I wanted to share a recent website finding. I haven't gone through it yet but it might help answer the questions about how it is to work for a particular firm.
My problem with it is that I've written reviews about a few firms of the firms at which I formerly worked, and in two cases my reviews were not published - and my scores weren't factored into the total firm score - because my scores were too high overall (in one case) or too low overall (in the other case.) I got a message to the effect that my review had been "temporarily suspended for review". In one case my review did make it to publication, some time later. In the other case it never did - even though it was 100% legitimate.
So one of my problems with that is that if the site is set up to screen out the reviews that tend toward the extremes then the scores are skewed artifically toward average. Another issue is that the site admins didn't ask me for any followup information about the reviews they screened out. They seem to do this completely based on numbers, and they don't provide any recourse if they decide that your rating of a firm is too high or too low - they just boot your review. I think these methods result in inaccurate pictures of the firms, which invalidates the rankings.
inside arch is a one man gig- so there is some lag with the site updates. I don't condone the highest/lowest survey getting the boot, but it does screen out some of the principles tooting their own horn and the disgruntled rant from sinking an otherwise decent office.
with enough discussion maybe we can get some changes and more transparency in the methods of tabulation, review and administration.
i still appreciate having the site as a resource that offers a glimpse behind the polished marketing efforts and the other side of the interview table.
I understand about the time lag. But one of the reviews that was booted NEVER got posted, and this was years ago. I've also noticed that the profiles of a couple other firms with which I've been involved - but which I didn't review - have been "temporarily removed" for more than 2 years now.
Also, one of my reviews that was posted was edited in a way that changed the meaning of what I'd written. I know that there are some rules posted - i.e. no using names of people other than firm principals, no posting personal information, etc. - and I think it's reasonable to edit posts to conform to that. It's also reasonable that posts could be edited for length. But one of my posts was edited by removing parts of sentences in such a way that the remaining parts conveyed ideas that were substantively different than those intended.
One other issue is that there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for indicating the age of comments - so in one situation I can think of many of the comments are about the bad behavior of the partner in charge of a branch office of a firm - but that guy left the firm several years ago. There are comments written since then that allude to this. But because of the way that the site's moderator mixes the comments of multiple people together, there's no way to sort out when comments were written, or which originally went with which other comments.
The site's owner also seems to be skewing the scoring system toward his own values/opinions of appropriate roles in firms. For example he awards more points for firms where interns just design, as opposed to firms where interns also do things like help answer phones. This is the type of thing that favors larger firms in the scoring system.
I haven't posted anything there since 2004 because of these issues. I don't have much faith in the accuracy (or neutrality) of the information there.
i left a firm, having been there for several years, and soon after a not-very-positive insidearch post was made about that firm and the people still there decided it was me! this is a small community where architects see each other, know each other, deal with each other. not a good idea to ruffle feathers...
since i had been happy there, i assured them it wasn't my post. it was a small office, so the consequence was either 1) they didn't believe me or 2) it threw suspicions on someone still in the office at the time.
they may even have contacted/complained to insidearch because the firm's entry was 'under review' for months after that.
Interesting. Well, looking at the "ranked" firms in my area it seems about maybe 5-10% of all firms are represented. Not nearly enough to be of any real use. But reading some of the comments has me thinking certian people could get very upset.
I know this mentioned previously, however the site did function for a while after this, however a recent visit shows the site has all but fallen apart. I've never actually seen a website decay!
I know the reviews on here were usually on the extreme end and had to be taken with a grain of salt, but it was occasionally nice to at least get some perspective about an office before I applied/interviewed there. I mean, if someone is bitter enough to write a scathing review OR if the review is overwhelming positive that has to be some indication that there might be some red flags to watch out for during an office tour.
Since it seems like the site was a one-man show and guessing that a number of offices were alerted to the site and were not pleased with how they ranked, I'm guessing that it has been abandoned, not to return again. So, what I am curious about is if there is either other sites (I know someone mentioned glassdoor on another thread but it's not strictly an architecture site, which usually means 'architect' = software person) or if perhaps this is something that could be built into Archinect, much like the salary poll.
It does raise some questions about moderation and dealing with offices that only want to be painted in bright colors which I'm not entirely sure how to answer. It's just nice to know before you consider applying to an office that the reality of working there is not dissimilar for being in a concentration camp.
Cherith thanks for bumping this. I've never heard of this site before, and looking at the current state of it leaves me with lots of head scratching. I've never seen a website look like that. It's like a corpse. Speaking of corpses, I wonder if the webmaster got whacked by a disgruntled reviewee.
That said, this is an awesome idea. I would gladly host a site like that. I won't out anyone here, but the owner of that site may or may not be in SF or NYC right now (at least his or her corpse). I wonder why it was abandoned.
Bothering to moderate comments on such a site would seem futile. Why not just let everyone post as they please and let the reader decide the genuineness of each post.
Some quick Google research suggested San Francisco. I'm wondering if said owner is unemployed and perhaps wanted to disassociate himself with the site. That's the unfortunate thing about how it was run- a single owner can only remain anonymous for so long, although it didn't help that there was an article about the site that clearly named the owner.
I saw and used the site a longtime ago and it was a great resource for all levels in architecture... it's funny how we spend so much time in school crits providing and receiving feedback.. yet once we become practicing architects we seldom ask for or provide feedback?
I think one of the many blogs/webzines/archnets on the web should take on having a firm feedback/crit.. section In reality this should be part of AIA.. unfortunately the organization is completely disconnected with true practitioners... I always played with the idea of having an architects' union.. there is so much to be said about the actual practice and the big disconnect within... no wonder our field has been hit so hard by the economy... Any suggestions?
InsideArch
I wanted to share a recent website finding. I haven't gone through it yet but it might help answer the questions about how it is to work for a particular firm.
http://www.insidearch.org/home.php
its been previously posted, and more importantly some regulars have aired their grievances on the site to much controversy
wait, what controversy? oh, that reviews can be manipulated by principals. still doesn't keep it from being the only thing going.
previous post here
i quit my job and left a nice review about how much of a dicktard my boss was. it was cathartic
OK.. I did a quick survey of some large corporates, rated for design quality:
HNTB 4.7
DMJM 4.5
KPF 4.1
HOK 3.8
SOM Chicago 3.8
Anybody else seeing the problem here? A survey in which HNTB blows KPF and SOM away in design quality is, well....
well, then we can fix it. there aren't any other places to turn, so lets make it work.
if you're in a small town or a small firm, insidearch can be dangerous. i've seen making a submission come back to haunt someone.
the internet - no matter what you think - is never really anonymous. don't ever get too comfortable.
I'm interested in the story of it haunting someone. Did it get them blackballed at other local firms?
My problem with it is that I've written reviews about a few firms of the firms at which I formerly worked, and in two cases my reviews were not published - and my scores weren't factored into the total firm score - because my scores were too high overall (in one case) or too low overall (in the other case.) I got a message to the effect that my review had been "temporarily suspended for review". In one case my review did make it to publication, some time later. In the other case it never did - even though it was 100% legitimate.
So one of my problems with that is that if the site is set up to screen out the reviews that tend toward the extremes then the scores are skewed artifically toward average. Another issue is that the site admins didn't ask me for any followup information about the reviews they screened out. They seem to do this completely based on numbers, and they don't provide any recourse if they decide that your rating of a firm is too high or too low - they just boot your review. I think these methods result in inaccurate pictures of the firms, which invalidates the rankings.
inside arch is a one man gig- so there is some lag with the site updates. I don't condone the highest/lowest survey getting the boot, but it does screen out some of the principles tooting their own horn and the disgruntled rant from sinking an otherwise decent office.
with enough discussion maybe we can get some changes and more transparency in the methods of tabulation, review and administration.
i still appreciate having the site as a resource that offers a glimpse behind the polished marketing efforts and the other side of the interview table.
I understand about the time lag. But one of the reviews that was booted NEVER got posted, and this was years ago. I've also noticed that the profiles of a couple other firms with which I've been involved - but which I didn't review - have been "temporarily removed" for more than 2 years now.
Also, one of my reviews that was posted was edited in a way that changed the meaning of what I'd written. I know that there are some rules posted - i.e. no using names of people other than firm principals, no posting personal information, etc. - and I think it's reasonable to edit posts to conform to that. It's also reasonable that posts could be edited for length. But one of my posts was edited by removing parts of sentences in such a way that the remaining parts conveyed ideas that were substantively different than those intended.
One other issue is that there doesn't seem to be any mechanism for indicating the age of comments - so in one situation I can think of many of the comments are about the bad behavior of the partner in charge of a branch office of a firm - but that guy left the firm several years ago. There are comments written since then that allude to this. But because of the way that the site's moderator mixes the comments of multiple people together, there's no way to sort out when comments were written, or which originally went with which other comments.
The site's owner also seems to be skewing the scoring system toward his own values/opinions of appropriate roles in firms. For example he awards more points for firms where interns just design, as opposed to firms where interns also do things like help answer phones. This is the type of thing that favors larger firms in the scoring system.
I haven't posted anything there since 2004 because of these issues. I don't have much faith in the accuracy (or neutrality) of the information there.
aqua-
i left a firm, having been there for several years, and soon after a not-very-positive insidearch post was made about that firm and the people still there decided it was me! this is a small community where architects see each other, know each other, deal with each other. not a good idea to ruffle feathers...
since i had been happy there, i assured them it wasn't my post. it was a small office, so the consequence was either 1) they didn't believe me or 2) it threw suspicions on someone still in the office at the time.
they may even have contacted/complained to insidearch because the firm's entry was 'under review' for months after that.
Interesting. Well, looking at the "ranked" firms in my area it seems about maybe 5-10% of all firms are represented. Not nearly enough to be of any real use. But reading some of the comments has me thinking certian people could get very upset.
retro thread alert!
I know this mentioned previously, however the site did function for a while after this, however a recent visit shows the site has all but fallen apart. I've never actually seen a website decay!
I know the reviews on here were usually on the extreme end and had to be taken with a grain of salt, but it was occasionally nice to at least get some perspective about an office before I applied/interviewed there. I mean, if someone is bitter enough to write a scathing review OR if the review is overwhelming positive that has to be some indication that there might be some red flags to watch out for during an office tour.
Since it seems like the site was a one-man show and guessing that a number of offices were alerted to the site and were not pleased with how they ranked, I'm guessing that it has been abandoned, not to return again. So, what I am curious about is if there is either other sites (I know someone mentioned glassdoor on another thread but it's not strictly an architecture site, which usually means 'architect' = software person) or if perhaps this is something that could be built into Archinect, much like the salary poll.
It does raise some questions about moderation and dealing with offices that only want to be painted in bright colors which I'm not entirely sure how to answer. It's just nice to know before you consider applying to an office that the reality of working there is not dissimilar for being in a concentration camp.
Cherith thanks for bumping this. I've never heard of this site before, and looking at the current state of it leaves me with lots of head scratching. I've never seen a website look like that. It's like a corpse. Speaking of corpses, I wonder if the webmaster got whacked by a disgruntled reviewee.
That said, this is an awesome idea. I would gladly host a site like that. I won't out anyone here, but the owner of that site may or may not be in SF or NYC right now (at least his or her corpse). I wonder why it was abandoned.
Bothering to moderate comments on such a site would seem futile. Why not just let everyone post as they please and let the reader decide the genuineness of each post.
Some quick Google research suggested San Francisco. I'm wondering if said owner is unemployed and perhaps wanted to disassociate himself with the site. That's the unfortunate thing about how it was run- a single owner can only remain anonymous for so long, although it didn't help that there was an article about the site that clearly named the owner.
I saw and used the site a longtime ago and it was a great resource for all levels in architecture... it's funny how we spend so much time in school crits providing and receiving feedback.. yet once we become practicing architects we seldom ask for or provide feedback?
I think one of the many blogs/webzines/archnets on the web should take on having a firm feedback/crit.. section In reality this should be part of AIA.. unfortunately the organization is completely disconnected with true practitioners... I always played with the idea of having an architects' union.. there is so much to be said about the actual practice and the big disconnect within... no wonder our field has been hit so hard by the economy... Any suggestions?
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but is insidearch's website dead or is it just me?
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.