[DoofusOfDeath]

I really like the idea of somehow discouraging ghosting. It happened to me at a time when I was desperate for a job change. A recruiter for RedHat strung me along for weeks before going silent. It really screwed up my job-search schedule, as RedHat was (at the time) my first choice.

But I'm not sure where the best place is to apply pressure:

(a) privately shame recruiters to the employers they represent, or

(b) publicly shame recruiters so that employers and candidates can avoid that recruiter, or

(c) publicly shame the employers who hire such recruiters.

Also, the anonymous nature seems like a double-edged sword. One could imagine hoax / malicious reports being submitted by competitors and/or rejected candidates. I imagine that once that loophole starts getting exploited, employers will rightfully ignore all the reports.

[quadrifoliate]

I think that (c) would be the best choice here. After all, recruiters simply facilitate a transaction between a company and a candidate. Whether or not they directly receive their paychecks from a specific company and their compensation structure, etc. is an implementation detail that is always subject to change.

I see lots of people (including some commenters in threads on this article) offering the excuse "Well, you see, recruiters behave badly because the incentives set up by Acme, Inc. are such that behaving badly gets them paid the most per year".

Hence, naming (and potentially, shaming) Acme, Inc. is the right thing to do here.