If anybody doesn't think this is a problem, I overheard managers talking about a 3rd-party tool that finds "at risk employees" which they didn't define but said it included signals such as "they updated their linked in recently" as a signal that they may be on the job hunt.
You better believe that data brokers are both interested in buying and selling any sort of information around your employment/job/interview behaviors.
Let them squirm. Get your teammates to update to and keep management nervous and focused on improving the employee's lives. Take it even to starting a union if needed.
You don't give your time to an employer, you trade it, and in our modern society we have a gap in the market power of labor. Only way to get it is to reclaim it.
Employers and recruiters are always bewildered when I say I don't have a LinkedIn account, or a public Github profile (I have a few tiny open source projects I maintain, but they are all pseudonymous) - and this is exactly why.
I don't want people creeping any kind of "profile" of me. Ever.
I've never really seen retention risk tooling used for evil in the way that most HN readers seem to think it is; it's kind of interesting and eye-opening to me to see the strong negative sentiment towards it.
I've worked in management at companies with risk-based retention tools, and I've always seen them used as just that... retention tools. If anything, getting a high risk score as a high performer would usually be greatly in an employee's best interest, as it would be another justification to the higher-ups for a raise or better job assignment.
To be clear, I'm personally generally against these kind of panopticon data-slurp initiatives overall, I'm just surprised that the initial reaction is so strongly "my manager will use this to fire me" when I've only ever seen the opposite.
It reminds of a concept, which barring a better name, is "action through inaction" — if you know an employee is unhappy through external signals like these, you could make the active effort to not engage with them knowing that it may lead them to quit; instead of a lengthy severance/redundancy discussion.
I've seen similar insights, derived from a person's social-graph through email exchanges, and it was decided to not be used by managers as it could be a liability.
This can be a positive too, proactive dive & save to retain an employee who's manager feel they're about to leave isn't unheard of in my company.
If you're good at your job and highly rated there should be obvious signs when they're trying to preemptively backfill you and at that point you can just communicate about how excited you are about your growth at the company or something to make them take a step back.
I think this was done to me. I didn't even signin or anything, just looked around at what options are out there and started getting questions about my plans to leave.
What I've learned is if you plan to change jobs assume everyone at your current job will find out the minute you have an interview booked. Only applies to big companies that pay 3rd parties to monitor their employees like that though.
Sometimes I wish we had germany's privacy laws for employees in the US.
It can be useful to know who's near the door so that you may rectify the situation, it doesn't necessarily have to be slimy. Benefit of the doubt I guess. DX (getdx.com) has it and it's very pro-worker.
I keep thinking about this response from a glassdoor employee, and what it implies about their decision making processes:
I stand behind the decision that your name has to be placed on your profile and it cannot be reverted or nullified/anonymized from the platform. I am sorry that we disagree on this issue. [...] This is my final determination. I, as well as multiple members of my team, have reviewed your request several times, and I am considering this matter closed.
I can't help but think, how does glassdoor make money?
investigating htis, it is clear - from employers.
They help companies keep a clean image, and also sell them job listings and advertising.
Scrubbing a company's image seems like it would be really lucrative.
It doesn't seem like reflecting reality makes money. I actually don't know if there are any review sites where having accurate reviews makes it profitable.
And it doesn't seem like employees are really a revenue stream, since they are not looking for a job.
I think Glassdoor has the issue in that its not a growth business, but needs to be. You can't have a website like Glassdoor that is VC funded, owned by PE or publicly traded and not have it go to shit. The organic usage is people looking for new jobs, or posting about jobs they hate, or companies responding. A website that has <20 employees and is fine with being a $10M a year business living off of ad revenue could absolutely do this and be successful. A business seeking to double revenue can't.
Yeah, and the problem is that if you try to start a bootstrapped company to compete with Glassdoor without ever taking funding, you’ll be outspent on marketing by the companies that did take funding and you’ll go under. There’s a reason so many of these sites are VC funded even when it feels like they shouldn’t be. And VCs are often willing to fund things with a 1% chance of success, so even if multiple VC-backed companies in a market have failed, it won’t dissuade them from investing.
It does sometimes feel like we're missing out on these "reasonable company with reasonable expectations" type businesses and funding and crashing a ton of companies that would otherwise maybe live on reasonably?
This is the essential problem with any platform whose value consists of user-generated content. For example, Reddit doesn't have to hold an IPO to continue being Reddit, they don't have to paywall their API, and they don't have to make their website a global dark pattern to force engagement; they chose to sell stakes and play the growth game. Medium is another example, as is Quora, LinkedIn, and a hundred other tech companies that are essentially specialized takes on PhpBB forums.
Fully agree with that. But you've just stated one of the major problems the software industry has in general. There's almost an inevitable flow that leads businesses that feed on VC funding to develop like this. They will turn shitty because they are as big as they should get, but not as big as they must get.
Decided to visit the website to delete my account. Lo and behold, the "Deactivate Account" button kicks off a perpetual loop that asks you to "Sign In Again To Delete Account" then dumps you on the same profile setting page, which prompts you again to log in... so you can't really delete your account, at least on web, without the help of support.
Edit: figured it out, is confusing
1. Remove social connection if this is how you logged in
2. Log Out
3. Upon login, request a password reset
4. Reset and login
5. Request Deletion
6. Enter newly created password
Strange, do you have any browser security extensions, aggressive cookie-blocking, or something similar? I was able to complete the process (see my comment below). I'm using Brave with ad blockers. The "deactivate" language is pretty misleading, but after entering account credentials, it did seem to delete the account completely.
Aren't Glassdoor's reviews pretty much a scam anyway? Last I heard companies can pay $$ to gain moderation control over their own profile to delete/downrank bad reviews.
I know of two multinational conglomerates (one Indian, the other Argentinian) that requires all newcomers to post a GlassDoor review and a LinkedIn post praising the company, the onboarding gifts, and such things. Both are absolute hell to work for unless you're upper management, according to acquaintances that have been there and climbed outside the bog of low-level positions.
> Last I heard companies can pay $$ to gain moderation control over their own profile to delete/downrank bad reviews.
I very briefly worked at a toxic company that was aggressive about Glassdoor reviews. From what I heard, they couldn’t get them removed just by asking. They had to carefully examine the Glassdoor rules and find a reason that a review violated the rules.
They used the argument that reviews revealed confidential company information most of the time. It didn’t always work.
When I left, I used a throwaway email and coffee shop WiFi to leave a completely accurate, honest review. I carefully made sure to comply with every letter of Glassdoor’s rules.
There’s something odd in the lifecycle of these sorts of sites. I wonder if it goes like this:
Review site starts out as community driven, connected people tend to get involved. This provides a filter for competent users.
Companies become aware of the site, start looking for ways to manipulate their score. Companies gain access to competent employee. It is bearable for a while.
The scores are manipulated to the point where the site no longer provides a good signal. Only out of the loop dummies still use it, and it becomes a negative filter.
From this point of view, community sites are more like a crop that gets harvested. It would be better for people if it didn’t happen, but the incentive for the company seems to be: be the first one to start consuming the site.
> Last I heard companies can pay $$ to gain moderation control over their own profile to delete/downrank bad reviews.
I can verify this was true at least a few years ago. My friend's company had some bad (but totally honest) reviews. They requested them to be removed. Denied. A few days later they received an email from Glassdoor, talking about some sort of premium plan. They signed up. The bad reviews disappeared a few days later.
> Aren't Glassdoor's reviews pretty much a scam anyway?
Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but all online aggregate reviews are a scam. There are countless ways to game them and with AI it's only going to get worse. At best, they're a weak signal of whether something is bad or good. And the bigger and more popular a review site, the worse the quality/reliability since the impact of manipulating reviews on a site with a huge audience is that much higher.
I know for sure that Glassdoor has no problem with companies flooding their page with fake positive reviews. I worked for a shady company that did exactly that in the most blatant way possible. They consistenly posted short vapid 5 star reviews on a regular weekly schedule from the same IP. I tried reporting it to Glassdoor two different times and they could not have cared less.
My understanding is that these sorts of sites allow companies to pay to boost positive reviews to de-emphasise negative reviews, not remove bad reviews.
it wasn’t always the case (or at least most people believed it wasn’t) and they exist for a long time – the suggestion I think is for the people like me, who wrote something there over 10 years ago and now their posts would possibly stop being anonymous.
Glassdoor seems very has-been at this point. They’re trying to move beyond the mix of folks trashing their employers and then charging employers to make the profile look better to now trying to be more of a serious career site. The ship has sailed on that front and they just seem on a slow march to irrelevance as has happened to lots of other similar career and employer review sites.
I just logged in for the first time in years to delete my account, and before letting me do anything they required me to add my full name and other employment info.
I'm now known as John Smith, student at Brookdale Community College with an associates degree, aspiring to be an "Assistant Dog Catcher" (yes, that was one of the options in their auto-complete field) in Lodi, CA.
There was no option to delete the account, but after clicking "Deactivate", it still said that my account was now deleted, so who knows.
Edit: And now I received 2 emails from them that my recent submissions (filling in that form?) violated community rules.
I haven't logged in in years and I don't think I did much back then. Given everything I've read here, I think it might be safer just to let my account lie.
Same. Thought I must not have been signed in and was getting pushed into a signup flow or something, so I cleared cookies and got the same behavior once I logged in.
Forcing you to give them your real name before allowing you to use the site when logged in is incredibly scummy behavior I hope they are punished richly for.
This is pretty shocking. I never use Glassdoor anyway, so deleted my account after reading. Worth noting that going to Settings only shows a button that says "Deactivate account", which seems misleading. Following this process does show a modal at the end that says "Account Deleted Confirmation. You have successfully deleted your account.", so seems like this is actually deletion vs. deactivation. (Your data stays in an archive DB for some period of time for legal reasons.)
Careful: Those are just words, written by someone who thought that the difference between them is insignificant. (Maybe it was insignificant when it was actually written.) Without having concrete confirmation, all you have is just some optimistic assumption.
also worth noting that if you attempt to go in via the mobile page, specifically to delete an account that predates "fish bowl" and mandatory names, you'll be bombarded with cascading popups that require your compliance (no x to exit, just "next" and filling in the relevant forms).
Based on this story, I already knew to expect resistance, but jesus fuck that was far worse than I imagined.
Wow, big dark UX pattern when trying to sign in now. I'm quite positive that I never linked my glassdoor account to google. Yet, Glassdoor was ambiguously saying on login "use your google account to login for your @gmail address!". To which google asked "are you sure you want to share info with glassdoor."
There was no way to enter my old password, I was forced to now link my account with google which force shared my email & name. I was really nervous about even enabling this linking... I bit the bullet, happily it looks like it is somewhat easy to delete reviews and finally the account. Getting there though, was forced to divulge new information.
I don't think I could have a lower opinion of glassdoor now..
If this is how they're going to play it, RIP Glassdoor. Seems like a MAJOR breach of trust to allow users to submit content and participate anonymously THEN start revealing their names!
"If you are not willing to allow your name on your profile, you will again need to complete Data erasure once you are able to. However, we cannot remove this for you or make the changes you wish to see for your name."
I guess we know the appropriate action to take here. This is an absolutely BONE HEADED decision with regards to the operation of Glassdoor but I wonder what was the impetus for this? It looks like they're trying to convert their anonymous, Reddit-like, users to First Class Named Users for the purpose trying to compete with Linkedin to me.
I find the rationale here questionable and the execution plain nutty personally.
It will be pretty hilarious if we see 500 positive reviews exposed as being from Terry from HR on Glassdoor. Maybe it will help legitimize it a little.
As a senior manager I worked closely with a VP of engineering on the engineering culture - one of the expected outcome was the improvement of our Glassdoor company rating. But my VP (and probably the leadership) wanted to go fast. So my VP was in touch with someone at Glassdoor and had a way to 'tweak' or remove unpleasant reviews. I don't know the details but if there is definitely a way for companies to do that despite Glassdoor claiming that reviews can't be removed.
They can definitely manipulate the default (“recommended”) sort to bury bad reviews. Companies do that all the time. They can also reply to reviews. I’m not sure about control over visibility if a user chooses to sort chronologically, though.
You should request your data from a company like axciom. You can ask them to delete it while you’re at it.
They already know more about you than you’d ever want them to know. The fact that they hadn’t automatically matched your name before was either incompetence or simply being blocked by some frayed little law somewhere.
A little off topic, but his is a classic example of the problem where the laws just haven’t kept up with the technology.
Data collection and public government databases weren’t a problem when you had to go into some big office building somewhere to make a request, or maybe wait a couple weeks to sort it out through the mail.
Today, however, it’s easier than ever to gather this data at scales people can’t even imagine and this level of aggregation has eroded privacy to a degree that I don’t think is reversible anymore.
Anyway, here is a link to axcioms portal, although the cynic in me thinks that by requesting your data be deleted, all you’re doing is confirming your identity.
Well, I've understood Glassdoor to be useless for years due to supposedly allowing companies to control the existence of negative reviews, and I've never had an account. However, this is pretty disturbing and deserves to be more widely known if Glassdoor is actually now hostile to employees who might review former employers.
Done, account deleted, and thank you for the heads up. Genuinely, thankful for that post and maybe the most important social network I’m a part of: Hacker News.
Surely this would discourage anyone posting legitimate reviews of their workplace but quite honestly, Glassdoor seems to only be for companies themselves to have a "badge" and not the potential employees.
I don't think it would be missed if it were to disappear tomorrow.
All this "my final determination" and "your other surprise account" nonsense could be rectified pretty quickly with a GDPR banhammer. I am increasingly of the opinion that personal info of any kind should be legally radioactive, and very high-risk for companies to hold onto or collect.
I agree. I am the author of a [very mild] social media app, that Serves an extremely tinfoil demographic.
The #1 posture is that if we don't actually need the information for the application to run, we don't take it.
I won't go into detail about how we do what we do, but we don't keep any data, other than the email the user chooses to send us (which can be a DEA or proxied one). We also never export that email outside the server. No marketing aggregations, no trend analysis, etc. The email stays inside the deployed server.
This stance has not made me popular with my coworkers, but it has made our app quite popular with end-users.
> Glassdoor now requires your real name and will add it to older accounts without your consent if they learn it, and your only option is to delete your account.
weird. I just logged in, and I can't confirm that this is happening. all of my reviews are still properly anonymous. my account knows my name and my email address, of course, but it does not appear anywhere on the site where I don't expect it to.
> So all users will now receive a Fishbowl account once they login to Glassdoor
I'm not real sure what this means - as far as I can tell, 'bowls' are just the equivalent of fb groups, and while there are a few automatically added to your account initially, you can just leave them, and proceed with an empty list of 'bowls' you follow (or whatever the terminology is)
I definitely want to hear this from Glassdoor. I just can't imagine why Glassdoor would put a user's name alongside a review against the wish of the user in question. So I'll give Glassdoor a chance to clarify what's happening before getting my pitchfork.
It sounds like they aren't doing that, from what the glassdoor rep wrote. It sounds like the author is concerned that, in the event of a data leak, that their name can now be associated with their reviews, instead of just their email address.
Danish payment app MobilePay also just revealed the full name of all its users, linked to the government database.
You can enter any phone number and the full name of the user will be shown. Previously a user-selectable name, now it's coming from the government database of citizens.
It's very possible that the full name from the email to the person's Glassdoor account was not manually performed by a human.
More than likely, their CRM software automatically tied their user-facing account with their support ticket email. Especially if the only unique identifier is based on email address. It's not hard to remove the name and location from the CRM, but because it would become a manual process they just don't want to have to deal with it.
FWIW, this theory could be put to test by signing up an account with username.extrachars@gmail.com and then sending a support email from username.extrachars+1@gmail.com, not sure if they would reject the support ticket as "emails not matched".
I haven’t used Glassdoor for years. I just checked and my account didn’t have any personal information listed. My name and other fields in my profile were “*”
I didn’t see a way to delete my data but I don’t think they had much in the first place.
Site is close to unusable anyway. I have gotten emails from them about potentially interesting jobs, and then could never figure out how to actually view the job postings. Instead I’m sent through their review workflow to get access.
All of these shenanigans occur because the laws favor employers over employees; there’s no protection, or at least, proper freedom of speech. But what can you expect when employees can be fired on the spot for asking to unionize?
It’s always so easy to start relationship when two people are in love, so I met my partner and
we were both In love with each other or so I thought until I realized something wasn’t right,
he was just so good to be true, so I searched online on how to spy on my husband’s phone
without touching it then I saw Spyrecovery36 I contacted him via spyrecovery36 at gm ail c om and
he did a very good job, I was able to find out my partner was two timing, I felt so betrayed by him
All US tech companies ever, they are out there to doing the right thing until money rolls in then profits take the priority over quality and they go down the shitter.
Are you sure it’s just profits? People need money to support themselves. Companies hire people and have to pay them because they can’t work for free. This means companies need revenue.
Now, with traditional companies, customers paid for products and services. This revenue allowed companies to pay employees. With the companies you listened, they gave away their product “for free”. That meant they had to get revenue some other way. Usually, this either involved ads, spying (so ads could be better targeted), pay for advanced features (Evernote), or sell services to some third party (Yelp and Glassdoor are two examples of this).
The problem with all of these new business models is companies often struggle to get enough revenue to survive. What is no called ‘enshitification” is basically companies searchimng for a way to survive when their users will not directly pay for the service they are offering. Is this good for users? No, but then again the users refuse to pay for the service.
My main point here is greed is not the only thing driving this process. In many cases, it is incentives and organizations trying to survive. If we want products which delight us, we are probably going to have to pay for them. If we want the cheapest thing possible, we are going to have to accept that it will get progressively worse as companies try to survive or keep their earning growing.
Note that the above earnings growth is probably a short term phenomenon. My guess is that companies who push earnings over quality eventually destroy their product and get a bad product and lower earnings. This process can take years or decades.
I guess all I can do is upvote this, and hope the sunshine helps lead to the demise of those who turn the public goodwill they've solicited -- here, transparency into employment practices -- against the very folks they've gotten to exercise it.
I guess we all know now not to work for Glassdoor...
(Including the unpaid work that built their product in the first place.)
> Recently I contacted Glassdoor for an account-related issue. This led to them sending me email that I had to respond to. Big mistake.
So he put in a support request, likely via his account; they sent him an e-mail about it, likely to his Glassdoor account's e-mail. He replied from that e-mail address with his full name in the From: field, as most people do, and now they could link his full name with his e-mail address, and update his profile.
That’s super slimy of them — a while back I had spent some time investigating fake reviews on their platform [1] and also found that their moderation team has no strict processes in place to deal with bad actors.
I'm not wildly surprised, and am kinda getting the impression, that companies can fuck individuals any way they want, but… this couldn't be legal, right? I mean, especially the "that would be forthcoming" part.
Seriously, I’ve browsed some of those sites in the past and the info is always bad info. Or at the very least, it’s not possible to discern the good info from the bad info on those sites.
I’ve never understood what compels people to go to those sites, I suspect it’s because people feel that it at least gives them a voice.
The only site with a modicum of value is LinkedIn, and even then you can probably come up with a million reasons to not use it.
Hello everyone, do you have this feeling your partner isn’t being faithful?
Are you being blackmailed by
some low life?
Do you want to keep track of what your kids are doing?
Or do you just need to change
a grade to save your GPA? Spyrecovery36 team of Hackers offer a set of Professional hacking services.
Hire a hacker for Facebook, Email, Web, Database or Phone hacking. They are a team of highly skilled and
professional hackers that are able to hack any social accounts, email accounts, phone, website or database.
100% guarantee of privacy and confidentiality for our customers.
Mail: spyrecovery36 @ gm ail co m
When I signed up for Blind, I remember being a concerned that I had to use my work email to sign up. At the very least the employer can see that you signed up via the verification email.
Shit, and I hate how all of these 'auto-login' prompts appear in Chrome, and if you accidentally click it, then boom, now your name is all over the place. Think this is how I ended up in GlassDoor to begin with.
Good luck 'deactivating' your account. Somehow I was registered via Facebook. I was able to sign in via Facebook. Then they force you to give your company, title, location, and name before they allow you access to anything, including settings (scum). Then when you click deactivate you have to sign in again, and the Facebook login just redirects to a blank page and deactivation doesn't occur.
My God what a sleazy company this is. I just logged in for the first time in ages to delete my account and it immediately gave me an inescapable modal requiring personal information, including my name!
I stopped using the site years ago once it became clear how corrupt they were about handling blatantly fake reviews, but this new name policy is a new low. Glassdoor can't be run out of business fast enough.
Tell me you don't understand what makes your own website mildly attractive to employees without telling Mr.
Glassdoor has been mostly useless for quite some time now anyway. HR departments offer little trinkets to employees who leave a good review to boost their score, negative reviews can be taken down. Minimal value all around basically.
It's both funny and sad when people find out how the real world works and get all indignant. "How dare they do a thing they're legally allowed to do! Rabble rabble rabble!!!" Glassdoor is trying to make money off you, like every other free site on the internet, and they will do whatever the law allows them to. Welcome to planet Earth.
Meanwhile, all the commenters in here are overreacting as usual, clearly not having read any of the terms of the website, like the part where it says your name is not disclosed until you explicitly elect to share it. But hey let's not let facts stop us from freaking out.
Glassdoor is one of the worst and first examples of "annoying paywalls" that I remember. (they don't require payment, but your login and personal info)
I think you are fundamentally wrong. The world is getting better all of the time. Look at life 10 years ago, 30 years ago, 100 years ago, 200, years ago, etc.
Life expectancy is up, people are richer, people are healthier, we have an amazing number of choices, we have amazing devices, etc.
I think your view is very distorted and you really should check your facts. Here are some questions you should ask yourself:
1) What do you mean when you say “enshitification”? How is the world getting worse? By what measure?
2) Are there any counter examples which could disprove your thesis?
3) How does the world today compare to the world at other times? Why is the world better today? What was better before?
Finally, you should consider individual things instead of the world. For example, you can look at your town, housing, food, culture, etc. Try going beyond good and bad and look at the benefits and drawbacks of various things. Consider whether you need a more nuanced view of the world.
The problem Ive always had with levels, is that it seems much more focused on the "sales" groups - the non tech, but vital to business everything.
I've always disliked sales. especially when working on projects where a sales is so smarmy, because they get a huge pay - and I, implementing it all - get nothing.
This happened all over. but here is a story of why I cant stand sales:
I was tech designer for LDAC (lucas presidio campus)
So I built out the RFP for network and we were doing selections up at Big Rock Ranch (the only reason this is important is just how beautiful the space is, so it feels really open nice energy, relaxing)
We are doing vendor selection presentations (the vendors come show us why their solution is best match to RFP reqs)
The vendors were Cisco, Foundry, Force-10 (extreme backed out)
Cisco comes in and they're going through their presentation and we are getting through it - I am reviewing and seeing that it was rather weak, more "marketing"-ish reply to the RFP instead of a detailed response on the specs...
I am sitting across from the main cisco sales guy. (this is at the time the largest 10G network in the world as this is just as the 10G switches were made) - so at the time, its a big deal - like ~$80 million in core gear)
So I am going over the RFP with his team, and he interjects:
"I just want to assure you that Cisco has a world class media team - and I will personally be sure they go through this in depth and really create the right solution"
PIN DROPs
(I am the youngest in the room - but its my RFP/design)
"Excuse me. This is the RFP review. Youre presenting your solution here today. So are you to tell me, that you have a "world class media team" and they have not informed your response to this RFP? That the entire point of this meeting" i said a few more things that made this guy die inside.
This guys balls shot into his throat.
Those are the types of people I think of when I think of levels.
(this was also the meeting where the CIO of Lucas Arts demanding a date for "when can you provide me power over fiber" ((his logic was the design was for both power and fiber to desktop - and he was trying to flex on showing 'how can we reduce infra wiring costs' -- it was a truly different world back then, mostly))
zug_zug|1 year ago
You better believe that data brokers are both interested in buying and selling any sort of information around your employment/job/interview behaviors.
tomrod|1 year ago
You don't give your time to an employer, you trade it, and in our modern society we have a gap in the market power of labor. Only way to get it is to reclaim it.
throwaway918274|1 year ago
I don't want people creeping any kind of "profile" of me. Ever.
bri3d|1 year ago
I've worked in management at companies with risk-based retention tools, and I've always seen them used as just that... retention tools. If anything, getting a high risk score as a high performer would usually be greatly in an employee's best interest, as it would be another justification to the higher-ups for a raise or better job assignment.
To be clear, I'm personally generally against these kind of panopticon data-slurp initiatives overall, I'm just surprised that the initial reaction is so strongly "my manager will use this to fire me" when I've only ever seen the opposite.
nness|1 year ago
I've seen similar insights, derived from a person's social-graph through email exchanges, and it was decided to not be used by managers as it could be a liability.
tonmoy|1 year ago
escapedmoose|1 year ago
shon|1 year ago
Avicebron|1 year ago
iLoveOncall|1 year ago
If you're good at your job and highly rated there should be obvious signs when they're trying to preemptively backfill you and at that point you can just communicate about how excited you are about your growth at the company or something to make them take a step back.
behringer|1 year ago
badrabbit|1 year ago
What I've learned is if you plan to change jobs assume everyone at your current job will find out the minute you have an interview booked. Only applies to big companies that pay 3rd parties to monitor their employees like that though.
Sometimes I wish we had germany's privacy laws for employees in the US.
duxup|1 year ago
I'm not convinced this is always an ultimately bad outcome if someone finds that.
layer8|1 year ago
Gibbon1|1 year ago
pluc|1 year ago
jstarfish|1 year ago
[deleted]
12_throw_away|1 year ago
m463|1 year ago
investigating htis, it is clear - from employers.
They help companies keep a clean image, and also sell them job listings and advertising.
Scrubbing a company's image seems like it would be really lucrative.
It doesn't seem like reflecting reality makes money. I actually don't know if there are any review sites where having accurate reviews makes it profitable.
And it doesn't seem like employees are really a revenue stream, since they are not looking for a job.
barrysteve|1 year ago
blibble|1 year ago
fuck these companies
ecshafer|1 year ago
Uehreka|1 year ago
duxup|1 year ago
tadfisher|1 year ago
FredPret|1 year ago
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mittelstand
karaterobot|1 year ago
tr3ntg|1 year ago
Edit: figured it out, is confusing
1. Remove social connection if this is how you logged in 2. Log Out 3. Upon login, request a password reset 4. Reset and login 5. Request Deletion 6. Enter newly created password
jcoletti|1 year ago
barbazoo|1 year ago
drdirk|1 year ago
fredley|1 year ago
brezelgoring|1 year ago
It's not a lot, but it's weird it happened twice.
Aurornis|1 year ago
I very briefly worked at a toxic company that was aggressive about Glassdoor reviews. From what I heard, they couldn’t get them removed just by asking. They had to carefully examine the Glassdoor rules and find a reason that a review violated the rules.
They used the argument that reviews revealed confidential company information most of the time. It didn’t always work.
When I left, I used a throwaway email and coffee shop WiFi to leave a completely accurate, honest review. I carefully made sure to comply with every letter of Glassdoor’s rules.
My review is still up.
bee_rider|1 year ago
Review site starts out as community driven, connected people tend to get involved. This provides a filter for competent users.
Companies become aware of the site, start looking for ways to manipulate their score. Companies gain access to competent employee. It is bearable for a while.
The scores are manipulated to the point where the site no longer provides a good signal. Only out of the loop dummies still use it, and it becomes a negative filter.
From this point of view, community sites are more like a crop that gets harvested. It would be better for people if it didn’t happen, but the incentive for the company seems to be: be the first one to start consuming the site.
toomuchtodo|1 year ago
https://help.glassdoor.com/s/article/I-m-an-employer-What-ca...
> 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.
https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/
https://www.naag.org/find-my-ag/
queuebert|1 year ago
begueradj|1 year ago
jimt1234|1 year ago
I can verify this was true at least a few years ago. My friend's company had some bad (but totally honest) reviews. They requested them to be removed. Denied. A few days later they received an email from Glassdoor, talking about some sort of premium plan. They signed up. The bad reviews disappeared a few days later.
AlexandrB|1 year ago
Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but all online aggregate reviews are a scam. There are countless ways to game them and with AI it's only going to get worse. At best, they're a weak signal of whether something is bad or good. And the bigger and more popular a review site, the worse the quality/reliability since the impact of manipulating reviews on a site with a huge audience is that much higher.
rurp|1 year ago
spacebacon|1 year ago
halo|1 year ago
Still somewhat shady.
djbusby|1 year ago
gryzzly|1 year ago
JCM9|1 year ago
blowsand|1 year ago
Be sure to select “show more sites” in the sites selection.
And for Glassdoor, bottom of this page:
https://help.glassdoor.com/s/privacyrequest?language=en_US
ipqk|1 year ago
tverbeure|1 year ago
There was no option to delete the account, but after clicking "Deactivate", it still said that my account was now deleted, so who knows.
Edit: And now I received 2 emails from them that my recent submissions (filling in that form?) violated community rules.
thiele|1 year ago
havefunbesafe|1 year ago
jprete|1 year ago
suzzer99|1 year ago
zachmu|1 year ago
Forcing you to give them your real name before allowing you to use the site when logged in is incredibly scummy behavior I hope they are punished richly for.
binarymax|1 year ago
bangaroo|1 year ago
jcoletti|1 year ago
not_your_vase|1 year ago
Ecstatify|1 year ago
You have the option "Delete my personal data"
https://help.glassdoor.com/s/privacyrequest?language=en_US
petsfed|1 year ago
Based on this story, I already knew to expect resistance, but jesus fuck that was far worse than I imagined.
seadan83|1 year ago
There was no way to enter my old password, I was forced to now link my account with google which force shared my email & name. I was really nervous about even enabling this linking... I bit the bullet, happily it looks like it is somewhat easy to delete reviews and finally the account. Getting there though, was forced to divulge new information.
I don't think I could have a lower opinion of glassdoor now..
jdowner|1 year ago
SavageBeast|1 year ago
"If you are not willing to allow your name on your profile, you will again need to complete Data erasure once you are able to. However, we cannot remove this for you or make the changes you wish to see for your name."
I guess we know the appropriate action to take here. This is an absolutely BONE HEADED decision with regards to the operation of Glassdoor but I wonder what was the impetus for this? It looks like they're trying to convert their anonymous, Reddit-like, users to First Class Named Users for the purpose trying to compete with Linkedin to me.
I find the rationale here questionable and the execution plain nutty personally.
throwaway892238|1 year ago
JojoFatsani|1 year ago
nerdjon|1 year ago
I get a prompt that I cannot dismiss about "Communities at Glassdoor" that I can't get past without putting in my employment information and name...
I can't even get too my account to delete it or emails support.
Love dark patterns...
irobeth|1 year ago
gip|1 year ago
freeAgent|1 year ago
gxs|1 year ago
They already know more about you than you’d ever want them to know. The fact that they hadn’t automatically matched your name before was either incompetence or simply being blocked by some frayed little law somewhere.
A little off topic, but his is a classic example of the problem where the laws just haven’t kept up with the technology.
Data collection and public government databases weren’t a problem when you had to go into some big office building somewhere to make a request, or maybe wait a couple weeks to sort it out through the mail.
Today, however, it’s easier than ever to gather this data at scales people can’t even imagine and this level of aggregation has eroded privacy to a degree that I don’t think is reversible anymore.
Anyway, here is a link to axcioms portal, although the cynic in me thinks that by requesting your data be deleted, all you’re doing is confirming your identity.
https://privacyportal.onetrust.com/webform/342ca6ac-4177-482...
ipaddr|1 year ago
digging|1 year ago
kdomanski|1 year ago
junto|1 year ago
drstewart|1 year ago
ppetty|1 year ago
bilekas|1 year ago
I don't think it would be missed if it were to disappear tomorrow.
claytongulick|1 year ago
The real name policy had the opposite of the intended effect.
thrtythreeforty|1 year ago
ChrisMarshallNY|1 year ago
The #1 posture is that if we don't actually need the information for the application to run, we don't take it.
I won't go into detail about how we do what we do, but we don't keep any data, other than the email the user chooses to send us (which can be a DEA or proxied one). We also never export that email outside the server. No marketing aggregations, no trend analysis, etc. The email stays inside the deployed server.
This stance has not made me popular with my coworkers, but it has made our app quite popular with end-users.
moepstar|1 year ago
So, what's left besides word of mouth?
[0] https://www.golem.de/news/urteil-kununu-muss-im-streitfall-k... (sorry, article in german)
cynicalsecurity|1 year ago
plz-remove-card|1 year ago
mock-possum|1 year ago
weird. I just logged in, and I can't confirm that this is happening. all of my reviews are still properly anonymous. my account knows my name and my email address, of course, but it does not appear anywhere on the site where I don't expect it to.
> So all users will now receive a Fishbowl account once they login to Glassdoor
I'm not real sure what this means - as far as I can tell, 'bowls' are just the equivalent of fb groups, and while there are a few automatically added to your account initially, you can just leave them, and proceed with an empty list of 'bowls' you follow (or whatever the terminology is)
what am I missing here?
mistrial9|1 year ago
you just said it yourself -- consider that the data that is collected and sold is not necessarily on the pages you see
blowski|1 year ago
romanows|1 year ago
flemhans|1 year ago
You can enter any phone number and the full name of the user will be shown. Previously a user-selectable name, now it's coming from the government database of citizens.
thraway3837|1 year ago
More than likely, their CRM software automatically tied their user-facing account with their support ticket email. Especially if the only unique identifier is based on email address. It's not hard to remove the name and location from the CRM, but because it would become a manual process they just don't want to have to deal with it.
FWIW, this theory could be put to test by signing up an account with username.extrachars@gmail.com and then sending a support email from username.extrachars+1@gmail.com, not sure if they would reject the support ticket as "emails not matched".
playa1|1 year ago
I didn’t see a way to delete my data but I don’t think they had much in the first place.
I did use the “deactivate account” option.
MattGaiser|1 year ago
tamimio|1 year ago
linda4151|1 year ago
sambull|1 year ago
coolThingsFirst|1 year ago
1) Evernote
2) Triplebyte
3) Glassdoor
4) Let's not forget Quora
StressedDev|1 year ago
Now, with traditional companies, customers paid for products and services. This revenue allowed companies to pay employees. With the companies you listened, they gave away their product “for free”. That meant they had to get revenue some other way. Usually, this either involved ads, spying (so ads could be better targeted), pay for advanced features (Evernote), or sell services to some third party (Yelp and Glassdoor are two examples of this).
The problem with all of these new business models is companies often struggle to get enough revenue to survive. What is no called ‘enshitification” is basically companies searchimng for a way to survive when their users will not directly pay for the service they are offering. Is this good for users? No, but then again the users refuse to pay for the service.
My main point here is greed is not the only thing driving this process. In many cases, it is incentives and organizations trying to survive. If we want products which delight us, we are probably going to have to pay for them. If we want the cheapest thing possible, we are going to have to accept that it will get progressively worse as companies try to survive or keep their earning growing.
Note that the above earnings growth is probably a short term phenomenon. My guess is that companies who push earnings over quality eventually destroy their product and get a bad product and lower earnings. This process can take years or decades.
pbnjeh|1 year ago
I guess we all know now not to work for Glassdoor...
(Including the unpaid work that built their product in the first place.)
crotchfire|1 year ago
Hello, you've been (semi-randomly) selected to take a CAPTCHA to validate your requests. Please complete it below and hit the button!
Press to validate
No thanks.
hammock|1 year ago
How did they get that if you never sent them an email? And if you sent them an email, you gave them your name (whatever name is in the from line)
danudey|1 year ago
So he put in a support request, likely via his account; they sent him an e-mail about it, likely to his Glassdoor account's e-mail. He replied from that e-mail address with his full name in the From: field, as most people do, and now they could link his full name with his e-mail address, and update his profile.
shsachdev|1 year ago
[1]: https://www.careerfair.io/company-reviews
p1esk|1 year ago
krick|1 year ago
blah-yeah|1 year ago
Just deleted all my glassdoor contributions, then deactivated my glassdoor account.
jjtheblunt|1 year ago
null pointer exception
gxs|1 year ago
I’ve never understood what compels people to go to those sites, I suspect it’s because people feel that it at least gives them a voice.
The only site with a modicum of value is LinkedIn, and even then you can probably come up with a million reasons to not use it.
harryquach|1 year ago
cptskippy|1 year ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_Number
linda4151|1 year ago
giantg2|1 year ago
mysteria|1 year ago
malloci|1 year ago
minimaxir|1 year ago
tomrod|1 year ago
Damn this terribly company and their terrible, terrible dark patterns.
jcoletti|1 year ago
jdowner|1 year ago
fHr|1 year ago
FrustratedMonky|1 year ago
hedora|1 year ago
accounts.google.com/gsi/iframe
the google popups go away, but if you click on a "login with google" button it will still work.
(I use that filter with Firefox. It wouldn't surprise me if Chrome's bundled spyware somehow breaks this.)
basisword|1 year ago
rurp|1 year ago
I stopped using the site years ago once it became clear how corrupt they were about handling blatantly fake reviews, but this new name policy is a new low. Glassdoor can't be run out of business fast enough.
smrtinsert|1 year ago
dudul|1 year ago
Glassdoor has been mostly useless for quite some time now anyway. HR departments offer little trinkets to employees who leave a good review to boost their score, negative reviews can be taken down. Minimal value all around basically.
throwaway892238|1 year ago
Meanwhile, all the commenters in here are overreacting as usual, clearly not having read any of the terms of the website, like the part where it says your name is not disclosed until you explicitly elect to share it. But hey let's not let facts stop us from freaking out.
XCSme|1 year ago
1attice|1 year ago
sonicanatidae|1 year ago
StressedDev|1 year ago
Life expectancy is up, people are richer, people are healthier, we have an amazing number of choices, we have amazing devices, etc.
I think your view is very distorted and you really should check your facts. Here are some questions you should ask yourself:
1) What do you mean when you say “enshitification”? How is the world getting worse? By what measure?
2) Are there any counter examples which could disprove your thesis?
3) How does the world today compare to the world at other times? Why is the world better today? What was better before?
Finally, you should consider individual things instead of the world. For example, you can look at your town, housing, food, culture, etc. Try going beyond good and bad and look at the benefits and drawbacks of various things. Consider whether you need a more nuanced view of the world.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
darknavi|1 year ago
Levels.fyi has been really nice.
samstave|1 year ago
I've always disliked sales. especially when working on projects where a sales is so smarmy, because they get a huge pay - and I, implementing it all - get nothing.
This happened all over. but here is a story of why I cant stand sales:
I was tech designer for LDAC (lucas presidio campus)
So I built out the RFP for network and we were doing selections up at Big Rock Ranch (the only reason this is important is just how beautiful the space is, so it feels really open nice energy, relaxing)
We are doing vendor selection presentations (the vendors come show us why their solution is best match to RFP reqs)
The vendors were Cisco, Foundry, Force-10 (extreme backed out)
Cisco comes in and they're going through their presentation and we are getting through it - I am reviewing and seeing that it was rather weak, more "marketing"-ish reply to the RFP instead of a detailed response on the specs...
I am sitting across from the main cisco sales guy. (this is at the time the largest 10G network in the world as this is just as the 10G switches were made) - so at the time, its a big deal - like ~$80 million in core gear)
The sales guy is leaning back as if... don't worry Toots. Jimmy's got this sniffs coke" https://i.imgur.com/gPdQiW5.jpg
--
So I am going over the RFP with his team, and he interjects:
"I just want to assure you that Cisco has a world class media team - and I will personally be sure they go through this in depth and really create the right solution"
PIN DROPs
(I am the youngest in the room - but its my RFP/design)
"Excuse me. This is the RFP review. Youre presenting your solution here today. So are you to tell me, that you have a "world class media team" and they have not informed your response to this RFP? That the entire point of this meeting" i said a few more things that made this guy die inside.
This guys balls shot into his throat.
Those are the types of people I think of when I think of levels.
(this was also the meeting where the CIO of Lucas Arts demanding a date for "when can you provide me power over fiber" ((his logic was the design was for both power and fiber to desktop - and he was trying to flex on showing 'how can we reduce infra wiring costs' -- it was a truly different world back then, mostly))
xvector|1 year ago
wly_cdgr|1 year ago
rincebrain|1 year ago
Second, you find some sketchy thing to do that will boost revenue and burn people's desire to use your product willingly into the ground.
Third, you leave on your golden parachute and the company acts surprised that this proved toxic and changes nothing.
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
Runways|1 year ago
nottorp|1 year ago
Account is untouched since then.
gomezteresa5898|1 year ago
[deleted]
BrendaCampbell|1 year ago
[deleted]
suzanneeddie633|1 year ago
[deleted]
lily4151|1 year ago
[deleted]