Goes to show, among other things, that it's best to trust personal recommendations by people one knows, even if it's only on a forum such as this.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have to remember that the vast majority of travel journalists - including Frommer - get paid to visit hotels and restaurants. I don't mean paid as in a salary but all-expenses paid by the hotel/restaurant/local tourist board. I also remember seeing a segment on TV about it - quite literally a meat market where hoteliers/restaurateurs etc entice travel writers with promises of five star deluxe trips fully comped. So of course those places will get a positive mention in the latest guidebook, or newspaper travel column, or online blog. Sales of guidebooks have plummeted over the last few years so it's understandable they would get angry with the competition.
I don't deny that some Tripadvisor reviews are fake, no doubt many are. Which is why reviews numbering in the hundreds for a particular venue are important as it takes a lot of reviews to change the star rating of somewhere.
So would you trust a single review in a guidebook, written by somebody that was probably comped by the venue - or reviews by the masses?
I agree with your final sentence though!
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a surprise at all. It doesn't take a lot of work to read through the reviews and realize that a significant percentage of the writers are shills or people with an agenda. I tend to ignore the one-star and five-star reviews; it's the three and four star reviews that provide the most helpful information. I was recently contacted by Google about testing a new app for their business reviews. Google told me that they have filters to identify dubious reviews and they were looking to beta test their new product with businesses that had strong, positive and genuine reviews.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deliriously glowing reviews -- either online or in print -- are always suspect.
Even good hotels or restaurants will have at least one noteworthy drawback -- be it price, location, size of the rooms, street noise, smallness of the portions, snootiness of the staff, or whatever.
So while I do pay attention to reviews that tell me what's great about a place, I ignore those 100% positive reviews that say absolutely nothing about what's less-than-great about it.
For me, a balanced review is the only believable review. And even then, the reviewer's taste, budget, past experiences, and expectations may be far different from mine. So I take every review with a grain of salt.
For me, a balanced review is the only believable review. And even then, the reviewer's taste, budget, past experiences, and expectations may be far different from mine. So I take every review with a grain of salt.
And for that matter, a hotel is likely to get a better view from someone who had a smooth trip in as opposed to someone who may have spent 4 hours on the tarmac on a plane that wasn't moving or 6 hours on a train moving at 15mph due to signal problems......
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it's themes you want to look for. If multiple people say that the bedrooms are threadbare and old then it's quite likely that it's true. But if one person recounts a story about a surly front desk experience but nobody else does then it's probably a one-off and may well have been caused by the author.
I was contacted by the manager of one hotel that was more like Fawlty Towers than a decent hotel, after I reviewed it on TripAdvisor. However, I was fully expecting it as the reviews already published indicated there was a problem with the manager. Sure enough he tried to deny everything I said. Fortunately I was able to post pictures as evidence, thus making himself look foolish. Most of the reviews were believable; the ones that weren't were glowing.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rely on TripAdvisor for the photos that are posted of the property. For me, "a picture is worth a thousand words". Any review site that is open to anybody is going to have phony reviews (such as Yelp), but I think it's pretty easy to figure out which ones are fake and which ones are real. But as I said, for me, it's the photos that I find priceless---that shows me exactly what to expect in a property.
Posts: 2355 | From: Pleasanton, CA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
If you care to read my favorable review, you will have to "dig deep"; i.e. into their "filtered" reviews.
But all told, I'm just as glad I had left practice before these review sites became commonplace. It would be mighty difficult for a "microbusiness", such as was my practice, to recover from an adverse review - with or without foundation notwithstanding.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some aspects of TripAdvisor that I like very much. The reviews can be arranged by date posted, so a reader can tell how the hotel has been operating lately. I don't really care about how a broken elevator in 2008 spoiled someone's vacation, but if 3 of the last 4 reviews mention how the noise from a construction project across the street is a nuisance, I will be forewarned. Sites like Yelp don't post their reviews chronologically, so you might be reading a review from 2007 followed by one from 2013 and, of course, businesses can pay Yelp to bury negative reviews and highlight positive reviews, which does little to establish Yelp as a transparent and unbiased voice.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Good grief; I've been going to this coffee house, complete with its "tables with a view", ever since it opened 27 years ago. I've never gotten sick off anything served there.
Despite this "Yelper' and a Starbucks (no "tables..." there), they remain in business even if it appears the clientele every year is a year older than last. I certainly know that for my surgery last February and when my wonderful friend from Indianapolis, who is a Starbucks addict, came up here to support me (Social Worker; she knows her way around hospitals), she went to Quinn's at my suggestion. She was overwhelmed with their genuine (as distinct from some "script" a Starbucks counter person - what do they call 'em - barristers? - is trained to recite) courtesy and caring for me. They "comped" her and even followed with "bring this back to Gil if he is able to have it".
If I could figure out how to unsubscribe from Yelp, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Disclaimer: author has not reviewed this establishment account "too close with the owners".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't help but notice that the dude that wrote the 1-star review for Quinn's is from Seattle (via Phoenix and Boston). I wonder what he was doing in Clarendon Hills last summer. If Quinn's owner wants to pay Yelp $500/month that review will get buried and the best reviews will show up first. But a cheaper solution would be to buy an ice scoop.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, what happened next was the MOST UNACCEPTABLE THING I HAVE EVER SEEN and this is coming from a 14-year veteran of the restaurant industry. He used his hand to scoop the ice for the iced chai tea. No, he did not scoop the cup into the ice, he grabbed hand fulls of ice without a glove, and filled the cup. If a health inspector had been in any of my restaurants and witnessed this, he would have shut us down in a heart-beat. I can forgive sub-par coffee, but it is hard to turn a blind eye to unhealthy and dangerous practices. It is simply inexcusable.
As edited by GBN
quote:I should note that while visiting Quinn's I did observe an unsafe food service practice and that was the handling of ice by server with bare hands. In many jurisdictions, such as where I reside, handling ice into a customer's beverage in such a manner could result in Health Department citations. I would hope their management will address this issue in the near future.
A bit more professional, if I may say so.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going off track a little but I was watching a well-known restaurant "reality" show last night where bare hands were used to handle food, even post-cooking - and apparently that is perfectly legal in most places. So does that extend to ice? I'd rather it didn't.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many, many years ago I would accompany my high school buddy to the restaurant (really a diner) his father owned on Woodhaven Blvd. in Queens, NY. We used to hang out in the kitchen quite a bit, and I recall watching the staff make the day's ration of cole slaw from scratch. Let me just say that there was a great deal of "manual" labor involved mixing the dressing in with the cabbage! To this day, I usually pass on cole slaw.
-------------------- Ocala Mike Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The FDA publishes a Food Code that is intended to provide guidelines for local food enforcement agencies.
Excerpt from the national code: (K) Except when APPROVAL is obtained from the REGULATORY AUTHORITY as specified in ¶ 3-01.11(D), EMPLOYEES are preventing cross-contamination of READY-TO-EAT FOOD with bare hands by properly using suitable UTENSILS such as deli tissue, spatulas, tongs, single-use gloves, or dispensing EQUIPMENT
I'd be very surprised if Amtrak hasn't adopted the FDA code as its standard. Most television food shows would be closed instantly by any restaurant food inspector.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: The FDA publishes a Food Code that is intended to provide guidelines for local food enforcement agencies.
Excerpt from the national code: (K) Except when APPROVAL is obtained from the REGULATORY AUTHORITY as specified in ¶ 3-01.11(D), EMPLOYEES are preventing cross-contamination of READY-TO-EAT FOOD with bare hands by properly using suitable UTENSILS such as deli tissue, spatulas, tongs, single-use gloves, or dispensing EQUIPMENT
Hmm, but if you're a "finisher", as in all you do is put together the food parts supplied by others, there is no cross contamination so this wouldn't seem to apply. Or, if it does apply, is not resolved by using gloves unless you throw them away between each plate which is rather unlikely. It sounds like that's more referring to handling raw chicken and then slicing a bagel for a customer.
quote:Originally posted by Vincent206: Most television food shows would be closed instantly by any restaurant food inspector.
I have often wondered if the authorities mark the place up for an inspection after seeing such a show. But I suspect that they've got such a workload anyway that they haven't the time - and such shows tend to clean up the place anyway, both in terms of dirt and in terms of staff handling.
Thanks for the link.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:New York regulators will announce on Monday the most comprehensive crackdown to date on deceptive reviews on the Internet. Agreements have been reached with 19 companies to cease their misleading practices and pay a total of $350,000 in penalties.
I wonder where the line between free speech and fraud will be drawn in these internet review cases.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's rather frustrating when you put the effort in to do an honest review, only to have the whole reviewing system thrown into doubt by a few bad apples. Sadly the crackdown only appears to affect the companies that are paid to produce reviews; not the individuals who choose to negatively review out of hate/rivalry, or positively due to family links. I'm not sure how that can be curbed though.
Angie's List is another place where companies can buy themselves good reviews. "No company pays to be on Angie's List" - "on it", that may be true, but if you don't pay then expect your company to be pushed to the bottom of the pile.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it really true that companies do pay to be on Angie's List? I rather doubt it. If Angie advertises that companies don't pay, and they do, then she would be wide open to federal charges of consumer fraud.
I'm not a member, though. In my northern Chicago suburb there is a large informal network of consumers who know each other and who are frank about their experiences with vendors of goods and services. In general I have had good results with it, although once or twice a highly recommended aervice person wasn't so hot.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
