Perspective: A bad review for review sites

The Internet has ushered in a new era of human interconnectedness and will likely radically transform industry, scientific research and the structure of society.

It's also made us into a bunch of old ladies.

Perhaps no other time in human history has there been so much nitpicking. All you have to do is troll a site like Yelp.com for a few minutes to find a cavalcade of complaints disguised as constructive criticism or--just as bad--positive, and largely tangential, compliments.

In all fairness, most of the reviews are fairly well written and accurate. But after awhile, the mind-numbing level of intricate detail becomes overwhelming. Everyone is sitting around offering his or her opinion on what the texture of noodles should really be like.

It's like meeting the global community, and finding out they are all my mother.

Yelp.com, for instance, reviewed Sunrise Delicatessen, a place near my home. It is not the kind of restaurant that traditionally gets reviewed in newspapers. They serve coffee in Styrofoam cups, and the staff consists of guys with meat juice on their aprons looking for a cleaver. Still, the food is good, and if you ever need 72 falafel balls pronto for a kid's party, it's the place to go.

There's just a bit too much supercilious advice tucked into a good number of the reviews.

Like virtually almost every other restaurant reviewed by Yelp.com, the place got 4.5 stars. That puts it up there with Campton Place and other celebrity chef restaurants. Still, there's just a bit too much supercilious advice tucked into a good number of the reviews.

"With a well-rounded falafel, the cascading oils are normally balanced with that taste silencer, but the second directive was incapable of being reached," wrote one reviewer. "The hummus was wholly unremarkable too."

"I've never, ever had green peppers in tabbouleh before. Not only wasn't I expecting it, but it's my least favorite vegetable, and I just cannot eat anything that has that much of it with the flavor seeped in. Ick," wrote another person.

Here are some other samples from reviews for another restaurant:

"The dining environment is clean, bright and neat. I got a very impressive dining experience in here...The waiter is nice, and I ordered some from menu. Next time when I walk by, I will try again with no doubt."

"Minus one star because they don't ask for your name like the others do."

What restaurant was it? An In-N-Out Burger. Granted, I couldn't be this eloquent about the place. The only time I was in an In-N-Out Burger I was kind of liquored up. (But kudos on the hand soap). These are actually two of the more negative reviews. Ironically, the positive reviews were even less helpful. There were a lot of recommendations about milk shakes and how to get extra salt on your fries, but no one wrote "A great meal that can be devoured in 47 seconds" or "Ketchup plunger frequently empty" or something useful that fit the context of the restaurant.

And if you think this might be an age thing--Yelp.com is primarily frequented by the under-30 set--guess again. TripAdvisor caters more to an older crowd. Recently, after booking a room in Beijing, I decided to see what people thought on TripAdvisor.

You'd have thought I booked a room near a bail bonds outlet. One woman conducted her own undercover investigation and posted pictures of the frayed edge of a towel found in her bathroom and some spots on the carpet. Another person complained of the smell of smoke. (That describes the whole country.) "Shower was functional but rather dated," wrote one person. Another person said the cramped bathroom was a potential safety hazard.

The place was like a palace. The first night I was there they had to put me up in the two-story "gangsta" style suite with a spiral staircase because my regular room wasn't ready. And the regular room was great too. The place also had a spa and a lot of people who could speak English. But the big issue was this: I was in a city that was a lot more interesting than a hotel room.

Review sites do serve a pretty big purpose. The mainstream media and guidebook publishers have never had staffs large enough to review everything. But after awhile, you discover that too much of a good thing can be too much.

Biography
Michael Kanellos is editor at large at CNET News.com, where he covers hardware, research and development, start-ups and the tech industry overseas. He has worked as an attorney, travel writer and sidewalk hawker for a time share resort, among other occupations.

More Perspectives

[JayMonster]

True of the "Big Boys" too though

Of course with so much information, you may find some reviewers that don't necessarily fit your "mold" of what is good or bad. Of course this is true also with the Zagats, and other big boys of reviews. But at least it will help to narrow things down.

Where varying reviews exist, true you need to try and decide just who is right, but at least there are varying views for you to work with.

You bring up an excellent point when you mention how a small little restaurant that is not posh or owned by a celebrity chef gets a similar 4-1/2 stars as the fancy places get. But you know what? For many people (if not just plain reality), the food IS just as good (if not better) at some "hole in the wall" place as it is in a restaurant that charges way too much for a basic dish with a fancy name that has been given a "special touch" by some "named" chef.

You point is not without some merit though. Sifting the good reviews from the pointless, the people that make sense from those that perhaps have a vendetta is difficult. It still takes some work and effort for you to sift through it all.

But I still don't think that takes away from the fact that there is still more information available, and that is rarely a bad thing.

[GasAlley]

good reading material

It's about time somebody reviewed the reviewers, they aren't exactly Siskel and Ebert. One of the more amusing and to-the-point articles I've read about the intersection of digital and analog life. Mr. Kanellos is good.

[Brian Payea]

Finding the most relevant reviews

What you describe in this interesting perspective is the challenge of finding the reviews that have the highest relevance to your particular tastes and needs. With ten million reviews and opinions on TripAdvisor, for example, you can expect that they'd come from a huge variety of travelers with diverse travel styles. Not every one is relevant to your needs, so the best sites help you find the reviewer who is "like you" and avoid the others.

Clicking on a reviewer's screen name will quickly bring up all the reviews they've contributed, providing a good snapshot of their travel style. Other tools like our traveler network bring up your own friends' reviews first -- your hand-selected network whose travel styles you know and value.

It all comes down to finding the most relevant and recent information.

Brian Payea
TripAdvisor

[Stephen Rushmore]

Specialized Review Sites

As an active traveler who frequents all of the sites mentioned in the article, I have increasingly appreciated highly editorialized niche review sites from credible individuals.

For example, Roadfood.com is an excellent source for local restaurant picks, and Harpers Hideaway Reports for luxury accommodations. The scope of these sites is more limited than a TripAdvisor or Yelp, but I believe in the age of information overload people will increasingly appreciate the role of these niche sites.

[JJ_Wilde]

On and on and on,

Average people, bloggers especially, love nothing more than issuing uninformed opinions, making a public spectacle of themselves, and selling themselves on their own intellectual superiority. Learn to accept that without becoming intractably irate, or the Internet will drive you mad.

[nicmart]

Censorship

What is not generally recognized are the censorship practices by
web sites regarding reviews. Amazon is still the granddaddy of
review sites, and three times I have had reviews removed,
although they fell within Amazon's rules. In the first case a
computer writer, Christopher Breen, objected to my critique of
his book and had my review taken down. In the second case, in a
review of a Philips defibrillator, I noted that medical experts
consider the effectiveness of such devices to be highly
overrated. Some other reviewers responded angrily and my
review was removed twice. In the third instance my critical
review of Ry Cooder's latest CD was removed, but attacks on me
by other reviewers remain up. In none of these cases did I resort
to personal attacks or expletives, but, for one reasons
unexplained, Amazon decided that my opinions were
unacceptable.

Traveladvisor.com removed a review on a Residence Inn, where
my family and I stayed for months, in which guests were
repeatedly having sex in the swimming pool -- even while other
guests were present and with the knowledge of the manager.
Even the mention of sex, in a way that might be darned relevant
to prospective guests of the hotel -- was forbidden by that web
site.

The extent to which some highly-trafficked web sites censor
reviews remains unexplored by the media. I wonder why.

Here is a comment about the defibrillator review:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/iatrogenic/message/
1730

Here is the full review rejected by traveladvisor.com:

The full review is found here: http://britishexpats.com/forum/
showthread.php?t=245831

[stoppelm]

Conflicted out the Wazoo

Thanks for the feedback Michael I always appreciate outside perspectives on what we do here at Yelp and of course I'm always on the search for ways to improve the site.

That said, wow you're conflicted out the wazoo. In your post you failed to mention your own competitive food review site Chow / Chowhound. Additionally CNet is chock full of useful and sometimes useless user submitted reviews on technology products, talk about biting the hands that feeds you. I hope reviewer #66 on that new Dell Laptop didn't catch this story.

At Yelp we believe that a local business is great when the community at large says it's great, not when some "professional" from on high delivers his singular glorious opinion. Each patron is entitled to their say and the reality is that if two hundred people say Gary Danko is an amazing restaurant, it probably is.

Editorial suffers from the same age bias you claim exists on Yelp, Michael Bower of the San Francisco Chronicle is about twice my age, so if I'm to rely on only professional critiques what am I to do? His opinion is bound to be different than my own and usually is. Personally, I'd rather browse through hundreds of opinions (tied to detailed personal profiles) so that I can find people like me. Frequent users of our site often find "Yelp celebrities" they trust and follow, I personally enjoy Toro E's sushi reviews, check them out.

So while I agree Yelp could do more to help people find reviewers that match their own taste (and we will), I think your dig on Yelp is unprofessional. If editorial standards are so wonderful at CNet, I'd think you would have disclosed your company's intimate connection to a Yelp competitor. Boo.

[danielbower]

To be expected

I'd like to echo the comments made by both Jeremy and Brian. Here at welovelocal.com we believe that the way to find the best local services is through word of mouth recommendation, and because we don't always have a friend to call upon, being able to harness a community of reviews, and most importantly, find people in tune with your perspectives, is a really powerful offering.

I'd also add that your comment regarding the dreaded 4.5 score is also rather vacuous. Where a score is given out of 5 across a range of business types the emphasis has to be on expectation in order to bring equilibrium. Under a system such as this, a Burger King could easily score more highly than a Michelin starred restaurant because one was already expecting certain level of service when they walked through the door. This is not to say that the food at Burger King is better, just that they went beyond what one would typically expect, whereas the Michelin starred restaurant treated you disdain.

Daniel Bower
www.welovelocal.com

[BHB jW]

reviewing the reviewers

Status systems should perhaps be mentioned. Sites such as Yelp have various levels of participation from their membership and by allowing the reviewers to rate the other reviewers and have these rating effect the impact that a member has on the 'database' itself is a crucial aspect of the eventual integrity of the site. It takes a while to establish such critical mass but yelp.com is certianly headed in the right direction....My two cents.

[nicmart]

Reviewing the reviewers: worthless

I've yet to see how "allowing the reviewers to rate the other
reviewers" improves the integrity of review sites. Amazon has
allowed this for years, but it accomplishes nothing, except to
bring more traffic to a web site. A review either has merit or it
doesn't. Several product reviews taken together sometimes give a
rounded view of a product. That other people agree with a review
no more guarantees that the review is good than a majority vote
ensures that the next president will be wise.

[retiredgamer]

It sounds like you've missed a "right" perspective on Yelp. Here's a few pointers:

4.5 stars doesn't mean it's a top-end restaurant. One of the critical flaws of the system you're referring to (ie 5-star restaurant is some celebrity chef's place, and a burger king is a 1) is that it doesn't compare restaurants based on relativity. Here's a simple example: if a Burger King and a Wendy's are both right next to each other, your system rates them the same. Everyone knows that. Your rating is useless. Now, if the Burger King is the worst one ever, and the Wendy's is the ultimate Wendy's, then people are going to rate the BK low and the Wendy's high. That's useful.

Next, Yelp links reviews of reviewers. You forgot to mention that, and that's Yelp's best feature. If someone's reviewed 20 places, and you've been to 6 of them, and you agree with the person every time, you're likely going to trust them. Since all sorts of people have different tastes, and all sorts of people are writing reviews, you can find someone who's tastes fit yours, even if you're really peculiar. Even if you've never been to any of the places a reviewer has, you can probably figure out how similar you are to them through context. Sure, this all takes a bit of extra time, but if you're going out of town and want to find a really good meal somewhere, it's probably worth it.

I can't possibly imagine why you'd complain about too much picky info. Maybe other people don't like green peppers and don't want to be surprised? If you don't want to get so much detail, skim or skip. No one's forcing you to read too much.