Upvoted. > But a single review reveals nothing. Agreed. The top comment presents a single review. Anecdata, little informational value - outrage mongering, fa

Upvoted. > But a single review reveals nothing. Agreed. The top comment presents a single review. Anecdata, little informational value - outrage mongering, fair point. That was responded to by Reedx who disputed the value of a single review (ok) and presented what was implied to be a broader cross-section of reviews. One of those felt peculiar, not phrasing I would expect in 59 independent reviews. I dug up the only sample I could find and smelled astroturf. Although my comment was negative I didn't address the point: "Why cherry pick 1 review?". Perhaps I should have opened by agreeing with Reedx that ancedata != data. Perhaps we can both agree to: Is Glassdoor a reliable and unbiased (including selection bias) source of information? Hell no. Did I contribute in some part to the outrage mongering by not affirming Reedx's good point and writing a wholly negative reply? Yes.