321–329 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We built this tool as part of HiringSolved. Other signals included time in current position relative to industry average and personal history.
Can you tell us more? What signals should I be worried about employers looking at?
So there's that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, and the problem is that if you try to start a bootstrapped company to compete with Glassdoor without ever taking funding, you’ll be outspent on marketing by the companies that did take funding and you’ll go under. There’s a reason so many of these sites are VC funded even when it feels like they shouldn’t be. And VCs are often willing to fund things with a 1% chance of success, so even if multiple VC-backed com…
Why is it impossible for communities to emerge organically in 2024? Why must you raise and spend $20m on marketing alone? I found Reddit literally through organic word-of-mouth when Digg went under. Never saw an ad for it in my life. Why does a Glassdoor alternative inherently need marketing?
levels and blind sort of feels that way, but that's part of the issue:
1. these kinds of sites are a paradox in that you want employees to be anonymous but also verified. So you can't just spin up a site in a week and have valuable data
2. despite the comparisons, I'm sure both levels and blind were in fact vc funded. The models feels indie but it probably isn't. But they did their part for SEO and marketing and yadda yadda. So it got the eyeballs it needed before word of mouth set in
>Why does a Glassdoor alternative inherently need marketing?
to be frank, because most people don't try very hard to find the grassroots. They are lazy and will take the first thing that looks good on Google.
Wow, in the EU one email to the local data protection office would set them on fire for this.
Be sure to select “show more sites” in the sites selection.
And for Glassdoor, bottom of this page:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazing what people are willing to trade in exchange for a fat salary with decent benefits. Even if it means trading their moral code.
Really? You think this is that bad? I always said “at least we’re not building weapons we are trying to get people jobs (or keep them in jobs)” But aside from weapons, if you think building a retention tool for HR is bad, you certainly should not ever look at AdTech or the types of things insurance companies are doing from a data perspective. Or ah hem… Palatir for example.
If everyone in my country decided to stop working in or sponsoring the arms industry, we'd be invaded by an authoritarian dictatorship tomorrow.
If in contrast we all summarily banned these aspiring social credit tools, the negative side effects would be negligible to nonexistent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It looks fake and everyone knows that. Sometimes I wonder if being fake is seen as pejorative as it used to be. I mean the whole "social media influencer" thing is super fake, but people seem to eat that shit up and a depressing number of kids aspire to be one.
You're missing that plenty of people lack the intelligence, education, media literacy etc to actually recognize that "fake"ness. You can still pull in a hundred grand scamming people on instagram by posting a selfie with a rented or parked Lambo and a caption reading "Send me and I'll double it and show you how to be rich just like me!!!" There are people on this very forum who are 100% subscribed to the "if you work…
It doesn't guarantee that you will make it, but certainly increases your chances.