Everybody gets a star: Yelp's effect on restaurants and reviews

Post by JohnFen » Tue, Aug 06, 2024, 7:23 PM UTC

Larrikin wrote: post #46

crngefest wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most excellent restaurants where I live would never post pictures of their food anywhere and have no web presence at all. In many you can’t even reserve a table - you go there and eat. Those who need a lot of web presence / pictures etc are usually not great (good but not great). If you see lots of people in a place and it’s crowded it’s probably good.

What area do you live where this is true? Michelin places may prevent customers from taking pictures, in my experience only the overrated ones do this, but they have their presence with information on the Michelin site. In Tokyo, everywhere but the smallest stand, and often times even them, had reviews on Tabelog. In my smaller East Coast city, every restaurant I've seen within walking distance of my apartment has re…

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Aug 07, 2024, 2:14 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #55

thaumasiotes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dont think anyone would be harmed if they refused to serve anyone and every employee was idle. The owner might have a different opinion. > Your concept of harm reminds me of how some people think they are "harmed" if someone doesn't want to date them ...and? That's a pretty commonly recognized harm. For example, it's the basis of the tort "alienation of affections".

Alienation of affection is not when someone chooses not to date you. It is when a third party interferes maliciously, and even then it is recognized and very few jurisdictions. If you try to sue a random woman on the street for the harm done by not wanting to date you, you will be in for a rude awakening.

Post by thaumasiotes » Wed, Aug 07, 2024, 5:25 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #64

thaumasiotes wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a different harm when someone else interferes maliciously. The difference in whether you can sue is a difference in to what degree the other person was entitled to act as they did, not a difference in the harm you suffer.

Like I said, I think that's a pretty twisted definition of harm. You're harmed when you lose something you are entitled to, not whenever you don't get something that would be nice. The former is the ultimate victim mentality. I'm not harmed if a female stranger walking down the street doesn't want to have sex, or if every man doesn't give his wallet, just because I ask for it. You must to have some legitimate claim t…

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Aug 08, 2024, 2:54 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #65

s1artibartfast wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, I think that's a pretty twisted definition of harm. You're harmed when you lose something you are entitled to, not whenever you don't get something that would be nice. The former is the ultimate victim mentality. I'm not harmed if a female stranger walking down the street doesn't want to have sex, or if every man doesn't give his wallet, just because I ask for it. You must to have some legitimate claim t…

This is not the correct way to evaluate policies ; if I get a law passed that specifies that you may not date, marry, or reproduce, by definition you have no legitimate claim to those things, but I hope you'll agree that the law is harming you anyway. In the case of the kiosk, their policies are making everyone worse off and nobody better off; this is the easiest possible case for "harmful policies".