[HN Gopher] UK businesses caught buying five-star Google reviews ___________________________________________________________________ UK businesses caught buying five-star Google reviews Author : leephillips Score : 198 points Date : 2021-03-09 19:18 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.bbc.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com) | teekert wrote: | I used to use and love a fintech app, they pivoted (in a way) | from targeting banking nerds (with features like on the fly | coupling of cards to accounts, an API, unlimited simple payment | websites, etc, really nice, innovative features) to targeting | "the Green crowd" (integrated their Insta feed into the app, | pushed a more expensive subscription with social features that | planted trees as you spend money, etc). I saw them go from 4.5 to | below 2 stars over the course of a couple of days. But then after | some days they were back at 4.7 with the CEO gloating that | everyone loved the new version even more than the old one. The | forum and the play store were filled with emotional complaints | and even new users must have been bothered by all the bugs the | new version introduced. I don't believe any of the play store | reviews anymore since then. | | The pivoting is fine and I can see that it is annoying when your | early adopters "cripple" the launch of your all new app with a | sub 2 star rating. But imo it was justified in this case because | where the old app was super stable and fast, the new app was | littered with bugs and features became much more difficult to | find. | jedberg wrote: | If feels like this could be solved if Google/Yelp/Etc wanted to | solve it, but it would cut into their profits. | | Give the business an app to generate unique QR codes for each | customer, and then have that customer use the code to make the | review. | | Now everyone knows that the review comes from a person who | actually bought the product, the reviewer is more likely to be | honest because their identity is known to the seller, and the | business can even remediate the issue because they know which | customer left the review. | | To those saying anonymity equals honesty in the review, I really | don't think that's the case, nor is it fair to the business. Much | like our courts require an accuser to identify themselves to | their attacker so their attacker can defend themselves, | businesses should at least know who their accuser is, even if the | rest of us don't. | tenebrisalietum wrote: | How do I know the QR codes really came from a customer and | weren't simply created and submitted by the business owner? | | Also how do I know the seller didn't bribe the buyer with a | discount or something to create a positive review? | jedberg wrote: | Well, those problems happen now, so it's not strictly worse | than what we have now, but those are good points. | | For the first one, it would have to be tied into the payment | system somehow so the money would have to change hands. It | doesn't totally solve the problem, but it certainly adds a | cost, especially if the payment system requires unique | customers. Heck, Google could make money like this by only | allowing reviews for purchases via Google Pay. | | For the second one, I'm not really sure, but if they bribe | everyone with the same discount, it's not really a bribe | anymore, it's just the new price. And if they don't offer | everyone the bribe, then they will quickly get bad reviews. | Spivak wrote: | Because all reviews are tied to an active Google account | which is pseudo-tied to an IRL identity. | | I don't really care about the second point because it doesn't | scale, people will do it anyway, and you can cozy right up to | the line of literally paying for a good review in a million | different "above board" ways. | suddenexample wrote: | There are often a variety of overly simplistic solutions to a | problem that address one issue but sacrifice a lot in return. | The reality is that fake reviews are incredibly difficult to | solve. | schnevets wrote: | I'm surprised more of these comments aren't focused on how | glaringly flawed the 5-star democratic rating system has become. | I felt like the rise of Uber made it abundantly clear that | anything less than a 5.0 means you were not satisfied with the | service and don't think the business should continue. | jedimastert wrote: | As always relevant xkcd | | https://xkcd.com/937/ | drstewart wrote: | And then people act surprised Netflix moved to a thumbs up/down | model for this very reason | amelius wrote: | Is anyone conducting research to make reviews more trustworthy? | Hasz wrote: | Reviews are now so gamified as to be completely worthless. Most | users don't have much experience, and the experience they do have | with the item might be completely out of line with how it was | intended to be used or operated. | | There's a great quote from Michael Crichton I will repeat here, | as it's quite accurate. Briefly stated, the Gell- | Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an | article on some subject you know well. In Murray [Gell-Mann]'s | case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and | see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the | facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually | presents the story backward--reversing cause and effect. I call | these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. | In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple | errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or | international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper | was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you | just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. | Lerc wrote: | I got an an offer to give me five star reviews for a modest fee. | When that happened I had a look around to see what I could do to | report them to stop their behaviour. I found absolutely nothing. | Much like when the algorithmic banhammer hits you, the options | for actively communicating with Google in a meaningful manner are | close to non-existent. | [deleted] | ghoward wrote: | I once wrote a negative review of a business on Google, and it | went up, but when I went to look at the business's reviews under | my wife's Google account, it was not there. I waited an hour and | checked. Then a couple hours and checked. Then a day. It never | showed up. | | I posted the review under her account and did the same checks for | my account. It never showed up. | | I do not know why it didn't show up, but I wouldn't be surprised | if the business had been able to pay money to Google to be able | to check reviews before they went live and mark them as spam. | | Edit: Because some commenters did not seem to get the implied | message, what I am actually implying is that in this context, or | any context, I don't trust Google. I have no evidence of what | commenters said I have claimed. (I have not claimed anything; I | just said I wouldn't be surprised.) | ipsum2 wrote: | > but I wouldn't be surprised if the business had been able to | pay money to Google to be able to check reviews before they | went live and mark them as spam. | | Do you have any evidence of this claim? Have you seen | businesses be able to do that? Surely, the hundreds of | thousands of businesses on Google, one of them has talked about | the ability to remove reviews. | donaldo wrote: | Yeah agreed. Do they think Google just has some checkout | button to block bad reviews for $299. | ghoward wrote: | Nope. No evidence. | | That's why I said that "I would not be surprised if..." which | doesn't make a concrete claim. To me, it means, "I don't | know, but it seems plausible in my limited experience." | | I am making no claim other than pure speculation, and I know | it. | | Edit: typo. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | > I wouldn't be surprised if the business had been able to pay | money to Google to be able to check reviews | | There is no way to do this that I can find documentation of on | the public internet. You'd think if it were possible, someone | would have written a howto guide. Personally, I'm deeply | skeptical that any such mechanism exists. The revenue it would | generate would be negligible and the potential for reputation | loss significant. | dgr582systems wrote: | I don't know how they did it, but a doctor surgery near me | (UK) had a large number of negative reviews up for several | years. About one week ago, I looked and they now have one | single 5 star review. So, anecdotally, there is at least some | way to get the reviews removed. | tines wrote: | > There is no way to do this that I can find documentation of | on the public internet. | | And you used Google search to look for it, right? ... | | (Kidding.) | pbhjpbhj wrote: | Kinda like how they handle false copyright claims by not | taking down the content, oh wait ... that seems a similar | situation in that acting on false content takedown requests | doesn't get them [much/any] revenue and provides a relational | hit to users (but pleases some huge customers, no doubt). | | Someone has given a credible mechanism for take down, report | it as fraudulent. I find it highly likely that if you have a | paying B2B relationship - eg you're a high paying advertising | client, that you'd be able to report "frauds" and get | immediate action. | | But if course I've wouldn't know, and presumably Google would | have NDAs for businesses in any special access (it would also | be detrimental to the business to disclose it and risk losing | the special access). | | All we've really got is our TrustRank RTM on our part | experiences with Google and similar corps. | liaukovv wrote: | There is probably a button for business owner to complain | about a review, for example in case of competitor bombing? | Since nothing on google can be appealed this button is as | good as removal of reviews at will | | And if your affiliation to this business is based on ad spend | then well... | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | Again, I can't find even a hint of how to do this on the | internet. If there is a way, you'd expect it to be | documented given what surely must be widespread interest in | the subject. Basically what we have here is an entirely | unsubstantiated and unlikely accusation. (Unlikely because | the incentives simply are not aligned.) | ghoward wrote: | Saying "I wouldn't be surprised if..." is not an | accusation, unless you count the implied "I don't trust | Google" as an accusation. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | If you said of someone, "I wouldn't be surprised if they | were a thief," that would rightly be viewed as a pseudo- | accusation of thievery or other dishonesty. It doesn't | literally mean the same thing as "he is a thief," but | saying you believe someone has a decent chance of being a | thief is still a type of accusation -- one of dishonesty | and distrust. If the belief is unjustified, then I think | it's fair to call it an unsubstantiated accusation. | | But if that doesn't work for you, pretend I called it an | unsubstantiated implication instead. Either way, I think | we all understood what the OP meant, and we all | understood what I meant in my response. So at least we | are communicating. | ghoward wrote: | We are sort of communicating. I _am_ the OP. And I only | meant it as "I don't trust Google." | | I'll let you decide if that implication is | unsubstantiated or not. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | You should just say that, then. If I don't trust someone, | that doesn't mean it's OK to go around and imply that | they do some absurd malicious thing I have absolutely no | evidence they actually do. It's fine not to trust them. | Spreading unsubstantiated rumors and implications is not | fine. | mewpmewp2 wrote: | I just wanted to mention that I adore the way you | articulated and called out everything that was going on | here. | vorpalhex wrote: | As a business owner, you only need to claim the review is | fraudulant and that will usually get it removed. | | In theory a review hoster is supposed to evaluate claims and | act on reasonable ones. In practice review hosters are | terrified of getting sued and will take down reviews easily. | | I suspect most local businesses hire "reputation fixing" | firms to actually do this dirty work for them. | Dyac wrote: | I helped a couple of small businesses set up maps business | listings a few years back. One was going great for years | then in about 3-4 days got a bunch of fraudulent bad | reviews from a disgruntled ex exployee. We tried for months | to remove them, every single way possible but were never | able to. In the end we had to nuke the whole Google | business listing, which wasn't easy either. | pbhjpbhj wrote: | You can reply though, IIRC. A good response to a negative | review is a massive plus to me. | | Aside: somehow businesses get moved - even major ones | like a local McDo got moved to the wrong location. Takes | weeks for corrections from when I report them. I really | can't understand that one. This too could be a killer for | a small business, getting shifted to the wrong location. | | In a similar vein, I'm forever having to report our | opening hours and things to Facebook as we don't have any | (small craft shop, open by arrangement) and people insist | on adding some. | | It's all really weirdly handled. I suppose it's the | presence of untrustworthy parties in such disclosures | though Google should have enough trust signals to weight | users input. | Const-me wrote: | > review hosters are terrified of getting sued | | I wish Google would be terrified of getting sued, but we | both know this is not gonna happen. | | My friend is a business owner. | | She received couple one-star reviews on google maps from | customers she never had (she's a real estate developer, | real estate is expensive, she doesn't have many customers). | | Wasn't able to do anything about them. | throwaway_1301 wrote: | Absolutely not true. Worked on this team for Google at one | point and other than internal systems nothing can get | reviews removed. Firms cant do anything, they are just | swindling people out of money. Some of them will get fake | reviews to try and drown out negative ones but its very | short lived. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | I don't know how to square this claim with the plethora of | businesses with many negative reviews on both Google and | Yelp. If it were this easy, you'd think everyone would be | doing it. Probably someone would have written a blog post | describing how to do so. I can find out how to buy gmail | accounts on Google, but I can't find out how to remove | business reviews. Maybe the claim is just that most small | businesses are very honest? | | In any case, the scenario you're describing is decidedly | not pay-for-play on Google's part, and thus doesn't really | impinge on my response to OP. | trollski wrote: | it's like commenting on hackernews for me. which you will never | hear about. | dang wrote: | It's not, because: | | (1) Anyone can easily see for themselves why you're banned, | if they want to turn 'showdead' on in their profile and look | at https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=trollski ; | | (2) Anyone can easily get an answer about why they're banned | on HN, simply by asking us; | | (3) Anyone can easily get themselves unbanned on HN if they | want to use the site in the intended spirit, which is | described at | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. | ggggtez wrote: | Here is my reading of your situation: | | 1) You posted a review which presumably got flagged as being | spam/low-quality (maybe an automated system flagged it for | having ALL CAPS or curse words, or who knows what). | | 2) You posted the same review on a different account, which now | is flagged as _double spam_ because now it looks like you are | operating a sock-puppet account. | | I think my version of events sounds a lot more likely than | yours. If your thing was true, then you could sign up _right | now_ with your own fake business and find the page where you | can remove reviews of your own business. Since no one has shown | this to happen, one can only assume that it doesn 't happen. | | I think Google/Amazon etc try to mostly remove fake reviews, | and that probably just catches reviewers who are giving 1 star | angry-rants as "spam". | ghoward wrote: | Mine probably got flagged, but not because of curse words or | ALL CAPS because, as far as I remember, it didn't have either | of them. | | Edit: I just checked, and the name of the business, which I | quoted in my review, is ALL CAPS, so maybe that was it? | ThorAway00 wrote: | Throwaway for obvious reasons: | | While working for a big vacation rental company in Portland not | named Airbnb, they rolled out a review update that still added | negative reviews to the 5 star score, but hid the context. | | A rental may have a lowered star rating but the only story | you'd see was praise. | | Business is not about logic like engineering. It's about | growing margins, and that is entirely emotional. | throwaway_1301 wrote: | disclaimer: Google employee. Views my own. | | You can not pay to change Google reviews. Period. And the | theories of "you dont know whats happening in all parts" is not | true because I looked at detailed numbers myself and other than | legal processes, everything was clearly visible. | | If anything Google has a clearly different org and we often | told very highly paying customers that even if they were paying | us hundreds of millions a year that does not change our | policies. One of the luxuries of being Google scale I guess. | | Google gets a lot of (potentially justified) criticism on | Hackernews but this conspiracy that Google lets businesses pay | for reviews is plain stupid. | ghoward wrote: | Note that I didn't say Google let businesses pay for reviews; | all I said was that "I wouldn't be surprised" if Google let | businesses do the spam filtering and flag reviews. | | What I really meant is that I don't trust Google in this | situation. That lack of trust still exists and is not a | conspiracy. | | And I _would_ be surprised if Google actually did the right | thing here. | thehappypm wrote: | It's highly possible that Google has some concept of freezing | reviews while it investigates something. Maybe that business | was caught buying reviews and so Google stopped allowing new | ones for a while. Or it reported it was getting spammed. Or | some other situation like that. | ghoward wrote: | This is a very good alternative explanation. Thank you. | LegitShady wrote: | >It's highly possible that Google has some concept of | freezing reviews while it investigates something | | I doubt google is investigating each bad review they receive, | though, so it happening to both accounts is odd. | choppaface wrote: | I've had the exact same experience. Several days later I got an | email from Google saying the review was now live, but it's | still not there. Other reviews that I wrote years ago are | hidden, too. | HenryBemis wrote: | I stayed in a hotel in Rotterdam one time (5-6 years ago). The | entrance had a ramp for wheelchairs/prams. A bunch of a*holes | parked their luxury cars blocking that ramp. On the second | morning the cars were still there I called the concierge out to | see this. Then I took a picture of him, of the cars, and their | plates and told him I will call the Police in 5mins (yes I am | THAT kind of guy). In two minutes all cars were gone never to | reappear (I stayed there 10 days). I left a 1star review to the | hotel, under my name, with photos of the cars (not their | plates) and a comment about blocking the ramp, hotel staff was | informed multiple times and didn't react. | | I went to Rotterdam again 1 year ago. My review was still | there. A half-baked apology was under my comment. I walked by, | no cars were blocking the ramps. I call that a win. | 1000mA wrote: | I bet you love to threaten calling the police on people. PoS | bootlicker, kill yourself. | Laremere wrote: | "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained | by stupidity" | | Given how well known other unscrupulous review service tactics | are (eg, yelp) I doubt this would be the case. It's hard to | keep such practices secret when they involve attempting to | extract money from a large number of businesses. Plus Google | seems to be reasonably honest about labeling (even if very | subtly) when things are sponsored ads or not. | | I would find it far more likely that this is simply a symptom | of something Google is well known for doing: Content moderation | through algorithms/ML which mostly works but still messes up a | lot. Either the wording of the review hit some metric on its | own, or the business already was detected as being review | bombed and your review got caught in the cleanup crossfire. | Posting it twice probably didn't help, as that would further | convince an algorithm it's probably not legitimate. | ghoward wrote: | I agree. That's why I said "I wouldn't be surprised if..." | | I intentionally did not make a concrete claim. | WalterBright wrote: | Hmm, that's interesting. If I was writing a review moderation | algorithm, it would leave only one copy up if there were | multiple substantially identical reviews. Those are likely to | be written by bots that mutate a common review and post, or | even if some entity circulates a "review" to its crew of | minions who write fake reviews based on that template. | | I'd also write it to remove reviews written by a single | account if the reviews across diverse products are | substantially similar. | amelius wrote: | How does "stupidity" explain that the poster's account showed | the review but someone else's account didn't? | hayst4ck wrote: | I am no google fanboy, but I WOULD be surprised to find such a | thing. The reason I would be surprised is history and | alignment. Google consistently has bad/non | existent customer service It is famously hard to talk to | a google employee when you have a problem Google has a | history of primarily hiring devs Google knows its bread | and butter is legitimate results Google probably has the | largest most experienced anti-SEO team on the earth | Google seems to want to stay out of the press Google maps | reviews are a very major competitive moat against other maps | Google is supported by ads, but AFAIK does not actively seek | customers Google does not do delivery Google's | money maker is getting information, maps is a major input | Maps is a secondary business able to be subsidized by search ad | revenue | | On the counter side Inflated reviews/advantaged | reviews would make ad customers happy Selling position is | potentially extremely profitable | | I just don't see it. It's not googles MO. It's yelps MO. That's | why I use google maps as my primary tool for finding whats | good. | | What I wouldn't be surprised by is google systemically limiting | negative reviews. In my experience A yelp 3.5 would be a 4 on | google maps. A yelp 1 or 2 would be a 3 on google maps. 4 would | be 4.5 on google maps. Google maps numbers are definitely | inflated, but once you understand the relative scale it's just | as good as pre-corrupt Yelp. | ghoward wrote: | This is a great reply to my post and answers me better than | any of the others I have seen thus far. | alert0 wrote: | Any curse words or something that a system might flag? | ghoward wrote: | No, I actually do not swear at all. | onion2k wrote: | _Google knows its bread and butter is legitimate results_ | | Google's bread and butter is controlling the stream of data | so that people accept its results are legitimate. That's not | _quite_ the same thing. Essentially Google does well when | people trust Google implicitly and don 't question whether or | not its results are actually good. For a very long time | Google returned W3Schools as the top result for most HTML and | CSS queries. These days MDN is top and W3Schools is second. | W3Schools is not the second most relevant link for a search | of a CSS property name or an HTML tag. I do wonder if they're | second because they display a prominent Google AdSense ad at | the top of every page. | | The main thing about Google Search results is that they're | much better than their competition. That's all you can really | say for them though. The results aren't anywhere near as good | as they were 15 years ago, where a query genuinely returned | the best, most relevant results. You could predict which site | would be top for a query domain you knew well. Google are | still dining out on that reputation but they don't _really_ | deserve it any more. | kbenson wrote: | I think there's an assumption here that needs to be | addressed, and that's that Google functions as a single | entity with consistent and coherent policies and actions | across all its arms. | | Just because something is not in the best interest of Google | overall or long term down not mean a small fiefdom is doing | something different for their own self interest, even if only | temporarily until it is eventually discovered and corrected. | | For example, almost all your statements about Google above | are incorrect for at least one business they've been involved | for, for at least part of the time they've been in it. Often | it's easy for find multiple counter examples. | | As a whole, Google follows those statements you made, but for | any specific business they are in I wouldn't make a blind | wager about it. | arkitaip wrote: | Do you have any idea how difficult it would be for a random | dinky business to bribe an engineer at Google? There are | businesses that are literally making bank for Google and still | can't get in touch with a human being at Google when their | Google account gets locked, app gets removed from the Play | Store, etc. | | What probably happened is that the business had friends and | family members report your review which was removed by an | automated system. | [deleted] | liveoneggs wrote: | yeah but what about yext and friends getting special access | for their clients? | ghoward wrote: | The reason I am hesitant to believe that is because of the | fact that the review _never_ showed up, not even briefly. | | However, you could still be right. | rorykoehler wrote: | If the business is an Adwords customer then there is a conflict | of interest. | phr4ts wrote: | The same happened to me. The negative review shows up when i'm | signed in but it did not affect the rating (number of stars) of | the business. | | Basically, it's just me and the owner of the business that sees | the review. The negative review I gave the scammy business | doesn't show up when I sign out. | Daho0n wrote: | At least Google didn't build their rating system specifically to | blackmail businesses into paying for tools that can get negative | ratings removed. Unlike Trustpilot. | dazc wrote: | And you can have your Trustpilot 'stars' included in your | Google search result snippet, paid and organic. | | Maybe Google don't know about the practices of Trustpilot or | maybe 'there is no evidence'? | nguyenkien wrote: | Maybe they just dont care. | dsnr wrote: | > Google didn't build their rating system specifically to | blackmail businesses into paying for tools that can get | negative ratings removed | | Quite the opposite, Google is constantly being harassed by | lawyers employed by businesses with bad ratings, using legal | tricks to have legitimate reviews removed. Then what's left is | a very distorted picture of the actual consumer ratings, so the | system is quite skewed in businesses favor. | Daho0n wrote: | That's not the same as Trustpilot. Their rating system is | specifically built so paying businesses can remove ratings | themselves while nonpaying can't . They can ask for proof of | purchase and then only accept those that have both proof and | a good rating. That's what most do. | thepete2 wrote: | I've never used trustpilot, but how do they get away with | it? Why are they used at all? Search rankings? But how did | they get those? | Nextgrid wrote: | I wonder if there's a way to legally forbid scummy | companies like Trustpilot from accepting & publishing | reviews (both good and bad) about your company. | | Let's say you are legit but just don't want to play this | bullshit game at all (as otherwise you'd need to constantly | monitor and be ready to try and take down the obviously | fake reviews which you can prove are fake), can you do | that? | | I feel like these companies, even if they didn't have | extortionate intentions, are still creating overhead for | businesses that haven't asked for anything. | thepete2 wrote: | I'm not even sure what non-distorted ratings are supposed to | be. What you mention obviously makes them more inaccurate, | but they aren't accurate to begin with. Ratings are a messy | human affair, I don't know why we bother quantifying it... | jboog wrote: | Yeah reviews are a shitshow almost no matter what. | | It's human nature to be predisposed to leave reviews when | you have a bad experience. | | Then you have those f'ing weirdos who leave reviews like | "Burger was really good and all but the food I had at the | French Laundry was way better! 2/5 stars!" at a local pub | or something. | | And then if the owner gets caught up in some shit that hits | the news the reviews get brigaded by trolls who don't even | live in a 500 mile radius or have any intention of ever | going. | jboog wrote: | Yeah reviews are a shitshow almost no matter what. | | It's human nature to be predisposed to leave reviews when | you have a bad experience. | | Then you have those f'ing weirdos who leave reviews like | "Burger was really good and all but the food I had at the | French Laundry was way better! 2/5 stars!" at a local pub | or something. | | And then if the owner gets caught up in some shit that hits | the news the reviews get brigaded by trolls who don't even | live in a 500 mile radius or have any intention of ever | going. | | If you're truly interested in finding a good place to eat | or get your oil changed or whatever there are far better | methods than Yelp or google reviews. | boyesm wrote: | If you could opt-in to change Amazon and other online retailer's | customer aggregated reviews to an authoritative nonpartisan | review created by a professional product reviewer, would you do | it? Why (not)? | Proziam wrote: | That probably depends on how this nonpartisan reviewer was | selected. Are they paid? By whom? By what standard are they | considered authoritative? | boyesm wrote: | I think there are many measures that would need to be | implemented in order to have everything be completely | nonpartisan and have consistent standards that represent | consumer preferences. | | But imagine reviews were non-biased and reviews accurately | represented users needs and wants, as a thought experiment. | | Would this be a compelling enough proposition for you to | install a browser extension (provided it wasn't doing | anything nefarious)? | MattGaiser wrote: | I've been offered so many goodies for good reviews on everything | from Amazon to restaurants that want good reviews on Yelp. | Sometimes they will even offer you a coupon for a 5* review on a | receipt. | | That aside, why is it that people get to commit fraud and Google | gets the blame? | jjulius wrote: | It's both. The individuals themselves are to blame for the | fraudulent reviews, and Google and other services are to blame | for fostering environments that allow fraudulent reviews to be | so prevalent. | toss1 wrote: | Because Google, Yelp, Trustpilot, Amazon, etc. actually run the | services, and they have the technology to validate it, but | simply can't be bothered to get it right. So, they sell you | allegedly good information, but deliver fraud. | | From the examples in the article where the reviewers covered | multiple businesses hundreds of miles apart like they were next | to home, Google certainly has the location data to see if they | were ever there, or for local businesses, knows who lives in | range to be customers. Amazon and others have massive data on | their users, and could apply a lot of AI tech to validate | reviews for credibility, if they wanted to bother to do it | right. | fny wrote: | This is so pervasive, and so easy to access its hardly news: | https://www.facebook.com/search/groups/?q=google%20review%20... | zwass wrote: | I've noticed a number of fake seeming reviews on local businesses | here in Vancouver, BC. The accounts seem to be leaving fake | reviews across Canada. It's particularly suspicious to me given | the improper grammar and almost entire lack of reference to | anything specific to the business. The accounts also seem to give | 100% 5 star reviews. | | There's no option in Google Maps to report these users for being | fraudulent. | | For example: | https://www.google.com/maps/contrib/104557996396454013599/re... | https://www.google.com/maps/contrib/109949503069363340417/re... | z0r wrote: | I've seen this too - a fake business (one selling bait-and- | switch low quality services through online storefronts) had | many 5 star reviews, and if you clicked into their profiles | you'd see a smattering of 5 stars reviews all across the | country, sometimes in different countries. Some of them also | gave a few 1 star reviews to a few places, probably the flip | side of the same review selling business. | snapetom wrote: | I'm shocked, I tell you. /s | | This is common with any company with a social media strategy, and | pretty essential for certain companies in the B2C sector to get | off the ground. | capableweb wrote: | > pretty essential for certain companies in the B2C sector to | get off the ground | | Which "certain companies" are you talking about? I'm running a | software company, restaurant and a SaaS, all B2C and neither | have "buying fake reviews" as a part of their social media | budget. Neither does any of my acquaintances who also run a | different set of businesses. | milin wrote: | Thats why Tripadvisor reviews are most trustable. reason? It's | not google. | stormqloud wrote: | I've had people leave 1 star reviews, then call up and demand | payment to change the rating. | Someone1234 wrote: | Most places that's actually a crime (extortion). | | Now if the police will investigate it is another matter. | thepete2 wrote: | That's a good one. Reviews are so abused by now, it's almost | comical. | rococode wrote: | An interesting thing about paid reviews - you can prove that the | reviews are fake, but you usually can't prove that the business | itself actually paid for those reviews. In a hypothetical world | where companies with fake reviews are regularly discovered and | lambasted in public, it's easy to imagine a sinister metagame | where unscrupulous small businesses can buy bad good reviews | (i.e. 5-star reviews that are obviously fake) for their | competitors to make them seem sketchy. The folks selling the fake | reviews certainly don't care who's paying. There's no obvious | solution to me for that potential problem aside from stopping | fake reviews before they're posted (which feels like the kind of | thing that's much harder than it sounds); thankfully it doesn't | appear to be a very common thing yet. | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | That's fine. Just charge the fake reviewers and fake review | companies with FCC violations, and remove their reviews. Have | them hand over their books for lighter penalties, then hit the | companies buying fake reviews with enforcement orders as well. | | Of course, all this is complicated by the fact that most of | these companies are probably overseas . . . | kofejnik wrote: | don't think FCC will prosecute bodyshops in India and | Phillippines | asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: | I wonder the extent to which it's possible for such body | shops to get accounts that are believed by Google to live | in the U.S. (or fake-review destination country of choice). | I see sites that purport to offer such accounts for 30-50 | cents per account. So I guess it's not that expensive. I | wonder how often these accounts get burned and how much | revenue they generate with each account beforehand. | RileyJames wrote: | That's exactly what services like luminati.io (holavpn) | are used for. While accounts can be purchased, they then | need to remain tied to a US IP address to avoid being | restricted. | | There are some legitimate uses to proxy through | residential IPs, but I wonder what percentage of traffic | through luminati is legitimate. Wouldn't be surprised if | it's a single digit percentage. | sneak wrote: | > _Just charge the fake reviewers and fake review companies | with FCC violations, and remove their reviews._ | | Then, as a sibling comment pointed out, you just pay to get | obviously fake mass positive reviews for a competitor, and | suddenly they have a null rating because the market has | removed all the reviews. | beckingz wrote: | This happened on Amazon. | | Outcompeted by another product listing? Buy obviously fake | amazon reviews and they would get suspended by Amazon for | purchasing fake reviews. | | I've heard that Amazon is now more nuanced in how they handle | suspensions, but it's a mess. | zionic wrote: | We got an alert from Amazon that if we didn't stop faking | reviews we would be terminated. Given that we have never done | so, it was quite a shock to us. I wonder which competitor of | ours feels threatened. | foolmeonce wrote: | This happened with normal search, Google punished companies for | spam links to their websites which caused sites to pay for bad | links to their competition to raise their relative ranking.. | It's now necessary for everyone to review links to their site | and disown them. | odnes wrote: | I'm convinced that something similar is happening to Boris | Johnson's tweets at the moment. Every time he posts, many of | the top responses are exact copies of each other saying | something like "the country is behind you, my prime minister | <3". It's clear to anyone that these are 'fake', and I'd | imagine it has the effect of making people thing that the | conservatives are trying to artificially bolster his | reputation. | tpmx wrote: | The BBC didn't dare to name the businesses? Weak as hell. | | I remember when the BBC was a shining beacon of broadcasting | excellence via shortwave radio. How the mighty have fallen. | thih9 wrote: | At this point there seems to be little benefit in shaming | individual companies. At best it's a relatively minor cleanup, | at worst you risk harming innocent people[1]. It looks like | Which? focused on Google, this seems an appropriate long term | approach. | | [1]: There's no guarantee that a fabricated review has been | paid for by the business owner; or that all reviews from a | given account are forged reviews (some might be genuine). | macspoofing wrote: | If many companies are doing it, and many are forced (or feel | forced) to do it in order to compete, then it isn't fair to | just single one or two of them for public shaming via a | publicly funded broadcaster. There's also libel ... maybe the | threshold of evidence is high enough to write an article about | some unnamed company buying reviews, but not high enough to | hold up in court. | abraae wrote: | > If many companies are doing it, and many are forced (or | feel forced) to do it in order to compete, then it isn't fair | to just single one or two of them for public shaming via a | publicly funded broadcaster. | | Sorry but if you're doing shady shit, it's no defence that | everyone else is doing it too. | lotsofpulp wrote: | In a corrupt society, you get nowhere being morally | absolute. There's different shades of shady, but you only | have one life to live, and depending on the circumstances, | your best option might be to play ball. | | Push comes to shove, people are going to choose to feed | their family. Apple doing fake reviews and a struggling low | profit restaurant because all the other restaurants are | inflating their reviews are different circumstances. | boneitis wrote: | Not a direct reply to anything in the thread, but I felt | it's fairly on-topic to point out something I just | realized with myself on seeing the n+1st headline and now | wonder how long ago my default reaction evolved to this. | | Watching the ever-normalizing review gaming and | incentives to _not_ fix them, I am well past caring about | finding out a business has bought a review. | | My favorite local tasting room? I imagine they have the | resources to invest in gaming, but I figure they'd stand | their ground as long as possible out of a sense of | integrity (and I would appreciate them all the more for | this). Either way, good for them; I hope to enjoy many | more years of their service[0]. | | My favorite m&p hole-in-the-wall? They don't exactly have | a line out the door of raving, excited customers. And, I | don't think they have the financial means to play ball. I | root for them all the same. | | [0] ...provided it doesn't turn for the worse. | abstractbarista wrote: | "In American courts, the burden of proof rests with the | person who brings a claim of libel. In British courts, the | author or journalist has the burden of proof, and typically | loses." | | (https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/ | ...) | tpmx wrote: | This a well-known issue with british libel law. The UK | needs to reform to stay relevant. | Sebb767 wrote: | I'm not sure this would be better. I could claim you | murdered 5 puppies last year, how would you go on to | proof that you did not? | tpmx wrote: | And I could claim that you love Madonna's latest album. | | Somehow the rest of the world gets by with the opposite | burden of proof just fine. | MaxBarraclough wrote: | The BBC are reporting on the actions of the _Which?_ consumer | group. I got the impression _Which?_ have not released that | information. | hikerclimber wrote: | google deletes reviews so there is nothing new in this. | https://www.slashgear.com/why-google-deleted-100k-reviews-of... | mkl95 wrote: | I have caught several businesses doing the same thing in my | country. The difference is that they don't buy them, they have | their own employees write them. This results in patterns that | make it obvious they were written by the same person. Google | couldn't care less. | Symbiote wrote: | The original article from Which? Magazine is here: | https://www.which.co.uk/news/2021/03/fake-google-reviews-boo... | | (Which? is a charity which publishes a magazine with independent | reviews. My parents were subscribers for years, and would always | use the Which? ratings when purchasing a new appliance, insurance | or similar.) | marshmallow_12 wrote: | I can't blame these companies, they are people, they have to make | a living. It's not like they are actively harming anyone. So who | should we blame? Google are also just trying to make money, they | are also not hurting anyone over here. | MattGaiser wrote: | > It's not like they are actively harming anyone. | | How am I not harmed if I buy a product that is no good? | marshmallow_12 wrote: | I'm saying when they write the reviews, there's only some | abstract harm to consider. I'm not justifying it, just | putting it into perspective | [deleted] | toss1 wrote: | If you are going to try to put it in perspective, do it | right. | | They are, for their own personal gain, using deceit to | affect the behavior of others in a way that can cause harm | to them. | | It is fraud. | | Just because each incident is a small scale, does not mean | that it is not corrosive to society. Moreover, the point of | the article is that this IS being done at scale, and | scaled-up fraud is definitely corrosive to society. At the | very least, it undermines trust in society, which is a | prerequisite to a functioning society. Stop trying to | minimize it. | | Having to make a living is no excuse to perpetrate fraud. | If the business, or their fake reviewers need to perpetrate | fraud to make a living, they should do something else. | cmckn wrote: | I can't help but wonder if reviews should just be eliminated. | | I don't have a guess as to how Google would handle that. But for | something like Amazon -- surely it would be easier for Amazon to | vet the products they list than to vet all the reviews for those | products? When I shop on Amazon, the only reason I read the | reviews is to determine if a product is shitty or not. If Amazon | had a decent standard of product quality, I don't really need the | review section. Besides, I can always return it if Amazon (or the | reviews) are wrong. | kmeisthax wrote: | If you only host known-quality product, then the scope of what | you sell is greatly reduced. This isn't because you're | filtering out bad product, but because you do not have the | resources to actually vet everything flowing through your | store. And this isn't so much an Amazon thing, or restricted to | particular verticals. | | Steam used to work this way, and they were a massive bottleneck | for people who wanted to sell indie games on PC simply because | they were being swamped with unsolicited content submissions. | They lost out on _Minecraft_ because of this. That 's why they | tried having users do their content vetting for them (see Steam | Greenlight), which itself was a disaster but in a different | way. Now it's just an app store: you register with Steam Direct | and pay a filing fee and you can be on Steam. This is the only | model that actually scales. | | This is the dilemma every platform holder eventually hits: it's | far more lucrative to just open yourself up to all comers and | ban abusive sellers than to validate that someone is above- | board before selling their stuff. The latter involves losing | out on business opportunities. Traditional publishing models | _have_ to vet the content they sell because it 's their money | they're risking on what is effectively an investment into a | copyrighted work. And they lose out on a lot of opportunities. | However, platforms don't need to do this: the risks they take | are far lower, so it makes far less sense to review content in | advance. | | Remember: Amazon's business model was _built_ on the "long | tail" - making any sort of subjective quality judgment contrary | to the spirit of the company. And the judgment _is_ subjective. | There 's very few instances where you can say a product is | _objectively_ terrible, and those are better covered by making | them illegal and making platforms liable for selling such | product. | joshstrange wrote: | I have to assume this would lead to a worse end outcome for | everyone. I don't trust the reviews on any website completely | but reading through enough of them tends to give me a decent | idea of how good a product is. I'll read the top, bottom, and | middle reviews and read them across multiple sites if possible. | I don't do this for everything but for larger purchases or | long-use items I do. | | I don't really trust Amazon/Google to actually review items | themselves and I'm sure that would cause all sorts of other | issues like Amazon/Google either lying/fudging to keep a big | client or certain items not being popular enough for | Amazon/Google to spend the time to vet. | | I've literally had a single lone review on a product be | immensely helpful. I was looking for RAM that would work in my | Synology and I found it by model number but I wasn't sure if | the listing was accurate (blurry image, bad description, etc). | I scrolled down to the reviews and there was 1 single review | that said something like "If you are buying this for the XXXXX | Synology it will work, expect ~5min on first boot for it to | check/scan/test the RAM and then you will be good to go". I | bought it and it worked perfectly for me. | | Without that review I might not have bought from that seller | and instead paid ~20%+ more on another site. Reviews have | problems for sure but I don't think getting rid of them or | giving complete control to Amazon/Google/etc is the right fix. | glaucon wrote: | Online reviews; chocolate tea pots. Each about as useful as the | other. | abraxas wrote: | Yes, the inflation of ratings has been ridiculous. It's | meaningless even in supposedly heavily guarded services like | Audible. Just about every audio book is 4.3 stars out of 5 or | higher. I just use what's behind the fractional number as a | rough guide (since everything will be 4.something) and go with | that. Except even then it appears that many titles are inflated | via click farms. | bikamonki wrote: | There is a global ethics pandemic. No? | tasssko wrote: | I feel for business owners today, reviews are gamed more than | ever and as a result have become much less valuable, harder to | use for consumers, and with this fraud a few bad reviews can | tarnish what is an unblemished customer service record. When | making purchases i find i skip over dozens of reviews to find one | or two that have some quality to them i can relate to based on | the product and my expectations. When i see a really bad review i | weigh it for much less than i used to especially if it lacks all | the necessary components of a review. Does anyone else do this? | Have you noticed that some reviews just look the same even the | bad ones? | wyldfire wrote: | For at least the last couple of years I ignore them entirely. I | just have zero faith in any of them anymore. | | The problem some ten-ish years ago were bogus computer- | generated reviews. But now the bogus reviews are written by | humans and are smart enough to sound balanced. | | I don't know what to do. But for now, I subscribe to Consumer | Reports and use price as a proxy for quality. | osrec wrote: | On Amazon, they could just make the refund/returns rate for a | product public. That would probably be a pretty good quality | indicator for physical goods. | Nextgrid wrote: | They'd just start buying their own product (which then goes | right back into the supply chain) to skew the numbers. | However, I do agree this is a good next step as it ups the | costs significantly (the transaction fees as well as | logistics of having to move your product in a loop) | compared to buying fake reviews. | JetAlone wrote: | Absolutely. Reviews have been gamed for a long time. | jhatemyjob wrote: | how is this news? | jackson1442 wrote: | Same here. I'm not surprised in the slightest; this is common | practice on Amazon already, and Yelp/BBB have allowed | businesses to pay to remove negative reviews for years. I'm not | sure if that's the case on Google reviews yet. | dylan604 wrote: | because as tuned in as you might be, the majority of people out | there still have their collective heads in the sand and put a | lot of weight on the reviews on commerce sites. | dazc wrote: | Many people still believe online reviews are mostly authentic. | I've heard more cynical people state that they can spot the | fakes. They are wrong, or course, which is why this is news. | mhh__ wrote: | This article is really about (the group) Which? asking for | regulatory action i.e. the purpose of journalism isn't only to | tell you that the building fell over, but also what the | consequences for wider society are. | luigeus wrote: | Unfortunately, the companies doing this gain advantage for their | apparent excellent service but often provide a poor customer | experience. It just raises people's expectations which will not | be satisfied and create the false idea that their competitors | must be worse for their lower rating. This whole problem is | damaging the market. | qwerty456127 wrote: | Today business is all about reviews. You have to manipulate the | reviews this or that way and have a budget for this. As a | customer - just don't take reviews too serious. | Traster wrote: | Trusted review website Which? Investigates review website and | find they're not as good as Which? | | I do actually think Which? is a fairly good company that does a | good thorough job (and I've bought a subscription before), but | this is hardly news. Online review companies have no incentive to | make their reviews accurate and their customers (the people who | they're actually reviewing) are highly incentivised to cheat. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-09 23:00 UTC)