdoor using VPN. The only thing Glassdoor will know about you is your email address, which is not easily traced back to your real ID if you don't want it to be. Particularly for low level "crime" like negative reviews.

How certain are you that in all jurisdictions where an (ex-)employer can get an injunction to force glassdoor to reveal the email address they wouldn't be able to get the legit email provider to reveal your true identity?

Glassdoor provides the email `ilikebigbutts@gmail.com`, Google only have VPN/Public WiFi IPs for that account because I'm not an idiot who put my real details into the Google Account.

Not sure I see the problem. They gonna subpoena Starbucks to get the (now probably long deleted) security footage for the time the negative review was posted?

Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous

#450

Post by aaaaaaaaata »

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.

Sounds like you've never derived valuable information from 4chan.
Post reply on HN