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

A warning about Glassdoor

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 342 posts

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#81

Post by Apocryphon »

otoburb wrote: post #63
Dig1t wrote: post #32

This sounds like a market opportunity. If Glassdoor has pivoted to shilling for other corporations, someone should turn around and make a site that allows honest negative reviews of companies. Anyone interested?

I believe Team Blind does this and tries to deflect the gaming through blind anonymous reviews but where Blind validates the poster possesses a company email. The problem is that if it gets too successful then it's easy for companies to classify emails from the Team Blind domain as spam. Having said this, if that happens then that might already be a yellow flag on the part of the employee.

Blind also has a relentlessly negative tone that verges on toxic. Sometimes it's difficult separating the genuine opinions from the trolling.

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#82

Post by bryanlarsen »

nerdponx wrote: post #57
AlexandrB wrote: post #20

Every organization that accepts reviews from "users" about goods/services/employment provided by organizations eventually seems to run into a conflict of interest between their stated purpose and their finances. This is true of Yelp, BBB, and now, I guess, Glassdoor. This is why organizations like this are not a replacement for government enforced labor and consumer rights. Once an organization establishes a strong b…

How does Angie's List perform in this regard? The user (i.e. review writer/reader) pays, not the business being reviewed. In theory, that forces the incentives to align correctly.

No, they take money from service providers: https://www.angieslist.com/faq/how-does-angies-list-make-mon...

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#83

Post by ilaksh »

This should be unlawful if it already isn't.

So I hope there are legal pursuits.

And our government should be able to act.

If that's really not possible then maybe we can create an AI that makes fake accounts and starts to write something that looks like reviews but actually just explains that Glassdoor is being dishonest and relating specific examples such as in this thread. Or maybe a link to an anti-Glassdoor website.

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#84

Post by fogetti »

Wow. How can someone be so naive as the Reddit poster? It has been like this forever. Glassdoor in the US, Kununu in Germany, Vorkers in Japan are all company propaganda companies.

Also it's just my pet peeve but I hate it when people call this bullshit public relations. This is simply corporate brainwashing and propaganda and makes one wonder when did it become OK to use such tools as purposeful deceit (something that countries used in order to indoctrinate their population) in order to gain profit?

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#85

Post by mistermann »

alisonatwork wrote: post #15

My eyes opened to this after leaving my last company. They announced layoffs shortly after I quit and Glassdoor was inundated with a flood of long, detailed reviews expressing concern and unhappiness around all the issues that had caused me to leave voluntarily. The company's star rating dropped from 3.5ish to 3 and was trending down. Then, mysteriously, within the space of a week, almost all of the negative reviews…

> but the fakeness of the industry as a whole

It seems to me from reading the news that this charge can be increasingly levelled at larger portions of overall Western Civilization every day. It seems like a lot of wealthy and powerful people are simultaneously forgetting the simple lessons their parents taught them (I presume) when they were growing up.

I can't think of very few famous people or organizations nowadays that I'd nominate as being trustworthy and of "high moral character", it seems like rationalizing away behavior that would previously have been considered highly unethical is like the hip new craze...and why not I guess, it yields tremendous benefits, and has no costs (to the individual or company doing it) that I can see.

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#86

Post by reaperducer »

tuna-piano wrote: post #66

The problem with all review-centric companies is two fold: 1)Fake reviews are an actual hard problem to solve. Good reviews can really make or break your company so the incentive to game the systems is quite high. Positive reviews for your own company, negative reviews for your competitor, or cunningly, clearly fake positive reviews for competitors to get them in trouble with the review site. 2)Incentives lead these…

Fake reviews are an actual hard problem to solve

No, free reviews are a hard problem to solve. But it's been done before.

The reason there are famous restaurant and movie reviewers is because they are professionals paid enough by their publications to keep them honest.

The problem is that SV wants content, but doesn't want to pay for it. Spending money doesn't "scale." So the bubble solicits reviews from random people with no vetting. Garbage in, garbage out. "Crowdsourced" is just another word for "amateur."

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#87

Post by wincy »

reaperducer wrote: post #70
curtis3389 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's middle-ground between for-profit corporations and government. There are social purpose corporations, benefit corporations, non-profits, cooperatives, etc.

The reason that Consumer Reports is considered the gold standard for reviews is because it is a non-profit that does not accept money from anyone but its subscribers. Too bad people are so used to getting things for "free" on the web these days, or it could do a much better job.

I finally started subscribing to consumer reports. Every time something breaks now in my house I replace it with the top rated product from Consumer Reports. So far it’s going great.

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#88

Post by [deleted] »

alisonatwork wrote: post #15

My eyes opened to this after leaving my last company. They announced layoffs shortly after I quit and Glassdoor was inundated with a flood of long, detailed reviews expressing concern and unhappiness around all the issues that had caused me to leave voluntarily. The company's star rating dropped from 3.5ish to 3 and was trending down. Then, mysteriously, within the space of a week, almost all of the negative reviews…

[deleted]

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#89

Post by reaperducer »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #12
sippingjippers wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classic bait-and-switch. This essentially happens with every review site after they build up enough brand awareness to pull it off. I guess it happens because from the perspective of the company it makes total sense to try. Why earn pennies on the dollar from e.g. ad clicks when you can get huge lumpy (and possibly regular) payouts for much less work in much less time

> Why earn pennies on the dollar from e.g. ad clicks when you can get huge lumpy (and possibly regular) payouts for much less work in much less time When things are working well, the answer is because honesty is a better policy in the long run . Impartiality, and a reputation for impartiality, is why Which? still exists, at the age of 63. [0][1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Which%3F [1] https://www.which.co.uk/a…

because honesty is a better policy in the long run

SV doesn't optimize for the long run. It only cares about the next quarter, or until the buyout comes. Everyone knows the phrase "exit strategy," but nobody knows the phrase "quality and service."

In my experience, 1%† of the people in the SV bubble are doing it to make a quality product. They're just there to make a quick buck.

(† Less than 1% in the Seattle bubble)

Re: A warning about Glassdoor

#90

Post by everybodyknows »

reaperducer wrote: post #70
curtis3389 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's middle-ground between for-profit corporations and government. There are social purpose corporations, benefit corporations, non-profits, cooperatives, etc.

The reason that Consumer Reports is considered the gold standard for reviews is because it is a non-profit that does not accept money from anyone but its subscribers. Too bad people are so used to getting things for "free" on the web these days, or it could do a much better job.

Exactly. There's one other business model that might let the organization stay honest: Accept advertising, but only from unconflicted sources, such as online schools or resume polishers. But this feels like a shoestring business.
Post reply on HN