Indeed.com review: insane amounts of censorship 6

This was also my experience when posting a review on a terrible company I had taken a job for.
Most of the time I couldnt post anything because i "didnt use professional language" or "cant use the site to slander people"

How the hell is warning new employees about a crazy guy who screams at tools of the trade "slander"? Its a public service because I at least attempt to care about another hypothetical person like others did on Indeed. I also did not cuss or use any personally identifying information and had to cut 2/3rd's of my review on them. As most "full time work" gigs are not "full time" as in "will keep you over a year" full time. Its "will have you get up at ungodly hours like 3 am or 11 pm" just to get rid of you within the next 3 months cause " Um its okay buddy ive been thinking about this for a while now-" and be fired for any made up reason or none at all in my case. Hell, msot of the employers were surprised i showed up early or wasn't addicted to some kind of drugs and you'll be [censored] out of luck with getting ANY references out of any of these jobs.

Do not waste your time on indeed. $1000 for 3 months of backbreaking work is not sustainable.

Yep -- Indeed blocks truthful reviews. Nothing in the various policies they sent offer any help as to why. Technically, it is their website so they can do whatever they want to. It certainly is not open for honest reviews. They are a corporation too. Definitely not impartial.

Ran into this today , i was using indeed to fix my resume and apply for work

and they requested me to review a company i worked for previously so i obliged

no curse words no jargon but they kept rejecting it saying it contained inappropriate language. no names no my boss did this yatta yatta just generalized company was bad to work for and heres why describing work life balance. and they way they run day to day business.

Wow; this is exactly what I am experiencing.

8 times I have had an honest objective extremely diplomatically written review - rejected.

Either this is nefarious business practice (the less salient relevant to the point and contextual info one delivers to potential candidates and future employees - the more those revolving doors of recruitment and retention that keep Indeed afloat - revolve. In fact the job market will gain even more employees joining and leaving because of fake watered down bland reviews that perpetuate and future proof the profits of Indeed.

Or, it is a genuine glitch.

Indeed asked me a question once when I logged on;

'does X (previous workplace) - have a dental policy in place for its staff?'

I answered, 'no' (it doesn't, but whether it did or did not this is a one word answer - and btw it definitely does not.)

This got REJECTED; ie clearly evidencing the fact Indeed suffers internal glitches.

Despite me proffering this by way if evidence of glitching, the Indeed person dealing with my multiple emails asking about why my review is rejected - just re sent guidelines which I had read 100 times and had adhered to.

I wrote a review mentioning my experience as a Senco in the broader context of the role obviously mentioning how this worked in relation to other depts there; that is the definition of a company review. It is not possible to review one's job in isolation (that would be a job spec); the only way one can reference one's own enjoyment of the role or not, is by explaining the interlacing with other depts. Which is the essence of any job - team and staff interaction.

They seem to have rejected it because a) I highlight positives about the company at large (great tutors ((critical to my role)), strong IT back up ((critical to remote working)), strong SEND support ((critical to my role)), strong marketing ((shows a forward thinking team)), etc etc

Have they seriously rejected it because I write a proper review ie one written about my job in its context ie in reference to the teams we all have to work with in order to work in a company?

And have they also rejected it because I reference the strengths of the company in the broader context of the sector it is in?

Again - both these reasons for rejection would mean it is a censoring dictatorship that forbids anything close to a review? How can a review be a review if it is a list of the jobs one did? It won't be a review, it will be as i say above - a job spec.

It is the most bizarrely draconian experience I have ever had in my entire living life residing in a democracy and under capitalism. Stalinism is springing to mind.

Or, if it is as it seems - a glitch - why are people replying to my questions seeking clarity - refusing to acknowledge this?

It really is baffling and such a waste of one's time.

I know from a lengthy PR Director career precisely what defines a 'review'' : it is neither a limiting and restricted list of a job, anywhere, nor is it curtailed for context; in fact a 'review' is the antithesis of both of these factors.