[hawkharris]

After reading this article, I'm surprised to see that the guest house still has a high rating on Yelp and Google+. Our immediate response should be to post negative reviews based on the revelation that none of the other reviews are trustworthy.

EDIT: Yelp rating is no longer high, but there's still TripAdvisor and Google+.

[danielweber]

No, posting reviews of a service you've never used because of something you read on the Internet five minutes ago is not OK.

[dm2]

Is it necessary to have used a service in order to comment on its policies? What if you just call a place and they are very rude, would it be ok to post that in a "review"?

I don't really see anything wrong with warning others that a hotel's policies are irregular and for people to be careful.

Just saying something such as "make sure you carefully read their terms before staying at this place or leaving a deposit, they are not standard and you could end up paying much more than you anticipated." might be justified, no?

Yes, I feel bad for the hotel, this could cripple their business, but it will probably make the news and encourage other hotels to review their policies. In the end the consumers (who are innocent) will be the ones who benefit from this.

[omni]

That's true in a vacuum. However, the high rating they have is clearly unjustified since they have been extorting people to remove negative reviews. Some collective action against the gaming of the system is called for and, I think, ethical in this case. Try thinking of it from the perspective of their competitors that don't extort their customers.

[danielweber]

clearly unjustified

You don't know that.

they have been extorting people

You don't know that.

Some collective action against the gaming of the system is called for

Oh, geeze. If gaming the system is bad, then stop gaming the system.

If someone really wanted to put the screws to these people, then they would find a patron who has actually had that $500 policy used against them, implicitly if nothing else. It would require some kind of investigative journalism to find an actual victim. But that's a lot more slow and boring than getting out the Internet pitchforks and just burning their online presence to the ground right now. (If we wait too long our anger might dissipate!)

[baddox]

That might be your ethical analysis, but other people might have different ethical analyses.

[egeozcan]

I agree, posting fake reviews as an individual is as bad as what they are doing. I think the services should put a warning though. Something like this: "The reviews for this hotel may not be completely accurate according to some recent evidence and we are still investigating the case. Thank you for your understanding".

[hawkharris]

I'm not sure where you got "fake reviews." I specifically suggested that people comment on a public policy posted by the hotel. No more, no less.

[egeozcan]

I was replying to the parent, not the grand-parent. A review without using a service is a fake review.

[Karunamon]

One need not use a service to comment critically on their policies.

[hawkharris]

You misinterpreted my comment. Yes, it would be unacceptable to lie and say that we've all visited the hotel, but that's not what I'm advocating. I specifically said "based on the revelation that none of the other reviews are trustworthy." This isn't simply based on an article I've read. It's a public policy posted by the hotel.

I'm suggesting that people comment on a public policy. No more, no less.

[danielweber]

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, which means "none of their other reviews are trustworthy" would be incorrect. [1] Yet you implore that we should have an "immediate response." Quick, before we have a chance to think this through!!!

There's nothing our primate lizard brains love better than collectively kicking the crap out of an enemy who can't fight back. That isn't something to be celebrated or encouraged.

Slow down, take a deep breath, and count to 10.

[1] Doing this research now doesn't excuse a call for an "immediate response."

[Karunamon]

It's actually been there since at least 2013:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130301124243/http://www.unions...

Let 'em take the dings. An example must be made of this kind of anti-consumer behavior.

[danielweber]

pour encourager les autres

[hawkharris]

This is very pretentious.

[hawkharris]

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.

[hnal943]

Yeah, everybody's doing it.

[hawkharris]

I'm sure that you normally have intelligent things to add to the conversation and your comment above is just a one-off.

[personZ]

Our immediate response should be to post negative reviews

"Activism" reviews are what make most online reviews useless. Please don't do that. And those who already have today do nothing but undermine their own reputation.

While the ridiculous penalty claim is outrageous and likely illegal, and their behavior on Yelp is unacceptable, everyone should always take a moment to understand where they're coming from[1]: In this case their gripe seems to be guests who did not specifically select the hotel, knowing what it was about, but instead had the hotel selected for them as members of a wedding party. Their issue is those people then evaluate and rate the hotel based upon it not being another type of hotel.

It's kind of a fair gripe, isn't it? If your normal business suffers because of a secondary business, you need to reassess costs of the second business. Now threatening a fine is hamfisted and simply stupid, but I understand why they want to do something.

[1] “Be pitiful, for every man is fighting a hard battle.”

[Thriptic]

If the hotel is receiving consistently negative reviews from wedding parties which are unfairly harming their business, then they should stop allowing people to book weddings there. That would seem to be a far more legitimate solution to the problem.

[hawkharris]

Please take a look at my response to danielweber. I'm not advocating that people post fake reviews. I'm saying that we should point out only what we know: some of the other reviews may be disingenuous because of the $500 fine. This is a public policy posted on their website. It's a simple matter of fact, not opinions.

[personZ]

You specifically called for people to post negative reviews. How can someone review something they've never experienced?

Regarding the other reviews being disingenuous or skewed, note that this policy only apparently applies and has ever even been stated for wedding parties. Are wedding parties big users of Yelp? Is it a credible use case for a general hotel?

Imagine that you're a sushi place and everyone loves your fishy goodness. But then you are called to be the primary caterer of a conference center event, leading to dozens of terrible reviews by people who don't like fish. Should their "I don't like fish" reviews be placed side by side with people looking for a sushi place to eat? Is that useful for users of yelp? As a sushi eater, no, that would be terrible noise.

The solution is of course to simply stop serving a niche food at the conference center, just as this hotel should stop doing weddings.

[hawkharris]

How can someone review something they've never experienced?

I'm calling for people to comment on the facts of a public policy posted by the hotel. No more, no less. If you interpreted this as a call to post dishonest or mean comments, you were reading into it the wrong the way.