Digital Media

Yelp Chief Executive Jeremy Stoppelman

(Credit: Yelp)

NEW YORK--"They have that saying, 'don't shoot the messenger,' but the reason they say that is because the messenger gets shot," Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman told me over coffee on Tuesday morning. "So I have to take my shots."

He was talking, of course, about the PR fiasco that ensued when the Emeryville, Calif.-based East Bay Express newspaper published a lengthy expose on the business reviews site, alleging that it strong-armed businesses into paying to remove negative reviews. As a fairly regular Yelp user, I was repulsed by the possibility that its corporate practices were so sketchy. But Stoppelman, visiting from the company's home base of San Francisco, claims there's no truth to the allegations.

"There are business owners out there who don't think consumer reviews are good," said Stoppelman, who called the expose's accusations a "conspiracy theory" and likened them to similar tiffs that have arisen over Google's advertising program. "(They're) looking for confirmation that Yelp is this bad entity."

He wrote last week in a lengthy post on the official Yelp blog that the activity called out as "extortion" and likened to the Mafia in the East Bay Express can be attributed in part to the algorithm that Yelp developed to weed out suspicious reviews.

"When we set out to built Yelp, we said we didn't want to be this anonymous reviews site," Stoppelman said to CNET News on Tuesday. "When you go to Yelp and you search for a business, (because of the algorithm) you're seeing reviews that are reasonably trustworthy." Yelp will, for example, flag reviews that appear to be spam, may be overly positive reviews coming from a business itself or overly negative ones coming from its competitors, or are coming from new users with no track record or profile data.

The fallout wasn't quite as bad as it could have been, Stoppelman explained. Inquiries and complaints in the wake of the East Bay Express story were primarily restricted to the San Francisco Bay Area. His visit to New York was routine and already on the books, rather than a face-saving measure.

Stoppelman also said he didn't think the allegations could be connected to, say, a rogue Yelp employee independently engaged in shady tactics. "This doesn't come up, because we have all these processes in place," he said. "It would be caught in the account manager hand-off."

But he did admit to some error on Yelp's part in not explaining its technologies and practices thoroughly enough--from the review-filtering algorithm to the sponsored-listing offerings.

"We haven't made it obvious enough about what systems are in place for our users, especially business users," he acknowledged. "As these stories have sort of come out, we've been focusing on making sure that the messaging is very, very clear and tight."

Given the Web's gradual shift toward a culture of "transparency," any site with a behind-closed-doors algorithm is going to be eyed with suspicion. The spotlight has fallen on the technology that powers social news site Digg, especially when people learned how to game it. And last spring, Facebook pulled a little-known friend-search feature when tech gossip blogs called it a "stalker list."

And the Yelp algorithm does pull down some legitimate reviews, something that was pointed out in the East Bay Express story and which Stoppelman said will invariably happen given Yelp's system. "We're not going to get it right, and it's not perfect, because you're going to lose some legitimate content as you try to get rid of the spammy content." Reviews that are taken down through the algorithm aren't deleted, he said; they're not displayed on a business' review page but still appear on the reviewer's profile.

Yelp nevertheless welcomes feedback, Stoppelman said. It's possible, for example, to review Yelp on Yelp. Over 1,500 people have reviewed it, and he said he tries to respond to as many of the reviewers as possible.

Want to find a reputable dentist? How about a cozy bar for that perfect second date? A few years ago, you would have consulted friends. Today, chances are good that Yelp is the place you go.

But what if you found out that some of the reviews were written by hired hands--or that reviews were either removed or placed higher or lower on the page based on whether the merchant was willing to pay Yelp for special services?

Those are the allegations being made in an expose in the East Bay Express this week. The newspaper reported that six business owners said Yelp sales reps promised to remove or move negative reviews in exchange for advertising and that in six other instances positive reviews disappeared or negative ones appeared after owners declined ad deals.

The allegations could have consequences for Yelp, which was founded in July 2004 as a site where people can post reviews and ratings of businesses. It operates in about three dozen U.S. cities, as well as in Canada and the U.K.

In his rebuttal to the article posted on his blog, Yelp Chief Executive Jeremy Stoppelman denies all the allegations and questions the story's sources, including one named source he claims had reviews removed because they were deemed to be fake.

"There is irrefutable evidence that we do not do that," Stoppelman told CNET News on Thursday when asked whether the placement of some reviews is determined by advertising deals. "It's absolutely ridiculous that somebody would say we are going to write a review and call a business (to sell advertising). That's not how you build a sustainable business...Trust and integrity are key to staying in business."

The problem, according to Stoppelman, lies in the company's secret sauce for filtering out reviews.

At the mercy
Basically, merchants are at the mercy of a computer algorithm just like Web sites are at the mercy of what is known as the "Google Dance"--the monthly update of the Google search engine's index. One tweak of the Google index can potentially make or break a business.

... Read more

A California dentist is suing a couple for libel over a negative review on Yelp, according to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle.

In the suit filed last month in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Foster City dentist Yvonne Wong is asking for damages over allegedly defamatory comments made by Tai Jing and Mia Ma of Los Altos about the care given to their son. The review by "T.J." said the dentist had used mercury in fillings and had given the boy laughing gas, making him "light headed."

Yelp is also named as a defendant, but Wong's attorney, John Terbeek, said he will probably dismiss those charges because Web sites are protected against liability for content their users post.

Another case in which a chiropractor sued a San Francisco man over a negative Yelp review was settled last week. Plaintiff Steven Biegel and defendant Christopher Norberg settled the libel suit, but terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Norberg had criticized Biegel's practice of billing insurance companies at a much higher rate than he bills patients and said he had found a different, "honest" chiropractor.

"Assuming that Chris was honest in describing his experiences with Dr. Biegel, he would likely have prevailed in this case," Yelp Chief Executive Jeremy Stoppelman wrote in a blog posting after the case was settled on Friday. "In addition, we think that the very act of suing a patient over a review (in light of the many other positive reviews that Dr. Biegel receives on our site) is customer unfriendly and may affect his business going forward."

Stoppelman adds that "It is worth noting that in 4 years of operation no Yelp user has been successfully sued and such cases are extremely rare."

The lawsuit filed by a San Francisco chiropractor against a patient who wrote a negative review of him on Yelp was settled on Friday, according to the attorney for the defendant.

Christopher Norberg reached a settlement with the chiropractor who sued him for libel over a negative Yelp review.

(Credit: Christopher Norberg)

"This case was settled with the mutual satisfaction of both parties," said Michael Blacksburg, who represented patient Christopher Norberg. The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential and the March trial date will be canceled, he said.

The case had spurred debate over how to best balance the rights of consumers to express themselves on community forum sites with the rights of businesses to protect their reputation.

Shortly after the court-required mediation hearing was completed Friday afternoon, Norberg replaced an earlier Yelp posting in which he said he had been sued by chiropractor Steven Biegel with a short posting that reads:

"A misunderstanding between both parties led us to act out of hand. I chose to ignore Dr. Biegel's initial request to discuss my posting. In hindsight, I should have remained open to his concerns. Both Dr. Biegel and I strongly believe in a person's right to express their opinions in a public forum. We both encourage the Internet community to act responsibly."

Norberg was advised by his attorney to refer all requests for comment to his lawyer. Calls to Biegel and his lawyer, Eric Nordskog, were not immediately returned on Friday.

"I'm really glad for both of them that they can put this dispute behind them," said Blacksburg. "I hope this begins the public conversation on how to communicate using the resources of the Internet."

Biegel sued Norberg for defamation nearly a year ago over a posting in which Norberg had suggested that Biegel's billing practices were dishonest because he had billed Norberg's insurance company an amount that was four times what he had quoted to Norberg for two office visits in 2006, according to court documents. Biegel had allegedly told Norberg that the price differential was due to the additional time and effort his office spends dealing with the insurers.

Biegel's lawyer contended that Norberg's comments on Yelp were statements of fact and thus libelous. Blacksburg maintained that the comments were opinion and therefore were constitutionally protected speech.

Norberg replaced an earlier review on Yelp with this posting after he and his former chiropractor settled the defamation lawsuit.

(Credit: Yelp)

Christopher Norberg, defendant in a lawsuit accusing him of libel for a negative review he posted on Yelp.

(Credit: Christopher Norberg)

San Franciscan Christopher Norberg went to a chiropractor after being injured in a car accident in 2006. After a disagreement with the chiropractor over billing, he posted a negative review of the business on Yelp suggesting that the doctor was dishonest. Now he is facing a defamation lawsuit that could chill self-expression on the popular gripe Web site.

"If Christopher loses then anyone on Yelp who writes a negative review better be careful," said Michael Blacksburg, an attorney representing Norberg. "This strikes at the heart of Yelp's business model and other Web sites that provide a bulletin board for people to state what they think of businesses in their community."

"This is clearly Christopher Norberg's version of conversations with the doctor relating to a billing dispute and his opinion of how the doctor was behaving," Blacksburg said on Tuesday. "This is clear opinion that falls squarely within constitutionally protected speech."

Eric Nordskog, the attorney for chiropractor Steven Biegel, said the case comes down to whether Norberg's comments are considered statements of fact or opinions.

"Dr. Biegel has no problem with people expressing their views and opinions about his service," Nordskog said. "But there is a line where if someone, even on Yelp or on the Internet, publishes a false statement of fact as opposed to an opinion, then that person can and should be held responsible for their words."

Norberg, a 26-year-old custom-furniture builder, was advised not to discuss the case publicly, but has a Web site with related information. Biegel did not return a call seeking comment.

The two sides are scheduled to sit down for court-required mediation on Friday, but Norberg said he isn't optimistic that the case will be resolved then. A March 2 trial date is on the San Francisco Superior Court calendar.

The lawsuit, filed February 25, 2008, alleges that Biegel has suffered loss of reputation and business as a result of the review and seeks punitive damages. According to the lawsuit, the review allegedly contained false statements and inaccuracies that suggested Biegel was dishonest and accused him of fraudulent billing practices.

Billing dispute at center
Norberg was treated twice by Biegel before a friend of his told him he had had billing problems with Biegel's office, he wrote in his review. Norberg, who said he did not have medical insurance, was not asked to pay for the visits because Biegel's office said it would try to bill his auto insurance company instead, the review said. Even though the insurance company refused to pay, Norberg did not initially receive a bill from Biegel, he said.

In the meantime, Norberg began getting treatment from another chiropractor who suggested he sue the driver of the car that hit him, Norberg's review said. Norberg eventually settled the case, the review said.

After learning that Biegel's bill to the auto insurer was $550 instead of $125, which was the amount quoted for two visits, Norberg called Biegel, his Yelp review said. Norberg said that Biegel demanded he pay $550 during that phone call, but then said he would waive the fee entirely, according to the review. Biegel later called Norberg and explained that his office bills insurers at a higher rate than patients who pay for service directly because of the higher office costs in dealing with the paperwork and delays in receiving payment, court documents said.

Biegel's office then made a call to Norberg's auto insurance company and learned about the settlement and then called Norberg and demanded he pay $125, the lawyers said. Norberg paid the bill and posted a review of Biegel with a one-star rating on Yelp on November 16, 2007.

"I didn't feel comfortable with their tactics," Norberg wrote in his review after earlier writing that the office had been aggressive in trying to get him to come back for treatment before the billing dispute. Biegel "couldn't give me a straight answer as to why the jump in price...He called me back to cover his ass...(and says) he runs a business and would stick it to insurance companies," the review said.

"I don't think good business means charging people whatever you feel like hoping they'll pay without a fuss. Especially considering that I found a much better, honest chiropractor," Norberg wrote at the end of his review.

In a letter sent to Norberg dated December 7, 2007, Biegel asked Norberg to remove the review, saying it "unjustly characterizes me as unethical and dishonest" and attributed the dispute to a misunderstanding of his office procedures.

"I did not do anything unethical or illegal in our entire dealings," Biegel wrote. "It has never been my policy or intention to take advantage of an individual or insurance company."

On January 8, Norberg got a letter from Biegel's lawyer threatening him with a lawsuit over the review and two days later Norberg removed the review and rating from the site. The following month, Biegel sued.

Biegel, who was a "sponsored" advertiser on Yelp and encouraged customers to write reviews on the site, received about as many referrals per month from Yelp while the review was up as before, but fewer after the lawsuit was filed, Blacksburg said, citing Yelp documents.

A Yelp spokeswoman said she did not know of any other cases in which a business sued a Yelp user over a negative review.

"We won't comment on specific litigation, but in general, lawsuits like this are pretty uncommon," Yelp spokeswoman Stephanie Ichinose wrote in an e-mail.

"Most businesses engage constructively with customers who haven't had a good experience," she wrote. "When that doesn't work, they recognize that they can't always make one hundred percent of their customers happy one hundred percent of the time, and don't risk the huge expense and potential negative publicity that comes with suing one of their customers."

Accusing a business owner of unethical conduct would constitute defamation unless it is true, said Aaron Morris, an Internet defamation attorney in Santa Ana, Calif. However, if the defendant can successfully prove that posting the statement was a matter of public good then the plaintiff would have to show malice and that the defendant knew the statement was false or had reason to believe it was false, he added.

"You can have something that would normally constitute defamation but if it's a matter of public interest it is entitled to protected status," Morris said. "Some courts will say that if you are posting it in a forum where people would be interested, they are going to Yelp specifically to find out about the doctor...then it enjoys a heightened level of privilege."

Not much legal precedent has been set on Internet defamation involving consumer review Web sites. Two similar cases decided in August in California had conflicting outcomes. In European Spa v. Kerber, the First District Court of Appeal ruled that negative reviews of a spa posted on Yelp and Yahoo did not meet the public interest element to merit special status in a defamation lawsuit, Morris wrote in an entry on his blog. In a separate case, Kim v. IAC/InterActive Corp., the Second District Court of Appeal granted an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion filed by someone who had posted a negative review of a dentist on Citysearch.

"If enough of the cases come back where individual posters are being sued, that could chill the desire of people to go on and post their opinion," Morris said. "But all they have to do to protect themselves is to make sure there is some truth to what they are saying."

Updated 1:40 a.m. PST Jan. 7 with background on other cases.

Using technology called SearchMonkey, Yahoo search results now spruce up some search results by default, including results with LinkedIn content.

(Credit: Yahoo)

Yahoo has begun using its SearchMonkey technology by default to give more prominence and potentially usefulness to search results involving LinkedIn contacts, Yelp reviews of businesses, and local companies.

Most of Yahoo's search results are a plain, textual list of Web sites. SearchMonkey, though, lets Yahoo's servers present some results with richer accompanying information, such as product prices at Amazon.com or movie critic ratings. If it works out as promised, that could make search results more useful, keep searchers coming back for more, drive more traffic to those sites that take advantage of SearchMonkey technology, and help Yahoo compete with Google.

The hitch for most companies that might want to use SearchMonkey to gussy up their own search results on Yahoo, though, is that they generally must convince users go to a SearchMonkey application gallery and enable that specific SearchMonkey behavior. But on Thursday night, Yahoo switched on three SearchMonkey options so all searchers will see enhanced results from Yelp, a site that lets members review restaurants and other businesses, Yahoo Local, which connects people with nearby businesses, and LinkedIn, which lets members keep in touch with contacts.

SearchMonkey relies on "semantic Web" technology that's designed to label Web site information with tags computers can process, giving more structure to the data.

Yahoo said on its Search blog Friday that it's judicious about which SearchMonkey applications it chooses to switch on.

"Before making an application 'default on,' we require a few things: access to the site's structured data through semantic markup or a data feed, a well-designed and broadly useful application, and positive user metrics," said Amit Kumar, director of product management for Yahoo search.

And when Yahoo tested the applications on a subset of users, it found good results.

"To understand how a SearchMonkey app affects user metrics, we generally expose a small percentage of our users to a default-on experience and measure if and how it changes their usage. We started with Yelp, LinkedIn, and Yahoo Local because they were among our first partners to share structured data," Kumar said. "Our tests uncovered that users found these apps useful; in fact, in some cases, we saw a lift in click-through rate of as high as 15 percent."

Update 4:17 p.m. PDT: I removed an earlier illustration that didn't in fact illustrate SearchMonkey.