6 ms·

The super needy table may not be likely to tip well no matter how much you bend over for them anyway. Though they are unfortunately also the most likely to leav

The super needy table may not be likely to tip well no matter how much you bend over for them anyway. Though they are unfortunately also the most likely to leave exaggerated (or even half or more completely made up) bad reviews over the smallest detail that they see as having been wrong.

dexterdog 5y ago
Which is why people who know people know that reviews are largely useless.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  I disagree - but negative reviews certainly almost always are.
  - rhacker 5y ago
    Well, if you're talking about a 4.4 restaurant, they are probably meaningless. There's probably a couple of TRUE negative reviews in there. If the restaurant is a 3.1, then yeah, try to find a different place - there IS hair in the food, the cockroaches are real and the waitress DID stick the hotdog up the you know what.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      I'm talking about actually reading the reviews, not looking at the average.
    - jet_32951 5y ago
      Do you not find the dispersion of ratings more interesting than the averages? Within most sites that promote ratings there is often a standard-ish dispersion, and an outlier is of far greater concern to me than the average. A solid 3 for a budget restaurant is of far lower concern than a bathtub distribution, which suggests your visit is a crapshoot.
  - ivberrOg 5y ago
    Is this really a thing? I know that I'm much more likely to share a negative experience and completely forget a positive.. I'd always assumed we were all like that!
    - mst 5y ago
      I suspect it works out kinda like wikipedia/reddit/etc. being mostly written by a small number of people with high output volume.
  - goodcanadian 5y ago
    I find the negative reviews the most useful, not individually, but in aggregate. If several people complain about the same thing, it might actually be an issue. A well written and thoughtful negative review can also contain useful information. If the negative reviews all seem to be random bitching, however, I know the place/product/service is probably fine.
  - hedora 5y ago
    I find the negative reviews are usually the most informative. If all of a restaurant's bad reviews are about service or exceptional situations, that's a strong endorsement for the quality of the food. Pictures of health code violations and stories of health code violations usually raise some red flags (especially if recent). Those are too easy to fake. The most useful ones are when they go through exactly what they thought was right/wrong with the food (and a pattern emerges across the pictures and multiple reviews about different dishes).
- sneak 5y ago
  Unfortunately for restaurateurs this isn't most people, as reviews are prominently displayed on search results.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gnicholas 5y ago
As a startup founder, I've realized that people who send very angry missives are usually people who can be very strong advocates. Although it can be tough to bite my tongue and not respond sharply to someone who sends a profanity-laced email, it's definitely the right thing to do. Nearly everyone who curses in their first email will apologize upon receiving an email from the founder. They were probably just having a bad day and assumed that $Company was some corporate powerhouse trying to nickel and dime their customers. There's about 5% of people who persist in nastiness. But almost everyone ends up being happy about the interaction, many end up renewing their subscriptions, and some will even email other companies asking them to integrate our technology. Sometimes the root of the frustration was that our service didn't work better with other platforms, which is something we can't control on our own. So having these very excitable folks sending emails on our behalf can be a powerful thing. It just requires biting your tongue instead of replying in the heat of the moment!
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  > There's about 5% of people who persist in nastiness. The thing with real stores is that all the assholes are from this group. The ones that are having a bad day may react badly to something, but do not go out of their way to create problems. What means that real stores have many fewer problem customers. But they can't count on them changing either.
  - gnicholas 5y ago
    Yeah, change is harder when the timeframe is limited. I can reply to an email a couple hours later, when someone might be in a different mood. In a store, there's much less time for a change of attitude.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    Yeah, the population of angry people that public-facing workers have to deal with is different than the group who writes angry emails that reach the founder. Immediate reactionary anger vs focused and articulated anger.
- droopyEyelids 5y ago

dexterdog 5y ago

Which is why people who know people know that reviews are largely useless.

whimsicalism 5y ago
I disagree - but negative reviews certainly almost always are.
- rhacker 5y ago
  Well, if you're talking about a 4.4 restaurant, they are probably meaningless. There's probably a couple of TRUE negative reviews in there. If the restaurant is a 3.1, then yeah, try to find a different place - there IS hair in the food, the cockroaches are real and the waitress DID stick the hotdog up the you know what.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    I'm talking about actually reading the reviews, not looking at the average.
  - jet_32951 5y ago
    Do you not find the dispersion of ratings more interesting than the averages? Within most sites that promote ratings there is often a standard-ish dispersion, and an outlier is of far greater concern to me than the average. A solid 3 for a budget restaurant is of far lower concern than a bathtub distribution, which suggests your visit is a crapshoot.
- ivberrOg 5y ago
  Is this really a thing? I know that I'm much more likely to share a negative experience and completely forget a positive.. I'd always assumed we were all like that!
  - mst 5y ago
    I suspect it works out kinda like wikipedia/reddit/etc. being mostly written by a small number of people with high output volume.
- goodcanadian 5y ago
  I find the negative reviews the most useful, not individually, but in aggregate. If several people complain about the same thing, it might actually be an issue. A well written and thoughtful negative review can also contain useful information. If the negative reviews all seem to be random bitching, however, I know the place/product/service is probably fine.
- hedora 5y ago
  I find the negative reviews are usually the most informative. If all of a restaurant's bad reviews are about service or exceptional situations, that's a strong endorsement for the quality of the food. Pictures of health code violations and stories of health code violations usually raise some red flags (especially if recent). Those are too easy to fake. The most useful ones are when they go through exactly what they thought was right/wrong with the food (and a pattern emerges across the pictures and multiple reviews about different dishes).
sneak 5y ago
Unfortunately for restaurateurs this isn't most people, as reviews are prominently displayed on search results.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gnicholas 5y ago

As a startup founder, I've realized that people who send very angry missives are usually people who can be very strong advocates. Although it can be tough to bite my tongue and not respond sharply to someone who sends a profanity-laced email, it's definitely the right thing to do. Nearly everyone who curses in their first email will apologize upon receiving an email from the founder. They were probably just having a bad day and assumed that $Company was some corporate powerhouse trying to nickel and dime their customers. There's about 5% of people who persist in nastiness. But almost everyone ends up being happy about the interaction, many end up renewing their subscriptions, and some will even email other companies asking them to integrate our technology. Sometimes the root of the frustration was that our service didn't work better with other platforms, which is something we can't control on our own. So having these very excitable folks sending emails on our behalf can be a powerful thing. It just requires biting your tongue instead of replying in the heat of the moment!

marcosdumay 5y ago
> There's about 5% of people who persist in nastiness. The thing with real stores is that all the assholes are from this group. The ones that are having a bad day may react badly to something, but do not go out of their way to create problems. What means that real stores have many fewer problem customers. But they can't count on them changing either.
- gnicholas 5y ago
  Yeah, change is harder when the timeframe is limited. I can reply to an email a couple hours later, when someone might be in a different mood. In a store, there's much less time for a change of attitude.
- Talanes 5y ago
  Yeah, the population of angry people that public-facing workers have to deal with is different than the group who writes angry emails that reach the founder. Immediate reactionary anger vs focused and articulated anger.
droopyEyelids 5y ago