Glassdoor and its effect on workplace culture(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Glassdoor and its effect on workplace culture
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/22/improving-workplace-culture-one-review-at-a-time
106 comments
My experience with Glassdoor has been terrible. A couple of months ago I found an email notification in my inbox that someone had left us a review. I was surprised because we're an early stage three-person startup. We never hired any employees or contractors. The review was bad, and the reviewer who was anonymous claimed that he/she had done an internship with us. As the "owner" of our company's profile on Glassdoor, I had no access to any information about the reviewer, nothing. I flagged the review hoping that Glassdoor would take care of it. A day later I received an email saying, we're sorry, there's nothing we can do, the review stays. They told me that my only option was to reply to the review and hope they'd see that its not for us and remove it. Needless to say, I was not happy. I took a closer look at the review, and found out that the reviewer had mentioned "our office" in Singapore. I did some digging and found another company with the same name in Singapore. I reached out to Glassdoor again with all this info, screenshots, website links, etc and there response was basically the same. Something about their community policy. I was forced to reply to the reviewer who eventually realized we were not the same company and ended up removing the review. The whole process was a huge waste of time and energy. Never again will I trust Glassdoor or anything on it. By the way, there's no way to remove your company's profile. Think long and hard before you create a profile there.
As the "owner" of our company's profile on Glassdoor, I had no access to any information about the reviewer, nothing."
I'm sorry for what happened to your startup here, and the doubtless frustration.
But I'm deeply happy owners can't find out who the reviewers are! Can you imagine the fallout? It'd have such a chilling effect to render the site completely useless.
Regardless of the negativity, I find tremendous value in reading reviews and looking for themes. Most don't care about outliers.
I'm sorry for what happened to your startup here, and the doubtless frustration.
But I'm deeply happy owners can't find out who the reviewers are! Can you imagine the fallout? It'd have such a chilling effect to render the site completely useless.
Regardless of the negativity, I find tremendous value in reading reviews and looking for themes. Most don't care about outliers.
And in this case, the company owner replied "I think you have the wrong company. You never worked for us. There is this company in Singapore with the same name."
Even if the original reviewer didn't take it down, that's a valid response. People will see that and be like, "huh .. let me look that up .. yea that seems legit."
I mean for something as delicate as this, I feel like there is a limit to what Glassdoor can do and maintain integrity.
Even if the original reviewer didn't take it down, that's a valid response. People will see that and be like, "huh .. let me look that up .. yea that seems legit."
I mean for something as delicate as this, I feel like there is a limit to what Glassdoor can do and maintain integrity.
> People will see that and be like, "huh .. let me look that up .."
It's been my experience that few people will see that and even fewer will look it up.
It's been my experience that few people will see that and even fewer will look it up.
And the people who don't even do the most rudimentary of fact checking aren't the people you want to hire so win win.
Perhaps, Glassdoor could add company address to the title?
So then, the reviewer that had bad experience with "XXX, Singapore", would not post it against "XXX, Austin, Texas".
So then, the reviewer that had bad experience with "XXX, Singapore", would not post it against "XXX, Austin, Texas".
This all seems quite reasonable though. You want people to be able to signal terrible employers to the rest of the market. It really sucks that you got stuck in that situation, but if Glassdoor starts agreeing to take down bad reviews then they just turn into a shakedown racket like Yelp.
The review was for the wrong company though!
I took a closer look at the review, and found out that the reviewer had mentioned "our office" in Singapore. I did some digging and found another company with the same name in Singapore. I reached out to Glassdoor again with all this info, screenshots, website links, etc and there response was basically the same.
I took a closer look at the review, and found out that the reviewer had mentioned "our office" in Singapore. I did some digging and found another company with the same name in Singapore. I reached out to Glassdoor again with all this info, screenshots, website links, etc and there response was basically the same.
> if Glassdoor starts agreeing to take down bad reviews
Yes, but surely Glassdoor should agree to take down reviews that can easily be verified to be factually untrue?
Yes, but surely Glassdoor should agree to take down reviews that can easily be verified to be factually untrue?
According to posts here (4 at this point in time) bad reviews do get taken down.
Seems like you could have just avoided the headache by just replying to reviewer from the get-go? It clearly seemed like a mistake.
> "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance/stupidity"
More ignorance in this case.
> "Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance/stupidity"
More ignorance in this case.
> By the way, there's no way to remove your company's profile. Think long and hard before you create a profile there.
Creating a Glassdoor profile for an early stage 3 persons startup doesn't look very useful.
Creating a Glassdoor profile for an early stage 3 persons startup doesn't look very useful.
Just wait till someone uses RipOffReport.com to bash you guys for something completely untrue. That site basically only takes down posts if you get a court order or pay their fee for arbitration (and win).
The original poster can’t even take down a post if they make a mistake.
The original poster can’t even take down a post if they make a mistake.
You are the reason why websites like Glassdoor exist. Acting unfairly and feeling mistreated for not succeeding. What the hack...
I bet if you talked to the reviewer from the beginning he would've taken down the review immediately.
I bet if you talked to the reviewer from the beginning he would've taken down the review immediately.
As an employee, I had a bad experience with Glassdoor.
I got shafted by my employer who promised to start the green card process immediately on joining, managed (knowingly or not) to delay the start, and by the time it started, they prepared the petition so weak, that it was too late to complete the process before my 6yrs of h1b expired(because they had to redo the petition a few times).
Now I explained this very clearly in my review and just mentioned that if you are an high skilled immigrant who has precarious requirements, then don’t join this company. In fact I added all the good things about the company, but always made a point to glorify the fact that they screwed me and left me jobless (because my authorization ended).
What happened to that review?
It never showed up in Glassdoor reviews for that company. And my account was suspended. I thought there was some “pay to remove negative review” option for employers.
Now, that employer has more than 4.5 stars average reviews, and its glowing overall. If this is how Glassdoor works, I don’t think it is meant to help the past, current, prospective employees.
I got shafted by my employer who promised to start the green card process immediately on joining, managed (knowingly or not) to delay the start, and by the time it started, they prepared the petition so weak, that it was too late to complete the process before my 6yrs of h1b expired(because they had to redo the petition a few times).
Now I explained this very clearly in my review and just mentioned that if you are an high skilled immigrant who has precarious requirements, then don’t join this company. In fact I added all the good things about the company, but always made a point to glorify the fact that they screwed me and left me jobless (because my authorization ended).
What happened to that review?
It never showed up in Glassdoor reviews for that company. And my account was suspended. I thought there was some “pay to remove negative review” option for employers.
Now, that employer has more than 4.5 stars average reviews, and its glowing overall. If this is how Glassdoor works, I don’t think it is meant to help the past, current, prospective employees.
Wow, my response really blew up on this post. This thread is like a meta Glassdoor Review!
Sad part of such behavior from Glassdoor, is that I cannot tell anyone anonymously that this particular company is a bad place for high skilled immigrants on h1b.
I can only hope no one else makes the mistake I did in beleiving the hiring manager and recruiters without having anything in writing.
Sad part of such behavior from Glassdoor, is that I cannot tell anyone anonymously that this particular company is a bad place for high skilled immigrants on h1b.
I can only hope no one else makes the mistake I did in beleiving the hiring manager and recruiters without having anything in writing.
I've seen something similar with my company. I actually regularly check it, and will notice negative reviews almost always disappear within a couple days (positive reviews never disappear though). I emailed Glassdoor asking about their community guidelines and how to ensure I could leave a review that wouldn't be removed, and they responded with nothing of substance.
As far as I'm concerned, Glassdoor makes their money by pandering to the companies who have a vested interest in hiding negative reviews and is an unreliable source of information.
As far as I'm concerned, Glassdoor makes their money by pandering to the companies who have a vested interest in hiding negative reviews and is an unreliable source of information.
Same here, the company I used to work for had a lot of strongly negative reviews by disgruntled employees (in fact the turnover was pretty high).
Magically most of them disappeared, while glowing positive ones have filled up the void (all written in the same upbeat language that is the trademark of HR-written job descriptions: "we work hard and play hard", etc.).
Glassdoor claimed some of the reviews were removed because they violated this or that community standard. However, this wouldn't justify removing the numerical score, would it?
Glassdoor claimed some of the reviews were removed because they violated this or that community standard. However, this wouldn't justify removing the numerical score, would it?
I have witnessed similar things happen. I worked at a company with a very hostile work environment where lots of people were unhappy for various reasons. I was subscribed to the company's Glassdoor page and I would get an email notification when a new review was posted. About half a dozen very negative reviews were posted but Glassdoor removed all of them, if I look at the company's page I see a 4+ star rating with just a couple reviews from the owners and people who were told to leave a review when they joined.
Despite what the article says, Glassdoor still hasn't solved the fake review problem. The pay data is also woefully inaccurate. It works best only with a combination of other sources.
The biggest impact to my career has been the semi-anonymous mobile app Blind. I realized I was getting underpaid and I quickly fixed it. I thought I negotiated hard in previous jobs but maybr it was all a ruse to make me feel like I was getting the best salary. Glassdoor and Paysa had lower total compensation numbers for my position.
The biggest impact to my career has been the semi-anonymous mobile app Blind. I realized I was getting underpaid and I quickly fixed it. I thought I negotiated hard in previous jobs but maybr it was all a ruse to make me feel like I was getting the best salary. Glassdoor and Paysa had lower total compensation numbers for my position.
The western world needs to somehow get rid of our taboo on income. In a lot of eastern European countries, paychecks are just laid out on tables. Everyone knows what everyone makes.
There have been countless articles that talk about how there isn't a huge pay disparity between men and women in skilled jobs, and articles like The Confidence Gap (Salon) that show that when disparity does occur, it's simply of women not being confident enough to ask for what they deserve.
(On a side note, I hypothesize if you could objectively measure confidence and then compared incomes to confident vs non-confident people in their field, the pay distribution would be low to high among them, regardless of gender. That's difficult theory to prove though).
At larger companies, you have pay grades listed and everyone in Active Directory has a pay grad associated with them (BlueCross orgs are like this). So you can actually look up, within a $8k range, what everyone around you makes, and it pretty much stays accurate until you get up to the VP/board positions.
I wish more companies had transparency on this, but I feel like income transparency is going to stay limited to the public sector.
There have been countless articles that talk about how there isn't a huge pay disparity between men and women in skilled jobs, and articles like The Confidence Gap (Salon) that show that when disparity does occur, it's simply of women not being confident enough to ask for what they deserve.
(On a side note, I hypothesize if you could objectively measure confidence and then compared incomes to confident vs non-confident people in their field, the pay distribution would be low to high among them, regardless of gender. That's difficult theory to prove though).
At larger companies, you have pay grades listed and everyone in Active Directory has a pay grad associated with them (BlueCross orgs are like this). So you can actually look up, within a $8k range, what everyone around you makes, and it pretty much stays accurate until you get up to the VP/board positions.
I wish more companies had transparency on this, but I feel like income transparency is going to stay limited to the public sector.
You could try to break the taboo yourself. It doesn't always go well for me but at least two companies I've worked at I've managed to get the whole group of engineers comfortable with knowing each other's salaries.
The people who are least likely to join in on that have been the older devs but I think the taboo was much more ingrained back when they first started their careers and younger folk are following more out of tradition than an actual strong belief
The people who are least likely to join in on that have been the older devs but I think the taboo was much more ingrained back when they first started their careers and younger folk are following more out of tradition than an actual strong belief
The best job I’ve ever had (most satisfying and interesting, and also good compensation) was a company where everyone in the digital department (a mix of about 150 engineers, QA, designers) were given the same fixed salary.
Additionally, people were pretty much free to set their own work hours (I worked with a great designer who typically left at 4pm, but was never an issue because he always did what was needed - and often went above).
The only possible downside I can think of is that we didn’t really hire a lot of young people (no graduates) so potential for stagnation of ideas (??) however I never saw that have a noticeable effect, and actually at the time the company was quite progressive in its approach to technology.
Our highest ‘executive’ was an interesting mix of someone who could understand and communicate to business, technology and design people.
I’ve often wondered what the secret sauce to this culture was, and how to replicate it...
Additionally, people were pretty much free to set their own work hours (I worked with a great designer who typically left at 4pm, but was never an issue because he always did what was needed - and often went above).
The only possible downside I can think of is that we didn’t really hire a lot of young people (no graduates) so potential for stagnation of ideas (??) however I never saw that have a noticeable effect, and actually at the time the company was quite progressive in its approach to technology.
Our highest ‘executive’ was an interesting mix of someone who could understand and communicate to business, technology and design people.
I’ve often wondered what the secret sauce to this culture was, and how to replicate it...
Don't feel too bad about this - salaries (at least in engineering) really have been rising and offers that would have seemed great a few years ago are no longer competitive. It's hard to keep your expectations adjusted to a shifting market.
Keep interview-ready and interview every year/two if compensation is significant to your happiness.
Best source of pay data I've seen is H1B pay info: h1bdata.info
This data is better than nothing, but it should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The _sample_ is flawed because H-1B visa holders are atypical. In some situations they are hired precisely because they have lower salary expectations than US residents (paying them less than the prevailing rate violates the terms of their Labor Condition Application, but it happens). In other situations the employer puts up the with expense and delay of the visa application because they have unique skills that also make them more valuable.
The _data_ itself is flawed because the salary information is only recorded at the time the offer was made, since which it has presumably increased, and it does not include bonuses or non-cash compensation.
The _sample_ is flawed because H-1B visa holders are atypical. In some situations they are hired precisely because they have lower salary expectations than US residents (paying them less than the prevailing rate violates the terms of their Labor Condition Application, but it happens). In other situations the employer puts up the with expense and delay of the visa application because they have unique skills that also make them more valuable.
The _data_ itself is flawed because the salary information is only recorded at the time the offer was made, since which it has presumably increased, and it does not include bonuses or non-cash compensation.
I just looked up my info there (lookup company, by title and sort through to the date my application was filed).
They just have my base salary listed there, which is a super-inaccurate way to compare salaries, in my opinion. RSUs and bonus are almost 50% of my comp. They also have my starting salary there, no increases, etc since then.
They just have my base salary listed there, which is a super-inaccurate way to compare salaries, in my opinion. RSUs and bonus are almost 50% of my comp. They also have my starting salary there, no increases, etc since then.
I used to think so but I think that is incorrect for the following two reasons:
- Stock compensation is not included. This is significant now.
- I believe the salary numbers are purposely underreported. The numbers are given to show they are paying a professional wage. I heard (not confirmed) that someone getting paid $200k/year in base salary can be reported as $150k/year, since 150k clears the threshold. I saw salaries in my company that did not reflect what I understand to be the market rate.
I thought the conventional wisdom these days was to treat stock compensation as nonexistent unless the company already IPOd because in so many cases you end up paying to exercise and pay taxes on options that end up worthless.
This is a function of how many H1Bs you work with + your stock compensation. Adjust accordingly.
Even if you could underreport wages, why would you want to?
I concur.. but talking about pay is no longer illegal (until Trump figures that out). So what we should do is talk with each other.
I love this analogy: "Glassdoor upended workplace power dynamics in the same way that Ratemyprofessors.com altered the power dynamics of college lecture halls, where, suddenly, professors had to worry about whether their students found them to be “inspirational” or “hot.”"
As a former professor I have always found that site unbelievably odious. Did higher education improve when students (as paying "customers" of the university) got the upper hand in areas like grading practices and curriculum-setting? Does anyone think college education is in a better place today than 20 years ago, except the bizdev and admin staff? Surely Glassdoor could work the same wonders for workplaces...
As a former professor I have always found that site unbelievably odious. Did higher education improve when students (as paying "customers" of the university) got the upper hand in areas like grading practices and curriculum-setting? Does anyone think college education is in a better place today than 20 years ago, except the bizdev and admin staff? Surely Glassdoor could work the same wonders for workplaces...
As a student, ratemyprofessor was the best resource for selecting courses available to me.
There are some really bad professor that don't care much about lecturing because they have tenure.
I had no choice with the courses of my major because they were required, but when it came to electives, it was amazing. It really made the difference.
There are plenty of bad professors out there.
There are some really bad professor that don't care much about lecturing because they have tenure.
I had no choice with the courses of my major because they were required, but when it came to electives, it was amazing. It really made the difference.
There are plenty of bad professors out there.
I agree with the concerns about professor rating. Students are in a weird position where they are a “customer” in a sense but their incentives are not aligned with the university for grading. They may ensure up paying $20k to have a professor give them a (justified) failing grade.
For employees, it’s a bit better. It is reasonable to look for a good work environment, and employers won’t always be upfront in an interview setting. Having the inside scoop helps the potential employee.
For employees, it’s a bit better. It is reasonable to look for a good work environment, and employers won’t always be upfront in an interview setting. Having the inside scoop helps the potential employee.
Separating teaching and grading might fix this.
Is this realistic?
Standardized testing is effectively that.
Sure, my understanding is that's how Oxford works.
Take it for what it's worth but I know the teachers who taught me most had great reviews on ratemyteacher.
You have the flip side. My partner, finishing her Accounting degree, looked up her "Worst" professor, who was openly saying she had no interest in teaching and was just doing so as she wrote a textbook. And also had a very poor command of the English language in general.
She found that professor had no less than four profiles in RMP. Every time she accumulated sufficient negative reviews she changed her name slightly and created a new profile.
She found that professor had no less than four profiles in RMP. Every time she accumulated sufficient negative reviews she changed her name slightly and created a new profile.
And it doesn't really help because you know which professors are bad and you might just have to take a class from them anyway.
We did have a really bad professor in my department who got me fired for something stupid. (I was a lab admin). A bunch of students came to defend me. Her husband was the chairman so all of her evaluations went through a different department/chairman.
She got enough complains they didn't grant her tenure! Her and her husband left the university shortly after. I feel like the students achieved something really positive there.
We did have a really bad professor in my department who got me fired for something stupid. (I was a lab admin). A bunch of students came to defend me. Her husband was the chairman so all of her evaluations went through a different department/chairman.
She got enough complains they didn't grant her tenure! Her and her husband left the university shortly after. I feel like the students achieved something really positive there.
college education may be in a better place today than it otherwise would have been without RMP, also many professors have academic tenure so that may need to change before university departments can really be responsive to students
I don't think colleges are a better place of learning with ratemyprofessor, but the college's chose to turn into businesses on their own.
Students getting some power over people they pay aren't what caused colleges to start hiring more adjunct professors for cheap rather than lifelong ones. It also didn't make colleges spend massive amounts of money on marketing or redoing all the landscaping every two months so that parents of prospective students would be more enticed to send their kids to that school
Students getting some power over people they pay aren't what caused colleges to start hiring more adjunct professors for cheap rather than lifelong ones. It also didn't make colleges spend massive amounts of money on marketing or redoing all the landscaping every two months so that parents of prospective students would be more enticed to send their kids to that school
Our college had its own internal system for students rating professors. In order to receive your final grade for a class, you had to complete a review of the course and professor, with optional public components. During the shopping period of next term, you could read all the reviews from previous terms, by professor and/or class.
I think the admins like the data it gives them on professors, let’s them know who to promote / watch, etc
I think the admins like the data it gives them on professors, let’s them know who to promote / watch, etc
I find the Glassdoor website unbearably slow and a terrible experience all around.
The negative reviews for the engineering department at the company I work for are mostly accurate. The positive reviews are almost all too generic or over the top to be useful. Some of them are clearly written by HR in a PR campaign.
I'm actually surprised it has much of an impact, given how slow and horrible the UX is and how easily gamed the review system is.
The negative reviews for the engineering department at the company I work for are mostly accurate. The positive reviews are almost all too generic or over the top to be useful. Some of them are clearly written by HR in a PR campaign.
I'm actually surprised it has much of an impact, given how slow and horrible the UX is and how easily gamed the review system is.
I personally saw the reaction within Zillow Group when Spencer Rascoff got a bad rating on Glassdoor. The reviewer was located, the review was quickly deleted, and Spencer's rating continues to be a source of pride for him.
Don't get me wrong. He's extremely capable and will probably continue to run ZG very well for years to come. But his Glassdoor rating should be lower and it irks me every time I hear it touted.
Don't get me wrong. He's extremely capable and will probably continue to run ZG very well for years to come. But his Glassdoor rating should be lower and it irks me every time I hear it touted.
Glassdoor has a big problem with fake or bad data. The salary data is often very inaccurate (at my last company we had people posting data for offices in cities where we didn’t have offices and with salaries that were just not true).
Fake reviews is also a problem—both positive and negotive reviews.
Glassdoor does little to help employers correct obviously bad information although they are happy to sell you “premium” services where you can bury things you don’t like further down the display of data. Their sales people call this “featuring” content. Sigh.
Fake reviews is also a problem—both positive and negotive reviews.
Glassdoor does little to help employers correct obviously bad information although they are happy to sell you “premium” services where you can bury things you don’t like further down the display of data. Their sales people call this “featuring” content. Sigh.
I love how you put the whole business case into a single comment.
Officially they track an objective interpretation of the company. Only few companies would really get positive review though. So they also offer a way for the companies to improve their reviews for cash. And that is the main income probably.
Officially they track an objective interpretation of the company. Only few companies would really get positive review though. So they also offer a way for the companies to improve their reviews for cash. And that is the main income probably.
From what I've seen, it's often employers posting fake (positive) reviews anyway.
Consider a company that only has 1-Star and 5-Star reviews:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/PrivCo-Reviews-E659519.htm
What should you think about a company that has no 2 or 3 or 4 star reviews? It only has the extremes, nothing in the middle.
Someone writes:
"Take a look at the distribution of reviews - either 5 star or 1 star. Seems a bit fishy to me. Nonetheless, I would still rate my experience a 1."
Perhaps there are many companies like this?
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/PrivCo-Reviews-E659519.htm
What should you think about a company that has no 2 or 3 or 4 star reviews? It only has the extremes, nothing in the middle.
Someone writes:
"Take a look at the distribution of reviews - either 5 star or 1 star. Seems a bit fishy to me. Nonetheless, I would still rate my experience a 1."
Perhaps there are many companies like this?
I think it's just selection bias: the people most likely to take the time to write a review are those who either had an amazing experience or an abysmal one. People with feelings in the middle usually aren't as motivated.
I would say it is selection bias, but the people who had a miserable experience wrote their reviews, and then management/ownership flooded the site with 5 star reviews to offset the bad reviews (instead of fixing the company of course).
Have been having a touch time fighting Glassdoor to remove fake reviews. I have no clue whatsoever how Glassdoor verifies their reviews, and their support is probably the worst I've ever experienced with any American company. Not sure how much this is going to change or affect them. But still, thought I should tell this out.
The question is if there is any signal in all the noise. In aggregate I assume yes, but for individual companies with small numbers of reviews I have my doubts.
It's interesting to me they are using human moderators and Americans at that (for what seems to be American/British companies) - I don't know much about machine learning but it seems like this is the only way to do this somewhat accurately given the expressiveness of written English. The current attempts by the (admittedly much larger) Facebook and Google to use English literate in foreign countries to moderate content is almost self parody at this point from the examples given in that documentary that made the front page of hacker news last month.
A few months ago I've been interviewing with small startups (say companies with 20 employees) and Glassdoor wasn't useful at all. These companies either have no review at all (everyone is working so hard and don't have time to write a review; or just is afraid writing something and later identified), or have lots of 5-star review (which probably indicates management team asked employees to write good reviews for hiring).
It's a shame that people don't see glassdoor for what it probably is - just another shakedown racket (like yelp, tripadvisor, BBB etc).
Anything that strikes fear in the hearts of employers is good.
glassdoor pay data is stupidly innacurate.
Take a company that is headquartered in bay area. If they have an office in location X where X != bay area, the est salary for that company in the context of location X is always going to be much higher due to the bay area HQ. I suspect they may not even filter out bay area salary estimates for location X estimates.
There is no way company will pay for bay area salaries for sat location in Omaha.
Take a company that is headquartered in bay area. If they have an office in location X where X != bay area, the est salary for that company in the context of location X is always going to be much higher due to the bay area HQ. I suspect they may not even filter out bay area salary estimates for location X estimates.
There is no way company will pay for bay area salaries for sat location in Omaha.
I believe you can filter salaries by location.
former Glassdoor employee here.
I see lot of people complaining about their reviews being removed from Glassdoor (GD) site and the occasional allegation that GD take money to remove negative reviews.
AFAIK glassdoor doesn't take money from any company to remove negative reviews. I left GD a year ago so things could've changed since then but I doubt it. People complain because their reviews were removed but have you read it objectively ? Do you single out a particular person because that's against GD rules.
I know a former coworker of mine (@GD) who left a 1 star review. His review was promptly removed from GD page because he was bashing his manager. For a small company like GD it's easy to figure out who that manager is based on the employer title. After removing his review, he was given an opportunity to edit it but he refused to edit it. I wrote an OK review for GD after I left and it's still up there on GD site.
As for fake reviews it's hard to remove them automatically. A good number of people uses those temporary email addresses to leave a review (10min emails) so you can't really compare the email addresses. I guess they could compare the IP addresses and remove duplicate submissions from the same IP ? But sometimes multiple users share same IP (correct me if I'm wrong) so that would result in more confusion and allegations.
When I joined GD any engineer could access the reviews table on production/admin page but they have tightened it up since then. only selected engineers have access to production table and they started implementing granular controls on the admin page. I remember seeing fake reviews on my previous employer's page but I chose not to flag them. My former employer's CEO himself left more than three 5 star reviews to bump up his ratings.
Nowadays I use GD for job search, reviews, interviews and benefits research. Salary data is very unreliable especially for engineers in the Bay Area. I know they keep talking about archiving old salary data or making adjustments but I don't know if they ever implemented it.
The thing about reviews is that you have to read it between the lines. If it's a 5 star review and the only con says something like the commute sucks there's a good chance that it's a fake review.
About Salary: they did release a Know Your Worth tool sometime in 2016 which is pretty accurate in my case (Bay Area + Sr. Software Engineer). Ironically I know a few people who left GD because of this tool :)
I see lot of people complaining about their reviews being removed from Glassdoor (GD) site and the occasional allegation that GD take money to remove negative reviews.
AFAIK glassdoor doesn't take money from any company to remove negative reviews. I left GD a year ago so things could've changed since then but I doubt it. People complain because their reviews were removed but have you read it objectively ? Do you single out a particular person because that's against GD rules.
I know a former coworker of mine (@GD) who left a 1 star review. His review was promptly removed from GD page because he was bashing his manager. For a small company like GD it's easy to figure out who that manager is based on the employer title. After removing his review, he was given an opportunity to edit it but he refused to edit it. I wrote an OK review for GD after I left and it's still up there on GD site.
As for fake reviews it's hard to remove them automatically. A good number of people uses those temporary email addresses to leave a review (10min emails) so you can't really compare the email addresses. I guess they could compare the IP addresses and remove duplicate submissions from the same IP ? But sometimes multiple users share same IP (correct me if I'm wrong) so that would result in more confusion and allegations.
When I joined GD any engineer could access the reviews table on production/admin page but they have tightened it up since then. only selected engineers have access to production table and they started implementing granular controls on the admin page. I remember seeing fake reviews on my previous employer's page but I chose not to flag them. My former employer's CEO himself left more than three 5 star reviews to bump up his ratings.
Nowadays I use GD for job search, reviews, interviews and benefits research. Salary data is very unreliable especially for engineers in the Bay Area. I know they keep talking about archiving old salary data or making adjustments but I don't know if they ever implemented it.
The thing about reviews is that you have to read it between the lines. If it's a 5 star review and the only con says something like the commute sucks there's a good chance that it's a fake review.
About Salary: they did release a Know Your Worth tool sometime in 2016 which is pretty accurate in my case (Bay Area + Sr. Software Engineer). Ironically I know a few people who left GD because of this tool :)
The pay data on glass door is almost always lower than the market.
Glassdoor routinely removes negative comments on companies.
I'd be interested in seeing any evidences of that, do you have any?
Glassdoor's effect in this space is undoubtedly huge and typically the first stop for most people seriously considering an offer from a company. There are several new players though that I think importantly complement Glassdoor in different areas:
Salaries - www.Paysa.com
General Discussion - us.teamblind.com - Important because this is for current occupation rather than Glassdoor's focus on future occupation
Leveling / Titles - www.levels.fyi - Disclosure: I work on this
Salaries - www.Paysa.com
General Discussion - us.teamblind.com - Important because this is for current occupation rather than Glassdoor's focus on future occupation
Leveling / Titles - www.levels.fyi - Disclosure: I work on this
I found glassdoor insanely accurate. It just really reflects the reality most of the time. I observed at least 3 workplaces and it was exactly like the reviews mentioned. Obviously it is harder to know if it applies to the whole company or just your team but if you can do your research it is fairly accurate
I've always found the reviews much more grim than the reality of places where I've worked. No surprise since it's a venue for departing and departed employees to vent (and then for HR teams to try to counteract by encouraging embarrassing good reviews from current employees), but in either case I've always found myself laughing at reviews of my workplaces, it's like "what company are these people actually working for? Because I'm pretty sure I don't go into a toxic hellscape of an office every day."
Individual Glassdoor reviews aren't worth much because you never know the context or background of the author. Sure, it's possible that there is no mentorship and the place is cutthroat -- but it's also possible that reviewer was dead weight, actively rejected offered mentorship, and finally got let go after months of trying to work it out. Impossible to know in any specific instance, unless you already know the author.
It's really about the aggregation of reviews. If everything is fine until 6 months ago, and then there is a steady periodic stream of negative reviews referencing a management change, then you can pretty well-assured there was a legitimate shift in the organization that made things worse. If it's just a trickle of some positive (HR lackeys posting fake reviews and/or current employees trying to reassure themselves about how they work at the coolest place in town) and some negative (often bitter people who've been laid off or dismissed trying to project blame onto the company), then you just have to look for the consistent elements and take what you can from them. No easy formula.
It's really about the aggregation of reviews. If everything is fine until 6 months ago, and then there is a steady periodic stream of negative reviews referencing a management change, then you can pretty well-assured there was a legitimate shift in the organization that made things worse. If it's just a trickle of some positive (HR lackeys posting fake reviews and/or current employees trying to reassure themselves about how they work at the coolest place in town) and some negative (often bitter people who've been laid off or dismissed trying to project blame onto the company), then you just have to look for the consistent elements and take what you can from them. No easy formula.
I like to look at what I think are more authentic, indirect indicators, even though very imperfect, too.
For startups specifically, I used to analyze the startups that VCs tweeted the most. Uber dominated for a long time. And Zenefits was tops too, until they dropped fast in mentions a few weeks before their turn of fortune. Yeah, some tea leaf reading and eye of newt stuff, but interesting nonetheless and some job seekers found it helpful.
Your point about departing/departed employees and hellscape made me think about how the recent negative news about Google contrasts with one indicator (again, imperfect) of how happy people are to be Nooglers and Googlers -- their public exultation in Instagram posts: https://gxjam.com/ig-gallery/noogler-instagrams-by-googlers-...
Edit: Of course, neither of the above approaches are as broadly applicable as Glassdoor's approach
For startups specifically, I used to analyze the startups that VCs tweeted the most. Uber dominated for a long time. And Zenefits was tops too, until they dropped fast in mentions a few weeks before their turn of fortune. Yeah, some tea leaf reading and eye of newt stuff, but interesting nonetheless and some job seekers found it helpful.
Your point about departing/departed employees and hellscape made me think about how the recent negative news about Google contrasts with one indicator (again, imperfect) of how happy people are to be Nooglers and Googlers -- their public exultation in Instagram posts: https://gxjam.com/ig-gallery/noogler-instagrams-by-googlers-...
Edit: Of course, neither of the above approaches are as broadly applicable as Glassdoor's approach
This overall problem might be solved by offering periodic reporting where each subsequent report by a user is a bit more credible.
Reminds me of ex-[fill in religion] online forums. It basically filters on people that hate [fill in religion] and so it portrays only an extremely negatively-biased ("toxic hellscape") view of [fill in religion].
I think the main problem with Glassdoor's rating system is, it can attract high number of negative reviews when a company is going through rough patches, such as mergers and acquisitions, lay offs and integrations. Then it's going to be a steep uphill battle to climb out of that hole and improve the average scores. If I were job hunting, I'd only look at reviews written in the past 18 months because things can and do improve quickly.
> If I were job hunting, I'd only look at reviews written in the past 18 months because things can and do improve quickly.
I can offer one counterexample. I worked at a fairly awful place two and a half years ago and the Glassdoor reviews reflected that awfulness. At some point in the last year, management got wise and started planting hilariously, obviously fake positive reviews to go alongside the negative reviews. HR also started leaving comments on every single review, which had a chilling effect.
The average rating would certainly be higher over the past 18 months, but it's not because anything has improved at the company. They're just better at exploiting Glassdoor.
I can offer one counterexample. I worked at a fairly awful place two and a half years ago and the Glassdoor reviews reflected that awfulness. At some point in the last year, management got wise and started planting hilariously, obviously fake positive reviews to go alongside the negative reviews. HR also started leaving comments on every single review, which had a chilling effect.
The average rating would certainly be higher over the past 18 months, but it's not because anything has improved at the company. They're just better at exploiting Glassdoor.
Yes, I've witnessed that myself. On the flip side, those fake reviews:
1. Are usually hilariously easy to spot. 2. Beget more angry reviews with 1 star rating in attempt to neutralize their effect.
Hence, I'd read them pretty carefully to look for patterns.
1. Are usually hilariously easy to spot. 2. Beget more angry reviews with 1 star rating in attempt to neutralize their effect.
Hence, I'd read them pretty carefully to look for patterns.
Yes, I was thinking about that earlier. I would suggest lowering the strength of ratings the older they get when calculating the average, so:
This year's average is 50% of total rating
Last year's average is 30% of total rating
Previous year's average is 10% of total rating
All prior years' average is remaining 10% of total rating
But they can also not improve quickly. I used to work for a company in a declining industry which was in a precarious position, and there were layoffs and profit warnings and such. (Glassdoor rating: 2.5.) the company continues to exist, but there have been more layoffs etc.
So at the very least, a wave of negative reviews is an indication to check the fundamentals, has this pivot worked, etc... Useful information.
So at the very least, a wave of negative reviews is an indication to check the fundamentals, has this pivot worked, etc... Useful information.
That doesn't seem that unreasonable though. If a company is going through a rough merger I'd like to know that.
Is it bad to get those negative reviews? If the situation is legitimately bad why should prospective employees care? It's not like the companies are going to take an employees personal life into consideration when they fire them
I worked at a place that started featuring Glassdoor reviews on pages about companies (stock ticker pages). Shortly thereafter, they became one of Glassdoor’s top places to work! Wow! Probably a coincidence.
Glassdoor routinely removes negative reviews.
The very idea of a website that encourages people to anonymously critique employers is ludicrous and irresponsible. I think its use is widespread because it makes money. That fact impresses HR executives and the public, leading them all to base business decisions on admittedly untrustworthy information.
Just think about it: Any disgruntled employee or job applicant can trash a company publicly. An HR department can spam Glassdoor, singing its own praises. (It seems this happened with the company you quit.) Honest comments will get lost. Meanwhile, Glassdoor has no incentive to keep it all clean by making participants accountable. (The argument for anonymity is that people wouldn’t post honest comments if employers knew who they were. Duh. That justifies graffiti?) They make money with every posting. That’s how Glassdoor is like the job boards.
In fact, Glassdoor is a job board. Like LinkedIn, the site uses the honeypot of “community” to lure you into an ulterior revenue model.
https://www.asktheheadhunter.com/7453/can-i-trust-glassdoor-...
Just think about it: Any disgruntled employee or job applicant can trash a company publicly. An HR department can spam Glassdoor, singing its own praises. (It seems this happened with the company you quit.) Honest comments will get lost. Meanwhile, Glassdoor has no incentive to keep it all clean by making participants accountable. (The argument for anonymity is that people wouldn’t post honest comments if employers knew who they were. Duh. That justifies graffiti?) They make money with every posting. That’s how Glassdoor is like the job boards.
In fact, Glassdoor is a job board. Like LinkedIn, the site uses the honeypot of “community” to lure you into an ulterior revenue model.
https://www.asktheheadhunter.com/7453/can-i-trust-glassdoor-...
I'm not exactly surprised that as head hunter would dislike a service that makes his job harder by reducing information asymmetry.
How do you tell if it's increasing Information corruption or reducing Information asymmetry? Nobody has an objectitive view. Glassdoor isn't going to come out and say they are producing negative population scale effects, just like Facebook didn't.
Once upon a time when Wikileaks/Arab Spring was unfolding everyone thought reducing information asymmetry would be net positive. But here we are with a 24*7 fake news culture in the "information age", and Snowden sitting in Russia of all places.
Once upon a time when Wikileaks/Arab Spring was unfolding everyone thought reducing information asymmetry would be net positive. But here we are with a 24*7 fake news culture in the "information age", and Snowden sitting in Russia of all places.
> and Snowden sitting in Russia of all places.
The US cancelled his passport while he was in transit there. If they had any will to have him go somewhere else and not to the Russians with who-knows-what data they could simply have reversed that action and let Snowden go on to Ecuador or wherever.
The US cancelled his passport while he was in transit there. If they had any will to have him go somewhere else and not to the Russians with who-knows-what data they could simply have reversed that action and let Snowden go on to Ecuador or wherever.
My point is look at the outcomes - for him and for surveillance policy in general. He though he was reducing information asymmetry (which I was addressing in the comment abv).
I don't think "fake news" is actually a uniquely modern issue.
It's not. It's the norm. It was once called "Yellow Journalism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Reading the opening paragraph, to me it describes just about any news source today:
Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a US term for a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
Reading the opening paragraph, to me it describes just about any news source today:
Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a US term for a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism.
Ya but what nobody gets is simplicity and scale has changed. Some guy with too much time on his hands on twitter or YouTube or FB can unintentionally (cause it's all chaotic) topple a govt or force change policy change.
He is quite accurately pointing out that it's a system that is incredibly easy to game, AND that Glassdoor has no means or strong incentive to prevent inaccurate reviews from flooding their system.
That is a valid concern. Your comment is an ad hominem attack on the other hand.
I frankly don't think recruiters care about Glassdoor - there are plenty of people who'll take a job at a company with a 'negative' rating, and those are the exact people who the company is looking for in the first place. Let's not forget - companies who actually care about hiring, don't outsource it to companies that you imply profit from 'information asymmetry'.
That is a valid concern. Your comment is an ad hominem attack on the other hand.
I frankly don't think recruiters care about Glassdoor - there are plenty of people who'll take a job at a company with a 'negative' rating, and those are the exact people who the company is looking for in the first place. Let's not forget - companies who actually care about hiring, don't outsource it to companies that you imply profit from 'information asymmetry'.
I've had good experiences at companies with bad reviews, and bad experiences at companies with mediocre reviews. The fact that you can't take ratings at face value in a simplistic way in no way implies people are better off with less information.
When my former employer accumulated too many bad reviews, they eliminated their poor rating by folding their Glassdoor presence into their (much larger) parent company. That's an effective gaming of the system. It still doesn't make the whole exercise useless though.
When my former employer accumulated too many bad reviews, they eliminated their poor rating by folding their Glassdoor presence into their (much larger) parent company. That's an effective gaming of the system. It still doesn't make the whole exercise useless though.
Of course you have to put some effort into determining the reliability of the reviews you're seeing but it seems like an obvious improvement over not even having the option.
Exactly
"Meanwhile, Glassdoor has no incentive to keep it all clean by making participants accountable"
Is this true? Do the users not value quality?
Surely they'd be more likely to use and continue to use the site (and by extension, increasing Glassdoor's revenue) if they perceive it to contain useful, objective reviews?
Is this true? Do the users not value quality?
Surely they'd be more likely to use and continue to use the site (and by extension, increasing Glassdoor's revenue) if they perceive it to contain useful, objective reviews?
I see it as a TripAdvisor for jobs, why would that be a bad thing?
This person has had to recruit for companies with bad Glassdoor reviews and it has made their job harder.
Yeah I have turned down multiple recruiters flat because of glass door reviews. They often don’t even want to tell me the company until I drag it out of them.
I've had recruiters tell me that I will have to go through interviews with them and potentially even someone from the company before they will reveal the name. No. I'm not playing "hour for something good" with my interview time.
This is probably more because they're afraid you'll skip the middle man and apply directly than because they fear you'll look something up on Glassdoor.
Because without strong fraud prevention, stuff like this happens:
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the...
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the...
There is no source of information that doesn't require engaging with a critical mindset in order to make it useful. Anything that you interpret by rote is easily gamed.
As other people have said, this particular fraud is meaningless because it doesn't fit the profile of the sort of thing that would cause problems for users. Misinformation about a real restaurant is an actual problem. Ratings of non-existent restaurants don't matter.
As other people have said, this particular fraud is meaningless because it doesn't fit the profile of the sort of thing that would cause problems for users. Misinformation about a real restaurant is an actual problem. Ratings of non-existent restaurants don't matter.
If you can defraud a site like TravelAdvisor to turn your shed into the best restaurant ever, then you can defraud a site like TravelAdvisor to turn you bad restaurant into a good one, or a competitor's good restaurant into a bad one.
Do you have an argument to support your opinion?
I think your assertion is obviously false. If the restaurant doesn't exist, nobody will provide real reviews. If it does, they may.
I think your assertion is obviously false. If the restaurant doesn't exist, nobody will provide real reviews. If it does, they may.