Talk:Glassdoor

Written like an advertisement?

{{Advert}} was added to the article in Feb 2014. Not much editing has happened since then. I don't think the article sounds overly like an advertisement, though it is positive in tone throughout. I'll not remove the hatnote, but just thought I would note that I don't really agree with the assessment. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I second that opinion. I was asked to help out here (from someone who answered my question at WP:RD/COMP about an unpleasant experience with Glassdoor), but I'm at a loss as to what to change. Of course I can't add my experience to the article, and I don't see anything on the web that echoes my complaint. AnonymousUserAugust2015 (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

However, perhaps the hatnote may be germane to a problem I did not fix today. Current version under Reports section ledes: "Glassdoor produces reports based upon the data its anonymous and, in many cases, managers generate positive reviews for their organizations through posts." I thought I'd just quick add in "employees" before "anonymous" and mark as "minor edit" since the sentence doesn't seem to parse. Wondering whether I was guessing the correct omitted word I went to the history and found this edit. Although the hatnote was removed in 2015 October, it is clear some PoV tampering has crept into editing contributions. Just adding back "employees" might not really fix the problem. - phi (talk) 07:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Site is down

Editor, please stop reverting my edits. Glassdoor.com is down, and has been down for days, if not weeks. Go look at the site yourself if you don't believe me. There's no point talking about a website in the present tense if it's defunct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.44.112 (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The site was down for no more than a day, and is up now (I checked, since you didn't bother to research your own assertions). Other services have experienced day-long outages including GMail, Facebook and Twitter, and there was even a PlayStation Network outage that lasted for 24 days. All of those services are fully operational. HalJor (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's what actually happened: [1] Go read that yourself if you don't believe me. HalJor (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe my maths is wrong, but...

"The company was cofounded in 2007 by Tim Besse, Robert Hohman, who serves as the company's CEO, and Expedia founder Rich Barton, who serves as the company's Chairman.[4] The idea came from a brainstorming session between the two of them..."

Isn't that three? Deke42 (talk) 10:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Y @Deke42: Fixed. Jay 💬 14:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism section

User:Jffernandez has been adding a criticism section to the article. I've removed it twice now because I feel like it is based on weak sources and reads like original research. The tone in the most recent edit is unencyclopedic and seems WP:POV in nature. Many of the sources are weak, including Quora questions, and many speak to only general concerns about criticism on the internet. I think this section shouldn't exist in the form that Jffernandez is submitting. I welcome other discussion so as to not continue an edit war. only (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Looked like an advertisement

The original article was redacted in an excessively positive, misleading way, not neutral, almost looked like a commercial or a paid advertisement from the company, the main sources were the corporation itself or its investors or the announcements or advertisements they paid in 'official' media, the content was skewed towards the company, included little critical content from third-parties, no content from those who criticized it, it made no mention of the journalistic articles that have been published in respected media like the Wall Street Journal or the Washington Post and that are critical to the company, it did not contain the 'Criticisms' section so usual in other articles. I took the liberty of proposing a 'Criticism' section, please feel free to add to this section or edit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jffernandez (talk • contribs) 16:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There are SIGNIFICANT issues with the criticism section you've added, and it cannot stand as is. The entire first sentence has nothing to do with Glassdoor; it's just personal analysis of laws. Links to FTC laws don't mention Glassdoor. There's a PDF of a court docket that doesn't show anything about Glassdoor. There's a blog that's an unreliable source (see WP:USERGENERATED).

Many employers who post vacancies on these sites do not like negative reviews [44]. - This has nothing to do with Glassdoor and is just a general statement.

Consequently, online companies like Glassdoor have to cover themselves for the potential legal risks negative reviews may pose on their business. Glassdoor has restricted more and more their Terms of Service and Review Guidelines - Again this is personal analysis.

only admit reviews which are not aggressive, do not contain bad language, look 'balanced' and only cointain and are redacted as, personal opinions, not as factual assertions that can harm any employer [46] - The only source provided for this claim is a Quora question/answer; not a reliable source

explicitely warning the users that thay reserve themselves the right to remove any review that may potentially pose any legal risk for them [47]. - Nothing in the provided source states that they'll remove posts.

Contrary to most users' view, there is a number of websites and blogs that warn against posting negative reviews on the web highlighting the fact that, according to US law, literally anyone could potentially be sued at a US Court for damages or at least fired [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]. - This isn't a criticism of Glassdoor; it's also poorly sourced with 3 Quora threads and 1 Reddit thread among the 5 sources

Other websites and blogs have expressed a growing concern that Glassdoor and other similar web portals may not be reliable about the users' reviews, citing a variety of factors including paid reviews, users that complain their reviews are not being published (mainly negative), users that complain really negative reviews are followed by really 'bright and shiny' ones, or others who complain of artificially positive reviews [53]. - The provided source (a LinkedIn blog) barely mentions the commentary in the sentence.

Yet other websites and blogs point out that, since sites like Glassdoor are free for job seekers and do not post online advertising, their business models are to charge employers a fee of USD64 to USD249 per job posting, or monthly fees of USD199 for 1 job opening or USD699 for 10 jobs, which might make them care more about those clients' reputation than about the average job seeker [54] [55] [56]. [57] [58] [59] - Sources include Quora again; overall this sentence is a WP:SYNTHESIS and speculation... it might make them...

besides the fact they could be sued if they allow the publication of too many negative reviews. - Unsourced.

A study done by the Washington Post in 2018 [60] showed that over 50% of all reviews on the Internet (both positive and negative) are fake. - Irrelevant to Glassdoor (this "study" is about Amazon) and it's synthesis to apply the findings the WP made about 40 Amazon products to the entire internet.

Almost none of this can stand as is. It needs to be deleted. A criticism section can work, but it cannot work in this form. only (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The OP has been indeffed for making legal threats. JavaHurricane 01:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

So I saw on my watchlist. I see from their help desk post that they seemed to have a strong reaction to their edits being questioned. I don't think they fully understood how Wikipedia works and had very different views on what the project should be. only (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Glassdoor is Indeed!

It should most certainly be mentioned that Glass Door is owned by the same company that owns Indeed and that hence, they are essentially the same company.

I JUST finished applying to a job to work at Glassdoor's HQs in San Francisco and when I attempted to preview my resume, I was actually redirected to Indeed's website. In fact, at the very bottom of the application it read "Indeed 2021."

I think it is of utmost importance for the public to readily know about the relationship between Indeed and Glassdoor and that its owner, Recruit Holdings, is essentially a monopoly.

I literally came to this article BEFORE applying to Glassdoor to know more about Glassdoor and this article is honestly lacking in many regards.

This article is in dire need of a CRITICISM SECTION!

I will go further to state that clearly someone or some persons from Glassdoor/Indeed have done a very good job of keeping this article "clean." Others have mentioned this as well.

I would like to see this article be more clear and transparent.

Suffice it to say that after having multiple deceptive experiences with interviewing to work for Indeed, I would never have bothered with applying at Glassdoor. 108.29.152.48 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

First, this article does allude to its relationship with Indeed, through the common parent company, Recruit Holdings (that article mentions Indeed in the lede). That doesn't make them the same company -- they have different purposes and Glassdoor itself refers to Indeed through "partnership"s on their blog. Even combined, they aren't a monopoly considering what they consider competition: CareerBuilder.com, Monster.com and ZipRecruiter.com, and in a separate article, LinkedIn. I agree that the article could be improved but with better sources than these and without unfounded accusations. HalJor (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No longer anonymized?

Mods: Should below be added to Controversy section?

Basically you now either provide your personal information on Glassdoor (defeating the purpose) or they will try to scrape it off your social connections.

https://cellio.dreamwidth.org/2024/03/12/glassdoor-violates-privacy.html Fwd079 (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be added with a personal WP:BLOG as the only source. Has there been any wider coverage of this? Belbury (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair point, the story just broke few days ago but today this below article is from Wired (magazine) was published addressing this.

https://www.wired.com/story/glassdoor-wants-to-know-your-real-name/ Fwd079 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)