Showing posts with label fake reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fake reviews. Show all posts

Wednesday, 25 October 2023

Review sites to address fake and fraudulent reviews? Forgive us for being sceptical

 


A link for those of you with access to the Times Online



Estimates vary, but there appears to be pretty universal acknowledgement that around 15% of all online reviews are fraudulent - 'fake' in short - bought and paid for by unscrupulous businesses. The UK's CMA estimates that consumers were defrauded to the extent of £312 million as a direct result of fake reviews in the last year under review. And that does not begin to address the losses - both financial and emotional - resulting from consumers being misled into using professional service businesses - financial, legal, medical and the like - that are in breach of the CMA regulations.

Here's a link to the full announcement on Amazon's website - Trustpilot's website, as of today's date, remains silent on the issue, so do the others. The 'Coalition for Trusted Reviews' does not, as yet, appear to have a website of its own (please don't hesitate to alert us if you find one). There are also some names absent: Google, the overwhelmingly dominant player in online reviews, Yelp (and, as you might expect, HelpHound).

We have read everything there is about this move, as well as other announcements made in the past by these businesses designed to convince their stakeholders that their reviews are trustworthy and that they are doing their very best to ensure that trustworthiness. It is interesting that none of the statements released by the members of the Coalition for Trusted Reviews so far mention potential solutions or courses of action.

Our reaction so far? Hollow words. 


The problem

This broadly divides into two distinct issues...

  1. Sellers of products paying for fake 5* reviews - Amazon alone estimates that there are at least 10,000 Facebook groups dedicated to generating fake reviews on behalf of businesses. Such reviews are for sale across social media. This is obviously not a 'good thing' but getting misled into buying a second-rate product by a business faking reviews is one thing. £Tens, maybe £hundreds, wasted.
  2. Sellers of services flouting the law - at least in the UK and EU - as well as Google T&Cs that specifically forbid cherry-picking or gating: identifying and then inviting happy customers to write reviews as well as offering rewards for positive reviews. There's nothing wrong with their reviews - they are written by genuine customers - it's the method of invitation and collection that is being abused. Being misled into using a service business by fraudulent manipulation of the review process is of a whole different order of magnitude from point 1 above. Imagine you are looking for a reliable financial adviser, a lawyer, or an oncologist? Even a good estate agent (read on, see the screenshots and then carry out your own Google searches).
And then we have the advent of AI. In the past fake reviews were often pretty easy to spot, often as a result of some pretty awful use of English. AI has changed all that. Here's an example, produced by ChatGPT in less than a second...




The only solution

There is only one solution to this issue. How do we know? Because we went through the very same thought process over ten years ago. We invested heavily in software designed to weed out fraudulent and suspect reviews - we even named the software 'Buster' because it was designed to 'Bust' fake and fraudulent reviews. But it didn't work. By comparison with human oversight and intervention, it was ineffective. 

Only a trained human being can spot, with any degree of reliability, a fake or fraudulent review, or, for that matter, a review containing factual inaccuracies or misleading statements that a consumer might then go on to rely on when making purchasing decisions.

Every single review written through HelpHound is moderated by such a human being. We estimate our moderators' accuracy in identifying the contentious areas outlined above is over 97% accurate. Combine that with the fact that the business under review and anyone reading the published review also has the right to challenge its content and the figure climbs further towards the unattainable 100%.


One last question for businesses




Which do you think is more visible, viewed as more credible and more trusted by consumers? For an in-depth answer read this. For those of you in a hurry - the answer is 'Google', by a country mile, especially where service businesses and professions are concerned


If you are paying Trustpilot or any other review site - why? When you can have eminently more visible, credible and influential Google reviews. 

You can then use the money saved to host moderated reviews on your own site - reviews that you own - and get a significant proportion of these across to Google.

Look like this...




See those 567 'votes' next to the ***** 4.9 rating? They're the business's own reviews gathered using HelpHound

And this...



When anyone clicks on that 'Write a review' button (top left) their review goes straight to HelpHound moderation - it is that moderation that gives businesses like this the confidence to be proactive in inviting reviews, to their own website and then to Google


And ultimately lead in search like this...




Further reading
  • Don't make the mistake of going straight down the Google route - it invariably leads to a game of 'Splat the Rat'
  • Results - hard proof that effective review management drives business - both quantity and quality

Thursday, 31 October 2019

Victim of a fake or malicious review? HelpHound can help

Negative reviews harm businesses. Fake or malicious reviews harm businesses more - simply because they are written expressly to do harm. Neither of those two statements is contentious any more - if in doubt just speak to a business that has been on the receiving end: the phone can literally stop ringing.

Take this review for example:





It was written about a client business three weeks ago - and the allegations it makes are totally false. We sprang into action and followed the Google procedures that we know so well. One flagging and two formal appeals to Google - drafted by us on our client's behalf - and the review is no longer. Can you imagine how relieved the client is? Here is what they had to say...

"...such a review would have been damaging and detrimental to the reputation of the clinic and destructive for our business had it not been taken down. The damage from a financial and personal point of view could have destroyed us, not to mention deflecting patients away that would have benefited from seeing us."

As well as...

"Without the expertise of HelpHound and their specialist knowledge when it comes to framing and wording such appeals we would have had zero chance of succeeding in this vital appeal."


If your business has been the victim of such a review...

Contact us. There is no guarantee of success, but the more information you can provide, the greater the likelihood of a successful appeal.




Friday, 6 September 2019

TripAdvisor and fake reviews - again!



When will the world - the reviews sites themselves and the regulators (the CMA in the UK) -wake up to the damage done by fake reviews?

Regular readers will have lost count of the number of times we have written on this subject, and the articles go back nearly ten years. First, let us look at the points made by Which? and the BBC and TripAdvisor's responses.



Our points:
  1. Fake reviews are written by employees or agents of the hotel in question. Surely it is not about '[going after] fake reviews "very aggressively"' but more about going after the hotels themselves? What has TripAdvisor done to warn its users that the hotels in question have been guilty of seriously misleading the public? Nothing, as far as we can make out.
  2. There is another category of fake review that neither Which? nor the BBC has touched on: the negative fake review. These are written, in significant volumes, by competitor hotels.  
  3. "We are doing more than any other platform out there" That's not saying much Mr Kay; as far as we are aware HelpHound is the only reviews mechanism in the world today that moderates reviews pre-publication (and we are not claiming that our system is 100% watertight, but at least we do everything we can to ensure that it is as close as possible to the ideal). TripAdvisor has massive financial resources (it turned over nearly $2 bn last year) and staff (over 3,000 at last count) and it is constantly investing in just about everything except ensuring the veracity of its reviews, the very aspect of its business model that reassures its users so they use its platform to book their hotel and therefore earn TripAdvisor revenue.  



Our points:

  1. Naomi Leach of which is right on both counts: TripAdvisor has consistently failed, over many years, to give any concrete examples of action it has taken, on its own initiative, to prevent fake review appearing on its site and to prevent hotels gaming their Tripadvisor reviews.
  2. "Platforms like TripAdvisor should be more responsible for the information presented to consumers". Absolutely; we would just take the word 'more' out of this sentence.
  3. Show us your 'fraud detection tools'. TripAdvisor has consistently hidden behind the weak excuse that to expose its so-called 'fraud detection tools' would lead to further and more sophisticated fraud by hotels. That, to our mind, is a bit like saying that drivers will find a way around speed cameras.




Our points:

  1. The UK CMA has the power to sanction review sites or sites such as TripAdvisor that invite and display reviews as part of their business model. It is high time that they did so.
  2. The CMA also has the power to prosecute businesses that set out to fraudulently deceive consumers. They should do so.

In summary

We look forward to seeing TripAdvisor take action - publicly visible action - against hotels that post fake reviews. Years ago they did do so, here is the 'red flag' notice they used...


Surely the hotels that Which? identified in their investigation merit something similar, if only to warn consumers? After all, what are reviews for at the end of the day?

We would also like to see a thorough investigation by the CMA - and action taken.


Friday, 29 June 2018

Don't - whatever the pressures - do this...

We never miss an opportunity to bang the drum about complying with the CMA rules - rightly, as I am sure any reasonable person would agree. And not just because breaking those rules may (should?) involve any business in a fine and some very unwelcome negative publicity, but because when a business plays fast and loose with reviews it undermines the very concept of reviews themselves. If consumers have their confidence eroded, as this commenter ('Attrix') on the Times online so obviously has...




...then any value reviews might provide, for both the business world and the consumer, is lost.

This week we stumbled upon a really appalling abuse of Google reviews. The company in question - and its name, for the moment, must remain unvoiced - has systematically set out to create a positive impression through the medium of Google reviews, using methods which might be best described as underhand and at worst plain illegal.




 Impressive Google score? Too right - the sort of score that convinces consumers to use a business

What have they done? Let's look at their Google reviews history first...

  • three years ago they received their first Google review (positive 5*)
  • two years ago they received their second Google review, this time a negative rating them 1*
  • Immediately afterwards they received their third and fourth reviews, both rating the business 5*, both posted by reviewers that had only ever posted that single Google review
  • A year later, just a year ago now, the business received another 1* review, this time from a reviewer who had posted two other reviews (albeit, at the same time)
  • There followed eleven 5* reviews (and two more 1* reviews)
  • In the last nine months they have received over fifty reviews, all but one rating the business 5*

Now, this pattern is not unusual in itself (consumers have discovered Google reviews in a big way recently), but, when taken in the context of a detailed analysis of the positive reviews - almost all of them - there is grave cause for concern.

What did we find when we mined down into the reviewers and the reviews themselves? Well, let us state right at the beginning, no 'smoking gun' - no proof positive that would stand up in a court of law - but if you read on you might like to see if you agree with our conclusion at the end of this article...
  1. The pattern of review writing, while not unheard of, is right at the extreme end of the 'credibility scale'; a business gets no Google reviews for four years, then two, then fifty - unusual, to say the least.
  2. The reviewers themselves stand out by their (lack of) activity. Look at any business with 50+ reviews on Google and you will most likely see a cross-section of reviewer 'types', from the singleton (someone who has only ever written one Google review) through those that have written a handful, all the way up to Google Local Guides, who have often written dozens, sometime hundreds. The most any of this business's reviewers have written is five.
  3. Where the business's reviewers have written multiple reviews to Google, these reviews were invariably written in the same immediate time period as the review of the business in question. 
  4. The language used in many of the reviews has the same idiosyncratic use of English - the use of 'staff is' rather than the more conventional 'staff are' (as in 'their staff is great') is just one example.
  5. None of the [positive] reviewers have any other Google+ activity. Very unusual in such a large sample (for instance, none have posted single image to accompany any of their reviews).
  6. Almost all the reviews written by these reviewers of businesses other than the one in question exhibit very similar characteristics: they are 'one liners', they are extremely anodyne in their content ('the Ritz is a great hotel'), they are all positive (again, very unusual) and they never give any detail of the customer's experience of the business (in any sample of reviews you will normally see all the variables: long/short, well/badly written, good/bad grammar, and you will 'hear' different 'voices'. the reviewers' voices in this businesses positive reviews appear to be similar, if not identical).
  7. The business's responses to their positive reviews: are identical. This may be for all sorts of reasons (laziness, usually), but could also be an indication that the responder knows that they are not 'speaking' to a 'real' reviewer, and so need not bother to reference the content of the review.
Conclusion

As the saying goes 'If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...' This business 'is a duck'. It has set out, perhaps aided by some outside agency (there are plenty) to bypass its own customers and simply concoct a great score and image on Google.

This is wrong on so many counts, but mostly it is committing the crime of wilfully misleading potential customers, who increasingly rely on reviews, especially Google reviews, as a guide.

Lessons for other businesses

Don't do it! We sometimes hear pleas from businesses when we first meet: 'We were only protecting our reputation' in defence of all kinds of rule breaches (here's an exhaustive list) but the fact remains that the worst possible thing that can happen to any business in relation to reviews is to be found to be rigging their Google score by posting fraudulent reviews (the word 'fake' is simply not strong enough in this context).

The Competition & Markets Authority is committed to stamping out this kind of practice - see their statement here, along with our commentary, but it should be just one concern of many. What happens when a member of staff leaves to join a competitor, and tells that competitor just how 'Business A' got to look so great? We are sure you get our drift.

There's no reason...

Lastly, if you run a good business (and it need not be perfect), proper professional review management should have you scoring at least 4.5 out of 5, on your own website and on Google (and anywhere else that matters - Facebook, for instance). There for all your potential customers to see - and, crucially, rely on.





Monday, 30 April 2018

Reviews sites on the rack at the BBC



Radio 5 Live Investigates devoted an hour to reviews sites on Sunday morning. While they initially focused on fake reviews and the commercial relationship between the reviews sites and their business customers, sites such as Trustpilot and TripAdvisor came in for serious criticism for some of their business practices.

The podcast is well worth investing an hour to listen to - not least because it reinforces what we have known for some time: that consumers rely on reviews - but our response cuts right through the whole argument: why use any other review mechanism in preference to Google? Google provide two free reviews solutions - one for products and one for services (the main Google reviews that you see when you search for any business).

We have been recommending Google to our clients for years now, and we are frankly amazed that businesses continue to use reviews sites when they have an option that is...


The only conclusion we can come to is that the USPs of the reviews sites, varying as they may from one to another, all offer businesses 'advantages' and, as much as the representatives of Trustpilot and TripAdvisor strove to make out that those 'advantages' were legitimate - and we are not for a moment suggesting that the reviews sites have cynically built in mechanisms that disadvantage dissatisfied consumers - there are businesses out there who are doing their level best to take advantage of weaknesses in their business models.




 It's always a good idea to read reviews written by the reviews site's sales staff on employment sites - they can be illuminating!


A listener called Laura called in about her experience with Trustpilot and their clients, the online estate agency PurpleBricks. She commented that whilst she had posted her two star review - and had that challenged almost immediately, with Trustpilot asking her for proof that she had been a bona fide client, which she had provided 'within an hour' - by the time her review was reinstated on the site it was 'many pages down the listing' and 'unlikely to be seen by all but the most persistent reader'. 






 Both sites interviewed by the BBC claimed to have algorithmic filters to spot fake reviews (The BBC bought their review on eBay). We tried that years ago - and it does not work. The only moderation that does work is human moderation. You cannot cut corners.


It is mechanisms like these that have us asking, time and again,'Why not use Google?' and there is a very clear answer: businesses are aware that unhappy consumers have massively more motivation to write reviews and unless they have some mechanism that allows them to question negative reviews they will have damage - often irreparable damage - done to their business's online reputation, and they look for someone to hold their hand. 

Unfortunately the current crop of 'hand holders' cannot compete with Google...




So how does HelpHound do it?

If you look at the screenshot above you will see two sources of reviews - the business's Google reviews (and score and star rating) in the knowledge panel on the right and the business's own reviews (and score and star rating) at the top of organic search.

It may surprise you to know that the business in this example had only two Google reviews when they joined - and none of their own. They, just like almost everyone else, had looked at all the alternatives and decided against them - the reviews sites because of lack of visibility and Google because of the aforementioned risk of looking bad.

HelpHound - because of our 'manual' moderation - were able to reassure Greene & Co that the risk of factually inaccurate or potentially misleading reviews appearing, on their website or on Google, would be minimised (but not eliminated - see below and a detailed description of our moderation process here). And if you mine down into the review in both places, that is exactly what has happened. 

HelpHound's moderation will not prevent a genuine negative review appearing, so the business must be on its toes where customer service is concerned, but it will mean that the content of the reviews will accurately reflect the business - and that benefits the consumer just as much as the business (arguably even more so).

So, back to our central theme: business's don't need a reviews site - all they need is good review management and Google. Simple really. 

And one final point: as every businessperson knows, you get what you pay for in life. Helphound may be fractionally more expensive than the reviews sites (those moderators don't, unfortunately, work for nothing, after all) and we don't offer 'free trials', but we do offer a solution that works, producing concrete results the like of which you see illustrated above and throughout this blog - today, and as far as can possibly be predicted: for the future as well.


Further reading...



Monday, 23 May 2016

You cannot believe their reviews!

Credibility is something sadly lacking in the world or reviews today. Article after article is written in the mainstream press highlighting just how many positive reviews are written by:
  • the business themselves
  • 'friends'
  • outside agencies employed by the business
And negatives written by:
  • competitors
  • disgruntled (ex-)members of staff
As most of your will know, Dialogue addresses all of these, either through moderation or Resolution™. 

But what should you be saying to prospective customers who query the validity of your reviews? How about...
  • You can believe our reviews on our own website because they are independently validated by HelpHound
  • You can believe our reviews on Google because most - if not all - of them have been posted there by customers who have at first posted a review to our website - and are therefore verified customers of ours
As we have said before - independent verification and validation are the two crucial keys to credibility. Without those you will find it difficult, if not impossible, to stand behind your reviews - on your website or on any other platform (Google, for instance). You cannot convincingly answer this question:
  • Do you invite all your customers to write reviews (to your website and to Google)?
Without that, you leave yourselves wide open to being 'damned with faint praise' by your competitors:
  • "They look great on their own website, but just try writing a negative review there."
  • "They look great on Google, but they only invite their happy clients to write reviews there."
Once your customers  - and your competitors! - understand that HelpHound:

  • verifies - as far as is humanly possible - that the review is written by a genuine customer
  • enables anyone to write a review on the company's own website
  • automatically invites everyone who has a review published on one of our clients' website to copy that review to Google


   You might be forgiven for thinking that the most important aspect of HelpHound is the ability to show great reviews like this on your website and on Google...


   ...but without the wording next to our logo all credibility is lost

It is that 'anyone' and everyone' that gives all your reviews credibility - on your own site and on Google. Anything less and credibility is gone. 

Finally:

To get the full picture, this article should be read in conjunction with 'Winning' - and pay special attention to the numbers under the paragraph headed 'Our Advice'.

Monday, 19 October 2015

Amazon fake reviews - just the tip of the iceberg?


The Sunday Times returns to one of its (and our) favourite campaigns this week: against fake reviews (here is - for those of you who can negotiate their pay-wall - the full article and their famous 'fake hotel' expose of TripAdvisor) . And while we commend Amazon's stance against publishers and writers puffing their own work, we are not sure this is any better or worse than what happens in the mainstream (getting friendly authors to write reviews and/or flyleaf quotes); perhaps there needs to be a website 'outing' authors who are friends?

The Times back in 2011 - not a lot has changed

But there is a very serious side to this, and it goes right to the heart of the world of reviews. And there's much more to it than just 'fake reviews'.

Let's start at the beginning: why would anyone run a review website (or incorporate reviews into their website)?

To make money (surprise)! Amazon knows full-well that reviews drive business, and not just book reviews, reviews across the board. That's fine as long as the consumer does not suffer. But look at some of the strategies and business models in place today and ask yourself if the consumer really benefits:
  • Selling advertising: this would be alright if good old-fashioned ads simply appeared as they do in print journalism; but what about when a company can pay to come top of search results for a particular service? Google make this pretty clear, but is every Yelp user aware that the first result in almost every search is paid for?
  • Selling leads: How many consumers realise that the fact that they need a 'plumber' is being sold (as a lead) to the plumber(s) in question?
  • Commission: Again: how many guests realise that they are generating commission and fees for websites like TripAdvisor and Booking.com every time they book through them? It wouldn't be allowed if they were providing financial advice, but hotels are paying these sites anything up to 30% commission - straight out of the money consumers are paying for their rooms. 
Now: why would anyone want to write a fake review of their business?

Because great reviews drive business, it's as simple as that. Let's mine down a little further:
  • Because it's a lot easier than getting a genuine review. Great genuine reviews are predicated on building great customer relationships, otherwise all the review will do is expose the business's weaknesses. Only businesses which provide consistently great service and have top-notch CRM find it easy to get great reviews
  • It's also a lot lower-risk: the fake review is guaranteed to be complimentary (and rate the business 5*). In addition, the fake review can be tailor-made to highlight aspects of the business that the business wants to promote. Sophisticated fake review management becomes part-and-parcel of the business's marketing and PR
  • But is it (lower risk)? Yes, until Google and their peers decide (like Amazon) to crack down on fake reviews (and the companies who are the subject of those fake reviews). Anyone who doubts Google's ability to discover fake reviews (given the will) should bear in mind that Google knows every user's search history, keystroke by keystroke!
  • Because their competitor has stolen a march: we see this all the time: a business loses out to a competitor and then notices that the competitor has great reviews; they panic and decide to tale a 'short cut'
What should we do if we suspect there are fake reviews about our business?

This question may be more relevant than you might at first expect. In almost half of new businesses we visit we see reviews that Google would categorise as 'fake', they have been written:
  • By over-eager members of staff ('I was only trying to help/please my boss')
  • By staff 'testing the system' ('I just wanted to see what a review looked like')
  • By colleagues, friends and relations of staff ('trying to be helpful')
You might be surprised to hear the justification that we hear: "But we are a great business, I only wrote the review because none of my customers had."; "Why shouldn't I review my own business? I truly mean every word of what I wrote." and the list goes on. 

The dreaded TripAdvisor 'Red Flag'. How long before Google introduce something similar?

None of these fall under the category of 'malicious fakes'; malicious fake reviews are posted as part of a concerted and intentional effort to deceive. Unsurprisingly, when you think about it, we don't often have face-to-face meetings with the businesses who are actively gaming the system (we once did meet with one who introduced us to an intern: 'This is [name], she writes our reviews on [X website]'. They instinctively know to steer clear of us. But we know who they are (and if we do, you can be sure Google do too).

How do we identify fake reviews?

It's part science, part art. In last night's Antiques Roadshow a woman presented Rupert Mass with a painting she reckoned was a genuine Turner. He tried, as tactfully as he could, to disabuse her, first by explaining that he had been looking at the real thing for over forty years and he 'knew' it was not a Turner, then, when she persisted, he referred her to the framer's date stamp (1872); Turner died in 1851 and stopped painting Venice over fifteen years earlier.

For us it's the same. Our moderators read hundreds of reviews every day, so, just like Rupert Maas, they get a 'nose' for fakes. They also know just how to do their detective work. Let us show you just one example: 

An estate agent has great Google reviews. Our moderators are asked to have a look at them. Out of the first ten they are able to positively identify that six were written by connections of the business. How? By cross-referencing the business's own website (estate agencies invariably include staff biographies on their websites) with G+, Linkedin and Facebook (and not always the 'suspect's' own Facebook or Linkedin page). In one case a review had been written by a colleague who had used the same photograph for his G+ account as his Linkedin entry, in another Linkedin identified that the reviewer was a recent ex-employee of the company under review. The other four were similar, the balance failed the 'nose' test ('fake' reviews often follow a distinctive pattern, avoiding the use of the first person 'I, we' for instance).

Advice for businesses
  • First and foremost: remember that your reputation is your most valuable business asset: it is highly unlikely that you built that reputation overnight in the real world, so be patient in the online world. Get a review a week to your own website and a review a month to Google and in two years you will look great on both.
  • Resist the temptation to cut corners and game the system: we have an ever growing list of businesses where we have concrete evidence that they are 'up to no good' and Google cannot be far behind us! What do we mean by 'up to no good'? Examples include: employees of different branches of the same business writing reviews of their sister branch; management openly encouraging staff to write bogus reviews from their home computers; staff being asked to encourage friends and family to write bogus reviews, and the list goes on. One day Google will catch these businesses, and when they do the consequences will be dire (just ask any hotel that has been 'red flagged' on TripAdvisor - mind you, you will be hard-pressed to find one: they've mostly had to close).
  • If you know you have fake reviews - anywhere: have them removed by the people who posted them and warn them not to repeat their action

 Advice for Google
  • Do everything possible to redress the positive/negative imbalance: by this, we mean the disconnect between theory and reality: in an ideal (?) world everyone would write reviews, positive or negative, whenever they used a business; in practice a negative experience provides hugely more motivation for the average consumer to write a review. This skews results against (especially SME) businesses. We often meet businesses with thousands of customers whose only reviews on Google are a solitary 1*. TripAdvisor has gone a long way towards resolving this issue by actively encouraging hotels to invite their guests to post reviews; Google should do the same.
  • Insist on proper authentication: make it as near as impossible as you can for anyone to write a review using anything but their true identity. We have examples of malicious reviewers setting up multiple G+ accounts to harm businesses. You have the power, just use it.
  • Weed out anonymous reviews: up until recently people could post as 'A Google User'. It was a hangover from the old Google Places. Delete them all (maybe give the reviewer the option to add their identity before you do!).
  • Understand the difference between businesses that incentivise reviewers to write reviews and businesses that incentivise reviewers to write positive reviews: you should view the former as laudable and helpful to Google users, the latter should quite rightly continue to contravene your T&C's. Unless you do this SMEs (which lack the volume of customers) will always struggle against the big corporates. And it's the SMEs your users need to know most about (after all, who needs to read yet another review of McDonald's or Sainsbury's?

Gaming HelpHound 

We see this occasionally, never - yet - from a client of ours, but about once a month a competitor (we assume) tries to sneak a negative review through Resolution, without success. We make it clear to all our clients that we have a 'two strikes' rule - first strike: warning, second strike: out. We couldn't be more aware that the one thing that sets our reviews apart from mere testimonials and most other kinds of review is the fact that they can be relied upon by your potential customers; not just ' a bit', not just 'most of the time' but all the time, one hundred per cent. 

So:

There's no shortcut. If you want great reviews on your own website and anywhere else that influences your potential customers (Google for most, still TripAdvisor for many in hospitality) you have to get a system like Dialogue™ on board (you can't verify your own reviews!) and then work hard at getting your clients to write reviews. It's not impossible - see this success story.


Tuesday, 6 January 2015

TripAdvisor fined over 'false reviews'

Not our headline, the Financial Times's. On 22 December Italy's antitrust regulators fined Tripadvisor €500,000.

We would have more sympathy for TripAdvisor if, in its defence, it cited the precise methods and resources it devotes to combating review fraud. Instead their spokesman said it was a “force for good” and its systems were “extremely effective in protecting consumers from the small minority of people who try to cheat our system”.
We are getting a little tired of hearing this line trotted out time-and-again. What exactly are TripAdvisor's 'systems'? (TripAdvisor: please feel free to comment on this blog post, and 'No' we don't want to know the precise details of your 'secret algorithm', just sensible businesslike guidelines). 

For now we don't know what systems TripAdvisor deploys. And we suspect they don't either. When directly asked by Evan Davis on Radio 4, this was Steve Kaufer's response:

Evan: "Steve, how reliable are your reviews?"

Steve: "We have, you know, dozens of people, an entire department frankly, set up to focus on automatic detection of reviews that are suspicious. We have enough reviews so that there's this image of honesty in numbers. No-one is going to pay attention...to the review that is all terrible."

See the full transcript here.

Steve, we'd love to know more about that 'entire department' and their focus on 'automatic detection'. How do hoteliers contact that department, for instance?

When TripAdvisor was censured by the ASA in 2102 the ASA said:

"TripAdvisor said, because trust was such a key component in the site’s ongoing success, they had invested heavily in systems, processes and resources to identify and minimise fraudulent content: they provided details of their anti-fraud systems in confidence. 
We noted that reviewers were asked to agree to a declaration that their review was their genuine opinion of the hotel and that they had no personal or business affiliation with the hotel, or been offered an incentive to write a review for it. We also noted that reviewers were not asked to similarly confirm that they had no competitive interest in the place they were reviewing, or were posting a review on behalf of a competitor or other interested party, and we did not consider that agreeing to a declaration in itself would necessarily prevent non-genuine reviews from being posted on the site.

Notwithstanding that, we understood that reviews could be placed on the site without any form of verification, and that whilst TripAdvisor took steps to monitor and deal with suspicious activity, it was possible that non-genuine content would appear on the site undetected.

We noted that TripAdvisor allowed hoteliers a ‘right of reply’ to critical or negative reviews posted on the site and that they believed that users of the site had a healthy scepticism as a result of their experience of review sites more generally. However, we did not consider that consumers would necessarily be able to detect and separate non-genuine reviews from genuine content, particularly where a hotel or other establishment had not received many reviews, and nor did we consider that a hotelier’s response in itself would go far enough to alert consumers to, and moderate, non-genuine content."

The ASA was effectively saying that TripAdvisor's 'anti-fraud systems' were so ineffective as to make their claim to publish 'trusted reviews' unsupportable. We think it is high time TripAdvisor told its millions of users (not to mention its investors) what those systems are.