11 ms·

Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online

344 points by mcenedella 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
baddox 12y ago
If the hotel is clear about these terms, then I don't see much of a problem with this. It makes it really easy to know to pick a different hotel.
- ebbv 12y ago
  Doesn't matter where they claim this fee is legitimate, if the person refuses to pay (which I would), there's no way this would be upheld in civil court.
  - chatmasta 12y ago
    According to the article, charges come out of your deposit. So that means it's on you to bring it to civil court after they take your money.
    - Maskawanian 12y ago
      Easy to work around, make your review after the deposit comes back.
      - dspillett 12y ago
        Or, if you've not signed anything yet, the better work around is to find another venue (and drop them a letter with proof of the booking for the other venue and an explanation as to why you passed them by and went with a competitor).
      - chatmasta 12y ago
        Your guests are the ones leaving the reviews, not you.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    On what grounds would it be dismissed from a civil court? Similar clauses are in many contracts. I'm just curious if there's a reason to believe this is illegal other than simple unpopularity.
    - JadeNB 12y ago
      > Similar clauses are in many contracts. I'm not sure that I believe this. I can believe that there are some places out there that think that they can get away with enjoining you against posting negative reviews (until the law eventually settles down against that, as I'm sure that it will), but I find it hard to believe that there are many places that think that they can fine you for the actions of other people. Can you give examples? EDIT: As baddox (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8131575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8131575) politely points out, I worded this badly. I want to say something like "the actions of other people over which you have no reasonable expectation of control" (for example: you can reasonably be expected to prevent guests in your room from damaging the furniture, but you cannot reasonably be expected to monitor the Internet usage of all your guests after they leave to make sure that they do not post a negative review).
      - baddox 12y ago
        > but I find it hard to believe that there are many places that think that they can fine you for the actions of other people. There are plenty of examples of that, even in the context of hotel booking. The person who pays for a hotel will be fined if non-paying guest damage hotel furniture, for example.
        JadeNB 12y ago
        Agreed—I meant to be more precise about the kinds of behaviour that you (the contract-signer) can be expected to monitor. I have updated my post accordingly.
      - cookiecaper 12y ago
        If all we're saying is it doesn't pass the "reasonable person" test, then it's not obviously illegal. Some may feel it is reasonable to communicate the terms of the non-disparagement clause you've signed to the members of your party and that it is reasonable to expect the party's sponsor to pay a fine if the members fail to adhere to the rules. I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm missing something obvious. I would just like some substantiation. It seems that many people have the habit of automatically declaring something they don't like to "must be illegal" simply because they strongly dislike it. That's now how law works, and that's important to understand because many people seriously underestimate the powers that the legislature holds.
- rrrx3 12y ago
  I should be stating the obvious here, but the fact that I even have to post this means that obviously, I am not. Just because something is written into the terms of an agreement doesn't make it legal.
  - ulfw 12y ago
    !00% agree. It sure as hell doesn't make it right either.
  - owksley 12y ago
    I think they know it's illegal / unconstitutional. They're banking on self-censorship by people who aren't certain where they stand legally.
    - cookiecaper 12y ago
      ...How is this "unconstitutional"? Not everything that is illegal is unconstitutional. I am also skeptical that this is illegal, but considering the jurisdiction may have many applicable laws, it's hard to say that it is or isn't illegal without significant research. But surely it has nothing to do with constitutional law. Similar pieces of other contracts are valid and common and are called "non-disparagement clauses". I don't see how this differs.
      - owksley 12y ago
        You're quite right. I hadn't realised that the constitution relates to actions between the government and the people only. Reading HN comments is always educational! I suppose it's more correct to say that it isn't in the spirit of the First Amendment, or free-speech in general.
  - jebus989 12y ago
    Yeah, you are not. Say someone writes a contract saying that they can slap me in the face and each time they do I must pay $100, if I carefully read and then sign that contract, and they then slap me three times — have I been assaulted or do I owe $300, or both?
- nmjohn 12y ago
  Because it is extorting guests into not leaving bad reviews online - regardless of service. I'm not really sure how one would think this is okay!
  - baddox 12y ago
    It's not extorting if they are clear about these terms before you decide to book the hotel.
    - nmjohn 12y ago
      Yet it is. When you attend a wedding, you have absolutely no say in the venue. Yes, the bride and groom may have agreed to the terms, but the attendees did not have a choice. So if they get shitty service and want to post a review about it online, they find out doing so will cost the bride and groom $500. It might not be clear cut extortion - but it is not an acceptable business practice.
      - baddox 12y ago
        The attendees did not have a choice on the venue, but they are not bound to any contract and do not get fined if they post reviews.
        chrisbennet 12y ago
        Read it more closely and you will see that, yes, the guest will not get fined, but the bride and groom will have $500 per bad review removed from their deposit.
        zaphar 12y ago
        That's like saying it's not extortion if I threaten your friend unless you do what I say. The Bride and Groom are threatened with a fine unless their attendees do what the hotel says.
        baddox 12y ago
- sigzero 12y ago
  Maybe. I don't see how it is right for anyone to be "fined" for giving their opinion.
- chris_wot 12y ago
  Because they are asking you to police the comments of a third party who posts an opinion you may not have and you may not be able to convince to remove the post?
- ctdonath 12y ago
  By the time you get around to reading all the fine print, you're pretty mentally committed to signing. If your bride-to-be has her heart set on the quaint old hotel, is already buying decorations to match, telling people the preliminary plans (and they're starting to book in advance), etc ... and then you get down thru the fine print, about to seal the deal, and you see an absurd "you'll be charged $500 for each negative review by people you don't control", are you REALLY going to walk away from the deal? Really?
  - personZ 12y ago
    Fine print? It's on the page for "Events & Weddings", and will absolutely be the first thing most people considering this venue will read. It looks like they removed it, but any notion that this was fine print or hidden away is just dishonest misrepresentation.
keehun 12y ago
Feels like a place Reddit or 4chan would tar and feather and then let it hang out and dry until it's dead.
- viraptor 12y ago
  Not needed. Already there are more 1* reviews than other ones. Mostly about the policy. The internet is a harsh place.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
valarauca1 12y ago
What I wonder is how this is traced. If I leave a review ~6months after would my sisters bridal party be charged or the party that is currently renting the hall? I assume the later since they assume reviews are placed within a short span of time. Which then if there are several books one-day-after-the-next how do you migrate reviews? Or do you split the difference between all parties? Even if the policy is clear, and the market is free. There is no way this policy can be enforced fairly.
- Nursie 12y ago
  I would presume you'd be safe to leave the review much later as the $500 is withheld from returned deposits. Wait for deposit return, make bad review. All is well :)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - Nursie 12y ago
      >> Yes but then you just pass the fine on to somebody else, which isn't fair. How? If the place has returned the deposit then they have nothing to withhold the fine from ... ? Am I missing something here?
      - james-skemp 12y ago
        They're saying that someone else would be fined, if they're looking at time of review only. So you rent the room and someone posts a negative review from their rental a few months ago; do you get fined or not? You might if they're only going off time.
      - valarauca1 12y ago
        >If the place has returned the deposit then they have nothing to withhold the fine from They have no way of proving the association of the reviewer and the deposit in question to charge from. Therefore it is logical to assume that any negative review would be charged to the currently active account, which may or may not be associate with the review. This ambiguity prevents a fair result.
Spooky23 12y ago
Makes sense. Asking for a functional ice machine in the middle of the summer at a wedding is a pretty unreasonable expectation. We're talking about Hudson, NY here. It's practically a wilderness... having an appliance repairman come would be impossible!
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - damncabbage 12y ago
    Spooky23 is being sarcastic.
  - brianmcc 12y ago
    Touch of sarcasm above, perhaps...
  - imaginenore 12y ago
    Your sarcasm detector is broken. Call the repairman.
    - onion2k 12y ago
      A sarcasm detector? How very useful!
      - chris_wot 12y ago
        One would come in handy right now.
    - positivejam 12y ago
      personZ understood the sarcasm: -literal meaning of Spooky23's statement: it's unreasonable to expect ice in the middle of summer. -sarcastic meaning of Spooky23's statement: it's completely REASONABLE to expect ice in the middle of summer. personZ acknowledges the sarcastic meaning (that it is reasonable to expect ice in the middle of summer), and is pointing out that based on the article, the guests actually DID in fact receive ice, making Spooky23's sarcastic statement not very relevant; the issue was that they had complaints about the attitude with which it was provided. Edit: unless perhaps personZ edited his original post.
easytiger 12y ago
Viral business suicide surely.
- Narretz 12y ago
  What about "no such thing as bad publicity"?
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    That may not hold as true as it used to in a market where many purchasing decisions are informed by the consensus instantly accessible and distilled into a single number from aggregators like Yelp. In such cases, it's crucial that you receive positive indicators from those sources. In the past, angry articles or reports faded had less staying power; they would raise the profile of the business or person by directing discontent for a while, but the discontent would fade and the subject would retain some elevated portion of prominence. These days discontent doesn't fade as easily, since Yelp et al provide it a permanent home.
    - XorNot 12y ago
      Also "will bill you $500 for a bad review" has a particular sting about it unlike any other I suspect.
ryoshu 12y ago
Another business introduced to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
owksley 12y ago
Basil Fawlty would be proud!
dm2 12y ago
What a horrible policy, it won't end well for them. http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?sort_by=rating_asc http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?sort... 10 negative Yelp reviews have been posted today (so far), ouch... http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g47931-d490934-Reviews-Union_Street_Guest_House-Hudson_New_York.html#REVIEWS http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g47931-d490934-Revie... Their website navigation is a very discrete image map in the middle of the page, http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/ http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/ obviously this was someone's first website. It's probably not legal, if it is then it is unenforceable in court, even if it was in their terms contract. Here is the page with their $500 review fee policy: http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml I don't condone leaving negative reviews if you haven't stayed there, but if you do be sure to note that you have not stayed at the hotel and are just commenting on their policies to warn people, unless that is against the review sites policy, then don't do that.
- yread 12y ago
  Nice: If you have booked the Inn for a wedding or other type of event anywhere in the region and given us a deposit of any kind for guests to stay at USGH there will be a $500 fine that will be deducted from your deposit for every negative review of USGH placed on any internet site by anyone in your party and/or attending your wedding or event If you stay here to attend a wedding anywhere in the area and leave us a negative review on any internet site you agree to a $500. fine for each negative review. (Please NOTE we will not charge this fee &/or will refund this fee once the review is taken down). Also, please note that we only request this of wedding parties and for the reasons explained above.
  - dspillett 12y ago
    > for the reasons explained above Being lazy and not reading it myself: do they attempt to adequately explain the policy other than "we'd like to be able to be dickish without getting bad reviews" in "the reasons explained above"? (edit for those only reading this far: it appears that they do, see the replies to this post for detail)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sidcool 12y ago
This is ridiculous. Someone needs to sue them.
hawkharris 12y ago
After reading this article, I'm surprised to see that the guest house still has a high rating on Yelp and Google+. Our immediate response should be to post negative reviews based on the revelation that none of the other reviews are trustworthy. EDIT: Yelp rating is no longer high, but there's still TripAdvisor and Google+.
- danielweber 12y ago
  No, posting reviews of a service you've never used because of something you read on the Internet five minutes ago is not OK.
  - omni 12y ago
    That's true in a vacuum. However, the high rating they have is clearly unjustified since they have been extorting people to remove negative reviews. Some collective action against the gaming of the system is called for and, I think, ethical in this case. Try thinking of it from the perspective of their competitors that don't extort their customers.
    - danielweber 12y ago
      clearly unjustified You don't know that. they have been extorting people You don't know that. Some collective action against the gaming of the system is called for Oh, geeze. If gaming the system is bad, then stop gaming the system. If someone really wanted to put the screws to these people, then they would find a patron who has actually had that $500 policy used against them, implicitly if nothing else. It would require some kind of investigative journalism to find an actual victim. But that's a lot more slow and boring than getting out the Internet pitchforks and just burning their online presence to the ground right now. (If we wait too long our anger might dissipate!)
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - egeozcan 12y ago
Doctor_Fegg 12y ago
I think this is a sort of wacko reverse psychology gambit.[1] The Yelp page is now attracting comments like "This place should be relocated to china. They have a policy about reviews that is unamerican." So, if you're looking for a hotel that actively dissuades the sort of redneck who likes to throw around words like "unamerican", congratulations - you've found it! [1] ok, ok, I don't.
joeblau 12y ago
Wow the Internet has already taken them down to 2 stars. I can't image this is going to end well once this news spreads to other internet communities.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
Is there any proof this is happening other than this post? I hope so otherwise internet vigilante justice is destroying a business and people's livelihoods. Edit: I took a look at their site and apparently they only enforce this policy for weddings: "Also, please note that we only request this of wedding parties and for the reasons explained above." The reasons seem to be that as guests are not booking the hotel themselves (presumably the bride/groom has done that for them) it may not be to their tastes and they feel it's unfair to leave a negative review of something you never would have booked in the first place because it's not to your taste. I can kind of understand this reasoning, although it's not great.
- baddox 12y ago
  I don't see any evidence that they've actually enforced the rule, but the rule is posted on their website: http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml.
  - chmullig 12y ago
    Read the yelp reviews, at least once mentions it.
  - cheshire137 12y ago
    Looks like the part about negative reviews is gone now.
- ryanmcdonough 12y ago
  Yes on: http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml
IgorPartola 12y ago
Before mob justice drives this place out of business, perhaps those posting 1 star reviews should promise to take them down if the policy changes. Not that I agree with the policy, but a mistake like this might not be worth ruining some's life.
- ankitml 12y ago
  seriously? They are in hospitality business and such level of rudeness, lack of empathy for their customers and such superiority feeling about themselves should ideally take them out of business.
  - seandhi 12y ago
    Yeah, the fact that they insult guests who leave bad reviews (see their Trip Advisor reviews) shows that they have a level of contempt for their customers that is incompatible with a good hospitality business.
  - IgorPartola 12y ago
    I agree. But mob justice rarely has only the intended consequences. I am all for teaching them a lesson, but I believe that's where it should end. You are talking about ruining people's lives over this incident. If every angry user of your product reacted like this, would you be a happy camper? Once again, not defending their practice, just pointing out that the angry mobs don't usually produce the best outcomes.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Indeed - nothing is happening to all the other hotels that have the same policy.
sekasi 12y ago
Can someone living in the US tell me how this could be legal? Surely it's not?
- mox1 12y ago
  Freedom of speech laws apply to the Government, not private corporations. There is no "right" to free speech in the US between 2 non government entities. This would be illegal if a publicly owned entity had this policy (say a historic library or a public garden).... It's stupid and probably not enforceable, but its a civil court case.
- tghw 12y ago
  Relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1357/ http://xkcd.com/1357/
  - nsxwolf 12y ago
    That's fine, I just wish people would stop pretending free speech is some great American value then. What they really value is the right to silence people by any means possible, stopping just short of imprisonment.
    - hnal943 12y ago
      I wish people would stop defining "free speech" for themselves and getting disappointed that it doesn't mean what they want it to mean.
      - nsxwolf 12y ago
        Well if all it is is a protection from imprisonment, and not some higher ideal, it's hardly worth talking about. There's the First Amendment and then there's free speech.
- danielweber 12y ago
  It's well established that you can be held to a contract to not say something. There still needs to be the standard requirements of a contract: mutual understanding, consideration, legality. This contract holds you responsible for others' behavior, which is less well established.
Thriptic 12y ago
In a sense this strategy could be somewhat ingenious on their part, as after some exploration some people might assume that all negative reviews (even ones from customers who legitimately received poor service) are spurious ones associated with the fact that the internet doesn't like their review policy. With that being said, most people won't even bother to explore a hotel with a terrible review, so they're probably screwed.
smegmalife 12y ago
I really do feel for businesses negatively affected by Yelp. Yelp is far from perfect, and I know plenty of small business owners who got a couple bad reviews when they were first figuring things out, and weren't ever able to recover from it. But, I'm not sure if this is even legal. As imperfect as Yelp is, at least it's democratic. Fining somebody for their guests' opinion of their place is not okay.
Kiro 12y ago
I'm enjoying watching their Facebook page going down the drain: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union-Street-Guest-House/117548518271464 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union-Street-Guest-House/1175...
reshambabble 12y ago
Wow. Pretty bold of them to think they could fight social media and the consumer powered era with such an outrageous policy. While I am amazed at their lack of embarrassment, (especially since the policy is still up on their website), it's great to see how people can win > businesses today. Power to the people!
reshambabble 12y ago
The irony of getting one huge bad news article that does more than enough to account for every bad review they evaded. Pretty bold of them to think they could fight social media and the consumer-powered era with such an outrageous policy. Power to the people!
reshambabble 12y ago
The irony of getting one huge bad news article that does more than enough to account for every bad review they evaded. Pretty bold of them to think they could fight social media and the consumer-powered era with such an outrageous policy. Power to the people!
circa 12y ago
I used to work in Hudson. A lot of places like this down there. I'm sure this will be featured on Hotel Hell in no time.
smackfu 12y ago
This seems like it would violate Yelp's rules. If you fine people for bad reviews, is that any different than paying people for good reviews?
- kmfrk 12y ago
  It's illegal to sue people for bad reviews (SLAPP); I think it's just against Yelp TOU to pay people for good ones.
  - pavel_lishin 12y ago
    Not all states have SLAPP statutes.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    They way you write it is not quite right. SLAPP certainly would make it illegal to sue people for defamation for online reviews (depending on the state, it may only be for politics related stuff) That is not quite what is happening here. Having a contractual penalty, freely entered into and mutually agreed upon, for something harmful to their business, probably does not interact with SLAPP in most states.
chasing 12y ago
Yes. And because of this you should definitely go to Yelp and give them a one-star review. And destroy their Facebook page. And maybe go take a shit on their doorstep. That's definitely the answer when a small business makes an error like this. They're frustrated by something they don't feel is fair and made a ham-fisted attempt to fix the problem. Ruin them. (The ice machine thing, though -- that actually seems like it's much more indicative that it might be worth staying somewhere else...)
- hyperpape 12y ago
  I'd call insulting people in response on the yelp page "ham-fisted", but that really seems a bit of an understatement when they're trying to charge people hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for bad reviews.
- PeterisP 12y ago
  "makes an error" and "makes a malicious policy" are two entirely different things. You forgive accidental mistakes, but you should punish intentional morally unacceptable behavior.
  - chasing 12y ago
    My sarcastic point wasn't that they should be forgiven -- or that they shouldn't be punished. I was joking about how after reading an article like this some People on the Internet feel saying retributive things on Yelp and Facebook = social justice. These hoteliers have a stupid (and likely unenforceable) social media policy. And they might be assholes. Fortunately they have almost no sway over your life. Fry bigger fish.
    - XorNot 12y ago
      $500 bucks a pop for reviews posted by people who are not under financial obligations to me is not small fish in any dimension. And recovering money via the court system is another huge waste of time and effort for everyone involved. Stomping down on this hard is exactly what should be happening.
- 12y ago
imgabe 12y ago
I'm not sure I understand how this is supposed to work. They say they'll take it out of your deposit. But a review would happen after the wedding has taken place, yes? So by then wouldn't you have paid in full and settled everything? In that case, they shouldn't have any money you would be expecting to get back from them. So what are they taking it out of? Are they just going to send you a bill for $500 per bad review? Is there anyone who will not just laugh and throw it away?
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  I have no idea either, they say if you take the review down you get your money back. I'd just take it down and wait to receive my deposit then post the bad review afterwards. If they still charge me somehow(holding my cc), then they're probably in way bigger trouble as that seems like credit card fraud or something along those lines.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > But a review would happen after the wedding has taken place, yes? Some people would review on first opportunity - perhaps before having slept the night.
wubbfindel 12y ago
Imagine if this ridiculous policy on their website is actually the result of a malicious hacking. Then the hacker sends pagesix.com an anonymous tip about the policy. Then the hacker posts the pagesix.com article on HN. Now, that would actually make a good story... [EDIT: Typo & Grammar]
- Someone1234 12y ago
  This policy is in the same tone as other policies found on their web-site (e.g. cancellation policy). So I suspect it was written by the same individual and potentially at the same time. Interesting theory though. Reminds me of the Amy's Baking Company "hacking" of their Facebook page.
  - wubbfindel 12y ago
    Yeah I saw the cancellation policy too. Crazy. Interesting, I hadn't heard of the Amy's bakery thing...
- davidcbc 12y ago
  Judging from this Yelp review from 2013 I don't think that is the case: http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?hrid=_p-R59VY-c19Nmxt4r9X9w http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?hrid... Seems like they sent harassing emails to people who leave bad reviews letting them know they are going to charge the wedding host
  - wubbfindel 12y ago
    Agreed, I wasn't suggesting a serious theory, just that it would be an impressive social hack that could be pulled off. I think a lot of these "Internet Vigilantes" would probably fall for it.
ctdonath 12y ago
Maybe it's the "star rating" system that's broken. When reviewing rated product/service offerings, I go straight to the 1-star reviews. Skimming those, I differentiate the "valid complaints" from flukes (a small failure rate is understandable), unrealistic expectations (it's a vintage hotel, not a new Hilton), tangential problems (Amazon didn't smash the box, the shipper did), hysteria (political opposition isn't a reason), humor (Family Circus isn't peer-reviewed), etc. We need a way to express these, especially a "for what it is, it's good (whether it met my needs/interests or not)".
- peroo 12y ago
  As bad as the star system is, I'm not sure there's anything better. I think Amazon has the right idea with the "Was this review helpful to you?" buttons, though that may not work quite as well for Yelp if you consider the possibility of review-burying by owners.
  - minimaxir 12y ago
    Unfortunately, the "helpful" rating on Amazon's reviews are heavily biased: http://minimaxir.com/img/amazon/amzn-basic-helpful.png http://minimaxir.com/img/amazon/amzn-basic-helpful.png
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    We could have stars for multiple axes, plus a "choose n-of-m" keyword selection, but I wonder if that would be too complicated for users. Example: Service: 1-5 Cleanliness: 1-5 Concierge: 1-5 Modernity: 1-5 .... Choose three words to describe the hotel stay: _ modern _ rustic _ rude _ quaint _ clean ...
    - ghaff 12y ago
      There's a lot of evidence that minimizing dimensions--even to the point of getting rid of obviously relevant ones--generally works best. Though Zagat does have food, decor, service, and cost so it can work especially when you're focused on a single thing. It gets harder when you're rating different things that span different dimensions. Amazon, for example, obviously just has a star system and DVD reviews are this sorta annoying mix of reviews of the movie and reviews of the specific DVD product.
ck2 12y ago
Why don't people understand that free-speech protections only means the government cannot throw you in jail for what you say (but they do anyway under the "try to stop us" method http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201422486 http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201422486 ). It has no meaning against other individuals.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  They don't because it's not true. The reason civil libel/slander between private parties is more restricted in the US than elsewhere in the common law world is because of the First Amendment free speech and free press guarantees. The idea that it only apples in criminal disputes or where over party is the government is false; it's a limit on government, sure, but on governments power to make law, which applies both to laws governing dispute between private parties and to law governing criminal or civil cases where the government is a party.
frade33 12y ago
This is beyond stupid and this is not even untrue.
judk 12y ago
A bride is a business partner, forcing guests to stay at the hotel. How is this different from docking an employees salary for unsatisfied customers?
- imgabe 12y ago
  I've been to many weddings. I've never been forced to stay at any particular hotel. There are usually several in the area that the bride and groom suggest, and you're always free to seek out another hotel if you don't like those. The bride is not a business partner, she's a paying customer. A business partner would be receiving a share of the profits from the transaction, a bride is not. How is it different from docking an employee's pay? Well, to start with the bride has no employment agreement with the hotel and is not receiving any pay, so that's a pretty big difference.
- djur 12y ago
  1) Docking employees' salary is immoral and (in the US) illegal. 2) The bride is not a business partner; she is a customer. 3) The guests are not forced to stay at the hotel, unless the wedding invitations come with an "or else" clause.
taybin 12y ago
Yelp is useless anyways.
TallGuyShort 12y ago
So I agree with what appears to be the overwhelming majority that this policy is probably legally unenforceable and was destined to backfire as soon as it was posted on the interwebs, but... I think they have a legitimate problem and I'm wandering what alternate solutions we can come up with. The person planning the wedding (may or may not be the people actually getting married) thinks this is a good place for the wedding, but many of the guests do not enjoy it. The reviews exist to help that person make that decision. Whether or not guests usually hate it, is part of that decision, but I agree with the venue that what the people getting married want is the bigger part of that decision. How can the company manage expectations better?
- potatolicious 12y ago
  It does seem a bit unfair, but at the same time the reviews aren't just a measure of how much the bride and groom will enjoy the place, it's also a measure of how much everyone else does as well. Perhaps "many of your guests will hate this place" is a valuable signal to couples picking venues. Honestly, if you've been a legitimate guest of a particular venue IMO it's perfectly fine to leave a review about it. The people that foot the bill aren't the only ones who get to chime in.
  - Vik1ng 12y ago
    But then it's just as valid to write a bad review about a McDonalds restaurant your group of friends decided to go to, because the wine selection sucked.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      I don't think McDonald's is a good example, because everyone already knows what it is, and reviews don't serve a useful purpose. Let's instead imagine some similar non-chain place called O'Brien's. Would it not be useful, when deciding whether or not to go to O'Brien's for dinner, to see a bad review saying, "I didn't like this place, all they had was burgers, and no booze"?
    - aestra 12y ago
moioci 12y ago
Looks like a really malicious way to punish Bridezilla: "When I stayed here for the Smith-Jones wedding on July 26..."
chris_wot 12y ago
Great idea, right up till the point they announced it and later tried to enforce it.
chatman 12y ago
This is just a gimmick story to promote Yelp.
notastartup 12y ago
"If you exercise your rights to freedom of speech and post anything other than a stellar review, we are going to penalize you, to improve our business reputation online instead of finding out why there are negative reviews in the first place."
robinsta 12y ago
They posted this to their facebook: The policy regarding wedding fines was put on our site as a tongue-in-cheek response to a wedding many years ago. It was meant to be taken down long ago and certainly was never enforced. The commenters on the post do not believe this not surprisingly.
jpbutler 12y ago
They appear to be backpedaling. From their Facebook page: "The policy regarding wedding fines was put on our site as a tongue-in-cheek response to a wedding many years ago. It was meant to be taken down long ago and certainly was never enforced." https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union-Street-Guest-House/117548518271464 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union-Street-Guest-House/1175...
- seandhi 12y ago
  They may be trying to claim that, but they tried to use the policy to bully a guest into removing his review as recently as 11/21/2013: http://bit.ly/1nkV80v http://bit.ly/1nkV80v
egoebelbecker 12y ago
On Yelp's review page: "Your trust is our top concern, so businesses can't pay to alter or remove their reviews." And yet see we stories like this about Yelp all the time. Yelp reviews aren't worth the paper they are not printed on.
thisjepisje 12y ago
Just write a sarcastic positive review.
internet2pac 12y ago
Well this is how we goona do this Fuck Union Street Guest House, Fuck Policies, Fuck Reviews And if you want to be down with Internet review policies, then fuck you too All of y'all businesses, fuck you, die slow motherfuckers My Enter Key makes sure all y'all businesses don't grow You motherfuckers can't be us or see us We motherfuckin Internet Thug life-riders anonyimized till we die
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Is it possible to do meta analysis on review sites - effectively "people with your tastes liked this hotel / restaurant" ? I would think that getting e-receipts working will destroy yelp as well.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Wow - just for some perspective on yelp yesterday these guys had a four star rating. At lunchtime (UK) today they had 39 reviews, and had dropped to 1.5 stars. At end of day UK they have over 500 reviews, as far as I can tell everyone a 1 star and they have 1 star rating. One day and years of work undone. For those who want to sell SEO services to real businesses (yelpEO?) this is a major marketing event. For some poor fucker in NY this is likely to be bankruptcy and layoffs.

344 points by mcenedella 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

If the hotel is clear about these terms, then I don't see much of a problem with this. It makes it really easy to know to pick a different hotel.

ebbv 12y ago
Doesn't matter where they claim this fee is legitimate, if the person refuses to pay (which I would), there's no way this would be upheld in civil court.
- chatmasta 12y ago
  According to the article, charges come out of your deposit. So that means it's on you to bring it to civil court after they take your money.
  - Maskawanian 12y ago
    Easy to work around, make your review after the deposit comes back.
    - dspillett 12y ago
      Or, if you've not signed anything yet, the better work around is to find another venue (and drop them a letter with proof of the booking for the other venue and an explanation as to why you passed them by and went with a competitor).
    - chatmasta 12y ago
      Your guests are the ones leaving the reviews, not you.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  On what grounds would it be dismissed from a civil court? Similar clauses are in many contracts. I'm just curious if there's a reason to believe this is illegal other than simple unpopularity.
  - JadeNB 12y ago
    > Similar clauses are in many contracts. I'm not sure that I believe this. I can believe that there are some places out there that think that they can get away with enjoining you against posting negative reviews (until the law eventually settles down against that, as I'm sure that it will), but I find it hard to believe that there are many places that think that they can fine you for the actions of other people. Can you give examples? EDIT: As baddox (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8131575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8131575) politely points out, I worded this badly. I want to say something like "the actions of other people over which you have no reasonable expectation of control" (for example: you can reasonably be expected to prevent guests in your room from damaging the furniture, but you cannot reasonably be expected to monitor the Internet usage of all your guests after they leave to make sure that they do not post a negative review).
    - baddox 12y ago
      > but I find it hard to believe that there are many places that think that they can fine you for the actions of other people. There are plenty of examples of that, even in the context of hotel booking. The person who pays for a hotel will be fined if non-paying guest damage hotel furniture, for example.
      - JadeNB 12y ago
        Agreed—I meant to be more precise about the kinds of behaviour that you (the contract-signer) can be expected to monitor. I have updated my post accordingly.
    - cookiecaper 12y ago
      If all we're saying is it doesn't pass the "reasonable person" test, then it's not obviously illegal. Some may feel it is reasonable to communicate the terms of the non-disparagement clause you've signed to the members of your party and that it is reasonable to expect the party's sponsor to pay a fine if the members fail to adhere to the rules. I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm missing something obvious. I would just like some substantiation. It seems that many people have the habit of automatically declaring something they don't like to "must be illegal" simply because they strongly dislike it. That's now how law works, and that's important to understand because many people seriously underestimate the powers that the legislature holds.
rrrx3 12y ago
I should be stating the obvious here, but the fact that I even have to post this means that obviously, I am not. Just because something is written into the terms of an agreement doesn't make it legal.
- ulfw 12y ago
  !00% agree. It sure as hell doesn't make it right either.
- owksley 12y ago
  I think they know it's illegal / unconstitutional. They're banking on self-censorship by people who aren't certain where they stand legally.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    ...How is this "unconstitutional"? Not everything that is illegal is unconstitutional. I am also skeptical that this is illegal, but considering the jurisdiction may have many applicable laws, it's hard to say that it is or isn't illegal without significant research. But surely it has nothing to do with constitutional law. Similar pieces of other contracts are valid and common and are called "non-disparagement clauses". I don't see how this differs.
    - owksley 12y ago
      You're quite right. I hadn't realised that the constitution relates to actions between the government and the people only. Reading HN comments is always educational! I suppose it's more correct to say that it isn't in the spirit of the First Amendment, or free-speech in general.
- jebus989 12y ago
  Yeah, you are not. Say someone writes a contract saying that they can slap me in the face and each time they do I must pay $100, if I carefully read and then sign that contract, and they then slap me three times — have I been assaulted or do I owe $300, or both?
nmjohn 12y ago
Because it is extorting guests into not leaving bad reviews online - regardless of service. I'm not really sure how one would think this is okay!
- baddox 12y ago
  It's not extorting if they are clear about these terms before you decide to book the hotel.
  - nmjohn 12y ago
    Yet it is. When you attend a wedding, you have absolutely no say in the venue. Yes, the bride and groom may have agreed to the terms, but the attendees did not have a choice. So if they get shitty service and want to post a review about it online, they find out doing so will cost the bride and groom $500. It might not be clear cut extortion - but it is not an acceptable business practice.
    - baddox 12y ago
      The attendees did not have a choice on the venue, but they are not bound to any contract and do not get fined if they post reviews.
      - chrisbennet 12y ago
        Read it more closely and you will see that, yes, the guest will not get fined, but the bride and groom will have $500 per bad review removed from their deposit.
      - zaphar 12y ago
        That's like saying it's not extortion if I threaten your friend unless you do what I say. The Bride and Groom are threatened with a fine unless their attendees do what the hotel says.
        baddox 12y ago
sigzero 12y ago
Maybe. I don't see how it is right for anyone to be "fined" for giving their opinion.
chris_wot 12y ago
Because they are asking you to police the comments of a third party who posts an opinion you may not have and you may not be able to convince to remove the post?
ctdonath 12y ago
By the time you get around to reading all the fine print, you're pretty mentally committed to signing. If your bride-to-be has her heart set on the quaint old hotel, is already buying decorations to match, telling people the preliminary plans (and they're starting to book in advance), etc ... and then you get down thru the fine print, about to seal the deal, and you see an absurd "you'll be charged $500 for each negative review by people you don't control", are you REALLY going to walk away from the deal? Really?
- personZ 12y ago
  Fine print? It's on the page for "Events & Weddings", and will absolutely be the first thing most people considering this venue will read. It looks like they removed it, but any notion that this was fine print or hidden away is just dishonest misrepresentation.

keehun 12y ago

Feels like a place Reddit or 4chan would tar and feather and then let it hang out and dry until it's dead.

viraptor 12y ago
Not needed. Already there are more 1* reviews than other ones. Mostly about the policy. The internet is a harsh place.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

valarauca1 12y ago

What I wonder is how this is traced. If I leave a review ~6months after would my sisters bridal party be charged or the party that is currently renting the hall? I assume the later since they assume reviews are placed within a short span of time. Which then if there are several books one-day-after-the-next how do you migrate reviews? Or do you split the difference between all parties? Even if the policy is clear, and the market is free. There is no way this policy can be enforced fairly.

Nursie 12y ago
I would presume you'd be safe to leave the review much later as the $500 is withheld from returned deposits. Wait for deposit return, make bad review. All is well :)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - Nursie 12y ago
    >> Yes but then you just pass the fine on to somebody else, which isn't fair. How? If the place has returned the deposit then they have nothing to withhold the fine from ... ? Am I missing something here?
    - james-skemp 12y ago
      They're saying that someone else would be fined, if they're looking at time of review only. So you rent the room and someone posts a negative review from their rental a few months ago; do you get fined or not? You might if they're only going off time.
    - valarauca1 12y ago
      >If the place has returned the deposit then they have nothing to withhold the fine from They have no way of proving the association of the reviewer and the deposit in question to charge from. Therefore it is logical to assume that any negative review would be charged to the currently active account, which may or may not be associate with the review. This ambiguity prevents a fair result.

Spooky23 12y ago

Makes sense. Asking for a functional ice machine in the middle of the summer at a wedding is a pretty unreasonable expectation. We're talking about Hudson, NY here. It's practically a wilderness... having an appliance repairman come would be impossible!

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- damncabbage 12y ago
  Spooky23 is being sarcastic.
- brianmcc 12y ago
  Touch of sarcasm above, perhaps...
- imaginenore 12y ago
  Your sarcasm detector is broken. Call the repairman.
  - onion2k 12y ago
    A sarcasm detector? How very useful!
    - chris_wot 12y ago
      One would come in handy right now.
  - positivejam 12y ago
    personZ understood the sarcasm: -literal meaning of Spooky23's statement: it's unreasonable to expect ice in the middle of summer. -sarcastic meaning of Spooky23's statement: it's completely REASONABLE to expect ice in the middle of summer. personZ acknowledges the sarcastic meaning (that it is reasonable to expect ice in the middle of summer), and is pointing out that based on the article, the guests actually DID in fact receive ice, making Spooky23's sarcastic statement not very relevant; the issue was that they had complaints about the attitude with which it was provided. Edit: unless perhaps personZ edited his original post.

easytiger 12y ago

Viral business suicide surely.

Narretz 12y ago
What about "no such thing as bad publicity"?
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  That may not hold as true as it used to in a market where many purchasing decisions are informed by the consensus instantly accessible and distilled into a single number from aggregators like Yelp. In such cases, it's crucial that you receive positive indicators from those sources. In the past, angry articles or reports faded had less staying power; they would raise the profile of the business or person by directing discontent for a while, but the discontent would fade and the subject would retain some elevated portion of prominence. These days discontent doesn't fade as easily, since Yelp et al provide it a permanent home.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    Also "will bill you $500 for a bad review" has a particular sting about it unlike any other I suspect.

ryoshu 12y ago

Another business introduced to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

owksley 12y ago

Basil Fawlty would be proud!

dm2 12y ago

What a horrible policy, it won't end well for them. http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?sort_by=rating_asc http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?sort... 10 negative Yelp reviews have been posted today (so far), ouch... http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g47931-d490934-Reviews-Union_Street_Guest_House-Hudson_New_York.html#REVIEWS http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g47931-d490934-Revie... Their website navigation is a very discrete image map in the middle of the page, http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/ http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/ obviously this was someone's first website. It's probably not legal, if it is then it is unenforceable in court, even if it was in their terms contract. Here is the page with their $500 review fee policy: http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml I don't condone leaving negative reviews if you haven't stayed there, but if you do be sure to note that you have not stayed at the hotel and are just commenting on their policies to warn people, unless that is against the review sites policy, then don't do that.

yread 12y ago
Nice: If you have booked the Inn for a wedding or other type of event anywhere in the region and given us a deposit of any kind for guests to stay at USGH there will be a $500 fine that will be deducted from your deposit for every negative review of USGH placed on any internet site by anyone in your party and/or attending your wedding or event If you stay here to attend a wedding anywhere in the area and leave us a negative review on any internet site you agree to a $500. fine for each negative review. (Please NOTE we will not charge this fee &/or will refund this fee once the review is taken down). Also, please note that we only request this of wedding parties and for the reasons explained above.
- dspillett 12y ago
  > for the reasons explained above Being lazy and not reading it myself: do they attempt to adequately explain the policy other than "we'd like to be able to be dickish without getting bad reviews" in "the reasons explained above"? (edit for those only reading this far: it appears that they do, see the replies to this post for detail)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sidcool 12y ago

This is ridiculous. Someone needs to sue them.

hawkharris 12y ago

After reading this article, I'm surprised to see that the guest house still has a high rating on Yelp and Google+. Our immediate response should be to post negative reviews based on the revelation that none of the other reviews are trustworthy. EDIT: Yelp rating is no longer high, but there's still TripAdvisor and Google+.

danielweber 12y ago
No, posting reviews of a service you've never used because of something you read on the Internet five minutes ago is not OK.
- omni 12y ago
  That's true in a vacuum. However, the high rating they have is clearly unjustified since they have been extorting people to remove negative reviews. Some collective action against the gaming of the system is called for and, I think, ethical in this case. Try thinking of it from the perspective of their competitors that don't extort their customers.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    clearly unjustified You don't know that. they have been extorting people You don't know that. Some collective action against the gaming of the system is called for Oh, geeze. If gaming the system is bad, then stop gaming the system. If someone really wanted to put the screws to these people, then they would find a patron who has actually had that $500 policy used against them, implicitly if nothing else. It would require some kind of investigative journalism to find an actual victim. But that's a lot more slow and boring than getting out the Internet pitchforks and just burning their online presence to the ground right now. (If we wait too long our anger might dissipate!)
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- egeozcan 12y ago

Doctor_Fegg 12y ago

I think this is a sort of wacko reverse psychology gambit.[1] The Yelp page is now attracting comments like "This place should be relocated to china. They have a policy about reviews that is unamerican." So, if you're looking for a hotel that actively dissuades the sort of redneck who likes to throw around words like "unamerican", congratulations - you've found it! [1] ok, ok, I don't.

joeblau 12y ago

Wow the Internet has already taken them down to 2 stars. I can't image this is going to end well once this news spreads to other internet communities.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

Is there any proof this is happening other than this post? I hope so otherwise internet vigilante justice is destroying a business and people's livelihoods. Edit: I took a look at their site and apparently they only enforce this policy for weddings: "Also, please note that we only request this of wedding parties and for the reasons explained above." The reasons seem to be that as guests are not booking the hotel themselves (presumably the bride/groom has done that for them) it may not be to their tastes and they feel it's unfair to leave a negative review of something you never would have booked in the first place because it's not to your taste. I can kind of understand this reasoning, although it's not great.

baddox 12y ago
I don't see any evidence that they've actually enforced the rule, but the rule is posted on their website: http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml.
- chmullig 12y ago
  Read the yelp reviews, at least once mentions it.
- cheshire137 12y ago
  Looks like the part about negative reviews is gone now.
ryanmcdonough 12y ago
Yes on: http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/events_weddings.shtml

IgorPartola 12y ago

Before mob justice drives this place out of business, perhaps those posting 1 star reviews should promise to take them down if the policy changes. Not that I agree with the policy, but a mistake like this might not be worth ruining some's life.

ankitml 12y ago
seriously? They are in hospitality business and such level of rudeness, lack of empathy for their customers and such superiority feeling about themselves should ideally take them out of business.
- seandhi 12y ago
  Yeah, the fact that they insult guests who leave bad reviews (see their Trip Advisor reviews) shows that they have a level of contempt for their customers that is incompatible with a good hospitality business.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  I agree. But mob justice rarely has only the intended consequences. I am all for teaching them a lesson, but I believe that's where it should end. You are talking about ruining people's lives over this incident. If every angry user of your product reacted like this, would you be a happy camper? Once again, not defending their practice, just pointing out that the angry mobs don't usually produce the best outcomes.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Indeed - nothing is happening to all the other hotels that have the same policy.

sekasi 12y ago

Can someone living in the US tell me how this could be legal? Surely it's not?

mox1 12y ago
Freedom of speech laws apply to the Government, not private corporations. There is no "right" to free speech in the US between 2 non government entities. This would be illegal if a publicly owned entity had this policy (say a historic library or a public garden).... It's stupid and probably not enforceable, but its a civil court case.
tghw 12y ago
Relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1357/ http://xkcd.com/1357/
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  That's fine, I just wish people would stop pretending free speech is some great American value then. What they really value is the right to silence people by any means possible, stopping just short of imprisonment.
  - hnal943 12y ago
    I wish people would stop defining "free speech" for themselves and getting disappointed that it doesn't mean what they want it to mean.
    - nsxwolf 12y ago
      Well if all it is is a protection from imprisonment, and not some higher ideal, it's hardly worth talking about. There's the First Amendment and then there's free speech.
danielweber 12y ago
It's well established that you can be held to a contract to not say something. There still needs to be the standard requirements of a contract: mutual understanding, consideration, legality. This contract holds you responsible for others' behavior, which is less well established.

Thriptic 12y ago

In a sense this strategy could be somewhat ingenious on their part, as after some exploration some people might assume that all negative reviews (even ones from customers who legitimately received poor service) are spurious ones associated with the fact that the internet doesn't like their review policy. With that being said, most people won't even bother to explore a hotel with a terrible review, so they're probably screwed.

smegmalife 12y ago

I really do feel for businesses negatively affected by Yelp. Yelp is far from perfect, and I know plenty of small business owners who got a couple bad reviews when they were first figuring things out, and weren't ever able to recover from it. But, I'm not sure if this is even legal. As imperfect as Yelp is, at least it's democratic. Fining somebody for their guests' opinion of their place is not okay.

Kiro 12y ago

I'm enjoying watching their Facebook page going down the drain: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union-Street-Guest-House/117548518271464 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union-Street-Guest-House/1175...

reshambabble 12y ago

Wow. Pretty bold of them to think they could fight social media and the consumer powered era with such an outrageous policy. While I am amazed at their lack of embarrassment, (especially since the policy is still up on their website), it's great to see how people can win > businesses today. Power to the people!

reshambabble 12y ago

The irony of getting one huge bad news article that does more than enough to account for every bad review they evaded. Pretty bold of them to think they could fight social media and the consumer-powered era with such an outrageous policy. Power to the people!

reshambabble 12y ago

circa 12y ago

I used to work in Hudson. A lot of places like this down there. I'm sure this will be featured on Hotel Hell in no time.

smackfu 12y ago

This seems like it would violate Yelp's rules. If you fine people for bad reviews, is that any different than paying people for good reviews?

kmfrk 12y ago
It's illegal to sue people for bad reviews (SLAPP); I think it's just against Yelp TOU to pay people for good ones.
- pavel_lishin 12y ago
  Not all states have SLAPP statutes.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  They way you write it is not quite right. SLAPP certainly would make it illegal to sue people for defamation for online reviews (depending on the state, it may only be for politics related stuff) That is not quite what is happening here. Having a contractual penalty, freely entered into and mutually agreed upon, for something harmful to their business, probably does not interact with SLAPP in most states.

chasing 12y ago

Yes. And because of this you should definitely go to Yelp and give them a one-star review. And destroy their Facebook page. And maybe go take a shit on their doorstep. That's definitely the answer when a small business makes an error like this. They're frustrated by something they don't feel is fair and made a ham-fisted attempt to fix the problem. Ruin them. (The ice machine thing, though -- that actually seems like it's much more indicative that it might be worth staying somewhere else...)

hyperpape 12y ago
I'd call insulting people in response on the yelp page "ham-fisted", but that really seems a bit of an understatement when they're trying to charge people hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for bad reviews.
PeterisP 12y ago
"makes an error" and "makes a malicious policy" are two entirely different things. You forgive accidental mistakes, but you should punish intentional morally unacceptable behavior.
- chasing 12y ago
  My sarcastic point wasn't that they should be forgiven -- or that they shouldn't be punished. I was joking about how after reading an article like this some People on the Internet feel saying retributive things on Yelp and Facebook = social justice. These hoteliers have a stupid (and likely unenforceable) social media policy. And they might be assholes. Fortunately they have almost no sway over your life. Fry bigger fish.
  - XorNot 12y ago
    $500 bucks a pop for reviews posted by people who are not under financial obligations to me is not small fish in any dimension. And recovering money via the court system is another huge waste of time and effort for everyone involved. Stomping down on this hard is exactly what should be happening.
12y ago

imgabe 12y ago

I'm not sure I understand how this is supposed to work. They say they'll take it out of your deposit. But a review would happen after the wedding has taken place, yes? So by then wouldn't you have paid in full and settled everything? In that case, they shouldn't have any money you would be expecting to get back from them. So what are they taking it out of? Are they just going to send you a bill for $500 per bad review? Is there anyone who will not just laugh and throw it away?

Igglyboo 12y ago
I have no idea either, they say if you take the review down you get your money back. I'd just take it down and wait to receive my deposit then post the bad review afterwards. If they still charge me somehow(holding my cc), then they're probably in way bigger trouble as that seems like credit card fraud or something along those lines.
DanBC 12y ago
> But a review would happen after the wedding has taken place, yes? Some people would review on first opportunity - perhaps before having slept the night.

wubbfindel 12y ago

Imagine if this ridiculous policy on their website is actually the result of a malicious hacking. Then the hacker sends pagesix.com an anonymous tip about the policy. Then the hacker posts the pagesix.com article on HN. Now, that would actually make a good story... [EDIT: Typo & Grammar]

Someone1234 12y ago
This policy is in the same tone as other policies found on their web-site (e.g. cancellation policy). So I suspect it was written by the same individual and potentially at the same time. Interesting theory though. Reminds me of the Amy's Baking Company "hacking" of their Facebook page.
- wubbfindel 12y ago
  Yeah I saw the cancellation policy too. Crazy. Interesting, I hadn't heard of the Amy's bakery thing...
davidcbc 12y ago
Judging from this Yelp review from 2013 I don't think that is the case: http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?hrid=_p-R59VY-c19Nmxt4r9X9w http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?hrid... Seems like they sent harassing emails to people who leave bad reviews letting them know they are going to charge the wedding host
- wubbfindel 12y ago
  Agreed, I wasn't suggesting a serious theory, just that it would be an impressive social hack that could be pulled off. I think a lot of these "Internet Vigilantes" would probably fall for it.

ctdonath 12y ago

Maybe it's the "star rating" system that's broken. When reviewing rated product/service offerings, I go straight to the 1-star reviews. Skimming those, I differentiate the "valid complaints" from flukes (a small failure rate is understandable), unrealistic expectations (it's a vintage hotel, not a new Hilton), tangential problems (Amazon didn't smash the box, the shipper did), hysteria (political opposition isn't a reason), humor (Family Circus isn't peer-reviewed), etc. We need a way to express these, especially a "for what it is, it's good (whether it met my needs/interests or not)".

peroo 12y ago
As bad as the star system is, I'm not sure there's anything better. I think Amazon has the right idea with the "Was this review helpful to you?" buttons, though that may not work quite as well for Yelp if you consider the possibility of review-burying by owners.
- minimaxir 12y ago
  Unfortunately, the "helpful" rating on Amazon's reviews are heavily biased: http://minimaxir.com/img/amazon/amzn-basic-helpful.png http://minimaxir.com/img/amazon/amzn-basic-helpful.png
- nitrogen 12y ago
  We could have stars for multiple axes, plus a "choose n-of-m" keyword selection, but I wonder if that would be too complicated for users. Example: Service: 1-5 Cleanliness: 1-5 Concierge: 1-5 Modernity: 1-5 .... Choose three words to describe the hotel stay: _ modern _ rustic _ rude _ quaint _ clean ...
  - ghaff 12y ago
    There's a lot of evidence that minimizing dimensions--even to the point of getting rid of obviously relevant ones--generally works best. Though Zagat does have food, decor, service, and cost so it can work especially when you're focused on a single thing. It gets harder when you're rating different things that span different dimensions. Amazon, for example, obviously just has a star system and DVD reviews are this sorta annoying mix of reviews of the movie and reviews of the specific DVD product.

ck2 12y ago

Why don't people understand that free-speech protections only means the government cannot throw you in jail for what you say (but they do anyway under the "try to stop us" method http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201422486 http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201422486 ). It has no meaning against other individuals.

dragonwriter 12y ago
They don't because it's not true. The reason civil libel/slander between private parties is more restricted in the US than elsewhere in the common law world is because of the First Amendment free speech and free press guarantees. The idea that it only apples in criminal disputes or where over party is the government is false; it's a limit on government, sure, but on governments power to make law, which applies both to laws governing dispute between private parties and to law governing criminal or civil cases where the government is a party.

frade33 12y ago

This is beyond stupid and this is not even untrue.

judk 12y ago

A bride is a business partner, forcing guests to stay at the hotel. How is this different from docking an employees salary for unsatisfied customers?

imgabe 12y ago
I've been to many weddings. I've never been forced to stay at any particular hotel. There are usually several in the area that the bride and groom suggest, and you're always free to seek out another hotel if you don't like those. The bride is not a business partner, she's a paying customer. A business partner would be receiving a share of the profits from the transaction, a bride is not. How is it different from docking an employee's pay? Well, to start with the bride has no employment agreement with the hotel and is not receiving any pay, so that's a pretty big difference.
djur 12y ago
1) Docking employees' salary is immoral and (in the US) illegal. 2) The bride is not a business partner; she is a customer. 3) The guests are not forced to stay at the hotel, unless the wedding invitations come with an "or else" clause.

taybin 12y ago

Yelp is useless anyways.

TallGuyShort 12y ago

So I agree with what appears to be the overwhelming majority that this policy is probably legally unenforceable and was destined to backfire as soon as it was posted on the interwebs, but... I think they have a legitimate problem and I'm wandering what alternate solutions we can come up with. The person planning the wedding (may or may not be the people actually getting married) thinks this is a good place for the wedding, but many of the guests do not enjoy it. The reviews exist to help that person make that decision. Whether or not guests usually hate it, is part of that decision, but I agree with the venue that what the people getting married want is the bigger part of that decision. How can the company manage expectations better?

potatolicious 12y ago
It does seem a bit unfair, but at the same time the reviews aren't just a measure of how much the bride and groom will enjoy the place, it's also a measure of how much everyone else does as well. Perhaps "many of your guests will hate this place" is a valuable signal to couples picking venues. Honestly, if you've been a legitimate guest of a particular venue IMO it's perfectly fine to leave a review about it. The people that foot the bill aren't the only ones who get to chime in.
- Vik1ng 12y ago
  But then it's just as valid to write a bad review about a McDonalds restaurant your group of friends decided to go to, because the wine selection sucked.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    I don't think McDonald's is a good example, because everyone already knows what it is, and reviews don't serve a useful purpose. Let's instead imagine some similar non-chain place called O'Brien's. Would it not be useful, when deciding whether or not to go to O'Brien's for dinner, to see a bad review saying, "I didn't like this place, all they had was burgers, and no booze"?
  - aestra 12y ago

moioci 12y ago

Looks like a really malicious way to punish Bridezilla: "When I stayed here for the Smith-Jones wedding on July 26..."

chris_wot 12y ago

Great idea, right up till the point they announced it and later tried to enforce it.

chatman 12y ago

This is just a gimmick story to promote Yelp.

notastartup 12y ago

"If you exercise your rights to freedom of speech and post anything other than a stellar review, we are going to penalize you, to improve our business reputation online instead of finding out why there are negative reviews in the first place."

robinsta 12y ago

They posted this to their facebook: The policy regarding wedding fines was put on our site as a tongue-in-cheek response to a wedding many years ago. It was meant to be taken down long ago and certainly was never enforced. The commenters on the post do not believe this not surprisingly.

jpbutler 12y ago

They appear to be backpedaling. From their Facebook page: "The policy regarding wedding fines was put on our site as a tongue-in-cheek response to a wedding many years ago. It was meant to be taken down long ago and certainly was never enforced." https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union-Street-Guest-House/117548518271464 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Union-Street-Guest-House/1175...

seandhi 12y ago
They may be trying to claim that, but they tried to use the policy to bully a guest into removing his review as recently as 11/21/2013: http://bit.ly/1nkV80v http://bit.ly/1nkV80v

egoebelbecker 12y ago

On Yelp's review page: "Your trust is our top concern, so businesses can't pay to alter or remove their reviews." And yet see we stories like this about Yelp all the time. Yelp reviews aren't worth the paper they are not printed on.

thisjepisje 12y ago

Just write a sarcastic positive review.

internet2pac 12y ago

Well this is how we goona do this Fuck Union Street Guest House, Fuck Policies, Fuck Reviews And if you want to be down with Internet review policies, then fuck you too All of y'all businesses, fuck you, die slow motherfuckers My Enter Key makes sure all y'all businesses don't grow You motherfuckers can't be us or see us We motherfuckin Internet Thug life-riders anonyimized till we die

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

Is it possible to do meta analysis on review sites - effectively "people with your tastes liked this hotel / restaurant" ? I would think that getting e-receipts working will destroy yelp as well.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

Wow - just for some perspective on yelp yesterday these guys had a four star rating. At lunchtime (UK) today they had 39 reviews, and had dropped to 1.5 stars. At end of day UK they have over 500 reviews, as far as I can tell everyone a 1 star and they have 1 star rating. One day and years of work undone. For those who want to sell SEO services to real businesses (yelpEO?) this is a major marketing event. For some poor fucker in NY this is likely to be bankruptcy and layoffs.