Is the ‘Wisdom of the Crowd’ being destroyed by the anonymous review?
Of all the things that the internet promised, increasing transparency was in many ways the most promising. Fans of ‘social media’ enthuse about how micro-blogging networks (like Twitter, Facebook etc) bring the ‘wisdom of the crowd’ to bear on big corporations and organisations – and force them to listen and change their ways.
The ‘user review’ is now an integral part of most consumer-related websites: from Amazon, to eBay, to TripAdvisor, to Plebble, to Unvarnished, to coworker.com and countless more. And if you read the statistics, it seems that the reviews we find there make a difference to what we choose to do.
The problem is that this dream is already turning sour – and for one reason: the anonymous review.
The backlash is already underway. The reputation of TripAdvisor has been sliding downhill for the last year because it cannot (or will not) take more steps to ensure the identity – and accountability – of its reviewers. The resultant misuse of the review system, as hotels attempt to gain an advantage over their competitors, has degraded trustworthiness of the site. And in the news just yesterday, we heard of the UK history Professor who admitted to faking positive reviews for his own books at Amazon (at the same time as slagging off those of his peers).
Today, I did a quick test of Plebble.com – another of those apparently well-meaning ‘consumer review’ websites. I signed up using an alternative email address and created a fake company called ‘My Imaginary Competitor‘ and then proceeded to review it – see pic above.
Plebble.com’s system picked up that I used some potentially ‘defamatory’ words, but left me to make the choice of whether or not to continue and publish – which of course, I did. But ask yourself: if I was hell-bent on damaging My Imaginary Competitor, would I care, hiding behind a hotmail address from my local Starbucks that my remarks were defamatory?
Now imagine if I’d just gone on and posted that review about YOUR company.
The first you’d know of it would be an invitation from Plebble.com to join their community. And that’s how it works – and how it’s going to be, more and more – as review sites like this use ‘user reviews’ to pull unsuspecting businesses into their worlds.
And if I had posted that review about your business, do you think Plebble.com would respond to your requests for it to be taken down without you having to resort to legal threats? I don’t know but – if TripAdvisor is anything to go by – I doubt it. Their entire business model would collapse if they gave in to pressure to remove bad reviews, it’s as simple as that.
I’ve not singled out Plebble.com for any other reason than their MD followed me on Twitter today and that reminded me they existed. I was curious to see whether or not they had put in place any controls to ensure the veracity of what their reviewers post. They clearly haven’t. In allowing anonymous reviews, they, like most (if not all) the other review sites guarantee their system will be corrupted by reviews designed to damage or gain advantage.
And before the guys at Plebble.com (or TripAdvisor for that matter) get prickly at having criticism levelled at them, they need to remember that by soliciting reviews from a businesses’s customers, they give that business no choice about whether they want to be featured or not.
Here’s the problem: while companies like Plebble put such a lack of accountability at the heart of their business model, it’s hard to imagine how they’ll ever be willing to be accountable for the consequences created by that business model.
I’m a great fan of feedback. It’s where we started out with our business – and where we’re coming back to in the work with online reputation. But feedback doesn’t work when it’s disconnected from the giver and the receiver – and that’s the mistake that the review site people continue to make. Why? Because meaningful accountability would seriously mess up the monetization process and we can’t have that, can we?
The issue of anonymous reviews is discussed in today’s Guardian here.
Sam
The issue of anonymity on the internet is not confined to review sites. Twitter accounts, Facebook profiles, Blogs, blog comments – to name but a few – can all be created anonymously.
The fact is that people are talking about brands all over the web under a ‘cloak of anonymity’. The *good* thing about Plebble is that we give brands tools to monitor what people are saying about them and respond accordingly – including a right to reply. And, we do this for free – our business model actually rests on Plebble being a positive experience for brands willing/wishing to engage with their customers, not by forcing them to pay us money by hitting them with criticism (which, because that side of Plebble is free, they wouldn’t need to do anyway).
We’re also very proud of the fact that, on balance, more people are nice about companies on Plebble than nasty – look our overall average rating at the top of our ‘Analysis’ page – people actually prefer to recommend rather than criticise.
As to the issue of takedowns, have a look at our Dispute Policy (in our Legal section). We have no interest in having inaccurate information on our site. That’s why if a company (or anyone else for that matter) queries a rating, we instantly suspend it and investigate. If it turns out to be a genuine rating, we put it back up. If not, the rating is permanently deleted. That all takes valuable time but it is vital to ensure that:
(a) both the company and the rater feel like they are fairly treated and have a positive experience of using Plebble
(b) our data is as good as it can be.
We also automatically disallow any obvious email obscuring services such as Mailinator and look for strange rating patterns which might
indicate abuse – because yours was a one-off rating of a fake company, it slipped through the net.
This all may not be perfect in terms of ensuring that Plebble is never abused and being able to establish every user’s ‘real world’ identity categorically but we think it’s about the best any site can do (and better than most sites) without cutting across the freedom (and ease) of expression and the right people have to protect their identity while using the internet.
The vast majority of users don’t abuse those rights but there will always be some who do in order to break the law (whether on Plebble or on any site) – as you would have done if you said those things about a genuine competitor and they weren’t true. However, short of each person who uses the internet having some sort of ‘web passport’, it’s difficult to see what sensibly can be done to identify people who take steps to keep their identity secret.
Hi James. Thanks for the comments. I hope you take my feedback in the spirit it is given – i.e. that anonymous reviews where livelihoods are concerned can’t be a successful long term strategy – no matter HOW much you want your site to succeed (and no matter how positive your intention is for what you’re doing – which, incidentally, I don’t doubt).
The point I’m making is this: as you admit, “this all may not be perfect”. It isn’t. Online, people can (do and will continue to) post reviews with the intention of gaining competitive advantage. They also do it with the intention of blowing whistles on bad service; and some do it to take revenge on people they feel have wronged them or simply given them bad service.
To counter the issues I’ve raised with the (entirely unrealistic) spectre of an ‘web passport’ misses the point and skirts the issues. I’m not calling for ‘forced identity’ or a ‘ban on anonymous’ comments. All I’m saying is that anonymous reviewing leads to devalued (and ultimately meaningless) reviews. Your comment ends with the observation ‘it’s difficult to see what sensibly can be done to identify people who take steps to keep their identity secret’. I agree with you totally; the difference is that – knowing that difficulty – you’ve created a site that deals in those (potentially flawed) reviews; I haven’t – for exactly the reason that they’re flawed and unreliable.
When all’s said and done it comes down to this: Plebble.com and all the other businesses I’ve mentioned are built on a foundation of unreliable – and potentially destructive – user reviews. No amount of discussion about online identity can change that fact. All that’s going to happen (I suspect) in a short space of time is that people are going to lose all trust in these reviews and as a result they will cease to be a currency you can trade in.
…and, with respect, I think you’ve missed my (main) point which is that anonymity is a problem for *all* types of user-created information online, not just reviews. The arguments you outline above apply equally to wikipedia entries, tweets, blog-posts and comments. Anyone reading user-created information of any sort online needs to (and I think usually does) appreciate that it may not be traceable back to its originator.
However, this does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that such information online is “flawed and unreliable”. The point that Aleks Krotoski makes in the Guardian article you link to (which I agree with) is that it is probably not appropriate to take offline concepts of identity/personality online in order to ‘verify’ information. It is better to develop systems that work in an online context. I would suggest the following as a minimum:
(1) each piece of information should be verifiable as being from a human, not a bot
(2) it should be possible to see how many people hold this view – is it the consensus or extremist?
(3) all interested parties should have a right to reply
(4) there should be systems in place to deal with anything illegal
People will then be able to make their minds up about an issue within this context. In the case of My Imaginary Competitor, the allegations are extreme and unsubstantiated and are made by 1 person only. The business has responded making it clear that this not the ordinary course and offering to make amends. People will be able to judge the comments in that light.
Your blog post and comment suggest that we are in some way being cavalier about this issue – something which I totally reject. The fact is that, like it or not, social media has already changed the world – in most cases for the better. It is not possible to impose an offline mentality on this ‘new’ (actually at least 5 year-old) online world. Our mission has always been to help businesses deal with this in a positive way so that they can monitor and manage what’s being said, participating where appropriate.
People can game pretty much any system online or offline but that doesn’t mean there is no point in having the system.
James, I’m sorry if it comes across as if I think you’re being cavalier. The opposite is true: I think you care very much about what you’re doing and I admire that passion. However, I also think the ‘online review’ is one of the defining issues of the web right now and I have a view about businesses that trade on that currency.
You yourself say ‘people can game pretty much any system online or offline‘. I agree with that 100% – which is exactly why I think that the ‘online review’ is sliding towards meaninglessness.
You say ‘it is better to develop systems that work in an online context‘. Again, I agree 100%. Do you mean a system that ensures the credibility of reviews? If so, then we seem to agree again.
So did you develop those systems before you launched? No – because it was easy for me to post anything I liked. Your disclaimer reveals that you believe that a disclaimer is the extent of your responsibility for whatever damage ensues.
The fact that anonymity ‘is a problem for *all* types of user-information online‘ doesn’t legitimize your commercial decision to create a user-generated review site that permits anyone to review / malign / defame anyone else – nor (I suspect) will it protect you from potential legal redress in the future.
When all’s said and done, please don’t be pissed off that I tested your system in respect of the thing that matters most about it: whether or not it permits people to irresponsibly damage someone else’s business and livelihood. I make no apologies for that.
Sam, I’m not pissed off. I’m just exercising my right to reply
We not only care about what we do, we’ve given an awful lot of thought to how we can provide information that is as accurate and useful as possible given that it is possible to put false, defamatory or inaccurate information on pretty much any user-created content site – just like it’s possible to defame someone over a telephone line or via post. As above, I think we go a lot further than most sites (whether review sites or otherwise) in the number of security measures we have (some of which I mentioned above), some of which we launched with and some of which we brought in if/when we’ve become aware of a user trying to game the system.
My point about anonymous content being an issue for *all* social media sites is not made to justify our decision to set up Plebble. It is to say that if you take your arguments to their logical conclusion, they suggest that all information on the social web is “flawed and meaningless” because it is possible to create it anonymously. Why not create a Facebook fanpage, blog or Twitter account for My Imaginary Competitor while you’re about it? I’d like to know how long it would take for your competitor to get these taken down after contacting Facebook, Blogger or Twitter.
Where I have some sympathy with your arguments is in the case of TripAdvisor. However, that has nothing to do with reviews as a medium per se. Whenever any platform becomes influential it becomes a target for abuse – remember what happened to search engines pre-Google and in fact look at what’s happening to Google now with the likes of Demand Media: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_demandmedia/all/1.
Where there’s a strong financial incentive for doing so, people will game the system whatever it is – just talk to the FSA about that!
You keep agreeing with me James
‘Where there is a strong financial incentive for doing so, people will game the system whatever it is…’
Yes, they will. I did a pretty simple test with Plebble.com (you’ll agree, right?) and I could have slated any competitor, or puffed myself up for that matter. How ARE you going to stop people doing that? How will you prevent malicious reviewers writing bad things about my business on your site (on behalf of a competitor who stands to gain from my bad reputation)?
I would like to see an online review system that required the contributor to be as responsible for their comments as the business was for the service being reviewed, that’s all.
I much prefer to give feedback face to face – or at least, so you know who I am. Hence this blog, btw. Yes, it makes me uncomfortable to give it (I might upset you) and it makes me uncomfortable to receive it (it might upset me) but the fact that you know who I am and that there is a ‘me’ that my actions reflect on (moderating my behaviour) is really important. It certainly makes me think carefully about what I want to say and why, and I hope adds weight and credibility to my feedback because I’ve taken this much time to give it and stand by it.
Anyway, when all’s said and done, the punter will make up his/her own mind about the value of sites where the veracity of the reviews isn’t assured. I used to use TripAdvisor. I used to think I was quite adept at sniffing through the ‘gamed’ reviews to get a sense of the place. The more I read about people being paid to write reviews and the growing chorus of concerns about TA’s refusal to remove damaging / fake reviews, the less likely I am next time to consult them. Currently there may not be an alternative in the world of online review sites that gives me confidence in the truth of the reviews, but as soon as there is one, I’ll head in that direction.
Anyway, thanks for your comments, much appreciated.
Thanks Sam. It’s been an interesting discussion.
By way of a summary, these are the main things I want to clear up from your original post:
“…do you think Plebble.com would respond to your requests for it to be taken down without you having to resort to legal threats?” – Yes we would (see our Dispute Policy – http://www.plebble.com/dispute-policy.php)
“Their entire business model would collapse if they gave in to pressure to remove bad reviews, it’s as simple as that.” – Not true. Our business model actually depends on us having accurate data and responding efficiently to businesses’ queries
“I was curious to see whether or not they had put in place any controls to ensure the veracity of what their reviewers post. They clearly haven’t.” – Actually we have but you were able to bypass them (although you used your real email address for the rating – but we’ll gloss over that). In a real world example, we would have removed your comments as soon as we were alerted that they were defamatory and taken steps to trace you.
In the end, every system has failure points. The question is how (and how quickly) you deal with them when they arise and what lessons you learn going forward. We are proactive when it comes to the quality of our data and balancing the rights of consumers with those of businesses not to be defamed. We may not, in your view, go far enough but I think that, given the nature, practicalities and inherent desirability of the social web, we go a lot further than many other user-created sites – and are proud of what we do.
Thanks, James, I’ll delve into your dispute policy a bit later. When all’s said and done, if you can do what seems to elude most review sites – to ensure the veracity and fairness of the reviews you host – then you deserve to be successful with it.
I have done some investigation here about Tripadvisor. I have worked with hotels for many years and this is what I can say for sure.
Hotel owners, mostly independent hotels, have lost control of their industry. Third parties have taken over while having little or no investment. These third parties, i.e. Tripadvisor, Hotels.com, Expedia and Hotwire, all of which are owned by Barry Diller have turned the independent owner into a pawn by having the ability to manipulate the reviews in such a way that they can actually redirect customers without them even knowing it.
How so? O.K. Go to Tripadvisor pick a city and see what you find. A list of hotels in a rating system from one to whatever number. If we believe the reviews some might have 15 reviews and are rated # 1, 2 or 3 (often these hotels have only recently signed up with these third parties). Then one will have 100 reviews and be rated somewhere in the so so area. Yet the 100 reviews have 75 very good ratings. The highest rated one could very well be an old hotel under new management and it might have been a dump in its previous listing life. The new hotel owner swiftly loads his fake reviews by having his family and associates post fake 5 star reviews. Tripadvisor can not stop these fakes if they are loaded in by different computers with different IP addresses. Think Kinko’s, UPS stores, etc. or even office depot while appearing to be looking to purchasing a new laptop.
This also applies to the other side of the picture. Someone loads bad reviews of their competitor. Or a crazy customer that did not get a discount and just creates new email accounts and looks like 30 different people. This all happens on tripadvisor every day. Because they do not require proof of you even having stayed at the hotel.
Now lets look at how Tripadvisor makes money. They make a % of every unit booked on Hotels.com, Expedia, Hotwire or an affiliate. No you say tripadvisor does not get a commission. Well kind of? They get a pay per click fee from most of their links. So the more they keep you going in circles the better. More clicks.
However Expedia, Hotwire and Hotels.com are owned by the same person that owns Tripadvisor. 25-35% of the hotel rate is what they get. Some hotels have contracts that are better for Expedia, etc. so you are now very cleverly directed to these hotels. How? By manipulating the reviews that is how. They remove negative reviews or hold back positive ones. Do they write them? No they just maneuver them. Which is the same thing in my book.
Also most of the time there is no discount at all. You just think you got one. Just check the room rate or call the hotel before booking and you will see that.
Now in the beginning these third parties were great for independent hotels because it got them in with the big boys on the web. Where can a small independent advertize. They could not take ads in every city in the world. So that was good in the start. However when Barry Diller saw the manipulation that was possible he began to purchase these companies and here we sit today all arguing with one another while he rakes in the cash.
The last thing that no one gets is this. Third parties have raised the price of rooms over the years. Hoteliers have adjusted prices to include their third parties commissions. Just a fact of doing business. As usual the angels become the devil and that what third party bookers have become.
Always call the hotel before booking. Because third party bookings get the worst rooms in a hotel because your booking is classified as a bargain hunter. If you book direct you get treated better and you have a direct relationship with the hotel not some third party that holds the hotel, less commission, funds for up to 30 days or more. Many times if there is a problem the hotel will tell Expedia to refund a guest payment. In that event what sometimes happens is the guest is told that the hotel would not refund the money. Then the hotel does not get the funds and Expedia keeps it all. No you say! They would not do that! Well let me show you how far they will go. Lets say you book a $100.00 + tax and the Hotel is paid $70.00 + tax. Where do you think the tax on $30.00 goes. Nowhere Expedia keeps it. Now if a company will cheat every city in the world out of sales taxes what do you think they will do to you. “BARRY DILLER” you are a piece of work!
What these reviews do is make guy like this BILLIONS. SUE baby Sue.Till it hurts. Class Action anyone?
One thing more. If you print something with no like back to the person that wrote it and I don’t mean a fake email account. Then it is yours and you can be sued. Worse still you can’t even defend it because you never were there in the first place Mr. Diller. You printed it you own it! Were are all the ambulance chasers? This is your gretest case yet.
Marty, you’re right – that IS how it works. Make no mistake, the whole ‘review’ game is crooked; every where I look it stinks. Why? Because it’s a milking machine from start to finish – just like Google and search. Thanks for the comment. Barry Diller. Another one of those scary men who rule the world.