3 ms·

It sounds like it would be simpler for Yelp if they demanded the reviewer to upload a photo of the receipt. Not the most practical, but a service being reviewed

by bertil 13y ago

It sounds like it would be simpler for Yelp if they demanded the reviewer to upload a photo of the receipt. Not the most practical, but a service being reviewed could ask it to be necessary, or visible, and suffer the lack of reviews if that’s too much. Certified reviews could have priority. Some receipts have the name of the waiter; Yelp could point out, without naming, that bad reviews all match a former employee.

sliverstorm 13y ago
In other words, a proof-of-purchase system.
pmiller2 13y ago
I don't see how that helps people whose carpets have been held "hostage."
- bertil 13y ago
  It won't, and that's not the point here. A judge has been asked to prove that seven commentators are actually clients of the service — otherwise, said comments were slander. He or she can't ignore that; more importantly, that accusation is almost systematic from service providers who accuse Yelp of slandering them, presumably with non-existant users, and then racketing them to dismiss said comment (in actually, pay to chose which comment to put first). Having the receipt might help clear common issues: the user got the name of the restaurant wrong, the interaction happened before the owner changed, it happened ‘that night’, etc. This is far from an isolated case: all services from the distributed economy (eBay, AirBnB, Blablacar, etc.) have to handle trust and find appropriate mechanism. There has been cases of good-grade racketing on eBay; AirBnB has proven fairly good so far; BlablaCar name itself is a great example of a non-binary rating. Hence the discussion. If users of that service want to get their good back, a small claims court seems more appropriate than a Hacker News thread.
  - pmiller2 13y ago
    No, the point is that those people can't prove they were customers by presenting a receipt. Should that mean they get to get sued and have to spend time, effort, and money defending themselves in court?

by bertil 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

In other words, a proof-of-purchase system.

pmiller2 13y ago

I don't see how that helps people whose carpets have been held "hostage."

bertil 13y ago
It won't, and that's not the point here. A judge has been asked to prove that seven commentators are actually clients of the service — otherwise, said comments were slander. He or she can't ignore that; more importantly, that accusation is almost systematic from service providers who accuse Yelp of slandering them, presumably with non-existant users, and then racketing them to dismiss said comment (in actually, pay to chose which comment to put first). Having the receipt might help clear common issues: the user got the name of the restaurant wrong, the interaction happened before the owner changed, it happened ‘that night’, etc. This is far from an isolated case: all services from the distributed economy (eBay, AirBnB, Blablacar, etc.) have to handle trust and find appropriate mechanism. There has been cases of good-grade racketing on eBay; AirBnB has proven fairly good so far; BlablaCar name itself is a great example of a non-binary rating. Hence the discussion. If users of that service want to get their good back, a small claims court seems more appropriate than a Hacker News thread.
- pmiller2 13y ago
  No, the point is that those people can't prove they were customers by presenting a receipt. Should that mean they get to get sued and have to spend time, effort, and money defending themselves in court?