3 ms·

We actually asked ourselves the same questions. The natural evolution of this tool would be to allow for reviews of recruiters/agencies. Regarding point 1) the

by chpmrc 8y ago

We actually asked ourselves the same questions. The natural evolution of this tool would be to allow for reviews of recruiters/agencies. Regarding point 1) there are ways to fight unjustified negative reviews (e.g. "I didn't get a job, this agency sucks!"), similarly to how they do on websites like Yelp. This is more of a community guided effort (unless we start actively moderating reviews, which is an option). For now we're focusing more on building a sort of index of "horror stories" involving recruiters but before releasing the data we'll make a big effort not to publish biased content or blatant lies. For point 2) We absolutely agree and we are still discussing how to release the data so that "nobody gets hurt", at least individually. You can keep in touch with us by adding your email address to the form (even if you don't want to share any story, although it would be much appreciated). Feel free to use a temporary email address or an alias.

devonkim 8y ago
I was working on a similar system for more general reviews and found that compared to fraudulent positive reviews negative reviews have a lot less incentives except against public figures and tend to be more honest as a result. With that said, protecting both the submitter and the accused of defamation can be accomplished partially with community moderation and aggressive redaction of as many identifying names as possible - companies are, however, not exempt (in fact, the primary key that I used for complaints). And to avoid unfair hive mind viral hits on characters, any review beyond a certain community reputation needs to be reviewed for validity and made clear to the community that the story is an allegation. Furthermore, I wanted to encourage more of a dialogue and similar to Yelp reviews, so if you are given a negative reputation you must be provided a means to defend yourself - and the status of defense must be made clear as well. For example, a statement can be made public, private (only to the person that originally wrote the review), “no comment,” or no response. If someone didn’t originally provide their contact info out of fears, the community should be made clear that it’s anonymous and will always remain so. However, protecting the information at your discretion until a certain reputation has been reached should provide more credibility as well. The hard part was trying to figure out how to contact the accused at a corporation for low-touch interactions because we tend to not have the same person repeatedly (hence why normally I just used the company, not individuals).
- chpmrc 8y ago
  All great points! I think we will have to face similar challenges. We're working on different options. One is along the lines of Glassdoor which allows companies to respond to reviews. If you have any references regarding the first paragraph I would be very interested, thanks!

by chpmrc 8y ago

devonkim 8y ago

I was working on a similar system for more general reviews and found that compared to fraudulent positive reviews negative reviews have a lot less incentives except against public figures and tend to be more honest as a result. With that said, protecting both the submitter and the accused of defamation can be accomplished partially with community moderation and aggressive redaction of as many identifying names as possible - companies are, however, not exempt (in fact, the primary key that I used for complaints). And to avoid unfair hive mind viral hits on characters, any review beyond a certain community reputation needs to be reviewed for validity and made clear to the community that the story is an allegation. Furthermore, I wanted to encourage more of a dialogue and similar to Yelp reviews, so if you are given a negative reputation you must be provided a means to defend yourself - and the status of defense must be made clear as well. For example, a statement can be made public, private (only to the person that originally wrote the review), “no comment,” or no response. If someone didn’t originally provide their contact info out of fears, the community should be made clear that it’s anonymous and will always remain so. However, protecting the information at your discretion until a certain reputation has been reached should provide more credibility as well. The hard part was trying to figure out how to contact the accused at a corporation for low-touch interactions because we tend to not have the same person repeatedly (hence why normally I just used the company, not individuals).

chpmrc 8y ago
All great points! I think we will have to face similar challenges. We're working on different options. One is along the lines of Glassdoor which allows companies to respond to reviews. If you have any references regarding the first paragraph I would be very interested, thanks!