pizano345 wrote:why doesn't Yelp list reviews chronologically unless you click "by date"?

They have answered this question so many times in the press, and they answer it every day via a mouseover on every page. I have to think that business owners/ managers who still don't know the answer are choosing not to know the answer, so they can continue to vent their anger over negative reviews.

pizano345 wrote:...let loose sales rep in the field that also had the ability to easily change reviews and how the reviews are laid out.

If you have evidence that Yelp is lying, I suggest joining the class action lawsuit (maybe you already have?). I'm no lawyer, but if the accusation you've stated in a factual way above happens to be untrue speculation, I think you've exposed yourself to nasty legal problems. I do understand your frustration though -I'd be frustrated too if I read some of these things about my restaurant, and about me personally.

For their part, Yelp has attempted to answer this one clearly too:

Myths About Yelp section of Yelp's website wrote:Myth #3: Yelp salespeople manipulate reviews for prospective advertisers (for example, offers to remove a negative review if a new client signs up, or a threat to remove positive reviews if the business owner does not choose to advertise with Yelp)
Reality: We have every reason to trust the smart, hard-working and ethical salespeople who work at Yelp. Beyond this, to avoid even an appearance of impropriety, we've taken several steps to ensure no member of our team is tempted to game the system. read more »Specifically:

- Yelp salespeople do not have access to the system that deletes reviews; only a few members of Yelp engineering and user support team have this access, and they literally work on different floors within the office.
- Every Yelp salesperson signs an agreement that s/he will not write reviews of any business while employed by Yelp. We trust our teammates in sales to live up to this commitment. We also have several monitoring systems in place to ensure nobody (accidentally or otherwise) crosses this line.
- Through our vigilance, we once did find a salesperson who encouraged a friend to write a positive review for a prospective client (that the friend had actually patronized). The salesperson's role at Yelp ended that day.
- When a new advertiser signs up with Yelp, the relationship is handed off to an Account Manager. The Account Manager then takes the client through a 30 minute phone training session -- and confirms that reviews have nothing to do with advertising.
- After the training call, the Account Manager sends a follow up survey that asks each client how much s/he agrees with the following statement: "I understand that Reviews are completely separate from the Yelp Ad Program, and that there is an automated filter that may suppress some of my reviews whether or not I am a client." Any client who does not click "Completely Agree" in this case gets yet another follow-up call for clarification.

I think manipulating the Yelp system for an unscrupulous individual would be pretty easy, even in this age of internet transparency.

Say a sales person on their own initiative or otherwise directed wants to drum up some new accounts. They would simply need to go to a library, set up a fake online identity, get on the internet, and post a bunch of bogus reviews for restaurants, or businesses. Kind of like spam email scams, they could cast a wide net, and they would surely get a few of these business owners to call in and ask to get that particular negative post deleted, at that point Yelp can offer their great deal of "pay us $300 and the post gets removed or hidden".

By Yelp offering a "service" like that only to paying customers makes me think something fishy is going on there.

jimswside wrote:By Yelp offering a "service" like that only to paying customers makes me think something fishy is going on there.

That might be fishy if it were actually happening, but why set up such a far-fetched strawman? Any business owner can call Yelp to ask to have a review removed. The only difference is that paying advertisers have access to an "Account Manager". Is it possible that the Account Manager can expedite things? I suppose, but it's not like there is some special Bat phone set up to a secret review-removing team.

jimswside wrote:...they would surely get a few of these business owners to call in and ask to get that particular negative post deleted, at that point Yelp can offer their great deal of "pay us $300 and the post gets removed or hidden".

There is no such deal, except in the minds of angry business owners who don't like reading their negative reviews.

Kennyz wrote:There is no such deal, except in the minds of angry business owners who don't like reading their negative reviews.

isnt that $300/mo deal what was being alleged by the vet clinic involved in the litigation in the linked article?

jimswside wrote:

Kennyz wrote:There is no such deal, except in the minds of angry business owners who don't like reading their negative reviews.

isnt that $300/mo deal what was being alleged by the vet clinic involved in the litigation in the linked article?

Yes, that is exactly my point.

Kennyz wrote:Yes, that is exactly my point.

it will be interesting to see how it plays out in front of a judge and jury, what is uncovered, & how that is interpreted.

the Yelp site is down...hmmmmm.....

Here is the complaint: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/ ... lpsuit.pdf

There are several allegations in here that would clearly be unfair competition under pretty much any state's competition laws. I think this one is the most damning:

"Yelp pays its employees to write reviews of businesses; in one documented instance, a business owner who declined to advertise subsequently received a negative review from a Yelp employee. In other cases, businesses that receive negative reviews from paid Yelp employees are subsequently asked to advertise."

If that is proven to be true, I can't see how that is not the end of Yelp as a legitimate business.

chi esq wrote:If that is proven to be true, I can't see how that is not the end of Yelp as a legitimate business.

It it is proven that the cake Tituba baked caused Abigail and the other girls to become witches, I can't see how Tituba and her supporters can avoid being put to death.

chi esq wrote:If that is proven to be true, I can't see how that is not the end of Yelp as a legitimate business.

Substitute the word "credible" for "legitimate" and I'd agree completely. Oh, wait. Does that imply that Yelp is credible otherwise?

nr706 wrote:

chi esq wrote:If that is proven to be true, I can't see how that is not the end of Yelp as a legitimate business.

Substitute the word "credible" for "legitimate" and I'd agree completely. Oh, wait. Does that imply that Yelp is credible otherwise?

The business is credible. The reviews, perhaps not.

Kennyz wrote:

nr706 wrote:

chi esq wrote:If that is proven to be true, I can't see how that is not the end of Yelp as a legitimate business.

Substitute the word "credible" for "legitimate" and I'd agree completely. Oh, wait. Does that imply that Yelp is credible otherwise?

The business is credible. The reviews, perhaps not.

I'm not sure I'm convinced the business is credible. Is it ok for an exterminator to release insects into your house (without your knowledge) and then solicit your business, saying "hey...I've bet you got a pest problem that I can solve"? I don't know if it's legal or not, but it certainly doesn't strike me as ethical.

jesteinf wrote:I'm not sure I'm convinced the business is credible. Is it ok for an exterminator to release insects into your house (without your knowledge) and then solicit your business, saying "hey...I've bet you got a pest problem that I can solve"? I don't know if it's legal or not, but it certainly doesn't strike me as ethical.

Josh, I'm not sure I'm convinced that you're not a terrorist. Is it OK for you to send money to anti-US militants? I don't know if it's legal, but it certainly strikes me as something that puts the country in danger.


edited to add: I am actually convinced that Josh is not a terrorist, and I have zero reason to believe he sends money to militants, or that Yelp does any of the things he suggests that they do.

Probably time to move on.

I am impressed with Kenny's defense of Yelp, despite the fact that Bari's Subs is rated 4.5 stars. We have found our honest man.

Kennyz wrote:

jesteinf wrote:I'm not sure I'm convinced the business is credible. Is it ok for an exterminator to release insects into your house (without your knowledge) and then solicit your business, saying "hey...I've bet you got a pest problem that I can solve"? I don't know if it's legal or not, but it certainly doesn't strike me as ethical.

Josh, I'm not sure I'm convinced that you're not a terrorist. Is it OK for you to send money to anti-US militants? I don't know if it's legal, but it certainly strikes me as something that puts the country in danger.


edited to add: I am actually convinced that Josh is not a terrorist, and I have zero reason to believe he sends money to militants, or that Yelp does any of the things he suggests that they do.

I should have been more clear that if what is alleged in the lawsuit is true than I don't think Yelp is a credible business. Otherwise I think I'm largely in agreement with you.

PS - Thanks for getting me flagged in a government databse somewhere. Now I have to dig my tin foil hat out of storage.

Some things have a long history. From The Rake, Sept. 3, 1842, in its attack against a rival publication:

"From its commencement it has pursued a systematic course of assault on private character, and wherever the discerning eye of its Editor has perceived a momentary deviation in the morals of the otherwise innocent and virtuous, he has made his relentless sheet the instrument, whereby to compel the unfortunate offender to purchase immunity. Thus and by such means has it reached its present position."

Quoted in Patricia Cline Cohen, et al, The Flash Press: Sporting Male Weeklies in 1840s New York

Yelp Founder defends integrity of site.

David Hammond wrote: Yelp Founder defends integrity of site.

If Jeremy Stoppelman came in to sit at my bar with that smirk, I would type "DOUCHE" into the system for his ticket name.

Santander wrote:

David Hammond wrote: Yelp Founder defends integrity of site.

If Jeremy Stoppelman came in to sit at my bar with that smirk, I would type "DOUCHE" into the system for his ticket name.

Loving the cross-thread pollination...

Say what you want about Yelp, in many smaller cities, it is one of the best sources for restaurant information.

jlawrence01 wrote:Say what you want about Yelp, in many smaller cities, it is one of the best sources for restaurant information.

Maybe not. I just moved from Chicago to a tiny town in Kentucky. Nobody writes reviews of the places around here on Yelp or any other site for that matter. I'm not crazy about some of the restaurants we have here. Some places, if they were in Chicago, I wouldn't visit them a second time, not because they're bad per se, but because there are so many more options and there's no reason to settle for mediocre. Down here, not so much, and I don't want to do anything to make myself unwelcome. Also, I see many of these people around town. I like them. And none of their food is so awful that I'm inspired by the ethical call to warn others, y'know? And the town is small enough that there is no anonymous pseudonym thick enough to shroud anyone in secrecy.

But I do agree with the point that most cities don't have an LTH, especially smaller ones. Yelp is pretty much the only platform many places have regardless whether people avail themselves of it or not.

And with Yelp, quite frankly, I wouldn't really want to be associated with the reviewers there either. There's an unintentionally hilarious post about a local joint here that's comparable to, say, Gale Street Inn in which the yelp review establishes GoCo as the baseline for what's an acceptable breakfast buffet. There's no way I'm gonna make a review post following that.

In the long time I've been lurking, I've found that LTH differentiates itself from sites like Yelp. If I want a quick reference about a place documented in one sentence reviews or a quick list of diners in a neighborhood, I'll go to Yelp. If I'm looking for some in-depth research and thoughtful impressions about a restaurant or recommendations for new places from people with the same sense of adventure about food that I have, I go to LTH. Yelp is Wikipedia; LTH is Encyclopedia Brittanica.

I'll skip my comments on the OP; no sense rehashing any of those points, or my thoughts on the future of the newspaper industry.

Cheers.

P.S. Ironically, I had to use Wikipedia to confirm that Encyclopedia Brittanica was still in print.

has anyone heard about the law suit going on with Yelp in California???

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10459197-36.html

After hearing about this from a friend, I was kinda shocked....but I started to look into negative reviews for a couple of pretty solid restaurants around Chicago...and all of them have the same peculiar/non-descript/lackluster reviews from the same posters! I am wondering if there is any validity to what this suit is claiming. I don't believe in aliens; but I don't trust people when it comes to making a buck that's for sure.

Regarding negative reviews during his first week of operation, Charlie McKenna at Lillie Q’s mentioned that he was most disturbed by “bloggers” (I believe he’s using this term in a generic way that includes discussion boards like ours and Yelp), wondering if they’re “qualified,” but my feeling is, as I told him, that LTH posters are at least as qualified to make judgments as most of the diners who come into any restaurant (after all, most of us are thinking and talking about food for a good part of any day). And he seemed to agree with that assessment, and I think more chefs are starting to get it about us.

But McKenna, like John McLean of Urban Burger Bar and Sono, told me that although he is not going to engage with posters online, he does read the stuff on LTH, and he uses that information to make changes if he thinks there might be some truth in what a negative critic is saying. That, I think, is what most good chefs should do: read the input here, take away whatever makes sense, and don’t let the harsh stuff get to you. Especially that: if you get pissed, and post some counter-harangue, you will be consumed, because stuff like that is red meat to this tough and hungry crowd.

I believe we’d all have to agree, at least provisionally, that restaurant folks like Dave Andrews of Lillie’s and the poster from kinderhooktap are showing that it’s possible for people with restaurant affiliations to take criticism, engage with the community, and use our input to make a better dining experience for customers without sounding condescending or defensive (which, as we’ve seen over the years, it’s sometimes very difficult for chefs to do).

And that’s all I’ve got to say about Lillie’s Q today. More'n likely.

David Hammond wrote:I believe we’d all have to agree, at least provisionally, that restaurant folks like Dave Andrews of Lillie’s and the poster from kinderhooktap are showing that it’s possible for people with restaurant affiliations to take criticism, engage with the community, and use our input to make a better dining experience for customers without sounding condescending or defensive (which, as we’ve seen over the years, it’s sometimes very difficult for chefs to do).

I can certainly understand why chefs have a difficult time taking criticism - running a restaurant can be a soul consuming endeavor, and reading comments like "the tuna tare tare was undercooked" can make anyone dismissive of all online reviews.

That said I think LTH is in a completely different league from places like Yelp or Metromix. Mainly because people who post here do have some appreciation of what it takes to operate a restaurant. I very rarely see negative reviews here that don't have qualifiers: "they've only been open for a week", "they were clearly understaffed that night", "just not what I like, but if you like X", etc. Chefs or restaurant staff who do not recognize the difference between this forum and others are making a massive PR blunder. They don't need to post responses to comments here, but I feel that most chefs who have posted here find encouragement, some constructive criticism, and appreciation for their engagement and their hard work. There are certainly some posts that could be better thought through, but they are in the vast minority. Ultimately this is a forum where people who love food and want to champion the places they like or love, not a place where people get snarky or make asses of themselves.

Attrill wrote:

David Hammond wrote:I believe we’d all have to agree, at least provisionally, that restaurant folks like Dave Andrews of Lillie’s and the poster from kinderhooktap are showing that it’s possible for people with restaurant affiliations to take criticism, engage with the community, and use our input to make a better dining experience for customers without sounding condescending or defensive (which, as we’ve seen over the years, it’s sometimes very difficult for chefs to do).

I can certainly understand why chefs have a difficult time taking criticism - running a restaurant can be a soul consuming endeavor, and reading comments like "the tuna tare tare was undercooked" can make anyone dismissive of all online reviews.

That said I think LTH is in a completely different league from places like Yelp or Metromix. Mainly because people who post here do have some appreciation of what it takes to operate a restaurant. I very rarely see negative reviews here that don't have qualifiers: "they've only been open for a week", "they were clearly understaffed that night", "just not what I like, but if you like X", etc. Chefs or restaurant staff who do not recognize the difference between this forum and others are making a massive PR blunder. They don't need to post responses to comments here, but I feel that most chefs who have posted here find encouragement, some constructive criticism, and appreciation for their engagement and their hard work. There are certainly some posts that could be better thought through, but they are in the vast minority. Ultimately this is a forum where people who love food and want to champion the places they like or love, not a place where people get snarky or make asses of themselves.

No argument.

David Hammond wrote:Regarding negative reviews during his first week of operation, Charlie McKenna at Lillie Q’s mentioned that he was most disturbed by “bloggers” (I believe he’s using this term in a generic way that includes discussion boards like ours and Yelp), wondering if they’re “qualified,”

Wait, I need to take a test or somehow become certified before I'm "qualified" to comment on the food I purchase? I mean, seriously, WTF?

I think the qualifications are that you have to be able to read and type and have access to an internet connection.

Kman wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Regarding negative reviews during his first week of operation, Charlie McKenna at Lillie Q’s mentioned that he was most disturbed by “bloggers” (I believe he’s using this term in a generic way that includes discussion boards like ours and Yelp), wondering if they’re “qualified,”

Wait, I need to take a test or somehow become certified before I'm "qualified" to comment on the food I purchase? I mean, seriously, WTF?

This is just one man's opinion which, as I indicated, I disagreed with immediately.

David Hammond wrote: as I told him, that LTH posters are at least as qualified to make judgments as most of the diners who come into any restaurant (after all, most of us are thinking and talking about food for a good part of any day). And he seemed to agree with that assessment, and I think more chefs are starting to get it about us.

I do not think that this suspicion of "bloggers" is unique to McKenna -- I get the same sentiment from a lot of chefs, some of whom have posted on this forum.

David Hammond wrote:

Kman wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Regarding negative reviews during his first week of operation, Charlie McKenna at Lillie Q’s mentioned that he was most disturbed by “bloggers” (I believe he’s using this term in a generic way that includes discussion boards like ours and Yelp), wondering if they’re “qualified,”

Wait, I need to take a test or somehow become certified before I'm "qualified" to comment on the food I purchase? I mean, seriously, WTF?

This is just one man's opinion which, as I indicated, I disagreed with immediately. However, I do not in any way think that this opinion is unique to McKenna -- I get the same sentiment from a lot of chefs, some of which have posted on this forum.

What qualifies them to post on this forum!!!!!!??????

David Hammond wrote:This is just one man's opinion which, as I indicated, I disagreed with immediately. However, I do not in any way think that this opinion is unique to McKenna -- I get the same sentiment from a lot of chefs, some of which have posted on this forum.

Nor is it unique to chefs. Listen to sports talk radio and you will quickly learn that athletes don't really think broadcasters or fans are qualified to judge their play. I think it is fair to say that most people don't think others are qualified to negatively criticize their work, whatever line of work one is in.