Online Reviews Under Review in Wake of Yelp Allegations

On the Chicago Tribune's front page yesterday, right below the story on the health care vote was a story about how Yelp, the highly popular online review site, is facing multiple class-action lawsuits "alleging that Yelp representatives offered to remove or modify placement of negative reviews in exchange for advertising dollars."

The same story, or more precisely two different versions of it--here and here--was also the top headline on the Tribune's website on much of Friday. (Beyond the notably different slants, it's strange that the two stories by the same authors would differ on Yelp's traffic stats.) Pretty prominent coverage--especially next to that of the biggest piece of legislation in years--for news about a website that exists to post customers' reviews of restaurants and other business establishments.

But social media is big news these days, and as the Tribune articles relate, Yelp gets approximately 30 million visitors per month to read and add to its database of an estimated 10 million user reviews. So the lawsuits' allegations that reviews are--individually or as a composite overview--slanted for mercenary reasons is worthy of note. And the stories state that the lawsuits come "a year after dozens of businesses voiced similar allegations in articles published in several newspapers, including the Tribune."

As a Yelp reader for the last few years, and active reviewer since the start of 2010, the allegations are troubling, nebulous and somewhat predictable all at the same time.

I feel empathy for any restaurant owner, especially in tough economic times, who not only has to learn to navigate the new world of virtual word of mouth presented by sites like Yelp, but may face unscrupulous business practices. In the Tribune articles and on its own site, Yelp tries to explain that it actively attempts to ensure reviews--both glowing and negative--are legitimate, so as to avoid numerous raves emanating from the restaurant's staff or jeers from the joint next door. This is an imperfect practice, so honest reviews on both ends might be wrongfully purged, or phony ones occasionally published.

If the lawsuits allegations are proven true, that Yelp has manipulated reviews--or simply offered to--for financial reasons, clearly this is a gross offense to the plaintiff restaurants, their competition, anyone who depends on Yelp for dining decision guidance and even those of us who like to share our honest opinions on the site.

But while the lawsuits are likely months from settlement and whatever consequences yet to be seen, all this lends itself to my words of advice on online 'consumer' reviews: Learn from them, let them provide you with insight and guidance, even heed their suggestions, but always take them with a grain of salt and never consider them gospel.

Now, I'm guessing this isn't really telling you anything you didn't already know. Which is why the Yelp allegations feel a bit nebulous, at least as they pertain to personal practices, and even somewhat predictable.

While we all value the advice of others to help us make decisions that bring enjoyment and avoid the wasting of time and money, the truth is, we don't all see and experience things--even the same things--in the same way.

Consider for a second the divergence of even the most professional of reviewers. In Friday's Chicago Sun-Times, legendary movie critic Roger Ebert gave 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid' 3-1/2 stars (out of 4). His Tribune counterpart, Michael Phillips, gave it 1-1/2 stars. Chances are, you can see it with your best friend and greatly disagree on its artistic merits. So the extent to which we rely on professional reviewers--and now on Yelp, Amazon, TripAdvisor and myriad other Internet outlets--perfect strangers, is somewhat laughable to begin with.

Long ago it was intimated to me that as devious minds are usually years ahead of the pure, the planting of positive Amazon reviews or the manipulation of Google search results, has long been par for the course. And the story of Sun-Times rock critic Jim DeRogatis having been fired from a job at Rolling Stone for writing a negative review of a Hootie & the Blowfish album that publisher Jann Wenner objected to, echoes my awareness that true objectivity is often at odds with the media's business interests. 

Even if you look at my reviews on Yelp, which I'd fully testily are my own personal honest opinions, you'll see the unavoidable imperfections of online reviews. Of the 17 restaurants I've reviewed so far in 2010, I've given 5 Stars to nine and 4 Stars to eight. This would imply that you would like all 17 restaurants I've eaten at, and unless your expectations of a "good meal" are vastly different than mine, unless you happen to get a terrible waiter, unless your food is undercooked, etc., etc., I fully believe you should like all 17 I've recommended.

But the flaw, understandable but perhaps unfair at the same time, is that I don't like to give negative reviews. Perhaps to movies, albums and professional theatrical performances, but not typically to restaurants. I generally have too much regard for people just trying to make a living--owners, chefs, cooks, wait staff, hosts, etc.--that I don't feel it is my place to publicly dissuade anybody from patronizing a place. Especially, as per the last sentence of the paragraph above, a bad experience might just be a one-visit fluke.

So while I won't inflate the reviews of restaurants I didn't much care for, I just won't review them on Yelp. Sure, I'm likely to personally avoid them and not suggest them to friends & family, but I won't go public with my disdain, unless there was something egregiously and directly offensive. The problem is, not everyone on Yelp feels the same way. And perhaps they're the right ones; give an honest opinion--including when scathing--of everything. Thus, their negative reviews of restaurants I enjoy will offset my positive ones, but not vice-versa.

Anyway, long story nearly wrapped up, it's an imperfect, imprecise world, and online reviews are no exception. I have long loved reading what others think of music, movies and books I'm considering buying on Amazon, and value many of opinions people share on Yelp and the like. And as someone who is now posting reviews on Yelp, my personal blog and IMDB, I hope my recommendations are of some value to those reading them. But, even if the insinuations posed in the Yelp lawsuits are proven false--and let's not forget that the Tribune, which owns and is actively trying to boost similar use of Metromix, may not have been completely "pure" in its high-profile coverage of Yelp's legal and credibility issues--I will continue to be wary, for the acuity and purity of online reviews should never be overrated.