What happens if only a few people respond including somebody like the guy being criticised in the article? That way you'll potentially end up having to defend yourself against unwarranted criticism to the hiring company, or simply find they mysteriously don't hire you through no fault of your own.

"A friend" had a guy bully him from day 1 and who kept at him the whole time he was there, until the bully eventually left the company under mysterious circumstances following him making a physical threat of violence against my friend in the workplace. What's to stop a guy like that marking my friend down and making him look shit?

Additionally my friend works in a highly politicised environment where, by trying to do the right thing has pissed people off, not because he sucks, but because he cares - what if they vote too?

The problem is with these systems is that you can never be sure who's right and whether other things are at play there.

We'd all like everybody to love us, for the nasty pieces of work to be found out and the good people to be rewarded, but that very often isn't the case, and we shouldn't base a powerful assessment of somebody on an ideal.

I think some of the problems you describe are inherent to HR process in general. People still go have to go to interviews, explain their qualifications and (often) explain why they left past jobs. This would just be another data point.

My original thought is that this would be for executive/managerial jobs. Big dollar, recruiter kind of positions.

Plus, it would probably be best only applying a "bottom-up" approach ... get feedback from former co-workers or subordinates–not from former bosses.

Finally, don't charge and don't submit a report if there aren't enough responses to be statistically significant (or at least warn them). If 1 out of 2 people say this guys a tool, who knows. But if 78 out of 85 say it, it's probably trustworthy, no?

true, I think you'd definitely have to have a lot of controls in place; I mean I in principle agree with it - there are plenty of incredibly sucky, actually nasty, people out there and it turns your stomach to think they'll con their way into another job. Plus the opposite - the great people you'd like to see do really well. It's just trying to avoid abuse/errors, a big responsibility given the potential consequences.

Better have a lawyer in there as a co-founder and not one that will bill by the hour.

He can earn his equity by the hour :)

You'd be a minority shareholder by the end of the first quarter.

I am encountering more a more people (including just regarding educ. references) who decline to provide reference that say anything beyond the dates of employment/study - on advise of the organization's legals.

Who want's to get out on any legal limb in the current U.S. litigious environment?

EDIT: Of course candid (or even outrageous) negatively can easily be risked in an anonymous blog comment :(

Right, that's my point ... stop trying to get references from past employers and start getting them from past co-workers and subordinates. If this comment thread really did influence the decision, that seems like an opportunity.

Notice how nobody in that thread that is negative will give their name. They're all well aware that it may have consequences, they might even be fakes. If you anonymize the reports you take responsibility. This can turn in to libel quite rapidly, especially if it has a direct impact on someone being hired or not.

TC is a public forum and in spite of the 'Possibly due to TechCrunch commenters?' above I doubt that would hold water because skype execs have not solicited TC to be their vetting agency.

But if they were and the vetting agency would give a 'no go' on what is anonymous hearsay then it would quickly turn in to something ugly.

People praising him on the thread are anonymous too.

Does taking money to solicit feedback and return a report really make you a vetting agency? (assuming you're not actually saying "You shouldn't hire this guy").

I'm not disagreeing with you–I see the libel point. I just find it odd that people tread so lightly here, while at the same time I can fairly easily trash a business on Yelp/Craigslist/Angieslist/TechCrunch/Wherever with varying degrees of anonymity.

EDIT: By "here" I meant the HR/hiring space, not HN ... sorry for the confusion.

> I just find it odd that people tread so lightly here, while at the same time I can fairly easily trash a business on Yelp/Craigslist/Angieslist/TechCrunch/Wherever with varying degrees of anonymity.

The difference between Yelp/etc and HN is that on HN you have a very long lasting reputation, not just a throwaway anonymous comment on some article. And then there is the ban hammer to consider, I'm sure that puts the brakes on for some people.

My own HN username is tied very hard to my real life identity, and that goes for a very large number of people here.

re. your edit: Because HR is a minefield from a legal perspective.

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that would fly in the US. Liability is just too big of a risk.

LinkedIn, are you listening? :)

They already do the first two steps, and going from there to (c) may already be possible with their profile API. From that onto the last two steps is a short step.

check out LinkedIn.com

s/Profit/Big Brother!/