4 ms·
Bit of a tangent, but a real question: If a writer doesn't approve of a site's behavior (in this case, Glassdoor is desribed as "a site that does not seem to mi
by pkteison 15y ago
Bit of a tangent, but a real question: If a writer doesn't approve of a site's behavior (in this case, Glassdoor is desribed as "a site that does not seem to mind when interview candidates violate NDAs"), why does the writer still link to them? Inbound links (w/o a nofollow) help sites, why help sites you don't like?
- access_denied 15y agoBecause on a conceptual level you are above that. Relevant links also improve the web. Also you may want to spare your inclined readers the fun of googleling the site for themselves.
- dtunkelang 15y agoPoint taken. I thought of not linking to them, or even not mentioning them. But they do play an important part in the story of the post, and I don't think I'm helping them so much as I'm raising employees' and employers' awareness of their existence. At least now a few more interviewers might check to see if their questions are posted there. From my limited data, interviewees are already more aware of Glassdoor than interviewers. As for feeding them page rank, I don't think I have so much to offer that it helps them materially.
- logic 15y ago> interviewees are already more aware of Glassdoor than interviewers My first amusing thought when reading this was to assume a correlation; ie. that interviewees who lean heavily on Glassdoor prior to interviewing do not eventually become intervewers.