[llaith]

In my experience, the negative ones are usually absolutely reliable! When I have left a place happy, I usually forget to write a good review. When I leave a place that was a nightmare to work at, I don't forget to spill the beans to warn people away.

It's not uncommon for a company to have some sort of management shuffle, a new (worse) culture is imposed, and people start to leave and write negative reviews. Then the company will hire a firm to write them positive reviews and disparage those who have left bad reviews, and not realise that prospective employees can completely tell the difference between the level of detail in the negative reviews 'eg, there was a pm who used to try to physically intimidate the female members of the team by leaning over them when he talked, I saw this on a weekly basis for 6 months until he was promoted to the programme manager and stopped working in our office', and the BS positive ones like 'it's a challenging place to work, the people posting negative reviews are used to workplaces where they need less initiative blah blah blah.

You'll see what I mean as you read them.

Sites like glassdoor are the only safety net we have to protect ourselves from those kinds of situations.

[reureu]

> Then the company will hire a firm to write them positive reviews

One company (Series D, 300+ employees) that I worked at did this, sort of. It was less a hired firm, and more the CEO posting.

> and the BS positive ones like 'it's a challenging place to work, the people posting negative reviews are used to workplaces where they need less initiative blah blah blah.

Absolutely. There are a few key phrases that are huge red flags for me. Consistent "themes" showing up on Glassdoor along the lines of "people who can't stand the heat need to get out of the kitchen" or "people are used to the old ways and need to grow up" or "this is a fast paced work environment and not everybody can handle it" are red flags that the company is trying to influence their Glassdoor rankings. It's like the opposite of sandbagging... if they make enough of the same comments, then Glassdoor will pick up a theme that provides an "excuse" for the company's legitimate bad reviews.

[badcodehere]

There are bs reviews HR has added for our company, but there are also 3-4 star entries for current employees whose identifies I can guess based on their phrasing (I'm calling bs on any 5 star I see). There are also a few ridiculously negative ones left by people right after they were fired.

[tixocloud]

Seems like the CEO has too much time on his hands. Which makes me wonder - isn't it easier to do the right thing and treat your employees right than it is to constantly come up with fabled stories to counter the negative reviews.

[viraptor]

From the CEO level? Which would require replacing or reforming a number of managers enabling the current situation and possibly delaying any current progress? I don't think there's any overlap between people who run on funding and who would attempt this for greater good.

[ransom1538]

"In my experience, the negative ones are usually absolutely reliable!"

Yes. In my experience: Only people extremely pissed off take the time to open their macbook and write a truthful rage at 2am. There are good reviews, but they just don't have the same soul crushing honest factor. Comically, people think they are being anonymous -- but you can't soul crush without knowing -- and people (engineers) quickly put things together.

[capkutay]

That doesn't make any sense. I've come across colleagues who wrote scathing reviews...typically consistent with their work ethic. Hard to work with, quick to blame others..then it's no surprise when they go to Glassdoor and say 'the people here are morons!' when they get let go for performance reasons.

[ransom1538]

I understand what you are saying: You hired psychopaths on accident -- but your office is still a great place to work!

[muzani]

Fun fact though: Actual legit psychopaths are very charming. The biggest symptom is that they have a history of failures and bad referrals. But they are good at convincing you that they were victimized, and that they trust you to bring them to the next level.

Usually at the end of an interview, the interviewer ends up feeling like this person is a great guy, just unlucky. They might have failed a lot, but failure is good in Silicon Valley.

You end up with a person who becomes a core team member because they care the most. But they end up being manipulative assholes who are well connected.

[andrewflnr]

The thing about those people (not sure psychopath is the exact term) is that they can pass for decent people for long enough to get hired and entrenched. Hiring a few of them is inevitable at scale. So as long as they actually do get fired (as in GP's case), yes, it can still be a good place to work.

[ransom1538]

Ah yes. The "we hire a few psychopaths now and then" excuse.

[andrewflnr]

Ah, yes. The "throw out snarky comments and hope nobody notices I don't have a real argument" tactic.

[rhizome]

Just a bad apple, you see.

[gdilla]

With NLP and ML any company can know who wrote what review if they wanted to. They have all your emails and thus writing style is easily ascertained.

[audleman]

> With NLP and ML any company can know who wrote what review if they wanted to

And the motivation to dedicate resources to this is...? You already fired the person, what does it matter if you find out who they are?

[sevensor]

Current employess sometimes write scathing reviews as well, so there's clearly a potential for retaliation there.

[btown]

If they signed a non-disparage clause, it could be worth quite a lot.

[pravula]

Streisand effect is a beautiful thing.

[literallycancer]

That this is even a thing is extremely concerning.

[KGIII]

Wouldn't that be easy to foil? I can, and do, write with different styles that depend on the audience I'm trying to reach. I'm reasonably sure I could write entirely unlike my normal writing and appear to be a completely different person. I've done a lot of writing for very different audiences.

Am I, perhaps, over-estimating my ability? Are they really that good at determining origin?

[forg0t_username]

Even if you're overestimating your ability, it does not really matter for the case at hand. You can have someone you trust write the review for you.

[klenwell]

Agree with this completely. Spent over a year job-hunting and found Glassdoor reviews to be a useful tool.

I'd often remember to look up a company on Glassdoor after an iffy interview. It sent me running away from a couple places I was on the fence about.

And it's just as llaith says. I'd usually have to wade through the sockpuppet froth at the top to find the detailed reviews from developers 3-6 months ago describing the dysfunctional culture or 60+ hour workweeks.

[Balgair]

Does anyone know how GD is funded? Is it ads or do companies pay somehow to be listed?

I ask, as the payment method is critical to understand it's reliability.

If it is ads, then yes, I think it should be reliable. 'You' are the 'product' in that case. More negative press will likely keep you clicking and searching about, therefore more money.

If it is the companies, then it it not likely reliable. Why would you pay a company to essentially bad-mouth you? You pay them for good press (the pizzeria in NY on Yelp being an egregious exception). I'd say this holds if the companies can pay in any way at all. If they can influence for dollar, even rarely, then the whole thing is suspect.

Anyone know the real answer?

[KGIII]

So far, it looks like they are supported by VC funds. I can't find any info on how they intend to become profitable but a few comments, drawn from memory, suggest they are expecting to fund with ads and a couple of people have suggested they will have a subscription service.

However, I can't find anything official about either and Wikipedia isn't very helpful. They do have some information about their existing funding:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassdoor

A part of me thinks this type of thing would make a good not-for-profit enterprise. I'd even consider some sort of government backing. I'd say a service like that has good social potentials and can help society to make nformed choices.

[Balgair]

I'd think so as well! But as we have seen in healthcare and other sectors, regulatory capture is possible, if not probable. Though, to be fair, the credit bureaus are in a similar niche and they are frankly a catastrophe. It seems that any 'word of mouth' type business or board that is of any use will eventually become useless as they try to squeeze blood from turnips. Subscriptions/payment may be better, like The Negro Motorist's Guidebook of the 1950's.

[KGIII]

Yeah, I'd think it'd have to be a not-for-profit enterprise with some sort of forced independence and verification. I keep mulling it over and thinking that it's be simple to do, but each idea I come up with finds me also finding ways it can be abused. So, it's not really that easy, I suppose.

[itsdrewmiller]

They have a sales team for working with employers. In the pitches I've received it was focused on recruiting and there wasn't a whiff of any sleazy reputation management stuff.

[Balgair]

Good to know, thank you!

[TwoNineFive]

You can pay Glassdoor to become an "Engaged Employer": http://resources.glassdoor.com/contact.html?channel=homepage...

So yes, Glassdoor's intensive structure is aligned to make employers happy. They don't take any income from individual review contributors or readers.

[Balgair]

Hmm, though this is cause to doubt, it is still only one cause.

However, it seems that their business model is then catered, at this time, to employers and they have made themselves a niche area in the reputation management sector. Though not alarming at this time, I can see this going south quickly and without warning (Equihax for example)

[rqtaylor]

They are funded by Venture Capital, but their revenue comes from companies paying for "branding" on their company profiles and advertising jobs. If you choose not to pay to brand your company profile, other companies can advertise their jobs on your profile.

[Waterluvian]

That made me think about the reviews in app stores these days. There will be a valid complaint and rating, followed by a response from the company that might be something like, "this has been addressed in the next version. we're sorry you had a bad experience." Something like that turns a 1 star rating into a positive signal to me.

Maybe Glassdoor reviews need the opportunity for a company representative to say, "this is valid criticism and we are addressing it."

[macNchz]

It actually is possible to reply to Glassdoor reviews if you claim your company page.

[devdad]

I often struggle with app store reviews, because people that are satisfied won't go and rate the app out of the blue. Non-technical users that can't follow an industry standard sign up flow will go completely nuts and give one star with completely insane comments.

I used to believe that the "please rate my app"-popup was bad ux. Now I know why it's used.

I'd think the same pattern applies to GD. Why would I write a review when satisfied with my work? I'd have no reason to even visit GD.

[toast0]

> I used to believe that the "please rate my app"-popup was bad ux. Now I know why it's used.

It doesn't make it any better ux though. FYI, the way to make them stop is to say 'yes i'll write a review', wait for the app store to load, and then close it. They usually won't prompt you again.

> I'd think the same pattern applies to GD. Why would I write a review when satisfied with my work? I'd have no reason to even visit GD.

If you're highly engaged with your company and have positive feelings, you may want it to look better to people considering working with you.

[devdad]

> It doesn't make it any better ux though. FYI, the way to make them stop is to say 'yes i'll write a review', wait for the app store to load, and then close it. They usually won't prompt you again.

No, I didn't mean that it somehow turned into great ux. I meant that I understand the rationale behind it nowadays.

[giobox]

This is purely speculation, but I've often wondered if some of the inexplicable positive reviews at bad places I've worked are the product of the company HR team - I wouldn't be surprised at all if some companies try to game their glass door rating if it gets too bad. I've certainly worked some places where there were a bunch of positive reviews that looked suspiciously like the work of a single person.

[sevensor]

This is absolutely, with no exaggeration or guesswork required, true. I had friends in HR at a former employer who were asked to do this. It was hardly a secret within the company.

[trophycase]

Yes this is true for nearly any meaningful online ratings: Amazon, Imdb, Yelp. Negative reviews are the more reliable indicator.

[s73ver_]

"and the BS positive ones like 'it's a challenging place to work, the people posting negative reviews are used to workplaces where they need less initiative blah blah blah."

Nothing gets my goat more than this kind of thing. Suddenly, if I don't want to be harassed every day, I "can't hack it"?

[steven777400]

Sometimes you can catch this in an interview, too, when you ask what happened to the previous person in the position (I always ask this question).

Usually it's simple like "they moved on" or "they were promoted". One time I got an angry, "Well they just couldn't handle it here!" Huge red flag

[alexpetralia]

You can see the time series of ratings for a company under "Rating Trends". If it ticks up spontaneously, I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that HR stepped in.

[dmarlow]

For the most part they can be reliable. However, there are bitter, cynical people out there who are let go for performance reasons and will speak negatively about their former employer and take no thought to point out the good parts. In other words, take reviews with a grain of salt.