24 ms·
Layoffs push down scores on Glassdoor – how companies respond
- hankchinaski 3y agoGlassdoor has become pretty much useless as a source, especially salaries and now reviews
- marcinzm 3y agoThey require you to add a salary/review every year to keep using the site but don't verify anything. So it's actually easier to put in some fake numbers than bother putting in real ones.
- __turbobrew__ 3y agoLevels.fyi for salaries and blind for reviews is what I have been doing for a while now.
- cebert 3y agoDo people generally still put any value in Glassdoor reviews? These types of behaviors on the site aren’t new.
- hardware2win 3y agoI think the only reviews I somewhat value are Steam reviews
- Etheryte 3y agoThe only review I trust for any company is a random stranger commenting on HN.
- rightbyte 3y agoThere are alot of threads about X where there are kinda probable insiders writing lame positive stuff about the X thing. Like "that is really cool" or interested leading questions about it, when there is no way people here would naturally write it in such an optimistic manner.
- oblio 3y agoI have bad news for you, marketing teams and co have alerts set up for key words and there's a reason tech evangelists exist. HN is actively targeted for advertising.
- saagarjha 3y agoYou don’t even need advertising for this place to be useless. Do you think everyone singing the praises for e.g. Rust here is using it in production?
- Etheryte 3y agoThis is true for any large website and doesn't reduce the value of said comments in my opinion. It's pretty easy to distinguish a honest summary of a company from marketing praise.
- passwordoops 3y agoYes, especially non-engineers, like everyone in my family. It's why every HR I've encountered has asked employees to put a positive review on the site
- maccard 3y agoYes. I treat Glassdoor reviews the same as I do hotel reviews or restaurant reviews - look at the reviews where people are positive but have criticisms, and look to see if those criticisms have a trend in the reviews (or if some reviews even tell people that thing is a positive - "difficult work life balance" "high pressure rewarding environment) If they're all positive (or negative) then that's a sign there's something wrong.
- lordnacho 3y ago[flagged]
- ggm 3y agoGod give me strength, this is patronising. Do you really believe only the HN cognoscenti know they're being gamed?
- etothepii 3y agoNo, but I do believe that working with computers all day rewires your brain.
- lordnacho 3y agoIt's not meant to be patronizing, it's just a fact that people who spend a bunch of time reading about tech are going to hear about things before people who don't. It also makes sense that reviews would have signal. It's not like people are dumb, they were just born in an earlier world where reviews would actually have some reputation attached to them. Movies, restaurants, concerts, that kind of stuff would be reviewed by someone capable of writing and filtered through a newspaper editor. Now things have changed and it takes some time for everyone to figure it out.
- 2devnull 3y agoIf reviews “have some signal” then wouldn’t it be more clever to learn to make use of that signal rather than dismiss as entirely worthless?
- lordnacho 3y agoI said it makes sense that they have signal, not that they have signal. Like it makes sense that shaving makes your beard grow, it just turns out not be what actually happens.
- neilv 3y agoIn this particular case... HNers tend to be familiar with tech industry business models and investment models, more than the average person who doesn't work in tech. So I think it's plausible we'll tend to have a somewhat better awareness of the dynamics around reviews that are posted online. (But I don't think we're more savvy about the world in general. If anything, we tend to have STEM-like narrower exposure to the world than many, coupled with the overconfidence that comes from income level.)
- knallfrosch 3y agoYes, ignore all ratings and read the review content. You can spot pain points, such as missing remote-flexibility, or bad incentives, or impossible deadlines, or bad equipment, or lousy onboarding, micromanagement, meetings late in the day, racism (like in Tesla factories).. Reading reviews helps you understand what you should pay attention to. You might take some things for granted that the company completely violates. You can then use your knowledge to ask specific questions during the job interview. Like: "What's your remote work policy and please put 5 days at home in my contract." Or you could spot the open office with old computers. As Tolstoy put it: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" And it's up to you to spot a specific unhappiness at any given company.
- clnq 3y agoYes, I mostly look at critical reviews and really pay attention to things mentioned by a few employees in different words. I usually do this while interviewing, so I am only interested in the negative takes as the company will readily tell me every positive aspect they can boast of. Just apply a bit of common sense to the comments and they will be a great source of insight. Some things they say can even be verified elsewhere (like if people from management keep getting into harassment lawsuits, if the company mistreats its clients, and similar).
- thejackgoode 3y agoGlassdoor is one good candidate for "disruption". Anyone knows a competing alternative for a global workplace review website?
- scrame 3y agoBlind, but I can't imagine why anyone would trust a site that requires you to register with your work email.
- capableweb 3y agoBlind is nothing like Glassdoor, two very different platforms which seemingly two very different goals.
- cornercasechase 3y agoReally? Because Blind seems like a much better Glassdoor if your goal is to understand what it’s actually like inside a company.
- capableweb 3y agoBlind requires you to have a company email in order to even participate, meaning if you left the company, you no longer can sign up for Blind. So if you want to review a company, how would you? Blind also targets having communities for people inside companies to talk, and facilitating discussion. Glassdoor is mainly about reviewing companies.
- cornercasechase 3y agoIf I want to know if a company is toxic, Blind is a lot more useful than Glassdoor. People will speak the truth while they’re at the company.
- pmoriarty 3y ago
- mytailorisrich 3y agoMy experience is this: "Companies encouraging staff to leave more positive reviews is a common way to increase the score." I see many reviews that are complete positive BS and are aimed at increasing the company's score, either to offset previous bad reviews, or because the company is hiring and wants to look good. I would not say that this is "smart"... You might get people to accept offers but if the work environment is bad they'll leave so the end result is just to increase turnover and to trash the company's reputation (which will make hiring more difficult). IMHO companies should forget about Glassdoor reviews and focus on the actual work environment. But of course the reality is that the Glassdoor score is a nice, simple metric that HR can boast about improving... so that's what happens, instead.
- aziaziazi 3y agoI wish more companies also focus on their product instead of their marketing. In reality the money is a simple (and desirable) metric and become the only one as soon as market is reach. Like if the new moto would be « create a great product until it sells ».
- soco 3y agoAs a job seeker I would not just look at the general score - that's a very poor preparation for interviews. I would recommend reading the reviews and I'd start with the bad. Most of this will be obviously disgruntled nonsense but at some point you start getting real information as unhappy people have less reluctance to share.
- mytailorisrich 3y agoThe thing is that it's all the same package: Good scores and glowing reviews that have little to do with reality. I agree that it is useful to seek the bad reviews to check how their content compares with the good ones, but I think it's very difficult to get an accurate picture overall.
- eastbound 3y agoEven with the best intentions, no-one can make a good picture of anything in life, because there are so many different facets, even two team members can experience the same work as an opportunity for careers or a stressful experience with a boss expecting too much. The bad reviews show the failure modes of the company.
- jschuur 3y agoCan GlassDoor visualize a company's score over time, including the amount of removed reviews to highlight when companies try and improve their score by getting reviews removed?
- capableweb 3y agoThe perception of neutrality is very important for platforms like Glassdoor, otherwise no one would trust it. Showing any sort of visualization that would reveal that they remove reviews would be bad for this.
- rvba 3y agoIt can but it won't.
- mercurialsolo 3y agoAnonymity completely destroys the fabric of glassdoor reviews being trustworthy. There definitely is an opportunity to have a more open and transparent feedback culture built around this system of employee - employer relations. In an era where we are going to see more of tech jobs disappearing (AI and automation kicking in), the effect of maintaining a glassdoor presence is no longer even meaningful for new age companies. For prospective employees, having a meaningful way to have feedback from current employees is a solution that does need to be in place.
- hathym 3y agothat is why I only read bad reviews.
- steveBK123 3y agoHR has long since figured out how to game Glassdoor. A good metrics is # of reviews versus # of employees. You'll see some companies with such high numbers, that somehow 10% of current employees have left glowing reviews. Digging deeper they are mostly "less than 1 year" and terse "good company" type reviews.
- blitzar 3y ago> terse "good company" type reviews "I am in good health and have been well treated and fed since my abduction"
- analognoise 3y ago>> terse "good company" type reviews >"I am in good health and have been well treated and fed since my abduction" I make sure to watch for blinked messages, like T-O-R-T-U-R-E https://youtu.be/rufnWLVQcKg https://youtu.be/rufnWLVQcKg
- Silhouette 3y agoDigging deeper they are mostly "less than 1 year" and terse "good company" type reviews. Some of the practices described in the article are simply fraud or gagging. Where that kind of behaviour is not explicitly illegal already it probably should be. Preventing employees from giving honest and factually correct feedback about their employers is almost never in the public interest. That's not even an anti-business position because preventing fair criticism of bad employers is also against the interests of other employers who don't do those bad things.
- danjac 3y agoIf I see a company with only a list of 5 star reviews, I know something sketchy is going on and they're written by HR flunkies.
- davedx 3y agoRoughly matches my experiences with how reviews work on AirBNB, which I’m not allowed to talk about because of their legal dept.
- etothepii 3y agoDoes this help the company long term? Surely the cognitive disconnect of reading that the company is awesome and then finding out it's awful leads people to quit?
- jmyeet 3y agoThis should surprise precisely no one. It's called the Yelp business model and it's been around for 10-15 years. You allow paying customers to remove bad reviews. Shocker. In Yelp's case, you also give paying customers better search visibility. It's never as straightforward as "if you pay, you can remove bad reviews". It's always couched in some form of plausible deniability, like reviews that violate a ToS or community guidelines in some nebulous way.
- knallfrosch 3y agoAlso, there's noone combats fake positive reviews on these sites. Glassdoor won't upset the company buying the fake reviews, the company won't review it and users aren't allowed to.
- raymondgh 3y agoIf you work or worked at a startup, wouldn’t you want to leave a positive review regardless of your experience in order to increase the odds of your equity being worth anything?
- hankchinaski 3y agoLike if leaving a positive review on glass door has any meaningful effect on your equity
- lastangryman 3y agoSurely a simple solution here is for Glassdoor to show removed reviews with a simple placeholder text and a reason for removal. Glassdoor could also account for these in its overall rankings, and show a graph plotting number of removals against time. That way companies legitimately removing invalid reviews can continue to do so, but those gaming the system would have that activity show up. If they plotted submitted reviews as well you could see when these periods of mass removals and "forced" positive reviews happened. Glassdoor could also provide a short summary of "X reviews removed in the last Y days - this is lower/higher/inline with the average". All of this is easily within the power of Glassdoor to do and keeps the platform fair for both parties.
- lozenge 3y agoGlassdoor runs a job board, they want the appearance of neutrality not the actual achievement of it.
- ritzaco 3y agoYou think glassdoor wants to be fair to both parties when one party (business) pays them in order to help exploit the other party (employee)? Maybe it sounds cynical, but that is the business model.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoI've been designing a worker-owned (both the startup and the user data owned by those 'worker' users) Glassdoor alternative. Wonder about how to grow interest in it. Pay sharing is another useful feature of Glassdoor that could be done better in a worker-centric way. Another aspect of it is to refer/resell self-hosting for users to completely own their own data (such as Bunny CDN which has very wallet-friendly prepaid schemes and a referral program) so they don't have to worry about what the service owner does. It would then be a kind of decentralized network of mini Glassdoors about the workers current or past employers, where one worker would spin it up and their peers can use. Each would decide what to leave public-facing and private-facing for the workers, and could even monetize for the workers via selling their data as Glassdoor does for things like market comp survey data so that workers could privately share comp data amongst each other and publicly sell access to extra anonymized summaries of that data. This would be tied together into a user friendly iOS/macOS app to manage the deployment of the site. How does that sound?
- anothernewdude 3y ago> My company is removing Glassdoor reviews So Glassdoor is useless then.
- softwaredoug 3y agoGeneral rule of thumb for all reviews is to ignore the star ratings, read the most helpful negative reviews. Think critically about them. See if there are themes or if they’re being unreasonable.
- marcinzm 3y agoI've found this to be pretty indicative of company cultures and issues based on companies I've worked at.
- Silhouette 3y agoAlthough if the reviewed party has any significant ability to influence what the review system shows - which appears to be the case here - then the whole thing is compromised so you can't really trust anything about it at all. The most helpful negative reviews might no longer be there and only ones that look like someone being unreasonable remain for example.
- layer8 3y agoCompanies hiring unreasonable people might still be a signal. ;)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- armchairhacker 3y agoThe article says pretty much all of the reviews which got removed were the unreasonable ones (rude language, unfounded accusations, and TOS violations). Albeit according to the HR reps, but with context it sounds believable.
- Silhouette 3y agoThe article also describes numerous unethical-at-best practices that some companies have used to skew reviews positively. Some of those practices were ways to beat the system so that potentially legitimate reviews might get removed on one of the reasonable-looking grounds.
- rybosworld 3y agoA truly honest review site seems like one of the toughest open problems to solve.
- francisofascii 3y agoGlassdoor reviews are filled with subjective phrases that are so meaningless. Comments like "great work/life balance" doesn't offer much information . A more useful approach would be to have users enter more objective figures. For example: "Typical office hours: 9-6, Weekends worked per year: 4, Pager evenings per month: 2, meeting hours per week: 10. Remote days per week: 3, etc.
- voidfunc 3y agoNot surprised. I remember a startup I was at telling employees several years ago to leave five star reviews. When I left I provided a good review as well to avoid any potential for bridge burning since at certain sizes its obvious who is leaving certain reviews.
- Madmallard 3y agocompanies should not able to do anything other than raise a complaint when it seems like they’re being unfairly review-bombed
- Eumenes 3y agoCompanies bribe Glassdoor and those "best places to work" lists with fees, ability to remove negative reviews, etc. Hacker news/Blind/Reddit seem to be better for discussing how its like to work at a company . .. for now
- avidphantasm 3y agoSo Glassdoor is running a sort of (reputation) protection racket against employers while simultaneously running a potential honey pot against employees. Brilliant.
- pierat 3y agoI treat Glassdoor reviews like Amazon reviews. I immediately go to the 1 and 2 stars, and read all the negative reviews. I then look for trends in those negatives. If I see no real trend, and instead people being dumb, I ignore them. If I see distinct trends of faulty thing, or fails to perform, then I know to avoid. I assume (well, rightfully so) that any 4's and 5's are gamified and or just outright fraudulent. Companies who run these review sections are directly complicit, and usually rely on these ratings to "make the sale" or otherwise hold mind share. There's not much we can do here. Just hope we hit jackpot on the employer lottery.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- scottLobster 3y agoThe flip side: There are always bad apples at any company. The negative reviews may be legit, but not relevant to the manager/program you'd be working under. As someone who's worked at a 100k+ employees company, there were literally dozens of programs in the same building living largely separate/parallel existences. Unless the reviews called out a program/manager by name they'd be completely useless in gauging job satisfaction.
- pierat 3y agoToo true, and the larger orgs definitely have that as a concern. And some specific managers who would be better not leading people (aka fired) are a weird case where the in-person interview can kind of discern that. Basically, one has to learn what to ask and how to ask to suss out which team leads are good and which ones aren't. Then again, it's a definite problem where you are in an org can make or break you. However, we have to separate "shitty manager" from "shitty organization forcing managers to enact shitty policies". And this is where I think Glassdoor 1 and 2 star reviews can show policy trends (versus bad manager trends). And of course, you may get a company that avoids most of the reviews in scummy ways. I know that the company I worked for that got bought out had a clause they wanted us to sign that stated "no negative comments about us anywhere". What's funny is this is actually illegal under the NLRB. But to me this was a massive red flag to get the hell out (and I did).
- haspok 3y agoThey should just remove the scoring. All complainers will do a score of 1, all cheerers will do 5. It is also the case that a company can be a perfect place for some, and a completely wrong place for another. And of course, this is true for each team within the company. Actual opinions do have a merit, and it is possible to weigh them according to one's perspective or expectations. Eg. a reviewer writes that WFH is not allowed or limited to 1 day per week, I can decide if that bothers me or not. If it doesn't bother me, why would I accept a bad score from someone who wants to WFH?
- indymike 3y agoPeople will tolerate a lot of dysfunction for money. When being paid, they'll probably even be willing to say good things, even though that's not what they really think. When you take away the money, they are going to share their experiences and real thoughts.
- game_the0ry 3y ago> Independent of this article, solution scientist Shikhar Sachdev dived deep and investigated The underground economy of Glassdoor reviews, finding fake, 5-start Glassdoor reviews have a going rate of $10-25 per review on marketplaces, and providers offering review removal services - for a price. Review removal is something Glassdoor explicitly says should not be possible. It's fascinating research to read: check it out here. Interesting how HR departments and managers resort to gestapo tactics instead of fixing the root of their problems, which is typically poor management. Side effect - prospective employees will no longer trust glassdoor reviews. That will likely hurt their business model.
- marcjanice 3y ago[dead]
- boringg 3y agoIs Glassdoor even relevant anymore? Seriously asking. It was maybe a decade ago but seemed to limp along badly damaged after everyone figured out how to game it and they took money to scrub reviews. It's similar to yelp or any review based app.
- hansel_der 3y agoreputation systems don't just die off because they are found to be inadequate </s> there is a constant influx of ppl that don't know yet [0] [0] https://xkcd.com/1053/ https://xkcd.com/1053/
- andsoitis 3y ago> I’ve talked with CTOs and HR professionals at 5 tech companies, who all tell me they’re doing something similar to having set a target score to improve to, or did so in the past. I’m not naming these companies as I believe this is a widespread trend that’s not limited to just a few players So the author is extrapolating from gossip.
- DelightOne 3y agoIs there a Meta Review for Glassdoor like for Amazon? Something that records how many reviews were removed.
- ajross 3y agoThis is like a lifecycle thing. Review site startups, in their early days, view the reviewers as their customers. People want to know whether X is good or bad, so come tell us! So they construct systems aimed at making sure the reviews are attractive and useful, and everyone loves them. But over time, ad revenue dries up, the new reviewer stream dries up (because most things are already reviewed), and they start looking for new revenue sources. And one such source is the producers of the reviewed products, who would love to be able to have some control over the content. And thus the downward spiral begins. We've seen this again and again and again.
- jacknews 3y ago"Send a reminder to new joiners during the first few months, asking them to leave a review on Glassdoor. This is a smart approach, as new joiners are often in their honeymoon period, and are likely to leave a positive review." LOL, more to the point, they are often still in a probation period, so maybe it's a case of 'make a positive review ... if you know what's good for you'
- SillyUsername 3y agoGlassdoor encourages employees to review their company, then tells the employer (point 4) to take the employee to court? It's a wonder Glassdoor don't get themselves sued with that policy.
- ouid 3y agoYou just cannot organize a rating system into a company. The more trust you accumulate, the more money there is to be made in selling out.
- paulddraper 3y agoReally? I still go to Amazon to read reviews. (Even if I don't purchase from Amazon.) It's not as helpful as it used to be, but it's still helpful enough to be worth it.
- lisasays 3y agoAnd so, they got to work flagging negative reviews for removal, and encouraging staff to post 5-star reviews to balance out negative reviews. Surprise, surprise.
- thisisit 3y agoI was using Glassdoor until 5 years ago before I realized the shenanigans behind the scenes. It is a terrible place to put your trust. I have a speech impairment. About six years ago a company's HR communicated to me that they couldn't hire me due to my impairment. I indicated this to the company's social media, which wasn't active. But I also wanted people to know before they interviewed with the company. So, I wrote a review on Glassdoor. Couple of months later all my other "contributions" were up on the site except this one. So much for companies cannot manipulate reviews. If you need feedback it is better to reach out to people on Linkedin and talk instead.
- broguinn 3y agoI'm sorry they didn't hire you because of your disability. IANAL, but I suspect that your disability is a protected status in the United States. I'm not saying that you should've pursued legal action, but that what they did is both immoral and illegal.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y agoI’m old[ish], and wasn’t hired, explicitly because of that. In fact, a couple of the interviewers made no effort to hide it. I suspect that this may come as a surprise to a lot of folks here, but age discrimination is every bit as illegal as race, sex, or disability discrimination. If an industry makes a lot of money (f’rinstance, the finance industry), all kinds of toxic, illegal behavior is ignored, and it’s really difficult to effect change. In industries that don’t make much money (teaching, social work, etc.), bad behavior is not tolerated in the slightest.
- ctvo 3y ago> If an industry makes a lot of money (f’rinstance, the finance industry), all kinds of toxic, illegal behavior is ignored, and it’s really difficult to effect change. > In industries that don’t make much money (teaching, social work, etc.), bad behavior is not tolerated in the slightest This falls apart outside of your examples. The health care industry makes a lot of money. They don't tolerate this. Teaching in primary education? It doesn't make much money, but higher education? They do well, and they also don't tolerate this. The legal industry? Probably doesn't tolerate this. Etc..
- tomcar288 3y agoi've learned from reading glassdoor reviews, that you have to read the review rather than go by the star ratings. the star ratings often don't reflect what written in the review. for example, you'll see lots of amazon reviews that are 3, 4 or even 5 stars but a lot of the time the truth comes out in the text review itself.
- lopkeny12ko 3y agoSo, for all the critics in this thread: how do you propose we deal with current and former employees intentionally misrepresenting the company? If employees have free reign to say whatever they want, truth or not, is it not reasonable for employers to be able to vet the contents of those reviews?
- jobs_throwaway 3y agoLet the readers decide for themselves how much stock to put in those claims. If a user can prove they worked for the company, IMO they should be able to say their piece about the company.
- 6510 3y agoThe actual asshole employer would love that. If you have a few poor reviews you might find ways to improve or you just ignore it. Let them age.
- golemotron 3y agoIt would be interesting to compare this to Yelp.
- AngeloAnolin 3y agoGiven that it is Glassdoor's interest to provide employers with pretty much the power to veto negative reviews, then the data points in terms of satisfaction will greatly be skewed favorably to the companies. While we can acknowledge that a lot of negative reviews will also stem from employees who were terminated / laid off / dismissed as the company may be undergoing financial / economic challenges, there can also be a lot of valid ones. But then again, each individual (who will do a review) knows the adage to _never burn the bridges_, hence, either they use Glassdoor as a venting platform, or have the courage to stand up and speak their minds. Unless there's a net benefit upside to the individual providing a negative (albeit constructive) criticism, it'll really be hard to weed out what's really helpful from what is written out of anger and desperation.
- oofta-boofta 3y agoI stopped following Gergely Orosz a long time ago. His tech stuff has/had been pretty great, but he's always simping for corporate tech to the point of obsequiousness and it's a huge turn off for me to read any of his stuff. This tone-deaf, pro-management, anti-worker post just further seals the deal.
- anotherhue 3y agoThey'll remove reviews if you ask right. I've seen it done.
- jedberg 3y agoIn summary, if they have a bad score on Glassdoor, they are probably a bad place to work. If they have a good score on Glassdoor, it tells you nothing, because there are many ways it can be gamed up.
- gnicholas 3y agoHow does Glasdoor validate that a reviewer actually worked at a given company?
- paulbjensen 3y agoI kept tabs on a company where I used to work and when I got an email from Glassdoor about a review of that company with the title "stalled", I naturally wanted to click through, but by that point the review was gone. I then started to screenshot any new reviews, ad saw that some of the negative ones also got removed after time. You could say that Glassdoor is more like a rose-tinted window.
- marstall 3y agoAny hard evidence companies can really get negative reviews taken down? This page on Glassdoor suggests otherwise. https://help.glassdoor.com/s/article/I-m-an-employer-What-can-I-do-about-negative-reviews-on-Glassdoor https://help.glassdoor.com/s/article/I-m-an-employer-What-ca... Excerpts from that link: > You can't pay us to take down reviews and we apply the same content moderation rules to our clients that we use for everyone else. > We generally don't consider evidence offered by someone with a vested interest in getting a review taken down, because we don’t know how reliable it is.
- kmod 3y agoP(them saying this | you can kind of get negative reviews taken down) = 1 The lines you quoted give them tremendous wiggle room, and nothing from the original article is actually disallowed by them.
- emmanueloga_ 3y agoMaybe we could popularize written reviews and tagging it with schema.org data [1]. That way: * You own the review * You can decide to take it down or not (harder for HR teams to tamper with them). * It would be on the reader to decide if the review is spam or not. There are plenty of pages where a review can be published for free, for instance, github pages. 1: https://schema.org/EmployerReview https://schema.org/EmployerReview
- joshstrange 3y agoPersonally I have no interest in tying my name to a review. In fact I've still not reviewed a few places from my past because I don't fancy getting a call/email from that employer yelling at me for telling the truth. I've mostly worked at smaller companies so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together and I'd have to lie about my position/salary to keep it from being immediately recognizable, probably even need to write "creatively" to avoid them telling it was me. Even if I hated working somewhere I'd never publicly blast them under my real name. Near zero upside and unlimited downside. At best I prevent others from going through what I did (IF they check reviews, IF they believe me, etc), at worst someone knows someone who knows someone who torpedos my career/prospects at another company. It doesn't matter if that retaliation is illegal, I'd never know or be able to prove it. Lastly, I have to put food on the table, if my current job goes under or opportunities dry up I'd go back to company that I disliked to make ends meet. Why would I burn that bridge? People rarely leave companies because they are happy where they are so I have trouble seeing anyone wanting to sign their real name to a review about a company they left. Like I said, near zero upside and unlimited downsides.
- emmanueloga_ 3y agoThis is very fair, and since I never pay attention to glassdoor reviews, somehow I assumed they weren't anonymous ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- ginger2016 3y agoThey can respond by not caring about glassdoor scores.
- jmacjmac 3y agoGlassdoor was used to be a very helpful place ~10 years ago. Feels like business model killed it, lost trust of people.
- Nath25 3y ago[flagged]
- alainmargaret72 3y ago[dead]
- penjelly 3y agoin my exp, glassdoor pages arent immune to brigading or other rating gaming tactics
- Carlanderson 3y ago[dead]
- lisac7048 3y ago[dead]
- lisac7048 3y ago[dead]
- gordonnancy 3y ago[dead]