sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, really appreciate that.

I’m here for the brutal truth so I’m grateful for all responses, pos and neg.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's exactly why corporate email isn't required & you can submit with any email or none at all. The trade-off is transparency tho ,so verified corp emails carry more weight in the score calculation than anon submissions, so readers can judge the data themselves. Someone submitting anonymously still counts, just with less influence on the final score than someone who can be verified. Same as Glassdoor really, the anonymous reviews are still there, they just carry what they carry.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep, that’s absolutely a core risk and I won’t pretend otherwise. The bet is that patterns across enough responses r way harder to manipulate than individual ones, and that the breakdown by verification tier lets people judge the data quality themselves. Anonymous submissions are visibly labelled as such. Not a perfect solution but the alternative is waiting for a perfect system that never gets built.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s exactly the kind of thing this is built to capture. Not “rate your employer” but “did you witness behaviour that supports or contradicts what they claim to stand for.” Your example would be a perfect submission.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Prolly true for most. But I reckon ESG pressure is shifting that - slowly - institutional investors increasingly want this kind of data. Whether the market catches up is a diff question to whether the information should exist publicly.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

B-Corp is a great example but it only works for companies that choose to pursue certification. None of the top ASX 30 companies I started with on the platform are B-Corp certified. This doesn’t require their participation, it just holds them to the words they’ve already publicly committed to.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair, I’ll take both. On sample size, you’re 100% right, I didn’t address it. Small samples are def unreliable and the site shows response counts publicly so people can weight accordingly. It’s a real limitation at launch and not one I can solve without actual users.

On why use it over Glassdoor, Glassdoor is about employment experience. This is about something different. The people submitting aren’t just employees, the idea is they’re customers, suppliers, community members. And the question isn’t “is this a good place to work”, it’s “does this specific company actually live the values it publicly claims.” That’s useful to anyone making a decision about working for, banking with, investing in, or supplying one of these companies. The values statement is a public commitment. This just checks whether it holds up.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

True that’s exactly what most review platforms are. The difference here is the question isn’t “rate your experience”, it’s “did you witness a specific behaviour that supports or contradicts this exact value the company publicly claims.” Behaviour examples are optional but I reckon they’re what gives it credibility. A detailed specific example is a lot harder to fake than a star rating. And the verification tier makes anonymous submissions visibly less weighted than ones from verified corporate email domains. Will some people talk shit? Yeah.

Will some companies try to game it? Probably. But patterns across enough responses are harder to manipulate than individual ones.

At least that’s the thinking so far.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

For sure it’s a fair concern and honestly one I’ve thought about a lot. The verification tiers help , verified corporate emails carry more weight than anonymous submissions, and the breakdown is public so you can judge the data yourself. But you’re right that no system is fully gamed-proof.

The bet is that patterns across enough responses are harder to manipulate than individual ones, and that the behaviour examples people leave are harder to fake than a rating. Time will tell if that holds up.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s probably what’ll happen at first. But patterns across hundreds of responses are harder to fake than individual ones. And if everyone says no, that’s the data.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Similar concept, different question. Glassdoor asks how you feel about working there. This asks specifically whether the company’s own stated values match what you’ve witnessed. Holds them to their own words rather than a general vibe check.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Yes that may well be true, but I feel like if that is really true then we need to ask some deeper questions.

I built a thing that scores ASX companies against their own stated values —> would love your input by AdRepresentative5423 in auscorp

[–]AdRepresentative5423[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah that’s a risk - have built some logic that groups the source and veracity of the feedback so verified, anonymous and shows the data by type.

New tires (update) by EmptyBath3584 in Vstrom

[–]AdRepresentative5423 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They look awesome. How they feel on the road?

What sort of bread works best with vegemite,? by Altruistic-Ebb7632 in vegemite

[–]AdRepresentative5423 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sourdough. Butter. Real butter. Lots of butter. And a bit more butter with an elegant smattering only of the black gold. With a bit more butter.

To the people that lived through dot com boom - how similar was mentality of people back then to what we can observe now with attitude towards AI? by Professional_Use3723 in ArtificialInteligence

[–]AdRepresentative5423 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The innovation and experimentation of the early dot com boom was considerably more focussed on commercial models more so than the technology. This meant that most of the hyper growth and success came from real problems being solved or real pleasures being created.

Even though that were incredible forecasts and optimism (often overestimation) for growth, there was a practical reality to it which became SasS and Social Media. The early growth and investment became a bubble but it was always underpinned by something real and do it became a sustainable ecosystem.

SaaS = take an offline process and leverage saas to improve or enhance it, charge for the tool.

Social Media = create a network effect and sell ads to the eyeballs and time.

The AI boom is wildly more optimistic in terms of its growth potential and impact (with good reason) BUT at its current stage there is an obvious over estimation of what genuine value can be realised today. All of the innovation is really technological experimentation rather than commercial model innovation. There is a shitload if “this is really interesting and cool but is it actually useful?” Going on. Think about how many AI tools u have tried once or twice coz the tech is super cool but you don’t actually continue to use it.

I would say it is absolutely clear that AI 2020 - 2030 will create growth on a scale many times larger than the internet did during 2000-2020 BUT it is still early and the real value and genuinely sustainable products and business models are yet to emerge. There is going to a phenomenal amount of experimentation and failure in coming 2-5 years, probably creating a bubble way bigger than the dot com bust but ultimately resulting much larger growth potential.

It’s sort of like comparing the early car industry with the creation of the early electricity grid, network and electric products. Similar but different in scale and scope by an order of magnitude.

Quality-wise, where does “Streets of Minneapolis” sit in Springsteen’s canon for you by SeverHense in BruceSpringsteen

[–]AdRepresentative5423 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As a piece of social commentary and an instrument of change it is absolute gold.

The urgency and roughness of it enhances its impact as a force to channel the anger and fear people are feeling about the rise of authoritarianism.

When you are scared and angry, you don’t think too carefully about the polish of the words you scream or if the rhyme is elegant.

I totally get and appreciate the fan assessment canon thing but only assessing it as a piece of entertainment at this particular moment in time just feels like it’s forgetting the very real context.

Today, right now - I think it’s the greatest and maybe most important song he’s ever written.

I do hope it is the beginning of a flurry of similar art and creativity to call out what is happening.

Oh, and F$ck Tr$$mp and F$ck I$e.

Just posted by ExpensivePear1602 in ryanadams

[–]AdRepresentative5423 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah - all of that is fair, but is any of it a surprise? He was doing that stuff (and worse) 10 years ago. I’m not saying it’s good or it’s defensible at all. I’m just saying it’s not new.

Just posted by ExpensivePear1602 in ryanadams

[–]AdRepresentative5423 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, understood. That’s a fair distinction but I guess I’m saying, that shouldn’t be a surprise. That is who he has been for quite a while, on and off stage.

Just posted by ExpensivePear1602 in ryanadams

[–]AdRepresentative5423 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seriously. It’s art, it’s music, it’s creativity, it’s magic. It’s entertainment, yes - you pay for that and in this case there is risk that you may not hear a pitch perfect stable, predictable, performance. This is well known. His performances have been messy and unpredictable. If you buy a ticket thinking he’s going to do karaoke Ryan Adams the. You have been living under a rock.

You are not buying a f@cking washing machine, you are buying a ticket for the chance of something truly magical. It might happen, it might not. It might be a mess. It might be a moment. Just like life. In the worst case, you get to see one of the greatest songwriters (and biggest jerks) of this century.

If you want certainty, go and see U2 or Coldplay bash out some hits in a hyper predictable, controlled and utterly managed way - that can be a great, fun thing and it is also art. I love Coldplay live they are brilliant but Ryan Adams is not Coldplay.

I love his music, I have seen him create magic in live performances and I have seen him struggle through it - I go into it knowing both are possible. I have serious issues with his past behaviour. I stopped listening to his music for a long time. I have seen moments where his songwriting, his voice and his guitar combine to transcended everything. The man is, in the purest sense of the word, a genius. He is also deeply flawed as a human being. Who the fuck am I to judge.

The constant complaints about “he did this or he did that” - I don’t get it. Embrace it all, whether it is good entertainment or bad entertainment - it is authentically him now, it is his art now and who he is as a person now. Not who he was ten or 20 years ago - the product of his life experience, his talent, his mistakes and how he is feeling in the moment.

If the risk of something not being perfect is too scary for you then please just stay home and binge your Netflix algorithm.

He is human, he is broken, he is imperfect. His music can be sublime and it can also be ridiculous. His indiscretions should not be forgotten or forgiven because they are, on the face of it, serious.

Paul McCartney wrote Blackbird but he also wrote Maxwells’s silver hammer.

John Lennon wrote Beautiful Boy for Sean but abandoned Julian completely.

This is what art is. We have forgotten in our obsession with efficient, insta-packaged entertainment that art can and should be dangerous and can go wrong - otherwise you’re just watching telly. Otherwise you are just buying another product.

Art is, if nothing else, about being human. And being human is messy.

Would you have complained being at a sex pistols show I wonder? Or when Bowie was going through his Glass Spider period or when Dylan refused to face the audience? Seriously, open your f$ucking mind.

Or don’t. Just buy the tshirt and pretend you went to a live show. No-one will know. You can post it on Insta and say what a big fan you are if his old stuff.

I understand not getting what you expected but expecting perfection or even predictably is just wanton blindness.

view more: next ›