Monday, 26 January 2026

Trustpilot - surely enough is enough?


As regular readers will know, we monitor all review channels on a continuous basis. For the benefit of our clients and their customers. Our only loyalty is to both of these constituencies. If a new and better solution to reviews emerges, or a currently great review solution makes a misstep, we need to know so we can advise our clients accordingly. We have no contract or financial arrangements with any of these solutions, and we never will. 


Trustpilot - again

One such solution is Trustpilot, the Danish-based and London-quoted review site. It makes much of its AI fake-review detection. 



We recommend you park this video for later and read on (we have viewed all 40 minutes on your behalf); in this article, we are just going to test one sentence from Anoop Joshi, Chief Trust Officer at Trustpilot, and that is his assertion that 'it is incredibly difficult to spot what is genuine and what is fake'. And remember, when you read our findings, that we have no access to any of the multitude of data points that Trustpilot's software is able to pick up



So we decided to put their much-vaunted AI to the test by giving two of our moderators a challenge: find us 20 definitely fake or fraudulent reviews on Trustpilot in half an hour. Here are the results (click on individual images to enlarge).






















Oh, and while you're at it...



Now another, this time based in the UAE...





Red Flags

Almost too many to count, some apply to all, some to individual reviews...
  • All reviews were written on the same day
  • None of the reviews are of businesses in the reviewer's home country
  • The spelling and grammar are suspect
  • The content of the review bears no relation to the product/service reviewed
  • The content of the review is patently irrelevant 
  • The spectrum of reviewed businesses is untypical of a genuine reviewer: parking services in San Francisco, a T-shirt retailer in South Carolina, an AI tech platform (!) based in SF, L Ron Hubbard's publisher in LA, a quilt manufacturer in the Italian Dolomites, a Tennis coaching business in Queensland, a music label in Berlin, a baby stroller rental company in Orlando, and the list, as you can imageine, goes on in a similar - and similarly unlikely - vein.
Take the first review written by 'Ganesh Awate': it purports to be of Hollywood Mirrors, a makeup mirror supplier based in South Yorkshire. The review begins 'very comfortable...' A 'comfortable' mirror? His second review is of Photon Brothers, a solar panel installer from Denver, Colorado. What would you expect a review of solar panels to say? 'Great installation'? 'These panels saved me money'? No such thing. Instead, we find gibberish.

Fazullah Mohammed - who has written 262 reviews on Trustpilot - is a Trustpilot 'verified user'...




...and has written 282 reviews, all the same (nonsense), this one for Mochi health is particularly interesting...





...because it even elicited a thank you from the business, which is intriguing, since they almost certainly paid for the review in the first place, which leads one to wonder...




...just how many more of those nearly 15,000 reviews are genuine? And please bear in mind we are not dealing with reviews of a pizza parlour here. Fake reviews of such a business? A second-rate pizza and it's £10 down the drain. This is a Healthcare business!






And it explicitly contravenes the UK CMA regulations by selectively showing only 5* reviews on its own website. When it has been rated one-star by over 1400 people, including 8 in the last week.




We took a closer look at both these businesses and make the following comments:




The great upside of AI is that once developed and implemented, it is effectively free (for the business); on the other hand, human moderators, such as those here at HelpHound, are highly trained and experienced salaried specialists. But we have always been very much aware that the reviews we moderate are used by consumers to make potentially life-changing or decisions that will have long-term impacts on their financial and even physical well-being; reviews such as those you see above would never be relied on by anyone in their right mind when choosing any kind of business or service, but that's the core issue: Trustpilot reviews are virtually invisible once posted, they are rarely returned in Google searches - Google reviews are what the majority of consumers see; it is the overall score that businesses are looking for, to bolster the kind of marketing you see Mochi above

  1. Our moderators found these reviews, undoubtedly all fake and paid for, within minutes (the individual reviews within seconds), yet they evaded Trustpilot's AI moderation
  2. These reviews are not difficult to spot with the naked eye
  3. We use our own AI for basic functions such as identifying foul language in reviews, but we would not dream of using it to moderate reviews 
  4. None of the above reviews would make it through HelpHound moderation. 
In addition, Trustpilot already admit they remove millions of fraudulent reviews. This raises another question: just how long do these reviews remain on the site before removal?

Both the company listings and reviewer accounts remain live on Trustpilot as of today's date; we will monitor them going forward to see what action, if any, is taken.


Conclusion



Adrian Blair, current CEO of Trustpilot, is quoted in the article above as saying 'More and more people are using us every month because they see us as a trusted source. A lot of people are saying just that in their Trustpilot reviews.

“And why is that? Because we go to enormous lengths to ensure that the content on Trustpilot is trustworthy.

“We have more than 350m reviews on our platform. Every one of those reviews has metadata attached to it.

None of the above reassures us, or should reassure users - business or consumer - of Trustpilot. Or the CMA. 

The fact that 'more and more people are using [Trustpilot]' is simply a factor of its sales success, not because consumers 'see [Trustpilot] as a trusted source'. If the likes of Octopus Energy (740,000 reviews on Trustpilot and counting) are using Trustpilot of course 'more and more people are 'using' it. But we need to define 'using'.In the main this 'using' is simply the act of writing a review when requested by the company, not, as in the case of Google, reading those reviews (Trustpilot reviews are surprisingly hard to find in search, unless one goes directly to their site, which we are sure few people do - except, as perviously mentioned, to write a review.

'Enormous lengths'? We feel we have already adequately covered that point.

'Metadata attached'? We've said it before: metadata -  time of writing the review, location of the review writer's IP, IP address, device, etc. - might be useful to support real-world moderation, but in and of itself, it is very nearly useless. 



This headline from December 2025 should ring alarm bells for any CEO. More so, the readers' comments, which are mostly in this vein...




The 'likes' only serve to reinforce the comments


We - and many others - have been highly critical of many aspects of Trustpilot's business model, modus operandi and systems for many years now. Because the whole universe of online reviews, which we fervently believe to be a force for good, stands and falls on their credibility. 



Being able to trust reviews is vital, maybe not so much for online retail (you can return most products bought online these days - irritating, but you remain unharmed), but for an oncologist? A wealth manager? A family lawyer? We are sure you are getting our drift


Companies such as Yelp, in the US (no longer trading in the UK and EU thanks to compliance issues too many to mention in this article), and others that have prioritised traffic over moderation will, eventually come to the attention of the "woefully underfunded and therefore underresourced" (we quote) CMA - which recently announced AI all of its own to track down companies that host fake reviews. 


Comment on Trustpilot's annual report

And when they do, we hope they wish they had used some of their investors' cash and/or profits to moderate the reviews they expect consumers to trust and rely on to choose really important - often life-changing - services.



More from the web...

  • Grizzly Research's report - entitled 'The Trustpilot Mafia, how the extortion model destroys Trustpilot's value proposition.'











Friday, 23 January 2026

Our guarantee - updated

Exactly two years ago today, we introduced our guarantee. This article is best read in conjunction with the one behind that link, but for those who know about the guarantee, we hope it provides a useful refresher/update.



Read the full article here


The HelpHound guarantee consists of the following...

  • Full compliance with the CMA regulations and Google's terms of service
  • A Google score of 4.8 within three months of joining
  • A ten per cent uplift in enquiries through your own website and through Google
  • A specified and agreed target for the number of reviews achieved on your business's website and on Google for any given timeframe

The article behind the link gives specific examples of businesses that will benefit. In this article, we will expand on the four points above.


1.  Full compliance

We hear the groans! No one's favourite subject is it? But, where reviews are concerned, it is just about to become a whole lot more important. Why? Because the CMA's ongoing investigation into online reviews, which is now years long, is nearing completion, aided by a recent introduction of some powerful AI detection tools, announced last August. Businesses, and they are legion, involved in either of the following...

    • cherry-picking - the act of identifying selected customers more likely to write 5* reviews and then only inviting those customers to do so
    • gating - the act of using a mechanism - usually a questionnaire or email - to pre-qualify such customers

...will now run a far higher risk of sanction by the CMA. Up until now so many businesses have said, to us, directly, that they would rather run the risk of CMA action than comply with the law, as the CMA sanction seemed, to them, to be unlikely, and it they were more certain to score highly if they continued to cherry-pick. And we had - notice the past tense - some sympathy with their view; after all, how was a business going to look great, and compete with its competitors, if it failed to achieve a really impressive Google score? And that 'impressive' score? It used to be anything over 4.0, now it is more like 4.8 and over, especially for high value service businesses and the professions.

So, how can HelpHound guarantee compliance alongside success with reviews? Take a business, any business, it could be an investment bank with few reviews, such as this...


...or an estate agency office with many, like this...




The former has avoided engaging reviews altogether, and the latter has been cherry-picking its 'nailed-on happy' clients for nearly ten years. 

Both of them can achieve compliance and increased review volume overnight by adopting a moderated review management process.  In short: employ an outside agency such as HelpHound to read every review as it comes in, challenge those that contain errors of fact or statements likely to mislead the reader and allow the reviewer the opportunity to correct them. No need to fear reviews (the investment bank) or flout the law (the estate agency) any more. 


2.   A Google score of 4.8 within 3 months of joining



 This client had 5 Google reviews when they joined. 

If this were not achievable, by every single one of our clients, we would have had claims on our guarantee. But we have not. Two years and counting (as of tomorrow). 

Just how can we promise this? It's simple: we conduct an audit of all our new clients' CRM, if we consider that it needs improvement we will tell the business what improvements, in our opinion (based on well over ten years' of experience), need to be made; then, and only then, will we embark on our review management journey together. 

But most new clients pass this audit with flying colours, because we tend only to attract businesses that take their custmer relations seriously in the first place. For the others there are review sites available that will award stars (and more) a plenty. Our clients want their reviews on the only platforms with visibility and credibility - Google and their own websites.



The above client's website: reviews - all 770 of them - fed through from HelpHound, having first been moderated. In only 7% of cases do our moderators become involved, but those 7 in 100 reviews, containing errors of fact or misleading statements (or even just badly mangled grammar), are crucial when it comes to maintaining a fair view of our clients' businesses, on their own website and on Google. The 'Write a review' button on the left is critical for compliance, and the 'What is HelpHound?' button on the right reassures the reviewer that third-party moderation is a boon for all concerned.

 

Your business passed the audit and your management and staff have been briefed as to the tried and tested way in which results such as those above have been achieved (there's far more to HelpHound than just great software). Reviews begin rolling in, first to your website - to be shown there and to enable them to be moderated by us - and then to Google. History and long experience shows us that a business employing independent moderation will score between 0.3 and 0.7 better than it would without, and that businesses starting out with scores at the lower end will show the most marked improvement. So a business joining with a Google score of 4.2 and a business joining with a Google score of 4.5 should both achieve 4.8 in short order. And hopefully more; we have many clients scoring 4.9 like the one above, but 5.0 is rare, as businesses may be as close to perfect as makes no difference but, as we all know, even perfect businesses have imperfect customers, and the law unequivocally states that their opinion must be pubished. Moderation is accepted, even welcomed by most customers, but there is always the odd salmon that will insist on swimming against the flow, so 4.9 it is!

 

 3.  A ten per cent uplift in enquiries though your website and through Google



 

It is a pity Google stopped publishing the actual numbers - see example above - (we suspect that they were undermining Google Ad sales), but we were lucky to be around in the days when they did. Here's an example of the improvement in clicks and calls in one month after joining HelpHound and getting the reviews flowing. Google still gives SEO credit for reviews hosted on the business's own website.

As you can see, the 10% 'promise' is conservative. Nowadays, we rely on our clients to feed back results from their own data, and we are absolutely sure our guarantee would be invoked if this were not the case.


4.  A specified target for numbers of reviews




The client in our example has received 19 reviews in the last month. They received their last 1* review over three years ago, and it was one of the best learning experiences they could have had. A complete review of their CRM resulted in a dedicated member of staff being brought in to head up their review management


 

Flow is crucial, and not just for maintaining a great score (as important as that is). Consumers are becoming more and more sophisticted in the way they analyse businesses before making that vital first contact and online reviews form a big part of that analysis; if a business has few reviews or if the first review the consumer is faced with is credibly negative then consumers have a habit of adopting the line of least resistance, a competitor is always just a click away.

A simple answer to the question 'How many reviews should we expect?' is our 'rule of fifty per cent': get half of your customers to write a review to your website and then half of them to copy their review over to Google (our software and Google's interface makes that easy). Business such as the one referenced here comfortably exceed tose figures month by month.


So: the best way to prove this for your business? Join us and our successful clients who are making the most of online reviews without breaking the law - or the bank! Make 2026 the year your business begins to benefit from professional review management. We promise you will never look back.


Further reading...

  • Results - what professional review management is all about, making your business money
  • Our fees - how much is all of the above worth for your business?

 

 

 

Monday, 19 January 2026

Veterinary surgeons and online reviews

 Vets came under the BBC Panorama spotlight last week. 




So we took a look at the 'big six' (number of practices in brackets)...

...that now make up 60 per cent of the UK market (up from 10 per cent in 2015). We, naturally, focused on their approach to reviews, specifically Google reviews.

So what did we look for...
  1. Consistency of engagement - do practices invite reviews all of the time?
  2. Do practices respond to those reviews, again: every time?
  3. When responding to those reviews, are practices aware of the impact those responses may have on future patients?
  4. Do any practices use alternatives to Google reviews?

1.  Consistency of engagement




A pretty typical pattern - about a review a month


Every practice we looked at invited its patients to write Google reviews. Sometimes. But not that frequently. What do we mean by 'frequently'? We have well over a decade of experience in examining review patterns, and one useful benchmark is the estate agency sector. A single estate agency branch that actively invites its clients to write reviews might expect to receive between 3 and 7 Google reviews a month. 

Different kinds of businesses will have varying opportunities to invite customers/clients/patients to write reviews; veterinary surgeons will have at least the equivalent volume of touch points as an estate agency, but most likely far more that could reasonably lead to a Google review. So any veterinary practice with fewer than, say, 500 Google reviews over a five-year period will not have been consistently inviting reviews. That is fine (although potentially commercially damaging - see * below) as long as they are not cherry-picking happy patients to actively invite to write Google reviews (that would be in contravention of the CMA regulations and therefore illegal). 

Commercially damaging*? A review score of 4.8 or more from 500+ Google reviews is proven to drive significantly more business through a business's door. That should be the first target for any business when setting its benchmarks for active review management. So, on the flip side, a score of 4.7 or less will mean a higher proportion of damaging one-star reviews and a correspondingly lower score, leading to fewer enquiries relative to the equivalent business with a score of 4.8 or greater.


2.  Responding to reviews

This is where many veterinary practices fall short. Almost certainly for two reasons: the first being that their primary focus, quite properly, is on patient care, and the second is an all too human tendency, especially amongst those of us who predate Generation Y, to take letters, or at least emails, more seriously than reviews. Take a moment to read this review, written three months ago on Google, of a West London veterinary practice...




Now, we make no comment as to the veracity or otherwise of the facts of this particular case as voiced by the reviewer, but surely, from the practice's viewpoint, if for no other reason, a response would have been a good idea? Just put yourself in the position of the owner of a sick pet, desperately seeking help, and you read this. Quite. We always advise businesses to respond to every review, regardless of its content, and to craft their response with the audience in mind: both the reviewer and the future patients who will read their response.


3.a.  Formulaic responses

These - and we found far too many in our research - can be more harmful than no response at all...





or...



 Neither of these was an isolated incident


This kind of response, to someone whose pet has just died, whoever may or may not be at fault, gives the wrong impression, not only to the patient in question but to anyone reading the reviews of the practice. 



3.b.  The impact on potential - future - patients

We have alluded to this above. Individual negative reviews will be read. Scores are used as a shorthand for choosing important services, and veterinary services must rank very highly when it comes to people spending considerable time and effort researching their options, right up there with doctors, financial advisers and lawyers, but with an extra added layer of emotional involvement.

All of our experience with other professional verticals indicates that only when a business's Google score reaches at least 4.8 do potential customers relax and cease to mine down into the underlying reviews in any significant numbers. Anything below that and the business's negative reviews will be read, by almost everyone considering their service (and existing customers as well). Too many reviews of the kind used to illustrate the point above - as opposed to the 'receptionist was offhand' kind - and the searcher will pass on to the next option (and there is always a 'next option').


4.  Alternatives to Google

This is a search for 'Vet' on Trustpilot...





As expected, the category is extremely wide, encompassing animal pharmacies, pet accessory manufacturers and even apps, with remarkably few actual veterinary practices. The good news is that most veterinary practices have, on the whole, avoided using commercial review sites (fee-charging and far less visible than Google) and stuck with Google (which, aside from being free, has very high visibility and credibility).


What should veterinary practices be doing with regard to reviews?

1.  Adopting a moderated review management system - moderation (having each and every review posted to the practice's own site and then checked, pre-publication, for factual accuracy and comments likely to mislead anyone relying on the review, is crucial for such high-value services.

Businesses that adopt moderation score, on average, between 0.3 and 0.7 higher than equivalent businesses. In other words a business that scores 4.5 before moderation should expect its score to rise to 4.8 within the space of months of adopting a moderated system. The lower the initial Google score, the greater the potential for improvement, providing the business's core CRM* is intact.

 

*One really gratifying side-effect of adopting professional review management is the impact on staff relations with customers: it is invariably positive, with customers appreciating being asked for their opinion and staff being aware that that opinion will be invited, with the attendant knock-on positive impact on staff morale when consistently complimentary reviews are posted. 

 

2. They should be responding to each and every review - for one obvious reason (it's polite) and one less obvious: it enables them to reinforce their marketing messages - 'thank you for your kind comments about [treatment], we pride ourselves on [.         ]' and the mere fact of responding consistently warns anyone thinking of posting an inaccurate or exaggerated review that their review will be responded to, resulting in more 'honest' reviews.

Responding to reviews will reinforce the results obtained by moderation: the business's score can only rise if the business responds to all its reviews.

3.  They should be setting targets - relative to patient throughput, for reviews on their own website and reviews on Google. A reasonable target at outset is to obtain reviews on the practice's own website (great social proof, by the way) from 50 per cent of patients and then 50 per cent of those onwards to Google.

These targets have been consistently achieved - and exceeded - by businesses that follow our guidlines, no matter the vertical they operate in: 1000 customer touch points should equal 500 reviews to the business's own website and then at least 250 of those reviews copied to Google. To provide the ultimate in reassurance for new clients we have a guarantee of success.

4.  They should be expecting results - in terms of hard cash as well as the warm fuzzy feeling management and staff will get from reading glowing reviews and being able to relax in the knowledge that factually inaccurate or misleading reviews will no longer make it into print. 

Businesses that adopt professional review management invariably see upticks in all their new business metrics, from enquiries through their website and through Google search to customer retention.