11 ms·
The way I understand this is, that he was not asked to pay to have the negative review removed, just for advertising, which was totally unrelated to his reviews
by ma2rten 15y ago
The way I understand this is, that he was not asked to pay to have the negative review removed, just for advertising, which was totally unrelated to his reviews.
- veyron 15y agoHe was asked to pay for advertising. He wasn't happy with previous dealings with yelp, so he declined. Then, all of the positive reviews that were on the site mysteriously disappeared. One plausible explanation is that all of the positive reviewers removed their responses. Another one is that all of the positive reviewers weren't real. But a third explanation is that they were removed precisely because he chose not to pay for advertising. And in the business owner's mind, that is what happened.
- noduerme 15y agoIf there was a reasonable or non-negligible possibility that removal of the positive reviews resulted from his failure to pay the bribe, then the onus is on the company to provide records to the contrary. That's the point of subpoenaing the poster of the negative comment that survived; not to sue him directly, but to establish the mechanics of and facts arising from Yelp's algorithm, and to establish a pattern of extortion. Consider: Yelp's algorithm could just as easily flag EVERYONE who gets a single star review for a sales phone call.