Slashdot Mirror
Google Maps No Longer Lets You Post Negative Reviews About Your Crappy Job (gizmodo.com.au)
From a report: Google has updated its Maps policies to ban certain business reviews left by former employees. In a new section of the Google Maps "User Contributed Content Policy," Google now labels reviews "about a current or former employment experience" as a "conflict of interest." Originally, only current employees were barred under the policy. The new rules, quoted below, went into effect on December 14.
Barry never would have stood up for corporations like this. Glad someone is finally on our side.
Why would you publicly defame current or former employers? Not only is it rude, it's not graceful nor professional in any way to burn bridges on exit.
Hyperbole: I use it liberally!
I have nothing but positive things to say about this article of sparsely collected facts that make a uniquely informative whole, that causes the world to be better and bring world peace. I hope everyone involved in this article gets a pay raise for their pursuit of journalism, and continues to get the recognition they deserve. That includes Google, for never doing anything evil, and only providing good things for people. Google's surveillance and censorship will help us learn about our appropriate forms of communication that support commerce, in any form, so that the economy grows to new heights. It is our patriotic duty to support this effort of positive wordsmithing, to create a more positive future. How else would our future be positive?
So, just to check here...
Are you saying you think the unwashed masses are graceful and/or professional?
That they have any consideration for future repercussions to their actions?
That they are capable of even remembering that they did this a week later?
You think that acting sensibly would be more important than the 5 minutes of 'fame' they felt they would get from posting some stupid troll-rant the moment they left a job?
Interesting...
Want to buy a bridge?
It can be amusing (up to a point) when I find an odd marker on Google Maps that is out of place or otherwise unworthy of a review, to find it with at least 1 review anyway.
I found one the other day, not a retail business at all but some kind of private salvage yard for which somebody had left 5 stars. FIVE WHOLE STARS! I know it's a joke vote, but it points out how hollow reviews can be.
Then there are the absurd reviews, like a hotel where somebody reports that EVERYBODY was rude to her during the entire 2 week stay and there were human feces piled on the bed all the way up to the ceiling and cockroaches crawling everywhere and the food was all spoiled causing diners to vomit over every table at every meal and on and on. I guess they think they will scare away business with this claptrap. Same thing happens on the positive side.
slashdot: A failed experiment.
So which would be a better solution, come up with a fake on-line ID and use that to comment on an abusive former employer, or just have a friend do it for you?
Decisions, decisions...
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Trump didn't make this decision.
Google did. A private company. And as we are often reminded here on /. by the masses of asses who post here regularly, private corporations don't have to follow free speech laws and if you don't like their policies you can create a competing service and run it how you like.
you are free to say what you want.
You are also free to face consequences.
How big is your lawyer chest? will it match corporate lawyers for 2-3 years ?
Another way that google exerts control over the sheep every day and every way.
Perhaps. But a map app really isn't an appropriate forum for bitching from disgruntled ex-employees. Nobody using a map is looking for crap like that.
Do no evil...... It was their mantra. Privacy is a thing of the past if you want a smart phone.
Now I want to leave negative reviews for whatever the fuck reason I make up.
the fuck does google know who has worked where and when?
Indeed, it seems like the digital version of a picket sign to me...
They work best when they enable the outcome that is best for the business in the circumstances. Thus achieving pay rises for employees who would otherwise migrate to other companies is good, ensuring information gets from the shop floor to senior management without being spun by middle managers is good, stopping bullying and harrassment is good, and helping members through short term crises so they don't leave the company for no good reason is good.
Yes, as with any institution they can become captured by people with a far more unhelpful agenda. I write as a former union rep recognised by my employer as such. I helped achieve some of the above, and saw how the wider union achieved most of them. Yet I came from a background that was heavily anti-union as having been victims of the union abuse of power in the UK during the 1970s.
Trump didn't make this decision.
Google did. A private company. And as we are often reminded here on /. by the masses of asses who post here regularly, private corporations don't have to follow free speech laws and if you don't like their policies you can create a competing service and run it how you like.
That "private" corporation is publicly traded. That means they'll do whatever their shareholders demand, to include reversing this decision if the stock price dictates.
Abusive employers need to be outed in all possible venues, maps are an excellent place to warn interviewees.
So we should believe everything some random pissed off person of unknown mental stability writes on the internet with no context or rebuttal? Good plan. [/sarcasm]
Top tip: Just because some person you do not know anything about claims an employer was mean to them on the internet does not automatically make it true.
Why would you publicly defame current or former employers? Not only is it rude, it's not graceful nor professional in any way to burn bridges on exit.
It's also a great way to ensure that any future prospective employers who do a background check and read your comments will not hire you. Any sane company will be very reluctant to hire someone who was willing to bash their employer in public even if they had excellent cause to do so.
But what if they are actually shit?
So what if they are? I've worked for some shitty employers. I'm not about to publicly say something stupid about them that is going to hurt my future and double down on letting them screw me. Future employers might read what you wrote and there is a reasonable chance they won't look on it favorably. Unless you have enough cause to have an actual lawsuit then let it go and move on. It's not your problem anymore. Your bad review isn't saving anyone and it probably just makes you look like a petty and irrational jackass even if every word you write is the gospel truth.
Abusive employers are the unprofessional ones. It is a public service to expose them.
No it really isn't. Here's how this plays out. Even if an employer is genuinely terrible your rant about them is NOT going to "expose" them or make any difference at all. What will happen is people who read it are mostly going to think you are an irrational jerk who got fired for cause and is salty about it. (which is probably true) Future prospective employers who read it will conclude "this is a person who may be willing to bash us publicly - we should hire someone else". The company will not be impacted in any meaningful way and you might be hurting yourself in the process. Even if you have a genuine gripe and they are actually the worst company ever it's still an objectively stupid thing to do and will almost certainly accomplish nothing useful. Quite possibly it will even be counterproductive.
If you want to bring attention to a shitty employer there are FAR more effective tactics to use then an emotional and probably irrational rant on google maps.
Power and money grubbing scum are not deserving of your imagined "professionalism", you have Stockholm syndrome.
Pretending that you are saving the world by posting a negative review on google maps about a company that fired you is delusional.
Ooh, I don't know, would you appreciate being informed by a former employee that the restaurant you are about to eat at scrapes the rice out of the bowls and off the dishes that come off the cleared tables, washes the stuff in a sieve, makes fried rice out of it and sells it back to the next customer?
And just because said former employee writes it why exactly should I believe it to be true without any corroborating evidence? The only thing I know for certain is that if the former employee is actually a former employee then they have a built in conflict of interest. Maybe they are telling the truth but it's equally if not more likely that they are making up nonsense because they are salty about some aspect of their time with their former employer. People lie in internet reviews all the time. Pissed off people who lost their job and are angry even more so.
Yeah but that's assuming you leave a review that is identifiable you specifically by people who don't know you and why would you even do that with a good or bad review?
An anonymous negative review from a "former employee" has about as much credibility as an email from a Nigerian Prince offering you the deal of a lifetime. If you really have an ax to grind then put your name on it. If you fear retribution then there are better ways to deal with the problem then a hot headed rant on google maps.
Lets be honest. It's going to be a very rare negative review of a former employer that is A) factually correct, B) objectively written, C) emotionally cool and D) has any motivation beyond petty revenge. The only thing they are doing it trying to hurt other people because they are angry.
what's the point in having a system than only lets 'good' reviews past? It defeats the point of having reviews to begin with.
Negative reviews are only useful it they are from a reasonably objective source over verifiable evidence. A butthurt lunatic who is trying to get revenge for being fired is worse than useless. Nobody is arguing that negative reviews aren't useful.
Then why are positive reviews still allowed?
It seems there's a trend in general to get rid of negative reviews: Yelp allowing you remove them, Google banning them, Amazon purging them, etc. Negative reviews hinder profits so they've got to go.
Of course current/former employees who post this should be aware that burning bridges just causes smoke that others will see including potential employers. It's better to note down what prompted the departure, learn from it, and seek out a better fit. Done.
If it's not meant for reviews, why are there reviews on it? Dumb shit.
Employees understand how companies really work.
But they don't buy ads from google.
I'm not saying they're crooked.
I'm just saying everyone has a price.
Like $0.03 per click.....
Most people are a former employee of some place or another.
Because it's a conflict of interest to allow negative reviews. Business owners represent a greater concentration of capital than employees and therefore are the most likely to be customers, from the perspective of a business offering online services?
Requiem for the American Dream
Of course it's appropriate to leave reviews in a reviews section of a website. Google are deliberately skewing the reviews in favour of employer's by censoring bad employee reviews. I wonder if this came after some discussions with large influential corporations that advertise with Google? Simply put, you can't trust an advertising agency to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I stopped using all Google services back in 2015 when they really started censorship.
Employers aren't your betters that you should cringe and bow before them, thanking them for every mistreatment. They're subject to and deserving of criticism, same as any other entity.
I doubt anyone would argue to the contrary. But posting a warning rant to Google Maps is likely to be ineffective, petty, and counterproductive. If a company is really misbehaving there are FAR more effective means of exposing their misdeeds. I have seen plenty of calls to OSHA or local health inspectors. I have seen tips to local journalists. There even are internet sites actually devoted to dealing with employer misconduct. Google maps isn't one of them. If you want to expose a company do it the right way.
If I see a rant on Google maps about some employer my first thought is going to be that this is the ravings of someone who got fired for cause and is still salty about it. It's an act of petty revenge by a small minded person. It makes the person doing it look like a jerk even if every word they say happens to be true.
Maybe they are looking for the sheep.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Instead of "banning" such reviews: Require Disclosure that you were an employee --- And you can take that disclosed information into account when calculating things like the scores shown to OTHER users, they can even make it APPEAR to the user that their review will be published but de-prioritize it versus reviews when people not related to them view the google maps page: Because BANNING/Prohibiting these types of reviews means these reviews will still happen, but the reviewer will be more covert and hide the fact they could've been an employee, and that the motive for a review is employee dissatisfaction; This could result in more "noise" / bogus reviews that won't be obvious as bogus when a past employee pretends to be a customer.
the Do No Evil directive...
Rick B.
One of the things I consider when deciding whether or not to do business with a company is how they treat their employees. This is valuable information to me.
Write them from the POV of a customer. "I took the wrong door into the kitchen while looking for the bathroom, and saw them putting spoiled, stinky meat into the soup..."
Your argument is that they should lie about who they are and what their motivations might be? There goes any credibility. Disagree with this completely. Do it right and with integrity or don't do it at all.
As far as OSHA and health inspectors, they can be slow to act.
Sometimes but so what? You think a negative review on Google Maps or Yelp is going to have any sort of immediate impact? Most likely people are going to ignore it or think you are some kind of a crank.
Journalists? Yeah. But what's wrong with citizens pointing out corruption on their own? You shouldn't need to work for the mainstream media to be able to make a difference.
Nothing is wrong with it but let's be honest. You and I probably don't have much of an audience. A post to Google Maps or Yelp won't really change that. Journalists do have an audience AND they have an aligned interest in getting a story of interest. Journalists are in a good position to make a real difference in the event of genuine wrongdoing. And if you don't have a story that is interesting enough to get a journalists attention then it's probably not an interesting story to anyone else either.
Wrong-headed thinking there, corporate sheeple. Abusive employers need to be outed in all possible venues, maps are an excellent place to warn interviewees.
It may not be fair but how would you like it if Google allowed employers to use their map service to warn prospective employers of abusive or crappy employees? After all some managers feel such people need to be outed as well. In order for Google to remain just they need to equally allow or deny such reviews from both sides.
Wrong-headed thinking there, corporate sheeple. Abusive employers need to be outed in all possible venues, maps are an excellent place to warn interviewees.
No, Glassdoor is, especially since that's what it does. Maps isn't, because typically that's the only comment from a current or former employee and, quite frankly, that's utterly useless for me even if I'm considering applying to work there. Maybe it's accurate, maybe it's deliberate lies, maybe they totally believe that, for example, their boss could only possibly have fired them because their boss is a bigot and it cannot possibly have anything to do with the fact they have been sexually harassing coworkers and/or clients and/or the office dog.
So. Pretty much useless, and that's without taking into account that most of them read like they're libel. The tone and content is simply very...wrong for a valid grievance.
Sites like Glassdoor collect reviews from current and former employees, and also give me useful information like what sort of pay I can expect from the employer (particularly useful when they want me to ask in the application for a specific amount) and what sort of compensation package is actually offered.
Speaks volumes. Google just doesn't want this stuff going on because it will make businesses shy away from using their services. They are just trying to maintain mind-share at the expense of truth. I used to be a Google advocate but have since realized they are complete shit and on the way out as a result of their behavior. They have a serious perception problem. People perceive them as geeky, and more recently, as authoritarian and oppressive. They are the default play friend of government agencies looking to identify people. They lay down and cooperate with every request. They have been completely co-opted as though someone from high up in the government(s) have delivered stark warnings and they have bowed their head in surrender.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Well, true -- except Capitalism is only as adversarial by nature as any other organized, competitive activity we humans engage in. Take sporting events, for a great example. They're adversarial by nature too, including getting large groups of spectators all riled up to cheer for one side (and to occasionally "boo'" the other side), regardless of how well the individual athletes on either team are actually playing. But the whole thing works quite well 99.9% of the time because it's agreed upon that there are a whole series of rules to the game that must be followed. Referees are employed to police the teams' behavior and to impose penalties when a player breaks one of those rules.
Capitalism is, arguably, the "most optimal system" of any we've actually seen in action - BECAUSE it leverages people's motivation to try harder and to do more in order to get rewarded.
For what it's worth though? I never understood why so many companies ARE so receptive to hiring back people who quit (or were let go)? The only answer I'd expect to the "Would you hire them back?" question would be a definitive "No!" If the employee was worth keeping to begin with, then the company should have made the effort to retain them!
(Exceptions here would be places that actually explained that they WANTED to keep the person but even a generous counter-offer was rejected.)
I've worked for several companies where employees most of us viewed as "poor" or "slackers" were let go, or quit, only to be re-hired a year later. I view that as management failure. (Lazy way out is to bring someone back who you don't have to train again, even if they kind of suck at their job.)
Well sometimes a "digital version" of something is really analogous and sometimes it's not. With a picket sign, you aren't anonymous and if what you present is factually wrong, you may find yourself paying damages so it's somewhat of a fair venue. Also, with a picket sign, you will eventually get tired and go home. So it's similar but not the same. It's the same reason that, in a recent SCOTUS case, it was ruled that you have the right to stand and protest in the park, but you can't erect a monument to your beliefs. Disgruntled employee stories are closer to a digital monument.
Sure - in a world where Jeff Bezos has as much power within Amazon as one of his delivery drivers pissing in soda bottles to make delivery dates.
Why the fuck anyone would waste their time creating quality, unbiased content for google (for free) is beyond me.
I was an employee for about 5 years, then a private contractor for 3, then self employed for the last 26 years. When I became self employed (solo professional with some employees over the years) it was a big eye opener. The viewpoint between an employee and an employer is a big rift. As an employer I have had to face having $800 in the bank and $3000 in wages, rent etc. coming up in 5 days. As a wage earner, I've to face have $300 in the bank and $500 in rent coming in a few days. But, there is a strong bias in employees to not think employers have to face the same issues of finite wealth. /. poster to do what needs to be done in a decent manner. Most of us do.
Unfortunately for me, it took me a while to stop treating employees from the point of view of being an employee. Think about it.
As far as posting things on the internet, I post a lot less than I used to. (Even anonymously!) 3 reasons why:
1. whatever you say can be used against you, (Hi SWAuTistic) (he's guy who swatted a man who killed by the police a few days ago)
2. it's mostly pissing in the wind.
3. taken as a whole, public internet postings have had a toxic affect on society.
I think I'll go back to reading a book.
PS. It is possible as an employee or employer, or a
Unfortunately you cannot say that (say) Amazon is the only example of capitalism. Many German companies are very profitable yet have collaborative management-labor relations. Ultimately the uber-vigilante teamsters who want to strike over everything or the uber-employee abusive Amazon are "eating their seed corn" - who on earth would want to work at Amazon at this point given all that 's come out? And UPS will go the way of the "Big 3" car makers if the teamsters continue to get more..and more...and more beyond what their productivity will allow.
To further your analogy... The team owners realized they can make more money off bloodsport, so after a long campaign of convincing the spectators that referees are inherently bad and make the game boring, the refs have now been removed.
But I think it's fairer to say it works well 0% of the time, since there is no actual work being done. Which is not to say it's useless; recreation is a necessary part of life. But it's not work. So it is a great example - of capital getting shuffled around, a couple people getting rich off it (while being subsidized by the state typically), and nothing being produced. Sounds a lot like the US economy, actually.
Germany is a unicorn in the capitalist world. In the United States, unions have to go on strike to fight wage cuts, even if the corporation they work is enjoying historic profit levels. Whereas in Germany, unions react to automation by demanding a 28 hour work week.
Actually, over time sports have become more violent and less honorable.
"What does it mean when I foul someone? It means I have 2 fouls left." was said by a basketball player.
People die and are seriously injured in games that didn't used to be so dangerous.
---
If I were over Basketball, any foul could be the only foul you get. Say "Roll a dice" or "flip a coin" and if it comes up bad, then you are out on the first foul.
Similar for football. People are being crippled and they just play on.
----
The message it sends is that sportsmanship is for suckers. You can hurt people without consequences.
Instead of worrying about people kneeling, we should worry about them being crippled and blowing their brains out.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Lick those boots!
Yeah, a conflict of interest between labor and capital. Obviously Google is always going to side with the big money.
... wouldn't a diner who had a bad experience at a restaurant have a "conflict of interest" with said restaurant and should then not be barred from writing a negative review?
Or, to state it more broadly, under what circumstances is a person allowed to write a negative review of a business?
Holy fuck. Trumpism has finally infected Silicon Valley. Truly, only the rich and the corporations matter in this country anymore. Us peasants can all just fuck off and die.
Management broke the law. No one even blinked an eye. They were declared by the court as being toxic environments. And they failed and went out of business.
But there are such amusing stories to tell and I have videos.
It's just a matter of editing now. The YouTube channel is active; the website is up.
Ah, the glorious tales of failures resulting in empty buildings where there was an active enterprise.
Indeed. I'd argue that the German way is better, frankly.