About
Why this exists
Hiring is the one negotiation where one side knows everything and the other side is guessing. LinkedOut is an attempt to close that gap with structured, checkable information instead of rumour.
The problem, stated plainly
A company knows your salary history, your notice period, your references and how badly you need the job. You know a careers page and forty minutes with someone trained to sell it to you. By the time you find out that the overtime is never paid, that the team has churned three times in two years, or that the pay band was always lower than the one you were shown, you have already resigned from somewhere else.
Almost all of that information exists. It sits with the people who worked there, who have every reason to warn the next person and almost no safe way to do it. Saying it under your own name risks a reference. Saying it in a group chat reaches eleven people. Saying it on a network built for employers to admire each other is not really an option at all.
So LinkedOut is the other side of that network. Employees write down what a place is actually like. Those accounts are tagged into a fixed set of red flags, so scattered war stories become something you can compare between two employers at two in the morning when you are deciding whether to accept. Every company carries a 0-100 danger score. Every job listing has to state its salary. Interview processes and pay go on the record.
None of that fixes a bad employer. It removes their advantage of surprise, which turns out to be most of the advantage they have.
Who this is for
People mid-job-hunt who want to know what they are walking into. People still inside something bad who need to know it is not just them. People who were made redundant by email at six in the morning and would like the next person to at least see it coming.
It is not built for executive brand-building, and there is no feature here for polishing a career. There are enough places for that.
What we refuse to do
Every site like this dies the same way — by discovering that employers pay better than workers do. These are the commitments that decide it, written down so they can be held against us.
No scraped or invented content
Every review, salary figure and interview report here was typed by someone with an account who agreed to the rules. Nothing was imported from another site and nothing was generated to make the place look busier than it is. That is why a new LinkedOut looks empty. An empty site that tells the truth is worth more than a full one that does not.
No paid removals, no paid scores
There is no price for taking a review down, no premium tier that quietens criticism, and no way for an employer to influence the danger score other than by having fewer people report red flags. The score is computed from reviews and nothing else.
No selling reviewer data
Employers cannot buy a list of who reviewed them, or an email, or an inference. Verification evidence is seen by moderators and by nobody else. Nothing on this site is paid for by an employer trying to change what it says about them, and that is the line that decides whether any of this is worth reading.
The legal reality
Running a site where people criticise their employers means taking a position on a few uncomfortable questions. Here is ours, before anybody has to ask.
Reviews are opinion and lived experience
What you read here is one person's account of what happened to them at work, and their rating of it. It is not a court finding and it is not presented as one. Companies change, managers leave, and a two-year-old review describes a place that may no longer exist. Read the pattern across several reviews rather than treating any single one as a verdict.
We hold content that names individuals
Content that names a private person, links to their profile, or states a crime as fact is routed to a moderator before it publishes. This is not us protecting employers. Named individuals are how honest reviews get taken down and how bystanders get hurt, and describing the role instead of the person costs a reader nothing.
We do not remove honest criticism under pressure
Companies write in. Sometimes lawyers do. The question we ask is whether the content breaks the community rules, not whether someone important is unhappy about it. If a review breaks the rules it comes down and the author is told which rule. If it does not, it stays up, and being asked firmly does not change that.
Corrections happen in public
An employer who has claimed their page can reply underneath any review, signed and badged. If they can show something was factually wrong, the correction sits with the original so a reader can weigh both. We do not quietly rewrite history and we do not edit anyone's words.
Moderation leaves a trail
Every moderation action is recorded against the moderator who took it, and the author is notified when their content is hidden or removed. There is no silent deletion.
What this is not
If you think something here is wrong
Anyone reading
Every review, post, job and comment has a report control on it. Reports go to the moderation queue with the rule you picked, and they are read by a person. Reporting something does not hide it automatically — that would be too easy to abuse.
The rules a report is judged against →Employers
Claim your company page and reply in public, underneath the review, with your role shown and a verified badge. That is the strongest thing you can do here, and it is available to every company for free.
What employers can and cannot do →