7 ms·

He is quite accurately pointing out that it's a system that is incredibly easy to game, AND that Glassdoor has no means or strong incentive to prevent inaccurat

He is quite accurately pointing out that it's a system that is incredibly easy to game, AND that Glassdoor has no means or strong incentive to prevent inaccurate reviews from flooding their system. That is a valid concern. Your comment is an ad hominem attack on the other hand. I frankly don't think recruiters care about Glassdoor - there are plenty of people who'll take a job at a company with a 'negative' rating, and those are the exact people who the company is looking for in the first place. Let's not forget - companies who actually care about hiring, don't outsource it to companies that you imply profit from 'information asymmetry'.

emodendroket 9y ago
Of course you have to put some effort into determining the reliability of the reviews you're seeing but it seems like an obvious improvement over not even having the option.
perl4ever 9y ago
I've had good experiences at companies with bad reviews, and bad experiences at companies with mediocre reviews. The fact that you can't take ratings at face value in a simplistic way in no way implies people are better off with less information. When my former employer accumulated too many bad reviews, they eliminated their poor rating by folding their Glassdoor presence into their (much larger) parent company. That's an effective gaming of the system. It still doesn't make the whole exercise useless though.