4 ms·
To me what this means is you can't trust a positive signal, but you still can trust a negative one. If it's really that bad, then they're clearly not on the ba
by mathattack 13y ago
To me what this means is you can't trust a positive signal, but you still can trust a negative one. If it's really that bad, then they're clearly not on the ball.
- mturmon 13y agoYou cannot trust the negative signals because they are gamed by competitors.
- drakaal 13y agoThere was as much if not more negative gaming as positive. The best way to hurt a competing self storage services is to post a review that mentions their rat problem. Just an example.
- mathattack 13y agoInteresting. I hadn't thought of it that way - thanks!
- genwin 13y agoWhen using Trip Advisor I skip over reviews where the reviewer has only 1 review. I assume they are written by competitors. A hotel could have many pages of favorable reviews, yet the reviewer with only 1 review under his/her belt will likely report something disgusting like bed bugs or blood stains.
- andrewaylett 13y agoConversely, a hotel probably has more than one competitor so if they're posting negative reviews they may well review all of them. Someone who has a particularly bad (or good) experience with a hotel may well not have signed up before but could feel compelled to do so for that experience. Note that I'm not speaking from experience here, just playing devil's advocate a bit :).
- unclebucknasty 13y agoIn addition to gaming competitors, there are unreasonable customers who can't be trusted. So, technically, the review is from an actual customer, but still cannot be relied upon. And, the problem is compounded by the fact that more people are apt to write a review if they have a negative experience. This can really skew the results in a negative direction. The whole paradigm of reviews as they are currently implemented is just plain broken.