Where’s the justice?
Port Campbell Hostel manager Tony McAuliffe says when it comes to user reviews, the customer is not always right.
My wife and I manage the Port Campbell Hostel, on Victoria’s Great Ocean Road, which opened as a new-build facility in late 2009. It replaced a series of buildings offering backpacker-style accommodation since around 1983, which had, by all accounts, decayed past their best-before date several years ago.
Before taking on this role 12 months ago, the depth of our experience in this industry was, erm… shallow (very shallow). However, we’ve worked 24/7 soaking up the lessons that have come our way, to become comfortable with what we know, while acknowledging that the gradient of our learning curve has only recently started to flatten.
Like, I presume, most folks involved in this arena, we spend time attending to online reviews relating to our establishment. Sure, we want to put our best foot forward, but we’re adult enough to cop criticism – either about the hostel itself, or how we conduct the business – if it’s justified and constructive.
What we find a little galling is contending with online reviews we know fail to provide a fair and balanced representation on sites that appear:-
(a) to tip the balance of justice very heavily in favour of the reviewer.
(b) unwilling to allow reasonable, responsible moderation (or, in some cases, removal) of comments in instances where they appear to be justified.
One review in particular sticks in my craw. It was posted in May 2009 by a person I’ll call ‘Baseball007’. Baseball appears to be a prolific writer and traveller. She posted her review (one of many about her travels) on a site that Wikipedia tells me is “the world’s largest travel site” (which I’ll shorten to “TWLTS” for brevity’s sake). To put this bluntly, Baseball’s review was not positive, and the title she gave it would leave nobody in any doubt about that.
I have never had a problem with her review, per-se. When she stayed at the hostel it was drawing its final, agonising breath before being demolished to make way for the new facility. So, fair play here: Baseball’s review painted a perfectly valid (albeit, very poor) picture of her experience at that time.
However, on the day the new hostel opened, the content of Baseball’s review became totally irrelevant. After all, what she wrote about was an experience in a building that was literally no longer standing. In fact, the ONLY constant between what she experienced and what then eventuated with the new hostel was the name. EVERYTHING else changed.
So I wrote to TWLTS, seeking removal of the review. And because TWLTS apparently offers “reviews you can trust”, the logic appeared simple: what was the sense in allowing an online review to remain active that talked about a building that no longer existed?
But TWLTS’s computer said ‘No’. I then made personal contact with Baseball007, and explained my point of view. To her credit, she agreed to make contact with TWLTS and ask them to remove her review. Again, computer said ‘No’. So I returned to TWLTS to try to gain some sort of logical work-around, but bumped into that pesky computer again. Indeed, TWLTS informed me they were unable to remove reviews once they had been posted. It appeared my only course of action was to post a response to Baseball’s comments (yep, did that) then wait for, hopefully positive, responses to build up that would – and I’ll paraphrase what TWLTS told me – ‘bury’ Baseball’s review.
My comments here are not against TWLTS or any particular review site that allows people to post their experience into the ether. What this is about is offering businesses that those reviews are based upon the same “privileges” reviewers appear to enjoy, and allowing reviews to be modified when it becomes clear they are no longer valid or patently inconsistent with the truth.
By Martin Lane · April 4th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
-
Follow Us
-
Email Newsletter
-
Blogs
Diary Dates
- No events to show
Comments
5 Apr 11
10:16 am
I feel your pain, Tony. The folks who own the site have little to no understanding of backpacking and what it is all about.
As Google Maps offers the site in question as its preferred rating option (AND the ratings and reviews appear unbidden when you use these maps on your websites: TAKE NOTE…), we did similar to you with the same response.
Luckily, we are now receiving an increase in more moderate reviews but it is still a case of gritting one`s teeth when reading some of the “reviews you can trust” comparing apples with oranges….
The other phenomenons we must learn to accept are that modern travellers that blog the most tend to find it hard to accept that travelling in foreign countries might require fitting-in with local cultural observances and geographical reality. For instance, travelling in tropical areas means loads of large insects and harmless geckos/lizards most likely WILL BE encountered! Also that not every destination boasts shopping malls,nightclubs and multiplex cinemas and that, even if they do, Christmas Day is not the time to expect these to be open…..
Also,certain nationalities believe that 3 out of 5 means ‘above average’. They may have really enjoyed their stay but are not prone to use of emotively evocative words such as “brilliant,amazing,sensational,beautiful’,etc. and their ratings often reflect this. We may well joke about it but it remains a fact.
I encourage all owners/managers of tourism businesses to check their ratings and reviews regularly. They may not be what you want to hear but at least you know where your business is kicking goals, on the most part can respond to outrageous ones and ,potentially, learn where there are some genuine shortcomings that must be addressed.
5 Apr 11
3:36 pm
Boyd, I believe almost every accommodation provider could offer a similar tale.
Like I hope I made clear in the Opinion Piece, I do not have a drama at all in receiving a spray if that’s a fair and warranted response. I mean, if I’m doing something that’s not acceptable, or I’m operating the hostel in a manner that’s way outside what’s considered reasonable, not only am I happy to get slapped around a bit for that (figuratively speaking, of course), I NEED that feedback to allow me to alter my course.
However, I start to get more than a little char-grilled with professional sites that appear willing to let posts remain that either provide a reasonably warped sense of the facts, or patently incorrect information, but then refuse to moderate/alter said review after we go to the trouble of tabling immutable evidence refuting the review’s content.
Case study: I’ve just wrapped up my (unsuccessful) attempts in getting a review recently posted on a popular hostel booking site modified (rest easy, Kristy… it wasn’t yours!). I felt the review’s content did not paint a reasonable picture of fact, as I know them to be. There was nothing sinister or underhand behind my request – I simply wanted to provide a little balance by making sure the facts surrounding the points this particular reviewer offered were laid out, for all to see.
But, I bumped into the “while we value your input, we are unfortunately unable to moderate the customers review… ” sort of response. I pointed out, c/- personal email contact with the site’s representatives, that a reasonable portion of what the reviewer penned was either (simply) wrong or a little loose with the truth, and offered corrections to the reviewers statements by providing them with the (insert drum roll here) facts.
While I gained a small degree of success with that (the site was prepared to admit that some of the reviewers info could have been wrong…) they were still not willing to moderate the r/v.
Okay… so I prepared and sent a “business owner’s response”, anticipating that the site would post that after they’d had the chance to moderate it, in the usual manner. But after waiting, and waiting, and waiting… for my response to appear I learnt that this particular site does not (yet) post owners responses. They claimed they are still waiting to see how many business owners will take up the opportunity to respond to reviews, before starting to post business owners responses! (Erm… let me see if I have that correct. The site in question is willing to permit a review that even they concede may contain some errors remains posted, yet have not configured their site (yet) to allow me to post up a few words to help balance the ledger??? I’m struggling to join the dots).
Finally, this post is NOT against reviewers, nor the chance to post opinions. (After all, that is exactly what I am doing here… “Long live the freedom of speech”). What this is about is ensuring that owners of those businesses that millions of reviewers can opt to post on-line opinions about, are provided with the opportunities that enable them to provide a sensible portion of balance to the picture.
Let us provide a little Yin, to their Yang… nothing more, nothing less.
6 Apr 11
7:34 am
I had a similar experience some 4-years ago with a negative post against a transport company I ran. Despite overwhelmingly positive subsequent responses the headline “Don’t do it” remains front and centre on page-1 of the Google search. The thread ran for 2-years no doubt greatly assisting the rankings of the host site and really damaging us.
Dealing with these advisory and feedback sites is, to me, like dealing with the worst of any of the tabloid newspapers: once the post or headline is up the damage is done. And more often than not damage is irreparable as people very rarely move past the headline to seek some sort of substance or truth. They seek more negativity. Efforts to seek some sort of remediation from the host site are often met with weak and careless responses. They’re only resourced to receive information. They cannot deal with any sort of investigation. The responsibility for countering negative opinion or baseless posts falls into the hands of the business owner. Yep, just one more thing to add to the small business owners already crowded to-do list for the day.
These sites are in the pursuit of headlines as window dressing for richer pickings inside the virtual store. They have to sell something. The headline – if positive – will likely have the reader click on it and maybe buy or at least remember it. The negative headline has the same effect except they’ll look a bit deeper ensuring the business receives a good whipping. Headlines and human behaviour towards bad news ensures this. I’m very far from convinced these sites serve us well.
11 Jul 11
3:42 pm
Well said boys. Don’t get me started on the tripe that has been posted on these sites re my business. For years I have been trying to come up with a workable solution with these booking servers, where negative comments are at least checked out before going live to destroy your business. Guess what, I am still trying. It seems that no matter what, if you take a dollar from someone for any service, the system is designed so that they can slander you all the way to bankruptcy without even a flinch from the company providing the forum. Fair play not on your nelly!! Some well-heeled person (not me) should personally take on one of these authors of venom and make a precedent for others to think before they slander someones livelihood. As for my place it’s never looked better following the cyclones and rebuilding programme, just ready for the freehold sale. Any takers out there?
Have your say