4 ms·

There is probably a button for business owner to complain about a review, for example in case of competitor bombing? Since nothing on google can be appealed thi

There is probably a button for business owner to complain about a review, for example in case of competitor bombing? Since nothing on google can be appealed this button is as good as removal of reviews at will And if your affiliation to this business is based on ad spend then well...

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Again, I can't find even a hint of how to do this on the internet. If there is a way, you'd expect it to be documented given what surely must be widespread interest in the subject. Basically what we have here is an entirely unsubstantiated and unlikely accusation. (Unlikely because the incentives simply are not aligned.)
- ghoward 6y ago
  Saying "I wouldn't be surprised if..." is not an accusation, unless you count the implied "I don't trust Google" as an accusation.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    If you said of someone, "I wouldn't be surprised if they were a thief," that would rightly be viewed as a pseudo-accusation of thievery or other dishonesty. It doesn't literally mean the same thing as "he is a thief," but saying you believe someone has a decent chance of being a thief is still a type of accusation -- one of dishonesty and distrust. If the belief is unjustified, then I think it's fair to call it an unsubstantiated accusation. But if that doesn't work for you, pretend I called it an unsubstantiated implication instead. Either way, I think we all understood what the OP meant, and we all understood what I meant in my response. So at least we are communicating.
    - ghoward 6y ago
      We are sort of communicating. I _am_ the OP. And I only meant it as "I don't trust Google." I'll let you decide if that implication is unsubstantiated or not.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        You should just say that, then. If I don't trust someone, that doesn't mean it's OK to go around and imply that they do some absurd malicious thing I have absolutely no evidence they actually do. It's fine not to trust them. Spreading unsubstantiated rumors and implications is not fine.
        mewpmewp2 6y ago
        I just wanted to mention that I adore the way you articulated and called out everything that was going on here.
        pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        You go out each day and pigeons have shat (pooped) on your car. Today you go out and there's a pigeon sitting on the branch over your car, you scare it away. Your friend is like "what did you do that for, you have no evidence this pigeon poops on cars!". Your [asdfasgasdgasdg] position is "this pigeon might be fine" the OP's position appears to be [or at least, mine is] "pigeons are probably going to poop on my car". You're saying his position is insubstantiated ... It's the difference between treating Google as unique, and treating them as a member of a class of businesses. It's not insubstantiated, it's just a different form of substantiation. If all advertising businesses the OP has dealt with before were underhanded then your position looks to them like "today is unique, maybe the sun won't rise". tl;dr you can substantiate a position based on general behaviours of items in a class, it's not necessarily wrong, and can be just a different model.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        But there are no popular review websites that allow business owners to pay to remove negative reviews. So the inductive approach you advocate favors my position.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

Again, I can't find even a hint of how to do this on the internet. If there is a way, you'd expect it to be documented given what surely must be widespread interest in the subject. Basically what we have here is an entirely unsubstantiated and unlikely accusation. (Unlikely because the incentives simply are not aligned.)

ghoward 6y ago
Saying "I wouldn't be surprised if..." is not an accusation, unless you count the implied "I don't trust Google" as an accusation.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  If you said of someone, "I wouldn't be surprised if they were a thief," that would rightly be viewed as a pseudo-accusation of thievery or other dishonesty. It doesn't literally mean the same thing as "he is a thief," but saying you believe someone has a decent chance of being a thief is still a type of accusation -- one of dishonesty and distrust. If the belief is unjustified, then I think it's fair to call it an unsubstantiated accusation. But if that doesn't work for you, pretend I called it an unsubstantiated implication instead. Either way, I think we all understood what the OP meant, and we all understood what I meant in my response. So at least we are communicating.
  - ghoward 6y ago
    We are sort of communicating. I _am_ the OP. And I only meant it as "I don't trust Google." I'll let you decide if that implication is unsubstantiated or not.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      You should just say that, then. If I don't trust someone, that doesn't mean it's OK to go around and imply that they do some absurd malicious thing I have absolutely no evidence they actually do. It's fine not to trust them. Spreading unsubstantiated rumors and implications is not fine.
      - mewpmewp2 6y ago
        I just wanted to mention that I adore the way you articulated and called out everything that was going on here.
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        You go out each day and pigeons have shat (pooped) on your car. Today you go out and there's a pigeon sitting on the branch over your car, you scare it away. Your friend is like "what did you do that for, you have no evidence this pigeon poops on cars!". Your [asdfasgasdgasdg] position is "this pigeon might be fine" the OP's position appears to be [or at least, mine is] "pigeons are probably going to poop on my car". You're saying his position is insubstantiated ... It's the difference between treating Google as unique, and treating them as a member of a class of businesses. It's not insubstantiated, it's just a different form of substantiation. If all advertising businesses the OP has dealt with before were underhanded then your position looks to them like "today is unique, maybe the sun won't rise". tl;dr you can substantiate a position based on general behaviours of items in a class, it's not necessarily wrong, and can be just a different model.
        asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
        But there are no popular review websites that allow business owners to pay to remove negative reviews. So the inductive approach you advocate favors my position.