6 ms·

Glassdoor, Yelp, Goodreads... all of these user review services are terrible, but they are so entrenched in their respective markets they're difficult to disrup

Glassdoor, Yelp, Goodreads... all of these user review services are terrible, but they are so entrenched in their respective markets they're difficult to disrupt. The value of these services is not the companies themselves, it's the users. They're essentially specialized social networks. Social networks take an enormous amount of time and effort to build. It isn't the tech, the tech is easy now. It's the people. The companies that run these services contribute very little to their success. In fact many times they're popular in spite of the company. Think about how Yelp or Glassdoor will remove negative reviews if the business pays them, etc. Just more landlords extracting value from things people create and enshittifying everything.

cheikhcheikh 3y ago
then how do these behemoths go down? I'm sure there's a scenario or two where better solutions win eventually, is it all up to luck and time or is there an actual plan for that to happen
- lesuorac 3y ago
  It's probably easiest for another company to pivot into this. Say you have a maps / direction software with a very large userbase and decide to add a rating feature to locations. Or perhaps you have a professional social network and you add a feature to rate your employer.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    LinkedIn.
    - diracs_stache 3y ago
      Then they cannibalize the money they extract from recruiters to harass me for roles/services i have absolutely no interest in. Could also disrupt the power balance with companies paying for said subscriptions versus the free users.
      - notahacker 3y ago
        Also, a cunning "growth hack" to improve user engagement ends up publishing employee ratings of their company in their colleagues' newsfeeds and sending out an email alert. This feature can be disabled by upgrading to LinkedIn Sales Navigator
4hEn 3y ago
Let's try and see if the problem can be reframed. It isn't really about reviews. It's about effective hiring. If you wanted to optimize hiring how would you do it? Reviews might be unnecessary if candidates can collectively gather up the data that shows if a company is actually hiring, and actually reviewing resumes, and actually responding to candidates with above-generic feedback. The reason this data isn't collected and presented is that job sites and application tracking software make their money from companies. There isn't a site that makes money from candidates to counteract this force. The power imbalance between candidate and employer is tilted in favor of the employer. If a job post showed there are 286 applicants for a job would you bother writing a cover letter? I wouldn't. I would move on to the job posting that responds promptly and has fewer candidates. If a job post showed there are 100 applicants, the job posting has been open for 30 days, and there are zero resume reviews, would you bother applying to this job and others like it in this company? I wouldn't. It means the employer isn't really hiring or is disfunctional enough to announce a position without giving it attention. I'd even be willing to pay the recruiter for their time giving me somewhat helpful not legally binding feedback like we think "you're overqualified", "you're missing an important skill", "we're not sure yet". If the recruiter starts generating revenue for the company, the company might hire more of them. I'd also be willing to recommend my friends to good companies.
- notahacker 3y ago
  IIRC LinkedIn actually does tell you how many applicants have applied via their platform, but since it doesn't tell you 90% don't have the right to work in the country never mind meet the job spec in other requirements, it's not information that's particularly useful. "We're the job board that forces you to jump through hoops to provide evidence of how active your hiring process is" isn't a sales pitch particularly likely to attract employers (in which case there's not much incentive for candidates to pay them either). And even if it did, it wouldn't replace Glassdoor' reviews - with all their inadequacies - for people that care more about whether the employer sounds better or worse than their current employer than whether they will get a job offer by the end of tomorrow.
  - 4hEn 3y ago

cheikhcheikh 3y ago

then how do these behemoths go down? I'm sure there's a scenario or two where better solutions win eventually, is it all up to luck and time or is there an actual plan for that to happen

lesuorac 3y ago
It's probably easiest for another company to pivot into this. Say you have a maps / direction software with a very large userbase and decide to add a rating feature to locations. Or perhaps you have a professional social network and you add a feature to rate your employer.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  LinkedIn.
  - diracs_stache 3y ago
    Then they cannibalize the money they extract from recruiters to harass me for roles/services i have absolutely no interest in. Could also disrupt the power balance with companies paying for said subscriptions versus the free users.
    - notahacker 3y ago
      Also, a cunning "growth hack" to improve user engagement ends up publishing employee ratings of their company in their colleagues' newsfeeds and sending out an email alert. This feature can be disabled by upgrading to LinkedIn Sales Navigator

4hEn 3y ago

Let's try and see if the problem can be reframed. It isn't really about reviews. It's about effective hiring. If you wanted to optimize hiring how would you do it? Reviews might be unnecessary if candidates can collectively gather up the data that shows if a company is actually hiring, and actually reviewing resumes, and actually responding to candidates with above-generic feedback. The reason this data isn't collected and presented is that job sites and application tracking software make their money from companies. There isn't a site that makes money from candidates to counteract this force. The power imbalance between candidate and employer is tilted in favor of the employer. If a job post showed there are 286 applicants for a job would you bother writing a cover letter? I wouldn't. I would move on to the job posting that responds promptly and has fewer candidates. If a job post showed there are 100 applicants, the job posting has been open for 30 days, and there are zero resume reviews, would you bother applying to this job and others like it in this company? I wouldn't. It means the employer isn't really hiring or is disfunctional enough to announce a position without giving it attention. I'd even be willing to pay the recruiter for their time giving me somewhat helpful not legally binding feedback like we think "you're overqualified", "you're missing an important skill", "we're not sure yet". If the recruiter starts generating revenue for the company, the company might hire more of them. I'd also be willing to recommend my friends to good companies.

notahacker 3y ago
IIRC LinkedIn actually does tell you how many applicants have applied via their platform, but since it doesn't tell you 90% don't have the right to work in the country never mind meet the job spec in other requirements, it's not information that's particularly useful. "We're the job board that forces you to jump through hoops to provide evidence of how active your hiring process is" isn't a sales pitch particularly likely to attract employers (in which case there's not much incentive for candidates to pay them either). And even if it did, it wouldn't replace Glassdoor' reviews - with all their inadequacies - for people that care more about whether the employer sounds better or worse than their current employer than whether they will get a job offer by the end of tomorrow.
- 4hEn 3y ago