Fifteen Policy-Breaking Reviews, Four Months, Two Continents
A logistics-technology company hiring across North America and India watched its recruitment pipeline dry up as policy-breaking reviews stacked on Glassdoor and AmbitionBox. Over four monthly cycles we removed fifteen of them through platform policy processes, ten from Glassdoor and five from AmbitionBox, at a steady cadence of three to seven takedowns a month, each documented with before-and-after proof in the monthly report. Client identity confidential, as with every case study we publish.
Tell us your company. A specialist audits your employer profiles and replies privately with removal odds and a monthly plan.
Something went wrong sending your request. Please try again, or WhatsApp us directly.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Why Cadence Beats a One-Time Purge
Review platforms process reports one at a time, on their own schedule, and mass-flagging a profile backfires. The removals here landed month after month, two or three in one report, seven in another, because each review was individually assessed against platform policy and reported with its own evidence. Four months in, the profiles candidates saw in both hiring markets told a current story instead of an old grudge.
The engagement at a glance
What Did We Do?
Four monthly cycles, two hiring markets, one process repeated without shortcuts: audit, report with evidence, follow up, prove it in the report.
- 1
Audited both profiles against platform policy
We read every review on the company's Glassdoor and AmbitionBox profiles and mapped each suspect one to the specific guideline it broke, from naming individual managers to retaliatory posts after disputed exits and content copied across accounts. Reviews that were negative but policy-compliant were marked as not removable and the client was told so before any work began.
- 2
Reported each violation as its own case
Each removable review was filed separately through the platform's official reporting channel, quoting the guideline and attaching evidence of the breach. Mass-flagging a profile gets it ignored, so the queue was worked a few reviews at a time, which is why removals landed as three to seven a month rather than all at once.
- 3
Followed up and captured proof
Every report was tracked until the platform answered, re-filed with more context where a first decision went against us, and each removal was captured as a before-and-after screenshot. Ten came down on Glassdoor and five on AmbitionBox over the four cycles.
- 4
Delivered a monthly report
At the end of each cycle the client received a report listing every tracked review, its status, the removals landed that month with proof, and what remained in the queue, so the recruiting team in both North America and India could see the profile changing report by report.
Questions About This Case Study
Why is the client not named?
Can Glassdoor or AmbitionBox reviews really be removed?
How long did it take?
Every removal here was a separate case built on a specific policy violation, filed properly and proven with before-and-after screenshots. That is slower than the miracle purge nobody can actually deliver, and it is why the removals stuck.
Clean your employer profiles the way that lasts
A private review-by-review audit with honest removal odds, and a monthly cadence that keeps landing them.