6 ms·

To me, Review services need to be regulated like a credit bureau. Google, Yelp, Facebook, etc must: * obtain opt-in consent from the person or business being r

To me, Review services need to be regulated like a credit bureau. Google, Yelp, Facebook, etc must: * obtain opt-in consent from the person or business being reviewed * they must have a dispute resolution process * they must have a call-center with real live people to field complaints The silicon valley business model of "absolutely 0 support offered" needs to die.

Guest42 4y ago
It's illegal. The executives can't do that as they are bound by fiduciary duty. /s
comrh 4y ago
so if you run a shitty business or a scam you just don't opt in?
- yoz-y 4y ago
  You could do that. However these days if I’m looking at reviews to choose to go somewhere then no reviews is as good as 0/5.
mikelward 4y ago
Opt-in? That would make it substantially less useful, and would favour incumbent review sites/services.
- pyrale 4y ago
  Yes, scraping and selling data about people and small businesses and finding the sketchiest ways to monetize that without any recourse should probably be illegal. And if it favors incumbent sites and services, so be it. On a side note, Google, Yelp or FB aren't small dogs going against the incumbent. They are the incumbent, and that's the sole reason they can get these things going with so little effort.
gnicholas 4y ago
I've wondered about the opt-in consent piece because realtors seem to have kept themselves from being reviewed on Yelp. I have some mighty complaints about a couple that we've dealt with, who either misled or straight out lied. I know other people have had similar troubles, and I wish there were reviews of realtors on Yelp. But I'm not going to create a page for a realtor and submit a review because that would make me the target of his/her company.
- reaperducer 4y ago
  In my experience, when real estate agents feel even slightly aggrieved, the first thing they do is call a lawyer. For a company like Yelp!, it may be simply easier to delete than to defend.
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    Sounds like a market gap for a startup with a spine. And there's an easy exit — after you capture the market and deal with the legal issues (not actually difficult in this case, IMO as a former lawyer), Yelp acquires you! More importantly, you can provide a valuable service by helping people avoid bad/unethical realtors.
dannyphantom 4y ago
This sounds like a good idea; though I am not sure how it will work in practice when reviews are such a significant factor the consumer considers when deciding to patron a business. When I worked in at a hometown pizza place (how stereotypical, right?) we were told again, and again, and again by the again, stereotypically 'Old Italian Man Owner' how important 'word of mouth' was to keeping his business alive after he inherited it from his own father. That was around...2015(ish) and...well, communities are aware of the local good spots to go and visitors are left to seek out online reviews when that word of mouth doesn't reach them to make their decisions. Yeah, trolling can happen but you can also get a good opinion of the place if there are negative reviews. I'll follow with another anecdote. Earlier that same year(2014-ish) I worked at another pizza place that was newer to the (small-ish but not really) city in a prime downtown location; throughout the 3 high schools a lot of the kids found that the owner was a piece of shit - I'll skim past the health code violations and focus on the prime thing he didn't pay his employees and as high school kids, we didn't really know how to be made whole so our option was to bombard the Facebook page, Google and whatever medium that was available to spread the word of the unfair practices of this owner to the town. So its a double edged sword. I can't imagine the shithole would have chosen to opt-in when the reviews were used to highlight the problems.
- burnished 4y ago
  Just a little riff, but I like to read both positive and negative reviews. Too many generic positive reviews count as a negative, clearly enraged negative reviews count as a positive (talking entitled, clearly in the wrong reviews).
  - hgomersall 4y ago
    This is a really interesting point. I'm starting to find that you can gain meta information from the reviews. What does the profile look like; why are the negative reviews negative; is this a local with a loyal but undiscerning following etc etc.
  - Firmwarrior 4y ago
    I found a great veterinarian through Google reviews before. They had a smattering of negative reviews, but the reviews were all people who wanted to put their pets to sleep, and the vet refused since he thought they could be saved and live a few more years. Basically all the negative reviews were either that or your typical "I kept canceling at the last minute and they said they wouldn't make any more appointments with me"
janlin1999 4y ago
> obtain opt-in consent from the person or business being reviewed Do you feel the same for public figures who don't want to be covered by the media? If not, why? I do think there are a number of issues with online reviews, but in the absence of other data (which might sometimes be available but might also be hidden by the businesses/institutions themselves), online reviews frequently turn out to be much better than nothing. This can be particularly true for infrequent but meaningful transactions (e.g. large financial cost or affecting one's health). Disclosure: I run a website that hosts reviews.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  > Do you feel the same for public figures who don't want to be covered by the media? If not, why? They already do that. They generally have a PR dept., or work with PR consultants. They pick and choose who they want to be their heralds. Apple is notorious for ghosting publications that don't kiss their butts. Go to any Web site for a public figure, band, movie, game, corporation, what-have-you, and you'll inevitably see a top-level link, labeled "Press," or "Media." This is their controlled and vetted material that is designed specifically to be distributed far and wide, and the PR people will use that as the fodder they send out. Reviews (real ones) are wonderful. There was a brief window of time, when they were trustworthy. Amazon reviews actually gave you accurate information, and my wife used Angie's List to find some outstanding contractors, for work on our house. Now, the whole industry is in the shitter. I'm so sorry that you have to deal with this. I can't seem to find real reviews for anything, these days. Even trusted review sites have been corrupted. The corruption ranges from badley-speld mass junk "fillers," to focused, vile, anti-competitive attacks, or petty, personal attacks, like trolling (I had one jerk from this site that got upset at me, leave a 1-star, insulting, weird review on one of my iOS apps. It was so bad, that I think it got nuked by Apple. I think I'm the only one that can see it), to brought-and-paid-for, completely legal, reviews on well-known publications. I like to use an example of noise-canceling headphones. The names will be redacted to protect the guilty, and keep them off my ass. There's one brand that has absolutely miraculous active noise cancelling. Switching on ANC makes me feel as if I've gone deaf. The sound quality is also excellent. I'm not an audiophile, but audiophiles won't use any ANC headphones. There's nothing else out there, that I have found comes close. I own a bunch of ANC headphones, and can attest to this. Yet, they seldom come up as a top choice, in many reviews. Instead, another corporation, that has good headphones, but a much less effective ANC, keeps topping certain review sites. If I switch on that brand's ANC, I still hear plenty of background noise, and I don't think the sound quality is as good. I actually fell for one of those "These are the best" reviews on a site that I [used to] trust. Sadly, I think that we are forced to go back to what we had before there were reviews on product pages, or on sites. Caveat Emptor.
colinmhayes 4y ago
None of this is possible with the first amendment.
- hef19898 4y ago
  And how so exactly?
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    People and companies are guaranteed the right to say whatever they like given it’s true. You can’t opt out of being reviewed.
    - UncleEntity 4y ago
      The first amendment applies to the government and not individual businesses like google.
      - colinmhayes 4y ago
      - frumper 4y ago
        A company could voluntarily create an opt in system, but the US government couldn’t mandate it. Not sure if it’s realistic to think any companies would though
      - Thorrez 4y ago
        By "applies to x" do you mean "grants the freedom of speech to x" or "stops x from taking the freedom of speech away from others"?
      - richrichardsson 4y ago
        I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, perhaps because it's a slightly clumsy statement? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What was obvious though is you meant that the 1st Amendment says the government can't restrict speech. Private businesses such as Google are perfectly able to set the rules for their platforms as they see fit.
trident5000 4y ago
Not a chance I would want that. Thats just going to be a corporate takeover of public opinion and people will ultimately be muffled.
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  And that isn't what is happening now? Wasn't yelp soliciting payments to remove bad reviews? Can you tell us how something like suggested regulation would lead to corporate takeover or is the only basis of your opinion "regulation bad"?
  - trident5000 4y ago
oliwarner 4y ago
> obtain opt-in consent from the person or business being reviewed If I give you less than optimal service, I'm not going to volunteer my consent or a review token or however this works. If I give you it at the start of our interaction, you can hold me hostage as so many try to. I recognise the problem but a receipt or proof of payment should be enough. And that's already more than what's currently required. Who's paying for all the other stuff? If you're funding this service conglomerate why not just have paid reviewers?
- MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
  Has anyone tried making a scannable code printed on receipts with an app for consumers that lets them scan the code to post reviews?
  - MerelyMortal 4y ago
    Hopefully enough people here read your comment and have already started :-) I imagine the trick is going to be getting it to tie in with the PoS (Point of Sale) systems I think, so that it is seemless for the business owner/manager.
    - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
      Seems like something PoS vendors could collaborate on. They don't need to own the review app, just be able to provide the tokens. Alternatively it could be some kind of add-on like cryptic looking codes restaurants in Québec have for their receipts: https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6856/reverse-engineering-quebec-canada-pdf417-restaurant-bills https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6856/...
  - oliwarner 4y ago
    I've seen QR codes (as well as URLs and input codes) on supermarket receipts in the UK. They're for reviewing the service, checkout staff, etc more than any product. Google Surveys do a "scan in your receipt" thing to solicit place reviews. Verifying customers only verifies that one thing. It doesn't stop fake reviews of "real" customers (happens a ton on Amazon), or influenced reviews "Leave us 5 stars and we'll give you a gift voucher", or all the other crap that spoils real reviews. I occasionally wonder if state-funded reviewing might be a useful additional data point. "This does what it claims, appears well built". Obviously applying that to every product sold might be a stretch, but expensive essentials (eg white goods) would be a good opening target.
jimbob45 4y ago
They sort of are. Restaurant inspections are done by the government and are pretty universally trusted by consumers. I’ve been surprised that restaurants don’t more readily advertise their scores to help offset reviews.
- aix1 4y ago
  But what the government does is food _safety_ inspections, right? This is quite different from the quality of customer experience, ambiance, service, even how _tasty_ the food is. I don't know about the US, but in the UK food safety ratings are displayed on or next to each establishment's front door (might be a legal requirement, I am not sure). They're also available online at https://ratings.food.gov.uk/ https://ratings.food.gov.uk/
  - andylynch 4y ago
    Yes they are becoming mandatory in England and already are in NI plus Wales. Weirdly not in Scotland.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    To expand on your post: One Chinese takeaway near us hides their FSA score card on a little window high above the door; they had a 2 (out of 5, 1 being 'we're going to shut you down') last time I looked. They get loads of [I believe entirely genuine] recommendations on Facebook posts and they're always busy. I'd rate their food as mediocre.
papito 4y ago
We are only now beginning to understand the damage to society technology can cause if there is no basic moral and ethical guidance, and no knowledge of philosophy of technology (should be a required college course, IMO).
maindata 4y ago
Yes, plus you are missing that each reviewer should also submit proof of purchase only visible to the company hosting the review and for validation purposes.
- usr1106 4y ago
  Right. The business owner choses whether they want to participate in any review. For each platform the choose to particpate they print a onetime code on the receipt, valid only for a day or 2. Only using such code a review can be posted. That should solve most problems with fake reviews by outsiders. But how to prevent fake reviews produced by the business themselves? That sounds harder to solve. Well, in practice even the proposal with the review tokens wouldn't work for years. How would a small business get them integrated into their cash register? More complicated than putting a sticker "Rate us on trip advisor" to the front door.
leke 4y ago
Interesting how the good ol' zealous litigation system never panned out for this. I remember all it took for companies to stop spamming people early on was some guy suing companies that ignored his request to end email correspondence. I thought all it would have taken was for someone to sue Yelp or whoever to prove that the 1 star review was accurate. Something that they wouldn't be able to prove.

Guest42 4y ago

It's illegal. The executives can't do that as they are bound by fiduciary duty. /s

comrh 4y ago

so if you run a shitty business or a scam you just don't opt in?

yoz-y 4y ago
You could do that. However these days if I’m looking at reviews to choose to go somewhere then no reviews is as good as 0/5.

mikelward 4y ago

Opt-in? That would make it substantially less useful, and would favour incumbent review sites/services.

pyrale 4y ago
Yes, scraping and selling data about people and small businesses and finding the sketchiest ways to monetize that without any recourse should probably be illegal. And if it favors incumbent sites and services, so be it. On a side note, Google, Yelp or FB aren't small dogs going against the incumbent. They are the incumbent, and that's the sole reason they can get these things going with so little effort.

gnicholas 4y ago

I've wondered about the opt-in consent piece because realtors seem to have kept themselves from being reviewed on Yelp. I have some mighty complaints about a couple that we've dealt with, who either misled or straight out lied. I know other people have had similar troubles, and I wish there were reviews of realtors on Yelp. But I'm not going to create a page for a realtor and submit a review because that would make me the target of his/her company.

reaperducer 4y ago
In my experience, when real estate agents feel even slightly aggrieved, the first thing they do is call a lawyer. For a company like Yelp!, it may be simply easier to delete than to defend.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  Sounds like a market gap for a startup with a spine. And there's an easy exit — after you capture the market and deal with the legal issues (not actually difficult in this case, IMO as a former lawyer), Yelp acquires you! More importantly, you can provide a valuable service by helping people avoid bad/unethical realtors.

dannyphantom 4y ago

This sounds like a good idea; though I am not sure how it will work in practice when reviews are such a significant factor the consumer considers when deciding to patron a business. When I worked in at a hometown pizza place (how stereotypical, right?) we were told again, and again, and again by the again, stereotypically 'Old Italian Man Owner' how important 'word of mouth' was to keeping his business alive after he inherited it from his own father. That was around...2015(ish) and...well, communities are aware of the local good spots to go and visitors are left to seek out online reviews when that word of mouth doesn't reach them to make their decisions. Yeah, trolling can happen but you can also get a good opinion of the place if there are negative reviews. I'll follow with another anecdote. Earlier that same year(2014-ish) I worked at another pizza place that was newer to the (small-ish but not really) city in a prime downtown location; throughout the 3 high schools a lot of the kids found that the owner was a piece of shit - I'll skim past the health code violations and focus on the prime thing he didn't pay his employees and as high school kids, we didn't really know how to be made whole so our option was to bombard the Facebook page, Google and whatever medium that was available to spread the word of the unfair practices of this owner to the town. So its a double edged sword. I can't imagine the shithole would have chosen to opt-in when the reviews were used to highlight the problems.

burnished 4y ago
Just a little riff, but I like to read both positive and negative reviews. Too many generic positive reviews count as a negative, clearly enraged negative reviews count as a positive (talking entitled, clearly in the wrong reviews).
- hgomersall 4y ago
  This is a really interesting point. I'm starting to find that you can gain meta information from the reviews. What does the profile look like; why are the negative reviews negative; is this a local with a loyal but undiscerning following etc etc.
- Firmwarrior 4y ago
  I found a great veterinarian through Google reviews before. They had a smattering of negative reviews, but the reviews were all people who wanted to put their pets to sleep, and the vet refused since he thought they could be saved and live a few more years. Basically all the negative reviews were either that or your typical "I kept canceling at the last minute and they said they wouldn't make any more appointments with me"

janlin1999 4y ago

> obtain opt-in consent from the person or business being reviewed Do you feel the same for public figures who don't want to be covered by the media? If not, why? I do think there are a number of issues with online reviews, but in the absence of other data (which might sometimes be available but might also be hidden by the businesses/institutions themselves), online reviews frequently turn out to be much better than nothing. This can be particularly true for infrequent but meaningful transactions (e.g. large financial cost or affecting one's health). Disclosure: I run a website that hosts reviews.

ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
> Do you feel the same for public figures who don't want to be covered by the media? If not, why? They already do that. They generally have a PR dept., or work with PR consultants. They pick and choose who they want to be their heralds. Apple is notorious for ghosting publications that don't kiss their butts. Go to any Web site for a public figure, band, movie, game, corporation, what-have-you, and you'll inevitably see a top-level link, labeled "Press," or "Media." This is their controlled and vetted material that is designed specifically to be distributed far and wide, and the PR people will use that as the fodder they send out. Reviews (real ones) are wonderful. There was a brief window of time, when they were trustworthy. Amazon reviews actually gave you accurate information, and my wife used Angie's List to find some outstanding contractors, for work on our house. Now, the whole industry is in the shitter. I'm so sorry that you have to deal with this. I can't seem to find real reviews for anything, these days. Even trusted review sites have been corrupted. The corruption ranges from badley-speld mass junk "fillers," to focused, vile, anti-competitive attacks, or petty, personal attacks, like trolling (I had one jerk from this site that got upset at me, leave a 1-star, insulting, weird review on one of my iOS apps. It was so bad, that I think it got nuked by Apple. I think I'm the only one that can see it), to brought-and-paid-for, completely legal, reviews on well-known publications. I like to use an example of noise-canceling headphones. The names will be redacted to protect the guilty, and keep them off my ass. There's one brand that has absolutely miraculous active noise cancelling. Switching on ANC makes me feel as if I've gone deaf. The sound quality is also excellent. I'm not an audiophile, but audiophiles won't use any ANC headphones. There's nothing else out there, that I have found comes close. I own a bunch of ANC headphones, and can attest to this. Yet, they seldom come up as a top choice, in many reviews. Instead, another corporation, that has good headphones, but a much less effective ANC, keeps topping certain review sites. If I switch on that brand's ANC, I still hear plenty of background noise, and I don't think the sound quality is as good. I actually fell for one of those "These are the best" reviews on a site that I [used to] trust. Sadly, I think that we are forced to go back to what we had before there were reviews on product pages, or on sites. Caveat Emptor.

colinmhayes 4y ago

None of this is possible with the first amendment.

hef19898 4y ago
And how so exactly?
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  People and companies are guaranteed the right to say whatever they like given it’s true. You can’t opt out of being reviewed.
  - UncleEntity 4y ago
    The first amendment applies to the government and not individual businesses like google.
    - colinmhayes 4y ago
    - frumper 4y ago
      A company could voluntarily create an opt in system, but the US government couldn’t mandate it. Not sure if it’s realistic to think any companies would though
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      By "applies to x" do you mean "grants the freedom of speech to x" or "stops x from taking the freedom of speech away from others"?
    - richrichardsson 4y ago
      I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, perhaps because it's a slightly clumsy statement? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What was obvious though is you meant that the 1st Amendment says the government can't restrict speech. Private businesses such as Google are perfectly able to set the rules for their platforms as they see fit.

trident5000 4y ago

Not a chance I would want that. Thats just going to be a corporate takeover of public opinion and people will ultimately be muffled.

Kbelicius 4y ago
And that isn't what is happening now? Wasn't yelp soliciting payments to remove bad reviews? Can you tell us how something like suggested regulation would lead to corporate takeover or is the only basis of your opinion "regulation bad"?
- trident5000 4y ago

oliwarner 4y ago

> obtain opt-in consent from the person or business being reviewed If I give you less than optimal service, I'm not going to volunteer my consent or a review token or however this works. If I give you it at the start of our interaction, you can hold me hostage as so many try to. I recognise the problem but a receipt or proof of payment should be enough. And that's already more than what's currently required. Who's paying for all the other stuff? If you're funding this service conglomerate why not just have paid reviewers?

MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
Has anyone tried making a scannable code printed on receipts with an app for consumers that lets them scan the code to post reviews?
- MerelyMortal 4y ago
  Hopefully enough people here read your comment and have already started :-) I imagine the trick is going to be getting it to tie in with the PoS (Point of Sale) systems I think, so that it is seemless for the business owner/manager.
  - MonkeyMalarky 4y ago
    Seems like something PoS vendors could collaborate on. They don't need to own the review app, just be able to provide the tokens. Alternatively it could be some kind of add-on like cryptic looking codes restaurants in Québec have for their receipts: https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6856/reverse-engineering-quebec-canada-pdf417-restaurant-bills https://reverseengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6856/...
- oliwarner 4y ago
  I've seen QR codes (as well as URLs and input codes) on supermarket receipts in the UK. They're for reviewing the service, checkout staff, etc more than any product. Google Surveys do a "scan in your receipt" thing to solicit place reviews. Verifying customers only verifies that one thing. It doesn't stop fake reviews of "real" customers (happens a ton on Amazon), or influenced reviews "Leave us 5 stars and we'll give you a gift voucher", or all the other crap that spoils real reviews. I occasionally wonder if state-funded reviewing might be a useful additional data point. "This does what it claims, appears well built". Obviously applying that to every product sold might be a stretch, but expensive essentials (eg white goods) would be a good opening target.

jimbob45 4y ago

They sort of are. Restaurant inspections are done by the government and are pretty universally trusted by consumers. I’ve been surprised that restaurants don’t more readily advertise their scores to help offset reviews.

aix1 4y ago
But what the government does is food _safety_ inspections, right? This is quite different from the quality of customer experience, ambiance, service, even how _tasty_ the food is. I don't know about the US, but in the UK food safety ratings are displayed on or next to each establishment's front door (might be a legal requirement, I am not sure). They're also available online at https://ratings.food.gov.uk/ https://ratings.food.gov.uk/
- andylynch 4y ago
  Yes they are becoming mandatory in England and already are in NI plus Wales. Weirdly not in Scotland.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  To expand on your post: One Chinese takeaway near us hides their FSA score card on a little window high above the door; they had a 2 (out of 5, 1 being 'we're going to shut you down') last time I looked. They get loads of [I believe entirely genuine] recommendations on Facebook posts and they're always busy. I'd rate their food as mediocre.

papito 4y ago

We are only now beginning to understand the damage to society technology can cause if there is no basic moral and ethical guidance, and no knowledge of philosophy of technology (should be a required college course, IMO).

maindata 4y ago

Yes, plus you are missing that each reviewer should also submit proof of purchase only visible to the company hosting the review and for validation purposes.

usr1106 4y ago
Right. The business owner choses whether they want to participate in any review. For each platform the choose to particpate they print a onetime code on the receipt, valid only for a day or 2. Only using such code a review can be posted. That should solve most problems with fake reviews by outsiders. But how to prevent fake reviews produced by the business themselves? That sounds harder to solve. Well, in practice even the proposal with the review tokens wouldn't work for years. How would a small business get them integrated into their cash register? More complicated than putting a sticker "Rate us on trip advisor" to the front door.

leke 4y ago

Interesting how the good ol' zealous litigation system never panned out for this. I remember all it took for companies to stop spamming people early on was some guy suing companies that ignored his request to end email correspondence. I thought all it would have taken was for someone to sue Yelp or whoever to prove that the 1 star review was accurate. Something that they wouldn't be able to prove.