Why RatedRecruiters Does Not Allow Written Reviews

Most review sites invite paragraphs of opinion. RatedRecruiters deliberately does not.

The problem with free-text reviews

Written reviews are easy to weaponise: vague allegations, naming individuals, emotional language, and copy-paste campaigns. They are hard to moderate at scale and painful to correct when wrong. In recruitment, where outcomes are personal and processes vary by role, that noise often says more about the writer than the firm.

What we collect instead

Every submission answers the same ten criteria with a 1–5 star score or not applicable. That produces:

• Comparable scores across firms and industries
• Less room for identifiable attacks on named recruiters
• Clearer aggregation for candidates comparing process quality, not drama

We do not publish individual recruiter names, employer names in submissions, or narrative "stories."

Verification without a forum

Optional email verification (magic link) strengthens integrity without building accounts or comment threads. Abuse signals (hashed identifiers, duplicate protection) run server-side; nothing like that is shown publicly.

When scores go live

Public firm scores appear only after enough verified submissions meet our threshold. Until then, profiles may show early signals with careful labelling. That slows gaming and reduces launch-day spikes from a single angry paragraph, because there are no paragraphs.

For candidates

You still have a voice: structured, criterion-by-criterion feedback on how the firm's process felt. For firms, the incentive is to improve measurable parts of the journey (communication, preparation, feedback loops), not to argue in a comment section.

---

RatedRecruiters is a structured rating platform for recruitment firms in Australia. It is not a review forum and does not provide legal advice.