My only concern is around the lack of ability for businesses to respond or request any level of verification that a person actually did business with them. The BBB at least contacts the business and oversees a process for resolution (documenting the entire thing).
I personally know multiple business owners who've dealt with threats from customers who will go and write a bad review if they don't simply bow to demands. Medical offices are another issue entirely because many medical professional don't even know if they are allowed to respond to complaints due to HIPAA.
I know one who even had a bad review from a phone call from a woman that simply called and yelled at them for not getting free service. It was their first and only review in years. Never even set foot in the building.
People are basically given permission to hang a sign on your front door that you're not allowed to take down.
I'm all for reviews and feedback but at least Amazon shows "Amazon Verified Purchase". Balance it somehow with either cross reference to the BBB or document how many years the business has existed. There are far too many businesses who've been open 10+ years with thousands of customers that have never felt the necessity to leave a review.
Without verification that the person has actually a customer, it's basically just libel.
> There are far too many businesses who've been open 10+ years with thousands of customers that have never felt the necessity to leave a review.
I wonder what could be a good way to incentivise this. If I like a restaurant, I'll go back multiple times. At most, I may leave a good review once. If I go to a bad place, I'm more likely to leave a bad review.
Maybe businesses could integrate a "did business here $x amount of times" button, similar to a like button or a check-in that would increment next to a review. If it was your first time, it could lead straight to leaving your first review.
If a person has posted a completely bogus bad review, I, as the maligned merchant, have three choices. I can ignore it. I can post a response. I can sue the person.
I think it is quite reasonable for Yelp to note when merchants use the third option. As a consumer reading reviews, I learn slightly different things when I see:
A: Three good reviews and one bad review; the merchant responded to the bad review and their response sounds well-reasoned.
B. Three good reviews (one deleted review, but I can't see that) and one note from Yelp stating that the merchant has used the legal system to suppress reviews.
I do think it is important that since Yelp (not a customer) is making the statement that the legal threat was used, that Yelp take reasonable steps to ensure the legal threat actually occurred. Otherwise, a malicious user could falsely report receiving legal threats from a business as a way to harm their reputation.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Yelp is doing this? The same Yelp that was built on the back of some of the most aggressive, manipulative, downright shady marketing tactics out there?
I've heard multiple complaints from Mom & Pop shops in my neighborhood which basically amount to Yelp calling and saying "Sign up for our premium business package or the negative reviews stay at the top"
You're certainly not the only one. My first thought was that Yelp would only be doing this so they could sell removal of the sued-customer flag to companies.
As a SLAPP victim, Yelp's decision to punch-down against a pet-sitting business is a slap in my face. A few years back I was sued by a chain of business for $2 Million. These were private-equity financed businesses which serially sue customers, as I later verified using public records search. I complained to Yelp, to no avail.
I went to a lawyer who told me that they have a lot of cash in the bank and that I don't want to fight them, and encouraged me to sign a non-disparagement agreement and pay them some money and move on with my life. I took his advice.
I lost over $20K due to this, as well as months of frustration in which my career and family life took a hit.
Still quite angry, I watched, (using public records requests) as they continued to sue more customers, contractors, or anyone else. Eventually, I found a lawsuit in which they directly contradicted claims they had made in their complaint against me, and even provided 100s of pages of documents showing that my "defamatory" statements were correct! So I called a lawyer, who reviewed the documents and told me that I have a very strong case to have my settlement thrown out because it was fraudulent induced. However, he said that that due to their history of Trump-like earth-scorching, it would be a bad idea to pursue this without a big reserve of cash, patience, and nerves. (In fact, the lawyer, who practices in NJ, mentioned Trump by name as an analogy.)
When I was sued, my adversary was financed by private equity company funded by someone with over $10 billion net worth. (This was one of my assertions that I was sued for, which was later corroborated in court documents.) Yelp told me I was on my own. Now Yelp is taking on Prestigious Pets, in an effort to protect free speech.
So, Yelp, if you want to humiliate someone your own size, I'm happy to have a confidential discussion with your lawyers. Let me know how to get in touch with you.
Why is Yelp's project to help protect consumers from predatory companies a slap in your face?
Is it because they didn't jump to it and lay down the massive cash it would have taken to defend you? Do they somehow owe you? Do they dance to your tune?
An allegory:
As a fire victim, the town's decision to form a firefighter team is a slap in my face. A few years back my house caught fire. The mayor wouldn't organize to put it out so I was on my own.
How adorable. Yelp taking the moral high ground. Once I wrote a negative review for a business describing my personal experience with them. The company first wrote me an email and asked me to remove it, I obviously didn't because everything I wrote was true. Then Yelp removed my review, because it was "irrelevant"! :-) Strangely enough, that business had all positive reviews on Yelp with near 5/5 score, while on Google it had a score of around 2.5/5. Does anyone even care about Yelp scores at this point?
I think one of the things Yelp has caused (or, perhaps, needs to cause) is a change in consumer behavior related to bad reviews. I've learned, over the years, to disregard certain kinds of bad reviews[0] or not choose to avoid a company because it has a small number of poor reviews.
The Internet reminds of me of driving. Most people will scream at another driver for cutting them off on a merge -- assuming the driver was being aggressive and entitled (he thinks is time is so much more important than mine!). That same driver will find himself on a road, not paying enough attention, only to discover his lane is ending at the last second and expects another driver to let them in and understand it was just a mistake.
We scream because we don't see the other driver as a human being, just an angry caricature of a bad driver (and we're not actually confronting that driver directly). On the Internet, we'll rip a mom and pop or small restaurant business apart because of a server who had too many tables and one bad dining experience. That same person likely didn't talk to the manager or give them an opportunity to make the situation better because it's a lot less socially intimidating to hit Yelp and tear into them via a bad review.
[0] My favorite is "bed bug" reports at hotels. Practically every single hotel I've stayed at in the last few years has had at least one review claiming bed bugs (some with pictures for evidence). It's a problem pretty much everywhere and in those reviews I look for a hint about how the hotel handled the situation. If it was taken care of in a reasonable manner (regardless of what the reviewer feels was reasonable), I won't hold it against the hotel.
Agreed. Yelp still has useful content, you just have to read a few reviews (good and bad) to see what patterns stand out.
My analogous example to your hotel:bed bugs is Chinese restaurants:service. I've been to enough Chinese restaurants in my life to know what to expect. Unless the reviews show a particularly unusual pattern, I'm ignoring that complaint.
Businesses making profit off entities with positive reviews has been the norm: e-commerce etc.
Business making profit off entities with negative reviews (GlassDoor, Yelp & friends) reek of protection-rackets. These services are best decentralized rather than be profit-seeking.
How is GlassDoor a protection racket? Are there any genuine complaints about them screwing over businesses?
I once backed out of a job interview because of a slew of truly horrible reviews on Glassdoor. A bunch of current and former employees described a horrible work environment where the HR director, an "iron lady", seemed to run the place, with HR people in the parking lot logging what time employees came in, cameras in front of the bathrooms to see how long people were taking in there, etc. One bad review I'll generally ignore but this place was filled with a bunch of them; I'd never seen anything like it (and never have since).
If Yelp put accuracy and completeness ahead of #
of reviews, they'd have already made 2 changes:
1. Let anyone comment on other people's comments - like HN or Reddit, with similar reputation (points) and up/downvotes.
Right now, unless an owner monitors and responds to every negative comment, there's no recourse for being unreasonable or flat-out inaccurate. Even when an owner does so, the recourse is minimal. Let any other Yelp user reply, turning each comment into a thread.
2. When someone posts a 1- or 2-star review, show a second, required comment field for "What happened when you informed the retailer?"
If someone is served a meal they don't like and says nothing at the time, they skipped a - the - critical step. While there are cases where a low review could be justified without ever giving the retailer a chance to address the perceived problem (like if someone showed up twice during posted business hours and the retailer was closed), they cause fewer than 10% of 1- and 2-star ratings and they're easy to explain. Otherwise, the minimum for a negative review to be constructive is having informed the retailer (and let them try to address it).
Doing the right thing in one instance of one aspect of "free speech" is not "protecting free speech".
Protecting free speech is about a framework of process, transparency, inclusion, and democracy.
Yelp is not a transparent, inclusive democracy with processes in place to ensure we can each express ourselves freely. It is a business, driven by business decisions, run by business people, for its customer, in the interest of it owners.
I like the strangeness of the situation. If private company does A, it's not about free speech because that's a government thing. If private company does B, look at this company protecting our free speech!
I wish as a society we can make up our minds on this.
The "strangeness" indeed. But making up our mind as a society seems like it would be an unhealthy development.
I believe one reason the U.S. has been so resilient is the combination of schizophrenic like policy and action (caused by three branches of federal government, federal and state split, and 50 separate states) and the pressure/safety-valve mechanism that is our election system.
Add corporations, NGOs, etc into the mix and it all becomes even more schizophrenic. Though, corporations add psychopathic to the mix more than any other of the flavors, given their incessant drive to produce profit for their shareholders.
I think the problem-issue has less to do with strangenes, more to do with honesty. I don't believe we'd allow a person to treat other people and, to the point, make the kind of claims we're talking about, without calling bullsh-t on them. Corporations would make horrible citizens. But they are "persons". So if these persons are not citizens, what are they???
I guess the problem for yelp and for businesses is that yelp wants to be the crowd sourced zaggat's. Semi honest reviews of businesses.
For most people it's a place to complain about businesses and most don't make an effort of being a good reviewer, even when they want to just provide a public service review. They tend to be subjective personal opinions of businesses.
This blog post is missing some important details. Sometimes legal actions from businesses are empty or meritless. However, what if it's legitimate libel? Labeling any legal action as "questionable" seems odd. How do they differentiate?
I think the biggest problem with Yelp is fake reviews intended to harm a business either from competition or disgruntled ex-employees. They allow 1-star reviews from throwaway accounts to stay on the front page and filter 5 star reviews from active users unless you pay for their service which includes 'account management support' to dispute fake reviews.
Businesses can perhaps incentivize their customers to write good reviews by offering a discount in exchange for a review on Yelp. When the customers are paying the bill, they can ask them for a 1-5 star rating posted alongside a photo of that customer to their Yelp page as some sort of a proof that the said business is not making up those star ratings.
I'm sorry you're getting downvoted, but to explain why I think this opinion isn't popular, look at Amazon. There's an entire sub-economy of exchange for reviews with unspoken rules. Choose about any product and you'll likely find the phrasing "I received a discount in exchange for my unbiased review of this product" or "I receive a demo version of this product in exchange for my unbiased review", or some other similar disclaimer.
There's nothing technically wrong with what's happening there, since there is no formal arrangement of good review = free product, but it's perfectly understood without a single word being said that if your reviews are too critical, you will not be receiving discounts/demo items in exchange for an unbiased review any more.
Your idea isn't quite the same if I understand it since the restaurant isn't enticing people in with the promise of a discount for reviews, but it's hard to say that you're not being influenced for favor when receiving something like that. It's why I believe it's a journalistic ethical standard to refuse gifts/outings from businesses and individuals as it may compromise journalistic integrity. Whether or not that's actually followed or just a super-ideal is another matter entirely
It's already against the law for a business to punish you for writing a negative review. Many people do not know they can sue when a business tries this. That's what the Consumer Review Fairness Act is about - letting the public know their rights. It's basically the government trying to teach people the law. And Yelp would be helping by promoting this.
This first amendment says the government can't abridge your speech. The government is not doing that here, so mentioning the first amendment adds more confusion to the concept of free speech than it adds clarity. It's about as useful as mentioning any of the other amendments.
Nothing to do with the post, but I wonder why they've chosen to host the blog on a separate domain instead of a subdomain on the official site. I did confirm blog.yelp.com redirects to it, but still it's easy to be suspicious of a separate domain not having the same owners.
I gather that this sort of thing happens a lot because the bureaucracy around getting IT to set up a subdomain is so onerous that it becomes easier to just buy a new domain and set it up independently.
Not that Yelp doing this isn't a good thing, but an obvious side benefit for them is that they now have a database of super litigious folks who they know to steer their shady marketing practices well clear of because they don't want that kind of headache.
It would be really helpful to also see the reviewers summary. Then that way I could see if the reviewer is usually balanced or positive then a negative review has more weight whereas if you are a serial bad mouther I can more easily discount your opinion.
> may be trying to abuse the legal system in an effort to stifle free speech
I'm not a lawyer... but doesn't this open Yelp up to allegations of libel?
As a side note, I am really starting to be irritated by confirmation buttons that say things like "Got it, thanks!". Stop putting words into my digital mouth!
[+] [-] brightball|9 years ago|reply
I personally know multiple business owners who've dealt with threats from customers who will go and write a bad review if they don't simply bow to demands. Medical offices are another issue entirely because many medical professional don't even know if they are allowed to respond to complaints due to HIPAA.
I know one who even had a bad review from a phone call from a woman that simply called and yelled at them for not getting free service. It was their first and only review in years. Never even set foot in the building.
People are basically given permission to hang a sign on your front door that you're not allowed to take down.
I'm all for reviews and feedback but at least Amazon shows "Amazon Verified Purchase". Balance it somehow with either cross reference to the BBB or document how many years the business has existed. There are far too many businesses who've been open 10+ years with thousands of customers that have never felt the necessity to leave a review.
Without verification that the person has actually a customer, it's basically just libel.
[+] [-] CaptSpify|9 years ago|reply
I wonder what could be a good way to incentivise this. If I like a restaurant, I'll go back multiple times. At most, I may leave a good review once. If I go to a bad place, I'm more likely to leave a bad review.
Maybe businesses could integrate a "did business here $x amount of times" button, similar to a like button or a check-in that would increment next to a review. If it was your first time, it could lead straight to leaving your first review.
[+] [-] mcherm|9 years ago|reply
I think it is quite reasonable for Yelp to note when merchants use the third option. As a consumer reading reviews, I learn slightly different things when I see:
A: Three good reviews and one bad review; the merchant responded to the bad review and their response sounds well-reasoned.
B. Three good reviews (one deleted review, but I can't see that) and one note from Yelp stating that the merchant has used the legal system to suppress reviews.
I do think it is important that since Yelp (not a customer) is making the statement that the legal threat was used, that Yelp take reasonable steps to ensure the legal threat actually occurred. Otherwise, a malicious user could falsely report receiving legal threats from a business as a way to harm their reputation.
[+] [-] rtpg|9 years ago|reply
Feel like Yelp could at least use this for popularity measurements
[+] [-] oggedintocom|9 years ago|reply
It would certainly combat the spam reviews problem.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] TimSchumann|9 years ago|reply
I've heard multiple complaints from Mom & Pop shops in my neighborhood which basically amount to Yelp calling and saying "Sign up for our premium business package or the negative reviews stay at the top"
[+] [-] pbhjpbhj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elliotec|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panda888|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] slapp672|9 years ago|reply
I went to a lawyer who told me that they have a lot of cash in the bank and that I don't want to fight them, and encouraged me to sign a non-disparagement agreement and pay them some money and move on with my life. I took his advice.
I lost over $20K due to this, as well as months of frustration in which my career and family life took a hit.
Still quite angry, I watched, (using public records requests) as they continued to sue more customers, contractors, or anyone else. Eventually, I found a lawsuit in which they directly contradicted claims they had made in their complaint against me, and even provided 100s of pages of documents showing that my "defamatory" statements were correct! So I called a lawyer, who reviewed the documents and told me that I have a very strong case to have my settlement thrown out because it was fraudulent induced. However, he said that that due to their history of Trump-like earth-scorching, it would be a bad idea to pursue this without a big reserve of cash, patience, and nerves. (In fact, the lawyer, who practices in NJ, mentioned Trump by name as an analogy.)
When I was sued, my adversary was financed by private equity company funded by someone with over $10 billion net worth. (This was one of my assertions that I was sued for, which was later corroborated in court documents.) Yelp told me I was on my own. Now Yelp is taking on Prestigious Pets, in an effort to protect free speech.
So, Yelp, if you want to humiliate someone your own size, I'm happy to have a confidential discussion with your lawyers. Let me know how to get in touch with you.
[+] [-] kstenerud|9 years ago|reply
Is it because they didn't jump to it and lay down the massive cash it would have taken to defend you? Do they somehow owe you? Do they dance to your tune?
An allegory:
As a fire victim, the town's decision to form a firefighter team is a slap in my face. A few years back my house caught fire. The mayor wouldn't organize to put it out so I was on my own.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] codelord|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|9 years ago|reply
Hundreds of millions of users?
[+] [-] mdip|9 years ago|reply
The Internet reminds of me of driving. Most people will scream at another driver for cutting them off on a merge -- assuming the driver was being aggressive and entitled (he thinks is time is so much more important than mine!). That same driver will find himself on a road, not paying enough attention, only to discover his lane is ending at the last second and expects another driver to let them in and understand it was just a mistake.
We scream because we don't see the other driver as a human being, just an angry caricature of a bad driver (and we're not actually confronting that driver directly). On the Internet, we'll rip a mom and pop or small restaurant business apart because of a server who had too many tables and one bad dining experience. That same person likely didn't talk to the manager or give them an opportunity to make the situation better because it's a lot less socially intimidating to hit Yelp and tear into them via a bad review.
[0] My favorite is "bed bug" reports at hotels. Practically every single hotel I've stayed at in the last few years has had at least one review claiming bed bugs (some with pictures for evidence). It's a problem pretty much everywhere and in those reviews I look for a hint about how the hotel handled the situation. If it was taken care of in a reasonable manner (regardless of what the reviewer feels was reasonable), I won't hold it against the hotel.
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
It's definitely helpful to keep in mind.
[+] [-] lijason|9 years ago|reply
My analogous example to your hotel:bed bugs is Chinese restaurants:service. I've been to enough Chinese restaurants in my life to know what to expect. Unless the reviews show a particularly unusual pattern, I'm ignoring that complaint.
[+] [-] anilgulecha|9 years ago|reply
Business making profit off entities with negative reviews (GlassDoor, Yelp & friends) reek of protection-rackets. These services are best decentralized rather than be profit-seeking.
[+] [-] bduerst|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Grishnakh|9 years ago|reply
I once backed out of a job interview because of a slew of truly horrible reviews on Glassdoor. A bunch of current and former employees described a horrible work environment where the HR director, an "iron lady", seemed to run the place, with HR people in the parking lot logging what time employees came in, cameras in front of the bathrooms to see how long people were taking in there, etc. One bad review I'll generally ignore but this place was filled with a bunch of them; I'd never seen anything like it (and never have since).
[+] [-] rhizome|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] troydavis|9 years ago|reply
1. Let anyone comment on other people's comments - like HN or Reddit, with similar reputation (points) and up/downvotes.
Right now, unless an owner monitors and responds to every negative comment, there's no recourse for being unreasonable or flat-out inaccurate. Even when an owner does so, the recourse is minimal. Let any other Yelp user reply, turning each comment into a thread.
2. When someone posts a 1- or 2-star review, show a second, required comment field for "What happened when you informed the retailer?"
If someone is served a meal they don't like and says nothing at the time, they skipped a - the - critical step. While there are cases where a low review could be justified without ever giving the retailer a chance to address the perceived problem (like if someone showed up twice during posted business hours and the retailer was closed), they cause fewer than 10% of 1- and 2-star ratings and they're easy to explain. Otherwise, the minimum for a negative review to be constructive is having informed the retailer (and let them try to address it).
[+] [-] scojjac|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JustUhThought|9 years ago|reply
Protecting free speech is about a framework of process, transparency, inclusion, and democracy.
Yelp is not a transparent, inclusive democracy with processes in place to ensure we can each express ourselves freely. It is a business, driven by business decisions, run by business people, for its customer, in the interest of it owners.
Period.
[+] [-] talmand|9 years ago|reply
I wish as a society we can make up our minds on this.
[+] [-] JustUhThought|9 years ago|reply
The "strangeness" indeed. But making up our mind as a society seems like it would be an unhealthy development.
I believe one reason the U.S. has been so resilient is the combination of schizophrenic like policy and action (caused by three branches of federal government, federal and state split, and 50 separate states) and the pressure/safety-valve mechanism that is our election system.
Add corporations, NGOs, etc into the mix and it all becomes even more schizophrenic. Though, corporations add psychopathic to the mix more than any other of the flavors, given their incessant drive to produce profit for their shareholders.
I think the problem-issue has less to do with strangenes, more to do with honesty. I don't believe we'd allow a person to treat other people and, to the point, make the kind of claims we're talking about, without calling bullsh-t on them. Corporations would make horrible citizens. But they are "persons". So if these persons are not citizens, what are they???
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
For most people it's a place to complain about businesses and most don't make an effort of being a good reviewer, even when they want to just provide a public service review. They tend to be subjective personal opinions of businesses.
[+] [-] scosman|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcslick12|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ucaetano|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kpourdeilami|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csydas|9 years ago|reply
There's nothing technically wrong with what's happening there, since there is no formal arrangement of good review = free product, but it's perfectly understood without a single word being said that if your reviews are too critical, you will not be receiving discounts/demo items in exchange for an unbiased review any more.
Your idea isn't quite the same if I understand it since the restaurant isn't enticing people in with the promise of a discount for reviews, but it's hard to say that you're not being influenced for favor when receiving something like that. It's why I believe it's a journalistic ethical standard to refuse gifts/outings from businesses and individuals as it may compromise journalistic integrity. Whether or not that's actually followed or just a super-ideal is another matter entirely
[+] [-] studentrob|9 years ago|reply
It's already against the law for a business to punish you for writing a negative review. Many people do not know they can sue when a business tries this. That's what the Consumer Review Fairness Act is about - letting the public know their rights. It's basically the government trying to teach people the law. And Yelp would be helping by promoting this.
Good job Yelp.
[+] [-] mlissner|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tedmiston|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway420|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] initram|9 years ago|reply
>the Consumer Review Fairness Act, prohibits inclusion of gag clauses in consumer form contracts
Won't that just lead to some businesses asking you (in a sneaky way that you don't realize unless you read several pages of legalese) to sign an NDA?
[+] [-] jjp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkerside|9 years ago|reply
I'm not a lawyer... but doesn't this open Yelp up to allegations of libel?
As a side note, I am really starting to be irritated by confirmation buttons that say things like "Got it, thanks!". Stop putting words into my digital mouth!