u/InTheDarkDancing wrote (the comment Michael replied to):
This is misleading. The client can't just tell you to ignore reality. They can't say, for example, "ignore everyone who didn't get a job, and only count people who make more than six figures, and hell even if they aren't making more than six figures, say they did anyway". Yes, t
u/michaelnovati replied · · edited ★ FEATURED
Question. It's a fact that the auditors use LinkedIn to verify employment. Someone puts their OSP as a "job" why hasn't this caused more problems with their audits or been discussed transparently? I've audited 200+ Codesmith LinkedIns and have a beautiful spreadsheet showing 2/3+ representing their OSPs as "Work Experience" as a "Company" (whether the company is open source or not is irrelevant from the way it's presented on their LinkedIn to an auditor who has to follow strict rules). I can give you hundreds of LinkedIns that from the "LinkedIn verification" standard in CIRR would be flagged as jobs to an unsuspecting auditor.
So based on what you are saying, either:
1. Auditors flagged to Codesmith discrepancies and Codesmith is aware of this problem and not doing anything about it to stop it.
2. Codesmith has instructed the auditors to ignore all of these companies on their LinkedIns - indicating awareness people do this and that it could cause confusion.
3. People might be incorrectly flagged as employed when they are just doing OSPs.
Something doesn't add up here to the evidence I've collected. Either Codesmith knows about this problem and has discussed it with auditors without being transparent in all of their "transparent" blog posts, or auditors aren't doing their job properly.