Timeline for Does StackOverflow investigate employers before allowing them to post to careers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 24, 2015 at 16:02 | comment | added | Charles Duffy | @JonH, Zynga's reputation for questionable business ethics long predates letting people go. Take a look at the founder's public statements about tactics used to get revenue early on. | |
| Jan 4, 2013 at 15:42 | vote | accept | JonH | ||
| Jan 3, 2013 at 23:18 | answer | added | Will ColeStaffMod | timeline score: 34 | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 16:32 | answer | added | JNK | timeline score: 20 | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 15:04 | comment | added | JonH | @Oded thanks for posting that, surprisingly I didn't know it was that bad...wow. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 15:01 | comment | added | Aristos | I hope that SO not became CIA. Even if I do not not for what company you talking about, the various law suits did not mean that is guilty, and what you see on the internet is not absolute truth. If you going to work or not with a company is your responsibility and not anyone else. A good company today may fire a person tomorrow and that person starts claim that SO is not spend his time to make "face control" and block this company out. No I think you are wrong. You should investigate your way any company and its your responsibility what to do with it. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 14:46 | comment | added | Oded | EA Spouse was all over the interwebs some time ago. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 14:33 | comment | added | JonH | Well Zynga went downhill and had to let go of some folks. There's good times and bad times but I dont think as a reputation Zynga had that bad of a rep when it first started. I am not sure about EA, what is it that they did so wrong? I guess I could google that too :). | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 14:22 | comment | added | user7116 | What about EA or Zynga? They're both "shady" by some definition. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 14:19 | comment | added | Oded | I am not disagreeing, I was just wondering about the scope of a check and the liability to SE if the check turns out to not have found out something... even if there was something to be found. And I have been in that situation (long before SE and Careers existed), so I know where you are coming from. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 14:17 | comment | added | JonH | A check would include a simple google search, it's an administrative task that should be done right before agreeing with the employer. I don't think I am asking for too much. We give in a lot of time to help others on the site. How would you like it if you landed a job that only down the road after you've "joined the team" you find out it was bogus? A simple 5 minute check on the employer and raise the issues to the employer. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 14:15 | comment | added | Oded | Sure, but when one begins with a stance of good-faith and with the fact that employers pay, unless this becomes a common occurrence, I don't think there is much of a business case. And what would a check include? | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 14:12 | comment | added | JonH | Why would they you ask? Because it turns off power users and it certainly wastes my time. I've gotten a few offers from careers but this one was bogus. Bogus because I researched it, will everyone who gets this invite research it? Maybe not and it could cause grief, besides we are talking about a career...a life changing experience. It is also a reflection of stack exchange I believe. | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 14:10 | comment | added | Oded | I doubt this happens. Why would they? To what extent? | |
| Jan 3, 2013 at 13:51 | history | edited | ben is uǝq backwards | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 31 characters in body; edited tags
|
| Jan 3, 2013 at 13:47 | history | edited | Nick CraverMod |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 3, 2013 at 13:44 | history | asked | JonH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |