[lsc]

the problem is that you are evaluating the recruiter, not the job.

There are many places, most famously google, which have shitty recruiters, but are actually decent places to work. (Google is legendary for it's poor taste in recruiters. I've known a few people who didn't like it an left, but most of the people I know there seem to think it's pretty good. The weird part, to me, is that it seems like the time between "I don't think google is great" and no longer working for google seems to be... shorter than at most companies.)

Really, it's a lot like the problem employers have; resumes and interviews are a shitty way to evaluate potential employees... but what else do you have? This is an example of the same thing in the other direction. The style of the recruiter is a shitty way to evaluate company culture... but what else do you have?

Either way, if you know someone on the inside? that's going to be your best channel for evaluation, really, in both directions. But... that has all sorts of other problems, many of them having to do with only being able to move within your existing social group.