Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. You are right. That is not extortion.
It's still extortion.
Nope
A warning about Glassdoor
291–300 of 342 posts
Re: A warning about Glassdoor
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems to me that the bad reviews were published on the site regardless of their offer. So I can't see how is this extortion. Extortion would be along the lines of "we publish some made up bad reviews unless you pay".
Extortion is a weird crime if you think about it. You ask people for money to not do something that's in itself legal. It's a topic ripe for tortured moral philosophy :)
People here for some reason think that throwing around legal terms based on gut feelings is somehow the start of civil discussion. And I tend to correct those people. That's all. Extortion is a legal term and it's pretty well defined compared to other crimes. And this is not extortion. I can recommend all commenters who downvoted to go and denounce the offence of extortion and see for themselves what happens. I for one would love to see it to have a good laugh :D
Re: A warning about Glassdoor
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Glassdoor is just corporate Yelp. I think this is the inevitable fate of all for-profit review sites which become popular. The incentives just don't align.
Some of the ways Glasdoor can make money by being ethical * Ask users to sign up for their job seeker plan to see the complete company interview questions/experiences. * Create an API and charge websites for giving access to their reviews score, salary data etc. * Charge money for job postings from companies who have decent reviews and want to post on Glassdoor. * Provide a paid dasbhoard for companies that will give…
I see a lot of potential legal liability for posters and/or companies here. They're not bad ideas, per se, but why even try that hard when you can just take money to remove bad reviews or inflate ratings?
Again, misaligned incentives between one group of users (people) and the other group of users (businesses), while trying to act as a middle-man. The key is that one group of users has the upper hand in terms of 'investment' into the platform.
... until one group (people) grows increasingly disillusioned and skeptical and the other group (businesses) sense an opportunity to start up another iteration and the balance skews towards the other group (people)... until...
So it goes.
Re: A warning about Glassdoor
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
4.2 in SF location. So this is very good info. That's the baseline. Below 4.2 => DO NOT CONSIDER. I know on ebay and amazon I do not buy from sellers under 99.6%, as an absolute minimum. It's ok for the system to be gamed, as long as one can understand the rules.
A bit of a tangent, but I feel like I have also created an artificial scale on a rating system myself. I use Untappd to score beers. But it turns out there is a pretty wide variety of beer that I like so most of them end up as 4 +/- 0.5 our of 5. But I'm not the only one. The overall rating system most beers end up in the 3.5 to 4.5 range. Where 4.5 becomes "oh my god, these brewers are doing incredible things with t…
Ah not far off from the scale used by video game critic site IGN:
“This game is trash” - 8/10
Re: A warning about Glassdoor
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've come full circle. Word of mouth is all you can trust. The Internet as a great "disintermediation" medium is over.
From this I get you mean "word of mouth" in a very physical way? As in "my cousin Jane says..."? Because "Word of mouth" over the internet would imply that The Internet still has a big role to play in disintermediation. Would "reviews" from your network, any network, physical, or digital, of people you know, be valuable? I believe that a "review" is only useful if you know the reviewer well enough. Regardless of the…
It’s always the same issue; trust doesn’t scale. You need to trust whoever is providing the review, there is no easy way to magically make a bunch of random reviews trustworthy.
Re: A warning about Glassdoor
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blockchain! Proving that reviews haven't been removed might actually make this a real application for a blockchain.
Problem is, you will be forced by courts to remove some reviews for the usual reasons, making you instantly untrustworthy
You can publish data dumps and the internet will do the rest. I'm sure there are more than enough people out there who might either not care about the law or are located outside of that jurisdiction who would be more than happy to call out a scummy company when their existing bad reviews suddenly disappear from the latest data dumps.
Re: A warning about Glassdoor
#297I had always suspected that Glassdoor would eventually succumb to this. Every metric is a gamed metric, after all. Why would Glassdoor be immune to this? Companies have very little to lose from bullying employees into leaving fake positive reviews. Yet they have much to lose from true negative reviews. I have checked every workplace on Glassdoor prior to applying, taking things with a pinch of salt / applying some aw…
> Companies have very little to lose from bullying employees into leaving fake positive reviews.
Glassdoor can always fix this problem by implementing a "ban hammer" system where if multiple employees provides credible evidence of a company forcing them to post fake reviews then the company permanently has a black mark on their Glassdoor page (and future reviews are disabled, so they can't even fight back with more fake reviews).
Re: A warning about Glassdoor
#298Glassdoor explicitly denies that they allow employers to pay to remove negative reviews. See this FAQ on their website: https://help.glassdoor.com/article/Can-employers-pay-Glassdo... I am not offering an opinion on this. I am just noting what Glassdoor itself has to say about this.
This directly contradicts what the article says. The FAQ item is dated September 2019. The Reddit article is 9 hours old as I write in October 2020.
The followup here, strongly suggests other un-related people have been called, even cold-called, and offered by people puporting to be glassdoor, to wipe the problem.
I agree you aren't offering an opinion and I value that. I would also value some commentary to my note: What do people think, about what people said on reddit, and said here, regarding this, and what glassdoor said in September 2019?
I know what I think: I do not believe this policy is well enforced, and I believe the posters who say they were invited to pay to clear their record. You notice they do not have "report breach here" links on that FAQ item. They do disclaim it has legal force.
It may of course be unscrupulous non C* staff, or it may be intermediaries mis-representing their role, e.g. SEO leeches.
Re: A warning about Glassdoor
#299You can't trust ratings that you aren't paying to read. The business model for these review sites are all the same: be useful for long enough to corner the market, then institute a pay-to-clean policy. Sprinkle in a few fake negative reviews for those tough to close leads. The revenue they can extract for the businesses listed on their sites is much higher than what they could achieve through ad revenue alone.
The dark web markets actually figured out a good way to solve reviews. 1. Only people who bought a product can review it. 2. the review includes how much was paid. 3. Heavily encourage everyone who buys the product to review it.
> Only people who bought a product can review it.
Can't this still be gamed? Why can't a merchant just buy their own product and get the bulk of their money back, essentially buying fake reviews for the cost of the market's commission/payment processing fees.
Re: A warning about Glassdoor
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
You usually build a chain of hashes of messages, not of the messages themselves. Meaning that you can delete the message, leaving evidence of the deletion in the form of a lonely hash in the chain.
Yes, but if uncensorability is a feature you want, there's nothing stopping you (other than the enormous cost[1]) from using the messages themselves. [1]: Not necessarily a deal-breaker. For perspective, consider that a 10-word transatlantic telegram in 1860 cost the equivalent of $2600 in 2013 USD.
Another solution is to store a URL and a integer score (so you can rank companies). The longest URL I was able to get through CloudFlare recently was about two thousand characters but most will be much smaller. If someone wants the review taken down they can talk to whomever is hosting the content. Tweets, Medium articles, Facebook posts etc could hold the review content itself. Want to take down 5 unfavorable reviews, then write 5 letters to 5 different companies.