TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Yelp's Legal Troubles Mount

13 点作者 newsit大约 15 年前

6 条评论

mdasen大约 15 年前
It's just a murky place. To be honest, I think I believe Yelp. SPAM is hard to figure out - especially when it's shill reviews - and it's easy to imagine an outsourced sales staff (working on commission) making all sorts of demands/promises to boost their next paycheck.<p>The issue is that Yelp has the incentive to be evil here. That doesn't mean they are being evil, but incentive + coincidence == evidence? It does to many people.<p>From what we've seen: Yelp is important to business since it's a site that creates a reputation for you. Good reviews help you, bad ones hurt. Yelp does some sort of SPAM protection to remove vindictive/shill reviews. Yelp has the ability to manipulate all their data. Yelp has the ability to ruin your reputation or create a good reputation for you through that manipulation. Some businesses are complaining that Yelp <i>is</i> using that power and asking for money to keep a good reputation.<p>But there's hardly evidence. There are no emails being posted showing someone asking for money and no recorded phone calls. Reviews are disappearing and appearing, but we always change around data and sometimes algorithms are complex enough that you can immediately see why when you don't know the intent. I mean, a week or so ago I saw an article posted 4 hours ago with 30 votes showing up lower than an article posted 6 hours ago with 24 votes. OMG! PG is manipulating HN for articles he likes!<p>Maybe. But maybe it's more complicated than votes and time. Maybe the age of each vote is used rather than the age of the article. Maybe some of the votes were from SPAM accounts. Maybe it uses karma to determine vote weight. I could look up most of that in the source (SPAM stuff being absent there), but I just wanted to bring a relatable scenario into the mix.<p>If Yelp is manipulating reputation for profit, it borders on blackmail and they should be sued out of existence. But I have yet to see anything conclusive that would indicate that. To me, it looks like blundering mistakes - hiring a bad sales staff that lies; not making SPAM prevention and algorithmic changes transparent and understandable; etc. Those are problems. Being blundering and causing problems is something that one needs to address and it might be that Yelp is derelict in their duty (morally, legally, otherwise - I'll leave those bikeshed arguments for others). And maybe part of it is hiring humans to read reviews and make determinations about shill level - we can all imagine sending out an email blast to 100 people asking them to rate us as 5-star on Yelp and then a deluge of reviews that were very short over a small period of time all being 5-star (and how that would look suspicious).<p>I think transparency is the key here. Yelp needs to open the conversation up a bit and explain a bit better than "algorithms do it". I know, once you tell people how SPAM prevention works, it ceases to be prevention. Still, it's the reputation of businesses.<p>As for now, I'm willing to give Yelp the benefit of the doubt, but I hope the whole truth will come out in the future.
ghshephard大约 15 年前
I'll pay attention to this story when someone provides either:<p><pre><code> A) An email B) A recorded phone call </code></pre> that suggests there is inappropriate behavior taking place on behalf of Yelp. Ever since that East Oakland story, where they became not only high profile, but transitioned into being a hundred million dollar plus company that has a chance to _own their market_, I have a very hard time believing they would screw it up by making these types of mistakes.<p>This isn't a case of classmates.com which demonstrated almost complete incompetence, and never left the bottom-feeding stage. Yelp really gets it, and their "Elite" reviewers make the site a phenomenal resource when trying to get a sense of how good something like a restaurant is.
hkuo大约 15 年前
So does this make it 3 companies so far filing suit? If I do the math (well, do I really need to?), if this were a regular business practice Yelp was involved in, wouldn't you think that there would be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more businesses chiming in? I actually can't fathom the number of businesses there are in their database. Couldn't even venture a guess.<p>Even if what these businesses are saying is true, I would regard them as extremely isolated incidents that could have been done by individuals within the company with a vendetta. But again, I would more likely consider the chain of events coincedences.<p>I'll need to see way more companies accusing Yelp of this before I would even consider Yelp at any fault.
roboneal大约 15 年前
261 Yelp page views to 158...<p>The article infers these are monthly page views (July to August)?<p>The furniture store claims a drop of 25% of revenue - that's a lot of revenue for 103 pageviews. He must "convert" very well.
评论 #1202285 未加载
评论 #1202164 未加载
nycticorax大约 15 年前
After reading this article, and the Yelp blog posts about the issue, it sounds to me like Yelp is doing exactly what they claim to be doing, and what they should be doing. Yelp says that there's a "Chinese wall" between the people selling ads on Yelp and the people managing reviews. Former Yelp employees seem to vouch for this. The people suing them don't seem to have any evidence that the ad-sellers are manipulating the reviews. Furthermore, some of the people suing Yelp admit that they solicited reviews from happy customers, which Yelp considers a no-no (and they've made this clear in public).<p>The only thing the people suing Yelp seem to have going for them is that some of the positive reviews for their businesses (some of which were admittedly solicited) got removed not long after they declined to buy advertising on Yelp. Yelp essentially says that this was a coincidence: Their automatic filters try to eliminate solicited (and vindictive) reviews, and the filters happened to do their thing shortly after these businesses were approached by Yelp's ad-sellers. But there's really no solid evidence of causality. Given the number of businesses covered by Yelp, you'd expect this sort of thing to happen occasionally. Furthermore, there are a lot of businesses that _do_ buy ads that still have negative reviews on Yelp. So.<p>Also, did anyone else think of PG's essay "The Submarine" when reading that Inc. article? To me, it really seemed like the article was biased against Yelp, to the extent that I wondered whether some of the lawyers suing Yelp have hired a PR firm...
jrockway大约 15 年前
The problem is that the businesses are trying to hold Yelp responsible for its user's behaviors. The fact that nobody clicks through when the business has a 3-star rating is not Yelp's fault, it's the collective-userbase's fault.<p>Yelp is being sued because it's an easy target for angry business owners, not because they did anything wrong. (If they didn't exist, they wouldn't push <i>any</i> traffic to the restaurant. The problem is that they do exist and that users trust them.)
评论 #1202003 未加载
评论 #1202006 未加载
评论 #1202014 未加载