4 ms·
Trustpilot is awful. They hold businesses hostage, and have clearly set up their fee structure as a pay-to-win format. That said, while I dislike Trustpilot, a
by danpalmer 6y ago
Trustpilot is awful. They hold businesses hostage, and have clearly set up their fee structure as a pay-to-win format.
That said, while I dislike Trustpilot, and while I think this case likely has merit, it sets some dangerous precedents with regards to the ability to complain in a public forum.
The bit about lack of engagement with a complaints process is one that worries me, many companies have terrible complaints processes that are designed to respond only to particular types of complaint acceptable to them (often ones they can claim are an issue with other companies), and they become a black hole if your complaint doesn't fit the right format. Trustpilot's lack of structure here is an advantage and a way to hold businesses to some account.
- throw14082020 6y agoWhy is trustpilot awful? Which businesses have been held hostage? How is their fee structure pay to win? I did notice "invite an unlimited number of customers to write verified reviews" though. https://uk.business.trustpilot.com/plans https://uk.business.trustpilot.com/plans
- boyband6666 6y agoCompanies that pay can flag negative reviews, when they get taken down, and to get it back up you have to provide all sorts of proof of your custom, and complaint. Companies can also then reply without you getting to add. Much like amazon reviews they absolutely cannot be trusted to be a representation of the truth
- throw14082020 6y agoOh my word. It looks like they've also removed some negative reviews I posted about a company in the past... This is a suitable problem to be solved by decentralised system.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- boyband6666 6y agoI can't say I'm surprised. The incentives are for them to provide a mostly trustworthy service, and certainly one that looks like it, but to monetise it there are compromises. Nothing overtly bad, but certainly... selective. I mean companies could also flag positive reviews they feel are fake, right? But it just so happens that they will likely flag negative ones - that isn't Trustpilot’s fault, right? Ultimately it means that any score is biased upwards. Depressingly is also means the most shady companies that will abuse systems like this, will also seem to have a sparkling reputation - actually harming customers if they rely on these sites.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago> This is a suitable problem to be solved by decentralised system. That would also be open to abuse. It's difficult to stop dishonest PR firms (or anyone else) from flooding positive or negative comments.
- throw14082020 6y agoI didn't think of that. That's true, a decentralised system would make reviews immutable (negative, or positive, fake or real reviews would still persist). Does anyone have any ideas how to solve this?
- braveyellowtoad 6y agoThat depends, is there a requirement for the solution to be free? If you are happy to pay for this, then there are a variety of options with a sliding cost/usefulness/accuracy scale. If you are looking for reliable, accurate, balanced reviews conducted by anonymous ethical independent agents, and you don’t think consumers of that information should pay for it, then I believe the answer is there is no perfect solution that satisfies all those constraints simultaneously.
- dmurray 6y agoThe case doesn't set precedent. It was a default judgment.
- danpalmer 6y agoCan't upvote you again, but this is great to know. Thanks
- mytailorisrich 6y agoIt does not need to set precedent because it was a very standard, and rather simple case that fit with existing precedents.
- BunsanSpace 6y agoGiving it a skim it seems the ruling is primarily saying that if you're going to leave a negative review, you need to substantiate why. In this case he called them a scam solicitor but never explained why, which he did in trial "I paid upfront for a legal assessment of my case. But what I got was just the information I sent them, reworded and sent back to me." From the sounds of it, if he mentioned that in the review he would be in the clear.
- valuearb 6y agoHe didn’t explain in trial, he never showed up.
- londons_explore 6y agoWhile he didn't attend in person, I think he did submit a written defence. Presumably he thought there was no need to show up or hire a lawyer because the case was a clear win for him.
- valuearb 6y agoThe article is extremely unclear. It can clearly read the way you thought it did, or it can be read as a default judgement vs. a defendant who didn’t respond at all. I think the key point, and one in your favor, is the judges comments. Why would he even elaborate on the reason for his ruling if it’s a default judgment?
- henryaj 6y agoHe did explain it in his review: https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5cf8eb11b055990650f42368 https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/5cf8eb11b055990650f42368
- jboog 6y agoSo he committed libel twice to accuse the law firm of fraud it never committed? Not the brightest bulb this guy.
- celticninja 6y agoI expect if he had engaged with the complaints process, and as a solicitor they would have an independent body (law society) who the complaint could be escalated to if necessary. Either of these would be more likely to achieve resolution than a trustpilot review would.