4 ms·

Fuck Yelp and their extortion tactics. Some "engineering PR" cannot make up for their complete lack of integrity, even if corrupt judiciary happens to legitimiz

Fuck Yelp and their extortion tactics. Some "engineering PR" cannot make up for their complete lack of integrity, even if corrupt judiciary happens to legitimize it (judges, DAs are also beholden to campaign donors as well). (Legality ∩ mortality ⫉ ∅) http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/a-court-has-ruled-its-totally-cool-for-yelp-to-extort-b-1632255482 http://kitchenette.jezebel.com/a-court-has-ruled-its-totally...

unit91 10y ago
This has been debunked more than a few times, by the way. There's even a Harvard Business School study on the matter. [1] And a decent overview of the situation here: [2]. Yelp has also unequivocally denied the extortion charge [3]. While you might be tempted to dismiss it as propaganda, at least consider that Yelp is a publicly traded company -- i.e., if their post were shown to be a lie, it would be a criminal offense. Disclaimer: no personal stake in Yelp, I just prefer clarity on the issues. [1] http://people.hbs.edu/mluca/FakeItTillYouMakeIt.pdf http://people.hbs.edu/mluca/FakeItTillYouMakeIt.pdf [2] https://www.buzzfeed.com/sandraeallen/is-yelp-evil-or-just-misunderstood?utm_term=.uqQwO8dzY#.kvDG6yAEJ https://www.buzzfeed.com/sandraeallen/is-yelp-evil-or-just-m... [3] https://www.yelp.com/extortionmeme https://www.yelp.com/extortionmeme
- tptacek 10y ago
  Being a public company doesn't mean any lie you tell, even about your business, is criminal.
  - unit91 10y ago
    Whoa. You significantly broadened the scope of my comment from "their post" to "any lie". In this case, the post is about the company's revenue stream (or lack thereof), as it pertains to money-for-better-reviews. If Yelp's claim is false, and they are mounting a marketing campaign to knowingly deceive shareholders and potential shareholders about revenue sources, then yes it would be a criminal act. In fact, digging around a little reveals there has been a class-action lawsuit for a jury trial on these very grounds. [1] Granted, they sited Yelp's 10-K filing with the SEC, but I seriously doubt a jury would say "well, it wasn't on their 10-K, so the blog post is fine." 1. https://www.scribd.com/document/236094666/Curry-v-Yelp https://www.scribd.com/document/236094666/Curry-v-Yelp
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I'm just going to say that I really doubt Yelp's status as a public company forecloses on any opportunity for them to establish quid pro quo between their sales and their reviewing processes. That's a banal observation, I know. But I was moved to comment when you suggested that they'd face criminal penalties stemming again from their being public. No, that seems very dubious.
      - unit91 10y ago
        I really hate to seem combative here, but twice more you've seriously distorted my comments. I did not say -- nor do I believe -- that the mere possibility of criminal charges in virtue of Yelp's public status "forecloses on any opportunity" for criminal activity at the company. Rather, I invited foobarcrunch to "at least consider that Yelp is a publicly traded company". While the possibility of criminal charges obviously do not prevent all white-collar crime, it is certainly a deterrent in many cases. In isolation, this neither proves nor disproves that Yelp is acting inappropriately. However, I think it has some merit as part of one's personal, cumulative assessment of whether Yelp is engaged in extortion. Second, in my previous posts I said "criminal offense" and "criminal act". You've taken this to mean "they'd face criminal penalties". This is not what I suggested. I fully recognize that not all criminal acts are prosecuted. At most, we can say that criminal acts carry with them the possibility of criminal charges. For many, this bare possibility is an effective deterrent (see paragraph above). Again, I'm not trying to beat up on you here. Just be careful that you don't inadvertently respond to straw-man arguments when you discuss the issues.
        tptacek 10y ago
        We simply disagree.
- somedangedname 10y ago
  Regarding the Harvard study: "In this paper, we assemble two novel and complementary datasets from Yelp – one of the industry leaders – to estimate the incidence of review fraud..." This doesn't strike me as particularly independent.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gxs 10y ago
Have to agree with other commenters here and point out that this has never been proven. Nor has it ever been claimed by anyone other than a disgruntled business owner. I have no stake in Yelp - I actually abhor some elements of their product - but I detest uniformed opinions even more. I've worked with several ex Yelp engineers and the consensus seems to be that more than anything Yelp is terrible, maybe on purpose, at explaining why what they do APPEARS to be bad. It has to do with how their algorithms deal with time and aging posts - often things don't happen right away so people jump to the conclusion that this is being done manually when in fact it's just math kicking in.

unit91 10y ago

This has been debunked more than a few times, by the way. There's even a Harvard Business School study on the matter. [1] And a decent overview of the situation here: [2]. Yelp has also unequivocally denied the extortion charge [3]. While you might be tempted to dismiss it as propaganda, at least consider that Yelp is a publicly traded company -- i.e., if their post were shown to be a lie, it would be a criminal offense. Disclaimer: no personal stake in Yelp, I just prefer clarity on the issues. [1] http://people.hbs.edu/mluca/FakeItTillYouMakeIt.pdf http://people.hbs.edu/mluca/FakeItTillYouMakeIt.pdf [2] https://www.buzzfeed.com/sandraeallen/is-yelp-evil-or-just-misunderstood?utm_term=.uqQwO8dzY#.kvDG6yAEJ https://www.buzzfeed.com/sandraeallen/is-yelp-evil-or-just-m... [3] https://www.yelp.com/extortionmeme https://www.yelp.com/extortionmeme

tptacek 10y ago
Being a public company doesn't mean any lie you tell, even about your business, is criminal.
- unit91 10y ago
  Whoa. You significantly broadened the scope of my comment from "their post" to "any lie". In this case, the post is about the company's revenue stream (or lack thereof), as it pertains to money-for-better-reviews. If Yelp's claim is false, and they are mounting a marketing campaign to knowingly deceive shareholders and potential shareholders about revenue sources, then yes it would be a criminal act. In fact, digging around a little reveals there has been a class-action lawsuit for a jury trial on these very grounds. [1] Granted, they sited Yelp's 10-K filing with the SEC, but I seriously doubt a jury would say "well, it wasn't on their 10-K, so the blog post is fine." 1. https://www.scribd.com/document/236094666/Curry-v-Yelp https://www.scribd.com/document/236094666/Curry-v-Yelp
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I'm just going to say that I really doubt Yelp's status as a public company forecloses on any opportunity for them to establish quid pro quo between their sales and their reviewing processes. That's a banal observation, I know. But I was moved to comment when you suggested that they'd face criminal penalties stemming again from their being public. No, that seems very dubious.
    - unit91 10y ago
      I really hate to seem combative here, but twice more you've seriously distorted my comments. I did not say -- nor do I believe -- that the mere possibility of criminal charges in virtue of Yelp's public status "forecloses on any opportunity" for criminal activity at the company. Rather, I invited foobarcrunch to "at least consider that Yelp is a publicly traded company". While the possibility of criminal charges obviously do not prevent all white-collar crime, it is certainly a deterrent in many cases. In isolation, this neither proves nor disproves that Yelp is acting inappropriately. However, I think it has some merit as part of one's personal, cumulative assessment of whether Yelp is engaged in extortion. Second, in my previous posts I said "criminal offense" and "criminal act". You've taken this to mean "they'd face criminal penalties". This is not what I suggested. I fully recognize that not all criminal acts are prosecuted. At most, we can say that criminal acts carry with them the possibility of criminal charges. For many, this bare possibility is an effective deterrent (see paragraph above). Again, I'm not trying to beat up on you here. Just be careful that you don't inadvertently respond to straw-man arguments when you discuss the issues.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        We simply disagree.
somedangedname 10y ago
Regarding the Harvard study: "In this paper, we assemble two novel and complementary datasets from Yelp – one of the industry leaders – to estimate the incidence of review fraud..." This doesn't strike me as particularly independent.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gxs 10y ago

Have to agree with other commenters here and point out that this has never been proven. Nor has it ever been claimed by anyone other than a disgruntled business owner. I have no stake in Yelp - I actually abhor some elements of their product - but I detest uniformed opinions even more. I've worked with several ex Yelp engineers and the consensus seems to be that more than anything Yelp is terrible, maybe on purpose, at explaining why what they do APPEARS to be bad. It has to do with how their algorithms deal with time and aging posts - often things don't happen right away so people jump to the conclusion that this is being done manually when in fact it's just math kicking in.