Not OP, but I'll take a guess that it makes the OP look like a troublemaker. Someone who has the nerve/gall/gumption to be so open as to name/shame other companies may not pull any punches when it comes to naming 'company X' in the future after something bad goes down.

Posting "here's a list of companies that haven't got back to me" (which is possibly implicit in an open spreadsheet sort of post) is likely perceived as a troublemaker.

The connotations I had in mind (although I obviously cannot be sure what the recruiter thought):

- what mgkimsal said

- "This employee is applying to really big companies. I'm not sure they know what they are really looking for. This is a mission-driven company, and we want people who want to be here"

- "This person has applied to 30+ places and hasn't landed a job yet? Must not be that great after all"

- "Someone who posts this information publicly has low EQ, I wouldn't want to work with them"

I'd also add:

- "Oh someone here is treating our company as if it was a commodity. I don't like them."

- "This person is trying to game interviewing, probably best to steer clear."

How could interviewing be anything but a game? I understand some wouldn't want it spoken of however.

Part of it is, indeed, talking about unspoken rules. But part of it is that the hiring managers and CEOs are humans like everyone else - some may have ego issues, or buy a little too much into their company's branding.

Exactly this. The first rule of fight club is don't talk about fight club.

What surprises me more: Many people don't think interviewing is a game. They think it is straightforward and "rules-based". I guess those same people also believe PR. :)

Or want the world to be fair and honest, and - per the well-known saying - they are themselves the change they want to see.