41–50 of 188 posts
Direct link to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/business/airbnb-verify-li... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just adding a bonus point system and giving bonus points for creating well documented problem tickets would do the same trick, imho.
Anything crowdsourced can and will be gamed. That is the essence of this type of problem.
From the comment in the article it sounds like they are trying to offload the cost/ effort of verifying listings to their customers as well: " But he said the process would involve asking users whether the information in certain listings turned out to be accurate " So when he says AirBNB is going to verify every listing, he doesn't actually mean they are paying people to do it...
Which is deeply disappointing, and makes me worried that fraudulent hosts will work around the issue by having a co-conspirator book their room to "verify" the listing.
> Even some of the positive reviews of Becky and Andrew’s Chicago rentals seemed odd, especially those left by other pairs of hosts. Kelsey and Jean, for example, said Becky and Andrew were “awesome and communicative guests.” But they themselves were based in Chicago, where it seemed they had at least two properties of their own. Why would they need to rent from someone else there?
From the comment in the article it sounds like they are trying to offload the cost/ effort of verifying listings to their customers as well: " But he said the process would involve asking users whether the information in certain listings turned out to be accurate " So when he says AirBNB is going to verify every listing, he doesn't actually mean they are paying people to do it...
You list amenities. Then the platform asks guests "does this listing have a stove, does it have a carbon monoxyde detector", etc. Then the platform query the host "guests have mentioned you have a stove, is it correct?". I just got such a confirmation request on our listing today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything crowdsourced can and will be gamed. That is the essence of this type of problem.
And auditors (or other internal processes) are never gamed?
For example corporate auditors are paid by the company they're auditing and often actually make all their money providing other services to that same company. Guess how that works out (or read about Enron if you need a hint)
On the other hand I'd say something like the Paris MOU works. The inspectors (they're doing inspection not auditing, although the things they're inspecting are supposed to have already been inspected by the Flag State, so in another sense they're just checking that work) work for the Port State, so their interests aren't directly aligned with the ship owner and it makes sense to hold some vessels, but on the other hand, your ports aren't making money when they are full of ships being inspected or held for defects, so you don't want to go crazy.
One thing I particularly like about the Paris MOU is that it uses statistics to drive feedback. If inspections find that, say, South African flagged vessels (thus supposedly already inspected on behalf of South Africa) are often non-compliant, that flag goes on the Grey List or the Black List and there are MORE inspections of South African vessels. This has two effects, it drives up the cost of choosing the South African flag for your vessels, discouraging you from choosing a flag with bad inspection regime whether because it's cheaper or to save on vessel upkeep - and it enhances the ability to monitor other vessels that might fail too. On the other hand if say, South Africa is doing a great job, any time you inspect a South African flagged vessel it's like it just came out of the factory and every crew member is a world expert who is wide awake and handsomely paid, then South Africa goes on the white list and fewer of their vessels get inspected.
From the comment in the article it sounds like they are trying to offload the cost/ effort of verifying listings to their customers as well: " But he said the process would involve asking users whether the information in certain listings turned out to be accurate " So when he says AirBNB is going to verify every listing, he doesn't actually mean they are paying people to do it...
Which is deeply disappointing, and makes me worried that fraudulent hosts will work around the issue by having a co-conspirator book their room to "verify" the listing.
They'll probably have algorithms to determine who are legit travelers and ask them to do the most verification and of the most risky stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this an improvement over Airbnb's existing review and complaint mechanisms?
If they detached this or made it separate from reviews it would perhaps reduce the fear of retributive reviews from bad hosts. The big problem here is the vast difference between "We are going to verify..." and what they are actually planning. It's just dishonest.
No amount of "verification" can get me to stay in an Airbnb. There's no way for them to prevent homeowners from installing (legal) hidden cameras, and when cameras are discovered, they defer responsibility (to preserve their brand image). A hotel, by contrast, can't legally have hidden cameras and takes the full brunt of the bad PR if one is discovered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything crowdsourced can and will be gamed. That is the essence of this type of problem.
Particularly since Airbnb is a two way system. I once stayed in a place where I was basically being told to give them 5 stars or else they'd give me 1 star for being a difficult guest.
From the comment in the article it sounds like they are trying to offload the cost/ effort of verifying listings to their customers as well: " But he said the process would involve asking users whether the information in certain listings turned out to be accurate " So when he says AirBNB is going to verify every listing, he doesn't actually mean they are paying people to do it...
Which is deeply disappointing, and makes me worried that fraudulent hosts will work around the issue by having a co-conspirator book their room to "verify" the listing.
When did this become the mantra of every tech company? Any time a job is created it's viewed as an unfortunate mistake or side effect? Who are we even building all this for?