5 ms·

Doesn't Yelp offer astro-turfing for $$$? I hope that this practice doesn't fall under the umbrella of "don't be evil."

tdoggette 17y ago
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/10/yelp_reviewers_paid/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/10/yelp_reviewers_paid/ This seems like they paid people to write reviews, but I see no suggestion that they instructed paid reviewers to be biased. More content is better for everyone, as far as I can tell. Another Register article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/19/yelp_pitch_revisited/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/19/yelp_pitch_revisited...) seems to be at most an accusation of unethical ad sales tactics, and it includes the CEO flat-out denying that they'd ever manipulated reviews for money.
seldo 17y ago
Google's don't-be-evil policy bit the dust as soon as they bought DoubleClick, as far as I'm concerned. Their new policy can be accurately summed up as "be less evil than Microsoft", which has understandably given them a lot of headroom to expand.
- houseabsolute 17y ago
  Not a fair representation of Google's operations.
seldo 17y ago
The accusation much more frequently levelled is that they extort business to pay to have negative reviews hidden: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/yelp-and-the-business-of-extortion-20/Content?oid=1176635 http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/yelp-and-the-business-... It's not lying -- the good reviews that remain come from real people -- but it's certainly misleading.
- eli 17y ago
  That article isn't exactly airtight in the evidence department.
- efsavage 17y ago
  I can vouch that negative reviews can be hidden, my friend wrote one and he sees "23 reviews" including his own, when he is logged in. Everyone else sees "22 reviews" and his is omitted.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
liquidcool 17y ago
Don't be evil is very difficult for a publicly held corporation. Their true mission, despite any noble intentions of their founders, is to increase value to the shareholders. For me the first, "that sounds kinda evil" moment was the compliance with gov't censorship (and possibly private data sharing) in countries with poor human rights records. As someone stated, MS (and Yahoo) do the same, but it's still kind of sad.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  If everyone lived by the "it's not THAT evil, 'cause everyone else does it" motto the world would be a vastly more horrific place.
  - palish 17y ago
    Thinking about it... Everyone does live by that motto. Mostly.
- litewulf 17y ago
  I'm curious, do you think Google should operate in the United States? There are laws that could be used to force Google to say turn over your private data. Would not then the same argument apply? On the other hand, the value of being able to use Google, despite its marginal risk, seems quite a good "exchange" for many people (that is, the usefulness of say search being weighed off against getting rounded up in say a war on child porn). I think there is a value judgement that is much more nuanced than what you are suggesting.
  - josefresco 17y ago
    See, when our (US) government does it ...it's okay. It's just those other evil countries that are wrong when they demand user data from an Internet company.
  - liquidcool 17y ago
    Yes, there is certainly a value judgement here. This is why I was careful to use the term "poor human rights record". I'm sure there are many that think the US has a poor human rights record, and I know there is always room for improvement, but I'm certainly not afraid to use my Google account here. For a more quantifiable ranking of countries, see: http://www.carleton.ca/cifp/app/gdp_ranking.php http://www.carleton.ca/cifp/app/gdp_ranking.php

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/10/yelp_reviewers_paid/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/10/yelp_reviewers_paid/ This seems like they paid people to write reviews, but I see no suggestion that they instructed paid reviewers to be biased. More content is better for everyone, as far as I can tell. Another Register article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/19/yelp_pitch_revisited/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/19/yelp_pitch_revisited...) seems to be at most an accusation of unethical ad sales tactics, and it includes the CEO flat-out denying that they'd ever manipulated reviews for money.

seldo 17y ago

Google's don't-be-evil policy bit the dust as soon as they bought DoubleClick, as far as I'm concerned. Their new policy can be accurately summed up as "be less evil than Microsoft", which has understandably given them a lot of headroom to expand.

houseabsolute 17y ago
Not a fair representation of Google's operations.

seldo 17y ago

The accusation much more frequently levelled is that they extort business to pay to have negative reviews hidden: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/yelp-and-the-business-of-extortion-20/Content?oid=1176635 http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/yelp-and-the-business-... It's not lying -- the good reviews that remain come from real people -- but it's certainly misleading.

eli 17y ago
That article isn't exactly airtight in the evidence department.
efsavage 17y ago
I can vouch that negative reviews can be hidden, my friend wrote one and he sees "23 reviews" including his own, when he is logged in. Everyone else sees "22 reviews" and his is omitted.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

liquidcool 17y ago

Don't be evil is very difficult for a publicly held corporation. Their true mission, despite any noble intentions of their founders, is to increase value to the shareholders. For me the first, "that sounds kinda evil" moment was the compliance with gov't censorship (and possibly private data sharing) in countries with poor human rights records. As someone stated, MS (and Yahoo) do the same, but it's still kind of sad.

InclinedPlane 17y ago
If everyone lived by the "it's not THAT evil, 'cause everyone else does it" motto the world would be a vastly more horrific place.
- palish 17y ago
  Thinking about it... Everyone does live by that motto. Mostly.
litewulf 17y ago
I'm curious, do you think Google should operate in the United States? There are laws that could be used to force Google to say turn over your private data. Would not then the same argument apply? On the other hand, the value of being able to use Google, despite its marginal risk, seems quite a good "exchange" for many people (that is, the usefulness of say search being weighed off against getting rounded up in say a war on child porn). I think there is a value judgement that is much more nuanced than what you are suggesting.
- josefresco 17y ago
  See, when our (US) government does it ...it's okay. It's just those other evil countries that are wrong when they demand user data from an Internet company.
- liquidcool 17y ago
  Yes, there is certainly a value judgement here. This is why I was careful to use the term "poor human rights record". I'm sure there are many that think the US has a poor human rights record, and I know there is always room for improvement, but I'm certainly not afraid to use my Google account here. For a more quantifiable ranking of countries, see: http://www.carleton.ca/cifp/app/gdp_ranking.php http://www.carleton.ca/cifp/app/gdp_ranking.php