
Ask HN: How reliable are Glassdoor reviews? - omosubi
Do the expectations the site give match up with what you have experienced?
======
pyrophane
A personal anecdote:

I was working at a small (~30 person) company that had 9 developers leave
within the span of a few months due to the same set of fundamental complaints.

Several people posted reviews on Glassdoor. The reviews were negative but did
not violate Glassdoor's content policy as far as any of us could tell (no
naming individuals or making personal accusations, etc). Company had a 1.x
star rating for a time.

After a bit, the company becomes "actively engaged" on Glassdoor and responds
to several of the complaints. Even posts a couple of 5-star reviews from
managers praising the company. Whatever.

Anyway, shortly after that one of us noticed that several of the negative
reviews had disappeared. Someone logged in and saw that their review had been
rejected for "violating the content policy." Their best guess was that someone
from the company had flagged it and Glassdoor took it down, and that's where I
have two issues with Glassdoor that inform my perspective on the quality of
their reviews:

1\. They did not notify the people whose reviews were taken down that their
review had been removed. If they hadn't been closely following the company's
profile they never would have noticed.

2\. Glassdoor didn't provide any specific feedback on why the review was taken
down.

So, because of this experience I don't have much faith in Glassdoor reviews to
be accurate: I believe that Glassdoor makes it possible for companies who want
to "manage" their profile to do so. I don't think they do it explicitly, but
it certainly looks to me like their process is designed to enable it. Also,
this lines up with their incentives: they make their money from the employers,
no?

~~~
whamlastxmas
I left a negative review on Glassdoor once that was entirely merited and it
didn't even make it past moderation

~~~
pyrophane
Our experience was somewhat different. Most of the reviews were initially
posted. One was rejected for a reason that did actually make sense, but was
approved with changes. It wasn't until later that they were rejected and
quietly removed.

------
mlthoughts2018
I generally operate on the heuristic that negative reviews (if well written)
are accurate while positive reviews are never accurate.

Modern companies cannot “be good” in any ways other than high compensation,
consistently high end benefits, and retraining people instead of firing them.

Any other description of a good attribute must be ignored. Even if it’s
accurate, the company has no obligation to keep it that way, you don’t know
the deep political story about it, these are rarely promises anyone can
enforce.

Most companies are wildly horrible places to work, in ways that have been
studied and documented since Moral Mazes.

This is why it’s imperative to negotiate very uncompromisingly on things like
salary, bonuses, and severance agreements, no matter how much people pressure
you to believe you can’t negotiate them.

To win a job negotiation you simply have to not want what the other person is
offering, and the reason is simple: every job that anyone ever tries to sell
you on, for all time, is a total lemon, and ought to require exactly what you
want to be paid to do that job. Any time you walk away from a job, you’re
making the right choice, because avoidance of the cognitive and behavoral
dysfunction that any organization will beat you with (emphatically not
hyperbole) is better for you in the long run.

The only reasonable exception is when you’re truly desperate because of some
resource depletion, like you’ve been unemployed and have no choice but to
compromise. Obviously you can compromise on other dimensions if you just
happen to want to, but from the point of view of the business transaction that
is a job, the only practically enforceable parts are stated compensation and
benefits you can get in writing.

The earlier you realize you must look at all forms of employment this way, the
better off you’ll be.

~~~
therealdrag0
I've worked at three companies and enjoyed them all. Your negativity can be
true, but I don't think it's always true. It could be that it's impossible for
any one company to be all things to all people. Individuals have different
tastes and compatibilities.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
Whether you’ve enjoyed working at some place is not relevant. The point is
that if you base a decision on aspects of a job you can’t enforce, then what
you enjoy about it can change on the whim of some other people, no matter what
they verbally promise or reassure you about. It is much harder to do the same
thing with stated compensation or certain other benefits.

I’ve had jobs I really enjoyed, then a manager quit unexpectedly and the
replacement made the job horrible. I’ve enjoyed perks like working from home,
then the CTO changed and disallowed all remote work. I’ve enjoyed a quiet and
private office, then HR decided to rebrand us as a hip cargo-cult startup and
suddenly I had to do my job embedded in a never ending stream of audio
disruptions that headphones can’t mitigate.

If you’ve only had generally pleasant job experiences, then from everyone
else’s point of view, your approach is so clouded by insane selection bias due
to the absurd rarity of that experience that effectively your perspective has
to be ignored for practical decision making.

I also strongly dispute the idea that any part of what I wrote is negativity,
not at all. It’s not cynical, not hyperbolic, not an over-generalization. It
is a perfectly neutral perspective that accounts for the necessary degree of
caution and skepticism you have to have when dealing with an entity (a
corporation) that is essentially a legalized sociopath.

~~~
sonnyblarney
"Whether you’ve enjoyed working at some place is not relevant."

It's very relevant.

"The point is that if you base a decision on aspects of a job you can’t
enforce, then what you enjoy about it can change on the whim of some other
people, "

This is called life; you don't control the Universe.

I suggest this has nothing to do with employment, or GlassDoor reviews, and
more of a borderline nihilist take on life in general.

About 90% of Americans enjoy their work on some level [1], and about 50% are
'very satisfied' (58% for folks with Uni), and though most of us would
probably quit and sunbathe or golf all day, we don't have that option and so
we work together to make a better future for ourselves, our children and our
communities.

We all like to gripe, and even in the most perfect circumstances we'll have a
tendency to externalize most of our unhappiness and attribute it to other
things.

'The system' is pretty good, better than it's ever been, even massively better
than it was maybe only three generations ago when most of us were on farms,
mines or factories.

It's always healthy to be skeptical and realistic about companies goals.

"If you’ve only had generally pleasant job experiences, then from everyone
else’s point of view, your approach is so clouded by insane selection bias"

Given that the vast majority of folks are generally satisfied with their jobs,
you might be the one with the 'perspective bias' due to perhaps a bad
experience or two, because again - 90% of people are generally satisfied with
their jobs, I'll gather you might personally have been somewhere in that 10%,
and that the commenter's experience is more normative.

[1] [https://trends.collegeboard.org/education-pays/figures-
table...](https://trends.collegeboard.org/education-pays/figures-tables/job-
satisfaction-education-level-2008)

~~~
mlthoughts2018
> “It's very relevant.”

No, it is not relevant.

> “This is called life; you don't control the Universe.”

This too is not relevant.

> “About 90% of Americans enjoy their work on some level [1], and about 50%
> are 'very satisfied' (58% for folks with Uni)”

This is not compatible with either common sense observation nor other hard
data such as [1] - [5] below. I utterly do not believe 90% of Americans enjoy
their work on some level, even after reading the citation you gave and
reflecting on it. That just doesn’t comport with vast other data on the topic.

> “'The system' is pretty good, better than it's ever been, even massively
> better than it was maybe only three generations ago when most of us were on
> farms, mines or factories.”

This also seems irrelevant. Just because a very bad thing is perhaps better
than it used to be doesn’t make it good, neutral or undeserving of focused
skepticism.

> “Given that the vast majority of folks are generally satisfied with their
> jobs”

They aren’t, and this point invalidates your perspective in your reply as far
as I can tell.

[1]: [https://news.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-
enga...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-
work.aspx)

[2]: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-21/people-
st...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-21/people-start-hating-
their-jobs-at-age-35)

[3]: [https://www.fool.com/careers/2017/06/12/hate-your-job-
clearl...](https://www.fool.com/careers/2017/06/12/hate-your-job-clearly-
youre-not-alone.aspx)

[4]: [https://qz.com/375353/half-of-us-workers-have-left-a-job-
bec...](https://qz.com/375353/half-of-us-workers-have-left-a-job-because-they-
hated-their-boss/)

[5]:
[http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2007/04/19/americans-...](http://scienceblogs.com/retrospectacle/2007/04/19/americans-
hate-their-jobs-more/)

The summary among all these is that somewhere between 50% and 85% of Americans
“hate their jobs” and only around 13% of employees are engaged in their work
(not mentally checked out).

Given the breadth and consistently large effect sizes seen in the numbers
reporting they hate their jobs, I simply do not believe the lone YouGov survey
with contradictory results has an appropriate methodology.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Your literally arguing that 'Whether you’ve enjoyed working at some place is
not relevant' ... and then you provide a bunch of data points to try to prove
'job happiness' one way or the other, as though it's relevant?

You arguing the sky is blue, and then not blue in the next sentence? Which is
it?

...

"The summary among all these is that somewhere between 50% and 85% of
Americans “hate their jobs” and only around 13% of employees are engaged in
their work (not mentally checked out)."

This is absolutely false and there is no reading of those five references (3
of which are irrelevant) which indicates this. The data I provided is more
nuanced and reveals that even among the 50% that are 'not satisfied' when
given an either or choice, most even those are still at least 'somewhat
satisfied'. 'Perfect job satisfaction' was never the objective. Less than 10%
'hate their jobs'.

...

(People happy at work) "This is not compatible with either common sense
observation nor other hard data such as"

It is common sense to anyone who's paying attention. Most people are ok with
their jobs, and most of the rest are somewhat satisfied - as the data shows.

If you need a house, either you work->get money->pay to have it built - or you
build it yourself. Clearly, most of us would prefer to be on the beach than do
'work' ... but if you want a house, you have to do 'work' one way or another,
most people understand that reality and are fine with it.

...

"I also strongly dispute the idea that any part of what I wrote is negativity,
not at all. It’s not cynical, not hyperbolic, not an over-generalization. It
is a perfectly neutral"

Because your position is based on bad facts it is effectively hyperbolic and
nihilist.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
> “Your [sic] literally arguing that 'Whether you’ve enjoyed working at some
> place is not relevant' ... and then you provide a bunch of data points to
> try to prove 'job happiness' one way or the other, as though it's relevant?”

I have not argued that.

I have said that you should consider other reports of someone being happy at a
job for reasons other than compensation, benefits or job security as
irrelevant because if you infer you’ll be happy based in other factors, which
are more easily changed on a whim (thus leading to widespread reported
unhappiness at jobs), you set yourself up to make a choice that makes you
unhappy.

> “You [sic] arguing the sky is blue, and then not blue in the next sentence?
> Which is it?”

It seems you’re in a rush to argue, so I’m going to disengage here. I’ve read
and reflected on your comment, re-read your source, my five sources, and the
polls they link to, and I am just going to agree to disagree with you. You’re
invested in “being right” about this but the data don’t support what you’re
saying. The interpretation is not “more nuanced” in this case, and it is only
one single study claiming that fewer than 10% hate their jobs, with a
methodology that conflicts with the surveys historically used to guage that.

I believe you’re wrong, you are responding in a purely reactionary way, and
I’m not taking the bait.

~~~
_Tev
> I’ve read and reflected on your comment, re-read your source, my five
> sources, and the polls they link to, and I am just going to agree to
> disagree with you. You’re invested in “being right” about this but the data
> don’t support what you’re saying.

Actually I agree with the other poster that your sources are claiming
something else or something much weaker than you do. Your claims of "being
neutral" and appeals to "common sense" confirm you have extremely negative
bias on this matter. And, considering the quote above, completely blind to it.

Btw if anyone can actually get some proper data on the topic I would be
interested in seeing them. My anecdata are not really decisive in either way.

~~~
mlthoughts2018
The good thing is that it doesn’t matter if you agree or not, nor if I do. The
linked sources are listed above, with direct links to the engagement polls
from Gallup.

Even in light of your comment, I still don’t see any evidence that my view is
a negatively biased interpretation.

Your comment does read like an ad hominem though, which makes me question your
participation in this comment thread. You’re not seeking data, except a throw-
away comment at the end that is a bad attempt to undermine the quality of the
data already linked in the Gallup polls. You’re seemingly only here to
criticize subjective aspects of my reply.

------
starchild_3001
My old company's reviews are full of lies (through omission). Basically, the
company fights vigorously with anyone who posts a negative review (and they
somehow manage getting them removed). Anyone who posts a positive review
remains :)

Alternative to Glassdoor: Ask an insider. Find old (former) employees on
Linked to discuss. Check attrition--- __the best measure __(how many folks
joined the firm recently - how many left). If it 's a revolving door, don't go
there.

~~~
make3
the alternative is 1000x harder than just opening Glassdoor's website. We
should make an open alternative to Glassdoor that has no financial incentive
to please the employers. I feel like this is real important.

------
markbnj
I personally don't give Glassdoor reviews any credence, and I've never checked
the site during the process of engaging with a potential employer. I think
there is too much potential for bias in both directions: people who are
leaving often have emotional laundry to air, and people who are staying often
have a corresponding need to defend that choice. It just seems to me like any
actually useful information is likely to be overwhelmed by these factors.
Instead of using a site like Glassdoor that attracts people with these sort of
motivations I would rather gather my information on the side band from other
sources: who works there, github repos, articles employees have posted,
offhand comments on hacker news, etc.

------
sigfubar
I have worked at one company that paid employees for fake positive reviews.

I’ve worked at another company that ran witch hunts on a regular basis in
order to flush out the authors of negative reviews. Management spent time
reading between the lines in order to figure out who the authors were based on
their writing style.

I had a lot of fun with them by posting truthful negative reviews written in a
variety of styles that matched no particular person’s style in full, yet left
management believing that they were on the cusp of identifying the author. It
was a lot of fun until I realized that these asshats were spending valuable
time on stupidity instead of righting the ship, but by then it was already too
late.

~~~
basurihn
My hat to you, sir. Sometimes, the best incentive for honesty is the
punishment of dishonesty.

------
jghn
Anecdotally and just from my own experience they've been accurate _but_ often
lack context for an outsider to correctly interpret them.

I have seen cases where the reviews are mixed and they're generally accurate.
The problem is that they're describing different departments and a candidate
on the outside would not know that, so they'd not understand that one
department is a lot more pleasant than another.

~~~
BrandoElFollito
This is a very good point.

The description of my company is accurate, both in the positive and the
negatives.

While the interpretation of the positive is usually straightforward, the
negative should be taken in context.

An example is "outdated technology". We have both outdated and bleeding edge
tech. The outdated part is for some critical legacy software which cannot be
refractored for good and bad reasons.

The complaint should rather be "when I was hired or was not made clear that I
would be working on X". Those who were told that and accepted the job are
happy with the tech.

------
maym86
From my experience the people writing the most glowing positive reviews are
doing it to get you to work there as they are somehow involved in hiring and
do so to counter any of the genuine negative reviews. I have seen this happen
first hand as a push by a recruitment team once a few honest negative reviews
appeared.

There are enough people within a company with a vested interest in having a
good image on glassdoor to create a strong inventive to make it look better
than it is.

------
register
In my experience they used to be extremely accurate until 1-2 years ago. I
believe that in the last two yers companies are beginning to pay more
attention and try to do the possible to overcome bad reviews. I agree on the
complete lack of context. In general they are still a good tool but as already
said they must be taken with a grain of salt.

------
reureu
I have some friends with knowledge of companies that are rated as a "best
place to work" by Glassdoor. The companies heavily promote their achievement
on social media and during recruiting. My friends tell me about the shocking
number of employment lawsuits these companies have settled, incredible
employee turnover, and general egregious things happening within the company.
Unfortunately, non-disclosure agreements prevent those stories from ever
really surfacing.

I've heard enough to take all Glassdoor reviews and ratings with a huge grain
of salt. At this point, companies actively advertising their Glassdoor status
is more a red flag for me, in the same way the I never stay at a hotel that
advertises it has clean rooms. If you have to explicitly tell me you're a good
place to work, then you probably aren't.

~~~
clubm8
I have a friend who I often chat about job searching with (we're both on the
market). They recently had a shockingly bad experiece with a company that
prides itself by it's glassdoor rating.

They told me they don't plan on writing a review, because they're worried said
company may intuit who wrote they review and blacklist them from future
hiring. They insist they must have had an outlier experience.

I can see how this attitude in aggregate, coupled with NDAs laden hush money
leads to an inaccurate picture...

------
fapjacks
In my experience, it's best to look at companies with Glassdoor reviews
collectively along a single axis: Are they _really_ bad? Or are they
potentially not _really_ bad? I usually try to find a shortcut along a path
less traveled, and so I take to LinkedIn or Github (or IRC!) to find people
working the job I'm looking for at the company I'm interested in, and then
talk to those people. Glassdoor can sometimes reveal when companies have
recently been a _really_ terrible deal for employees, but I've had more than
one negative review not even make it past moderation (for no reason I could
discern). They're clearly scrubbing the stains from company images, one way or
the other.

~~~
hkai
From personal experience, you can scrub bad reviews by writing to their
support and claiming that something fishy is going on.

They will investigate and will not tell you the exact results, but if some
reviews look like they were posted from the same browser and IP address, they
will be deleted.

------
gaius
There are a suspicious number with things like “advice to management: none,
they are great!” that can be immediately discounted

Also remember that Glassdoor’s business model is such that their customers are
the companies being “reviewed” (who post jobs on there)

------
arwhatever
I previously worked for company X, employing some technology workers but X was
primarily not a technology company.

Somehow there existed in Glass Glassdoor a "Company X" company as well as a
"Company X _Technology_ " company, which was serving as a magnet to attract
some exceedingly low reviews, even as compared to the primary "Company X"
company. Company X had an average rating of about 3.5 from thousands of
employees, whereas Company X Technology had an average review of < 2.0 from a
few dozen employees.

There was no organizational ambiguity whatsoever which should have resulted in
there being 2 separate company records, any more than there should have been
separate "companies" for HR, Accounting, etc.

I contacted Glassdoor, and after some back and forth they said they would do
nothing to fix the nonsensical company split without the approval of Company
X, because Company X was a paying customer of Glassdoor.

Although I do not have any reason to suspect the integrity of value of the
actually reviews themselves, the profit-based dishonesty that Glassdoor itself
demonstrated, created some doubt in what I see on their site. I doubt most
prospective job seekers happen to notice two separate companies, either (or
both) of which it might behoove them to peruse.

~~~
arwhatever
... and I also worked at one place which paid various informal bonuses to
departing employees, asking that "we don't say anything negative about each
other," an effective strategy which led to them being selected as a top
software company to work at in a very software focused city, although believe
me when I say that it was not a top company to work at.

------
djinnandtonic
Very reliable.

As far as I’ve seen, it’s the closest thing to being able to buy an ex-
employee a beer and listen.

------
ryanpetrich
There is a substantial amount of astroturfing on Glassdoor. Best to read the
neutral and negative reviews, and ignore the positive ones and overall rating.

~~~
sonnyblarney
I buy that there is a lot of astroturfing, but there's a lot of griping as
well. Leaving an employment situation is always an odd time, it's hard for us
to be objective. Franky I always look at the experience very differently two
years out.

------
lyndonjohnsonbe
Some companies intentionally build a glassdoor reputation. I take it with a
grain of salt. It has a similar business model to BBB, but not as bad yet.

------
chrisper
As always with reviews: The more negative the experience, the higher the
chance someone will post a review. So I usually ignore the 1 star reviews and
go more for the 3 star reviews etc.

But really, just read the review rather than looking at the rating. Even then
keep in mind that most happy people don't post reviews online (unless it's
really good).

------
CM30
Depends. From what I've seen, they don't verify the user actually worked at
the company in question. Or at least, it doesn't work too well, since I've
seen people accidentally leaving their reviews on companies with similar names
to their own rather than the actual one(there had never been someone with said
name at the company in question, and they were from the other side of the
world). I've also heard a few cases of ex employees each leaving multiple
negative reviews under the same job title, and employers getting the site to
remove reviews that made them look bad.

Some company pages probably have more accurate reviews than others though.
Depends how hard the company fights to get negative ones taken down, or how
many disgruntled users/non employees leave reviews on it.

So yeah, it depends.

~~~
gaius
_From what I 've seen, they don't verify the user actually worked at the
company in question_

How would they do that? The person may not still have access to their company
email address, or even want that kind of email in their corporate inbox

~~~
CM30
Hmm, you're right. That is an issue, especially when there's bad blood between
the employer and employee, and the latter doesn't want it on their CV or
LinkedIn.

But that also means everything from Glassdoor needs to be treated with a pinch
of salt. A non employee can write lies, a competitor can write lies with fake
accounts, a boss can make fake accounts for non existent employees, employees
can be coerced by those in power... you can never really be sure of anything
there.

------
arcticf0x
Not really, it's very easy to game glassdoor reviews. My previous employer had
90 or so fake 5 star reviews to have an outstanding profile.

One good thing about glassdoor reviews is the Helpful button, this gives us
some authenticity for negative or positive reviews.

~~~
make3
if reviews can be faked why couldn't Helpful clicks also be.

------
blakesterz
Since you asked "Do the expectations the site give match up with what you have
experienced?" I'll say no, at least where I'm working now,the reviews do not
match my experience here at all. The reviews are rather negative, written by
people who quit because they didn't like it, or were fired for various
reasons. So most of the people motivated to write reviews had reason to write
only negative reviews. I'm super happy here and haven't written a review.

~~~
johnnyfaehell
Maybe write a review?

------
nailer
Glassdoor is a useful tool but remember:

1\. You're likely to get true negatives

2\. You may get false positives

Ie, genuine negative statements are hard to fake (you can tell if someone has
an axe to grind, vs a detailed report about practices that are believable but
bad). However companies that had bad reviews one they get wind of them often
ask staff to write good ones, and a lot of them have a culture where not doing
a favour will hurt you.

------
oliwarner
There is little middle ground. Reviews are either disgruntled [often ex-]
employees, or prompted or just bought.

That is not to say reviews are useless. 100 individual complaints about late
payment are probably worth noting.

I'd ignore positive, and the bottom 25% of negative. What you're left with
might indicate real problems an average employee might face.

------
sbfeibish
I knew an investment advisory firm's record. I wanted to see what employees
would say about the firm on Glassdoor. Employees that had left gave me a good
indication of the firm's prowess. The review's were accurate from employees.
Employees gave negative reviews. (Former management gave glowing reviews.)

------
baccheion
Many years ago, I read reviews about Google before joining. None of what I
experienced matched what was stated or only did so "technically." Even now,
the reviews still sound the same. Either I had an unusual (ly poor)
experience, or the reviews are questionable.

------
ransom1538
Honesty only comes from someone angry at 2am with a MacBook Pro. I feel many
negative reviews are revealing - but take it with a grain of salt because the
good reviews just DON'T have the same amount of passion.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Honesty comes from two types of people:

1\. Those who have carefully positioned themselves to be able to speak their
own mind without cutting their throat.

2\. People willing to take the consequences of speaking their mind.

Sometimes, enough anger creates a person of the second sort. But anger per se
is not actually evidence of veracity. It can introduce bias of its own. It can
also be evidence that the person who is angry is a problem person.

------
bluedino
How reliable are any online reviews?

One problem with Glassdoor ratings is that companies can vary wildly by
department, location, and even team, and that’s not reflected in the reviews.

------
Maro
Great question!

Reading a company's Glassdoor reviews takes practice, similar to how judging
wheather you will like a movie based on the Imdb reviews, or whether ou should
buy a product on Amazon based on the reviews. You get better at it by working
at a lot of companies and seeing various failure/success cases [and matching
them to how it looks on Glassdoor]. Your NN needs a few training cycles to
make good predictions :)

Assuming we're talking about tech/startup companies, keep in mind that in some
sense, almost all companies (with the exception of a couple/year) eventually
become "failures". What I mean is that all these companies raise money by
making big promises, but then very few hit their goals: almost nobody becomes
the next FB/G/Uber/Dropbox/Spotify. Somewhere between year 5-10 these
companies "fail", and by fail I mean their YoY growth goes below ~25%. At this
point all companies start trashing: old talent will leave, and a cycle starts,
where different things are tried ("we need microservices!", "we need an
experiences product guy to tell us what to do!", "our engineers are not good
enough!", "we need to hire more people in the US!", "we need to push hard on
sales!"), almost always by hiring new managers, who then hire new people with
this focus, etc. Again, this almost always doesn't work out, we know this
simply because there are only so many G/FB/etc. During this cycle, as people
come and go, focus is changed, pivots are made, it leads to churn. Most
companies also experience layoffs, or at least partial layoffs [in some
teams].

What I wrote above, almost all companies have that, even the ones where
otherwise the culture is okay/good, people are honest, the co-founders are
well meaning, etc. So in the "best case", you should expect to find an imprint
of the above on Glassdoor. If additionally there are "stupid"/people/culture
problems, like "the Head of Product is never in the office" or "the CTO thinks
we should write webapps in x86 Assembly" or "the VP of Sales and the VP of
Marketing refuse to talk to each other", "the COO is an asshole" you should be
able to pick that up from the reviews. (Btw. read `Bad Blood` about Theranos
for some good stories...)

For a company that's super-young, like <5 yrs, I would want there to be good
growth, no culture problems, so I would expect the company to have excellent
Glassdoor reviews. Later stage companies, I would expect a good mix of bad and
good reviews, and I would keep an eye out for culture/people comments, esp. if
there are many saying the same thing. For BigCos like FB/G, it doesn't make
sense to read Glassdoor, it generally makes sense to work there, and your
experience will depend on what role/team you end up in.

Another thing, I generally disregard reviews that are written by people who
still work there. I think reviews by people who left are more valuable. I
think the principal component I look at it, of the people who are no longer
there, what % leave a mostly negative review, and what % leave a very negative
review (and are these highly correlated). Based on the last 2, with
calibration, you should be able to get a reasonable picture.

------
savrajsingh
Some companies make employees sign a non-disparagement agreement when people
leave. If you write a negative review on glassdoor and they figure out you
wrote it, you’d be violating that agreement. I don’t think you have to sign
this agreement though.

~~~
whamlastxmas
The premise that you'd have to sign anything to leave any job in the US is
ridiculous. I certainly never do. One employer tried to get me to sign a non-
compete after I gave notice and only did so because it was laughably
unenforcable in Oregon for my position

~~~
dylan604
Some companies offer a severance on condition of signing such a non-
disparagement agreement.

