Earlier quoted context omitted.
personZ understood the sarcasm: -literal meaning of Spooky23's statement: it's unreasonable to expect ice in the middle of summer. -sarcastic meaning of Spooky23's statement: it's completely REASONABLE to expect ice in the middle of summer. personZ acknowledges the sarcastic meaning (that it is reasonable to expect ice in the middle of summer), and is pointing out that based on the article, the guests actually DID in…
There's a deleted comment between those two.
Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
231–240 of 249 posts
Re: Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
#232What a horrible policy, it won't end well for them. http://www.yelp.com/biz/union-street-guest-house-hudson?sort... 10 negative Yelp reviews have been posted today (so far), ouch... http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g47931-d490934-Revie... Their website navigation is a very discrete image map in the middle of the page, http://www.unionstreetguesthouse.com/ obviously this was someone's first website. It's probab…
"It's probably not legal, if it is then it is unenforceable in court, even if it was in their terms contract. " Could you explain why you believe this? The main issue i would see here would be liquidated damages issues, not something like SLAPP (at least in most states).
That's kind of what this feels like. I didn't tell them to write a review. They genuinely didn't like your product or service. Why am I being fined just because they booked a room for my party? Maybe my friend has a legitimate complaint that isn't about how old the furniture looks (which is what this appears to be about). What if your staff was actually very rude, or the room wasn't up to the quality listed on the web site?
It seems unenforceable to a lay-person because it puts the burden of controlling third parties we can't control on us. If I go someplace for a friend's party and the friend tells me not to post a bad review of it if I don't like it, I'm going to tell my friend to fuck off and write whatever review I want. He has no say in the matter.
So it seems bizarre that you can even legally agree to something over which you have no control. It feels equivalent to saying that you agree to pay a fine if it rains while you're staying at our hotel. (That very well may be enforceable - but it seems odd to the layperson that it could be because you can't predict it ahead of time and can't control whether it happens.) It's simply an example of the law making no sense to the people it applies to.
Re: Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
#233Maybe it's the "star rating" system that's broken. When reviewing rated product/service offerings, I go straight to the 1-star reviews. Skimming those, I differentiate the "valid complaints" from flukes (a small failure rate is understandable), unrealistic expectations (it's a vintage hotel, not a new Hilton), tangential problems (Amazon didn't smash the box, the shipper did), hysteria (political opposition isn't a r…
There's no way to collapse a multidimensional metric to a single value without losing information. That's what a "star system", numeric review, or others, do. Quick, what are food grades, and what are the grading criteria? (See: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-11-13/business/fi-13882_1_m... and https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7707/770706.PDF)
Different people have different assessment criteria. That seems to be the problem the hotel in question claims to be facing. "What's best?" inherently presumes "For what?". A vintage hotel shouldn't be rated on the same criteria as a five-star downtown hotel or business hotel. Or for its healthcare, auto-repair, clothing, bookstore, or hardware characteristics. The challenge is when an entity tries to claim a special status or twist that's at strong odds to most general expectations.
Thin data. Only a small number of people typically leave reviews, and you're likely to get feedback only for exceptionally positive, or exceptionally negative, experiences. Or those who are motivated for whatever reasons (competition trying to shut you down, paid positive reviewers, etc.) to tell a specific story. This produces a highly non-randomized sampling selection.
Unqualified reviewers. This is a problem pretty much any collectively rated system has. People who are not capable of making a valid assessment. Among other services, reddit and HN are suffering from this.
The significance of ratings. Meaningless as they are, small changes in ratings can be hugely significant for a business. A major problem of the market is that information on quality is thin, non-abundant, and often expensive to come by. Ratings systems, even imperfect ones, address the ratings cost issue, even if the data conveyed are low-quality (think of racial discrimination or similar behaviors). So despite the problems, people care.
One way around these issues is to come up with a "based on your profile you'd likely prefer X". This is what Amazon tries to accomplish with its product recommendations, though the appropriateness of these is often pretty thin.
The problem space is a hard one.
Re: Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think it is valid to leave a 1 star review for a restaurant, because you don't like the menu posted in their website?
A more accurate analogy: you read the menu and notice in the fine print at the bottom that they will charge your credit card an extra $25 if you post a bad review of your meal. So you get on Yelp and post a review warning others of the practice. Doesn't that seem like a legitimate use of a review site? Technically, yes, you didn't utilize the service, but that doesn't mean you have no qualifications to comment on the…
Doesn't that seem like a legitimate use of a review site?
I could just as much consider it a warning to post that their wine selection is bad. Might be important for people who care about that. If you see it that way then you will ALWAYS find something you can spin to make a 1 start review without ever having interacted with the business.Re: Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Please know that despite the fact that wedding couples love Hudson and our Inn, your friends and families may not. This is due to the fact that your guests may not understand what we offer - therefore we expect you to explain that to them. USGH & Hudson are historic. The buildings here are old (but restored). Our bathrooms and kitchens are designed to look old in an artistic "vintage" way. Our furniture is mostly hi…
I actually kinda see where they're coming from. I'm sure they do get complaints from people who never stay anywhere besides upscale chain hotels. But obviously this is not the way to address the issue. It's mean and ultimately self-defeating.
That doesn't mean, obviously, that we try to fine anyone for those reviews. We trust people reading reviews will realize when complaints don't make sense, and have good reviews that outweigh the bad.
Re: Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relevant XKCD: http://xkcd.com/1357/
That's fine, I just wish people would stop pretending free speech is some great American value then. What they really value is the right to silence people by any means possible, stopping just short of imprisonment.
Re: Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your words: "Our immediate response should be to post negative reviews based on the revelation that none of the other reviews are trustworthy." You don't know anything about the quality of their online reviews. No, I mean it, you really don't: 5 minutes wasn't enough time for you to investigate this policy and see how long it's been in place. Perhaps this policy is brand new and hasn't affected any online reviews yet…
You're regurgitating a common narrative about online witch hunts. While I agree that they're unethical, that's clearly not what's happening here. The comments that have superseded yours in this thread echo that sentiment. The other commenters and I agree that if an organization creates a public policy, people should be able to criticize the group on the basis of that policy. It's as simple as that.
Re: Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
The attendees did not have a choice on the venue, but they are not bound to any contract and do not get fined if they post reviews.
That's like saying it's not extortion if I threaten your friend unless you do what I say. The Bride and Groom are threatened with a fine unless their attendees do what the hotel says.
Re: Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
#239Re: Hotel fines $500 for every bad review posted online
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fine, I just wish people would stop pretending free speech is some great American value then. What they really value is the right to silence people by any means possible, stopping just short of imprisonment.
I wish people would stop defining "free speech" for themselves and getting disappointed that it doesn't mean what they want it to mean.
There's the First Amendment and then there's free speech.