4 ms·

Why cherry pick 1 review? You could've copied the more representative aggregation of reviews: Pros: "Riot is a great place for gamers" (in 79 reviews) "Cares

by Reedx 7y ago

Why cherry pick 1 review? You could've copied the more representative aggregation of reviews: Pros: "Riot is a great place for gamers" (in 79 reviews) "Cares about Rioters: Riot has fantastic perks because they want to keep the talent (that's us) happy" (in 67 reviews) "Best free food I’ve eaten, benefits are great, and there is a lot of opportunity if you are willing to work for it" (in 40 reviews) "people that play League of Legends each month" (in 38 reviews) "The company is obsessively player-focused" (in 32 reviews) Cons: "work/life balance can be an issue if you don't know how to handle it" (in 66 reviews) "Some Rioters lack a sense of appreciation" (in 59 reviews) "Growing pains: Flat organizational structure doesn't work well when you start to hit 3k people" (in 32 reviews) "Tends to over-value pedigree from ivy league and mbas" (in 28 reviews)

teej 7y ago
Review volume is not a useful indicator. HR departments actively lobby employees to write positive reviews. These will always outnumber the honest reviews.
- Reedx 7y ago
  Cherry picking 1 review is a much less useful indicator. And there's no way to know if it's an honest one. Nor is there a way to know which ones were solicited or not. So the closest you're going to get to usefulness is seeing what the common pros and cons are.
  - cosmotic 7y ago
    The cherry picked review is consistent with the numerous horror stories from the industry.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      But I’m not sure that fact makes it any more credible. Wouldn’t a fake reviewer naturally draw from the known horror stories?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
keanzu 7y ago
> "Some Rioters lack a sense of appreciation" (in 59 reviews) This phrasing immediately struck me as odd so I went looking for an actual review: 'Some Rioters lack a sense of appreciation. Some Rioters, particularly those who have never worked a "real job," do not seem to appreciate what Riot offers them.' Smells like astroturfing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  The parent comment smells like outrage mongering. How could I know that you didn’t post it yourself? All the reviews are equally unreliable, you can’t just pick out the ones that you like.
  - keanzu 7y ago
    > How could I know that you didn’t post it yourself? You can't? How could anyone else know that I didn't write "smells like outrage mongering", maybe I enjoy arguing with myself. The only people who know for sure are you and I ... if we are even two different people, maybe you are my sock puppet, maybe I am yours. Who can prove that we are or aren't? Assuming that I did write every comment in the entire tree - what difference does that make to any of the arguments?
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      All perfectly reasonably points. Which is why anecdata should generally not be taken very seriously. Especially when the author of it has some seriously questionable motives, which is the case with Glassdoor. The two groups of people who have the strongest motive to post something on Glassdoor are disgruntled employees (and an employee can become disgruntled in any work place, no matter how good or how terrible it might be), and astroturfers (and perhaps also competitors, but I have no idea how good they are at policing that). It has exactly the same set of problems that any review site has. Perhaps it’s aggregate data can reveal some truths, perhaps not. But a single review (especially one that is either strongly negative or strongly positive) reveals nothing.
elcomet 7y ago
All those cons actually seem like disguisedd pros: > Some Rioters lack a sense of appreciation So what riot offers is amazing, but some employees don't know how to appreciate it (but you, you will of course) > Growing pains: They talk of the flat organization which is a selling point to some people > Tends to over-value ivy league and mbas That's what ivy league and mbas (people they're trying to recruit) want to hear..
- tapland 7y ago
  That's the point when astroturfing. Make the cons attractive.
ulfw 7y ago
Having been at several companies where management and/or HR actively 'encouraged' people to post 5star Glassdoor reviews I now dismiss every single 5star review (and look at 4stars critically).

by Reedx 7y ago

teej 7y ago

Review volume is not a useful indicator. HR departments actively lobby employees to write positive reviews. These will always outnumber the honest reviews.

Reedx 7y ago
Cherry picking 1 review is a much less useful indicator. And there's no way to know if it's an honest one. Nor is there a way to know which ones were solicited or not. So the closest you're going to get to usefulness is seeing what the common pros and cons are.
- cosmotic 7y ago
  The cherry picked review is consistent with the numerous horror stories from the industry.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    But I’m not sure that fact makes it any more credible. Wouldn’t a fake reviewer naturally draw from the known horror stories?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

keanzu 7y ago

> "Some Rioters lack a sense of appreciation" (in 59 reviews) This phrasing immediately struck me as odd so I went looking for an actual review: 'Some Rioters lack a sense of appreciation. Some Rioters, particularly those who have never worked a "real job," do not seem to appreciate what Riot offers them.' Smells like astroturfing.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
AmericanChopper 7y ago
The parent comment smells like outrage mongering. How could I know that you didn’t post it yourself? All the reviews are equally unreliable, you can’t just pick out the ones that you like.
- keanzu 7y ago
  > How could I know that you didn’t post it yourself? You can't? How could anyone else know that I didn't write "smells like outrage mongering", maybe I enjoy arguing with myself. The only people who know for sure are you and I ... if we are even two different people, maybe you are my sock puppet, maybe I am yours. Who can prove that we are or aren't? Assuming that I did write every comment in the entire tree - what difference does that make to any of the arguments?
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    All perfectly reasonably points. Which is why anecdata should generally not be taken very seriously. Especially when the author of it has some seriously questionable motives, which is the case with Glassdoor. The two groups of people who have the strongest motive to post something on Glassdoor are disgruntled employees (and an employee can become disgruntled in any work place, no matter how good or how terrible it might be), and astroturfers (and perhaps also competitors, but I have no idea how good they are at policing that). It has exactly the same set of problems that any review site has. Perhaps it’s aggregate data can reveal some truths, perhaps not. But a single review (especially one that is either strongly negative or strongly positive) reveals nothing.

elcomet 7y ago

All those cons actually seem like disguisedd pros: > Some Rioters lack a sense of appreciation So what riot offers is amazing, but some employees don't know how to appreciate it (but you, you will of course) > Growing pains: They talk of the flat organization which is a selling point to some people > Tends to over-value ivy league and mbas That's what ivy league and mbas (people they're trying to recruit) want to hear..

tapland 7y ago
That's the point when astroturfing. Make the cons attractive.

ulfw 7y ago

Having been at several companies where management and/or HR actively 'encouraged' people to post 5star Glassdoor reviews I now dismiss every single 5star review (and look at 4stars critically).