Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

They don't deserve a free pass on anything. They do deserve not to be bullied by businesses with massively more resources in ways that don't improve market efficiency.

I have no problem with Wal Mart killing off neighborhood True Value hardware stores; that has a demonstrable benefit (though perhaps not one I'd choose) for consumers.

I have a clear problem with a parasitic business extracting cash from a neighborhood cafe. I don't benefit from that at all; in fact, nobody does except for the parasite.

View on HN

The business doesn't lose anything by not playing Yelp's game. You would still go to the cafe if it had a few bad reviews on Yelp, and so would I. (Then again, I read the content of reviews rather than the arbitrary star rating. If someone says "1 star, I ordered a salad and hated it because I hate vegetables" then I am not going to think negatively of the business that has this review attached. I am going to think, "damn people are dumb".)

I was looking for dedicated server hosting the other day, and that market is just ridiculously full of bad, stupid reviews.

"This dedicated server provider is terrible! They wouldn't even help me with a mysql problem" etc.

I'm sure half the hosting co reviews are done by competitors, and the other half are done by idiots who don't understand anything. And of course all the satisfied customers can't be bothered to write reviews.

It's always going to be best to get a personal recommendation than trusting reviews on the internet, for anything.

It's always going to be best to get a personal recommendation than trusting reviews on the internet, for anything.

This is precisely why many people expect social networks to play a larger and larger role in commerce.

The problem with that is, social network 'friends' are usually pretty meaningless. They're certainly not usually people I'd trust to recommend anything.

my issue isn't impact on the guys that don't play, it's impact on the consumer from the guys that do. a crappy restaurant that has 5 star reviews because the bad ones were paid off hurts me financially.

If you are letting random people on the Internet hurt you financially, you are doing something else wrong. Take everything you read with a grain of salt.

The thesis of your argument is thus that Yelp has no reason to exist. We differ on the reasons but agree on the conclusion. Let's call it a push.

hurt financially == going to a restaurant/store/{insert random b&m service provider here} that i shouldn't have gone to, and spend more time/money + get worse service/product out of as a result.

isn't the whole point of a review system to influence people's decisions?

In the end, you hurt yourself financially. What if there was no review system at all?

... then i would use other, less centralized and organized sources, as i did before yelp existed. what's your point?

i'm certainly not saying that yelp is stealing money from me, but trusted (yes, only to a certain extent) information is trusted information. if misleading, there are consequences to the consumer.

What I'm saying is that review sites are misleading even when reviews aren't being paid for. Paying people to write reviews makes the data no worse than it already was, because it was already pretty bad.

but that's not what's happening - they're not paying people to write reviews, they're (allegedly) collecting money for removing unfavorable reviews. i think that's more damaging.

that would be incredibly damaging. luckily we don't actually do that.

what if you had reviews made by your friends and sources you trust accessible to you online that seems like a better model than see what everyone and their dog thinks about everything under the sun..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com