Methodology

No single “fraud score.” Ever.

A single number implies a legal conclusion the evidence may not support. We evaluate four separate dimensions, each showing its factors, evidence references, confidence, and assessment date.

Assessment dimensions

Posting authenticity

Is the advertisement attributable to the actual employer rather than an impersonator?

Hiring-intent concerns

Does the evidence suggest a genuine current vacancy and active hiring process?

Applicant data exposure

What personal information is collected, by whom, and under what disclosures?

Evidence confidence

How complete, independently verified, and internally consistent is the evidence?

Publication status

Every public profile carries one of five labels.

Under observationAn unusual pattern has been detected. No wrongdoing has been established.
Under investigationEvidence is being reviewed.
Substantiated findingA narrowly defined factual finding has passed documented review.
DisputedThe employer contests one or more findings.
Regulatory or judicial findingAn authoritative public decision exists and is linked.

Complaints alone never generate a public accusation. Human review is required before any conduct is labeled deceptive, and employers have a meaningful opportunity to respond and correct inaccurate information.

Why ghost jobs exist

Possible motivations we examine.

Resume and data harvestingSalary intelligenceTalent pipeline building

Limitations

A database of voluntarily submitted complaints is not a statistically representative measure of the job market. All aggregate reports disclose methodology and sampling limitations.