[dforrestwilson]

This week we had a disgruntled employee leave a 1-star Google review of our shop. They have never been a customer...

I reported it as a Conflict of Interest PER GOOGLE'S OWN STATED POLICY and it was rejected almost immediately. Google could find nothing wrong with the review.

We have no recourse to escalate. No way to even interact with a human about it. It's absolutely ridiculous. I have plenty of documentation and am happy to provide evidence that this is a former employee but I have no one to give it to or even a dropbox to submit documentation to.

Sundar and Google should be ashamed.

[jddil]

Got to say the fact that you thought someone leaving a 1 star review on a service you don't own, google, was worth you escalating it to a real person tells me these companies are doing the right thing. And shaming the CEOs when you made the choice to use their product is a bit silly and you come off as entitled, not righteous.

How do we or google know if he was disgruntled vs fired, how do we know if he didn't come in as a customer after he was fired and was treated like shit?

I'm imagining the situation where in your world where every business who got a bad review would be calling google. Imagine the number of bullshit calls they would get? And how much all of us would have to pay to support that?

If you want a real person to help you, pay for it. Plenty of companies are willing to sell you a service contract, even google, if you're willing to pay.

Vote with your dollars (even if the original poster preemptively tried to say why that won't work ... it's the ONLY thing that ever has in my experience)

[slfnflctd]

The problem is that Google has become so pervasive that even if you don't initiate any contact with them or use any of their products/services, a bad review on Google can have a substantially negative effect on your business. It's a real problem.

I was recently in charge of hiring various contractors for several repairs needed on a house being prepped for sale, and in almost every case, clearly non-technically-inclined people were practically begging me to leave them a positive Google review. I don't think they would've been doing that if they hadn't experienced a direct impact on their business from those reviews in some way, and I also don't think they would've chosen this situation voluntarily.

[dforrestwilson]

^ This times 1 million.

Per Google's own policy employees, present or former, are not permitted to leave reviews of businesses at which they work or did work. For obvious reasons.

Google ratings impact our search rankings directly.

Read the policy before you start casting aspersions about the justness of an employee review. If Google wants to change that policy, fine. But as things sit they are failing to enforce their stated legal guidelines.

It is also worth noting that Google does not permit reviews of its own HQ. Why not open the floodgates for Google employee reviews on Google if you believe that it should be OK?

[notriddle]

> The problem is that Google has become so pervasive that even if you don't initiate any contact with them or use any of their products/services, a bad review on Google can have a substantially negative effect on your business. It's a real problem.

If this is true, it's because your would-be customers listen to what Google says. If people trust them, it's probably because they are the least bad option for gathering information on a lot of companies.

[bb123]

I don't think you understand the impact that negative Google reviews can have on a small business. You are totally beholden to them.

[RobertRoberts]

> ...when you made the choice to use their product...

Where did the poster say/claim this? Your entire argument is based on if they are a user of Google services or not?

[criddell]

Maybe try suing them in small claims court.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-i-sued-google-and-won_b_1...

[webstrand]

Google appealed and won, apparently. Frustratingly there appears to be no rationale for the reversal.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_2...

[bryan_w]

If it's so important to you, why not just sue the former employee? That's how libel is handled in the real world.

[k8sToGo]

I posted a few legit (longish reviews) 1-3 star reviews, but they all disappeared from Google Maps.

[Nextgrid]

Threaten to sue for libel.

[jeffwask]

They would bury you in legal paper work and it would end up cost 5x the original problem.

[ironmagma]

Are the criticisms accurate? That should be the main concern. This is a free speech country after all.

[vmception]

Can you elaborate on that? How would it be different in a non-free speech country?

Is there a country I can go to make someone legally disappear due to an online review they posted, I have a list. Let me know

[ironmagma]

We aren’t talking about law, we are talking about spirit. It’s perfectly legal for you to ask Google to take it down and for them to take it down. The point is, that goes against the spirit of this culture, which is that you really can’t and shouldn’t silence someone in general.

Again, I ask, are they lying or do they have accurate points? This is best taken as a learning experience because treating it as a battle is going to get you nowhere.

[vmception]

> We aren’t talking about law, we are talking about spirit.

ah damn, one of the the philosophical free speech people that made up a standard the spot, I wrote in a related comment:

> its hard to tell which people just completely misunderstand the first amendment, and which people are talking about a "philosophical" free speech that they made up on the spot to bolster their point

so, what does that have to do with any particular country? what countries is it different? what is particular about the country you speak of?

[ironmagma]

Where did I say this country is unique? Every country could be identical for all I care, that isn’t the point. The point is, here, we have the idea that you can’t shut anyone up. Maybe everywhere else they have that idea too, but again, that isn’t the point.

[vmception]

the adjectives and adverbs in front of 'country' suggest something 'particular' about one country or a category of countries, which is the word I used, purposefully avoiding the word 'unique'

the difference now seems to be that I avoid words that I don't mean and can't rely on

it seems like you mean to say that a country has a cultural misunderstanding of a shorthand version of the first amendment that is so pervasive that many people think they can rely on it out of context, except for people that choose to operate within reality when convenient

is that closer to the point you are trying to make?

[jddil]

Your argument doesn't logically follow. I can't connect your first and second sentences to any point anyone was making.

Asking google to take down someones opinion about a business would be violating that persons first amendment right (assuming they are American). Unless you could prove libelous intent. (which luckily is very hard to prove and doesn't cover someone disliking your business)

[vmception]

> Asking google to take down someones opinion about a business would be violating that persons first amendment right (assuming they are American)

ah, there it is. since Google is not the Government yet, them taking action would not violate that person's first amendment right, and asking Google to do so would not violate that person's first amendment right

I wonder what the person I initially replied to thinks

its hard to tell which people just completely misunderstand the first amendment, and which people are talking about a "philosophical" free speech that they made up on the spot to bolster their point