Hacker News Reader

Comment by jedberg | Hacker News Reader

This is a better article: http://insidescoopsf.sfgate.com/blog/2014/09/17/richmond-res...

It has the full emails back and forth between yelp and company, which are the most telling part.

Basically the company doesn't want to be on yelp, but yelp won't remove them. Now they are "buying" bad reviews, so yelp has threatened to take action and the restaurant basically says "bring it on" since that is exactly what they want.

View on HN

It's interesting that Yelp refer to their terms of service in their letter to the restaurant. Since this is all being done behind the restaurant's back, and they will not have signed up to any terms of service, that is completely irrelevant. Yelp has no legal contract with the restaurant.

Tortious interference with the contract Yelp has with its users (if Yelp's sign-up clickthrough agreement is enforceable).

FYI: Tortuous interference is causing harm by unlawful means. Otherwise things like a union protest would be illegal.

Not quite, actually. The elements of tortious interference vary by state but are roughly:

1) The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. 2) Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. 3) Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. 4) Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. 5) The contractual relationship is breached. 6) Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.

Yelp may have a case for tortious interference against the restaurant if they are paying customers to break their Yelp terms. Yelp still sucks.

Your missing a major caveat. Completion is still encouraged so for example poaching employees is still generally legal. As long as you don't use "improper means or methods".

http://www.troutmansanders.com/files/upload/Tortious_Interfe...

I would agree in this case Yelp would probably not be laughed out of court. However, that's a fairly low bar and IANAL.

Yelp is pointing out to the restaurant that they're asking customers to violate the customers' TOS with Yelp. Nowhere is it insinuated that they themselves have an agreement with yelp.

It is not being done behind the restaurant's back. The restaurant is paying the customers (in free pizza) to leave the feedback.

It's not the restaurant's responsibility to enforce Yelp's terms of service.

> They simply grew tired of the constant advertising inquiries from Yelp and what he dubs “blackmailing” and review manipulation. Sidenote: A judge recently ruled that Yelp has the power to manipulate reviews.

Hold on.

So let's say I run a highly-ranked software review website. I then proceed to "manipulate reviews" to force software developers advertise with me in exchange for not floating negative reviews to the top and not "filtering out" good ones.

Do I get Yelp's business model right? Ethics aside, how is this NOT the by-the-book racketeering?

This is pretty much what the BBB does and probably what Angie's List does as well. It's an old business model for the review industry.

old business model counter-example: consumer reports

Do you have any evidence supporting your claims, contradicting what BBB and Angie's List say about how they operate?

On BBB, it's an easy Google search.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo8kfV9kONw

BBB is well known for pay to play rules, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Business_Bureau#Critici.... They attempt to keep the image of the organization pristine by tamping down on the pay to play when it's aired out in public, but the fact that it's a ongoing problem at multiple offices for many years before anything is done shows just how much they care.

It's only speculation about Angie's List, which is why I said "probably." If you look at their business model, they get money from all sides -- consumers and businesses -- which leads to inherit conflicts of interest.

No, you don't get it right. Apart from trying to filter spam, Yelp doesn't "manipulate" reviews. The judge was saying that Yelp has the right to filter out reviews that it believes to be fake or spammy.

> Apart from trying to filter spam, Yelp doesn't "manipulate" reviews.

Many restaurants have claimed that yelp has offered to remove negative reviews in exchange for money. Some also suspect Yelp of writing those negative reviews.

Lots of people "claim" lots of things that aren't true. What proof do you have, other than unsubstantiated rumors?

You made a factual claim with out any supporting facts. I pointed out that your claim was not established fact. I am aware that "I'm only asking questions" can be used to cast unwarranted doubts, but in this case the accusers are reputable and numerous enough that I think we should not pretend they don't exist. For example:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/yelp-and-the-business-...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimhandy/2012/08/16/think-yelp-i...

Also consider the ordering of the reviews - yelp can show them in whatever order they like, so you can be a "3.5" restaurant with a full first page of 1 and 2 star reviews, regardless of whether those reviews are newer or older or have been voted up or not.

The reviews on yelp have never been ordered by voting. They're not even ordered by time -- the order changes based on a variety of factors, such as your login status, who your friends are, etc.

That's why nobody takes these claims seriously. They don't hold up to even casual scrutiny, if you know anything about the site.

Their weaponizing the Streisand Effect. I really hate the term but its truly disruption at its finest. A system is broken, and their abusing the status quo to drum up free publicity and advertisement

TOS jiujitsu. Very elegant.

The emails don't show that. Yelp sent a boilerplate letter that they presumably send to everyone caught incentivizing customers to leave specific feedback on Yelp, and they replied with an immature parody. Where do you see (in the two emails in that news article) that they asked to be removed from the site?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com