Mostly, I assume that every review on Yelp is written by an entitled d-bag and thus worthless anyway. "Minus one star because my waitress was unattractive. Minus another star because she didn't magically know I needed a low-salt meal. Minus a third star because I felt bloated afterward from the sodium."

@BytheSea: Thanks, that's even more proof that there was no civil rights violation. That's the claim I was objecting to.

probably shouldn't go to yelp then if you want knowledgeable opinions. have you even read the "real" reviews? people are born to lie and complain

Right, but lets keep it to first hand testimony about the events in the reviews.

@gStein_wondering if this will work: That's a good point.

@bobcatred: "I'd much rather see two reviews from the people who actually were arrested than 300 from people who are mouthing off about a situation they weren't involved in. "

Well when you get arrested for something that's not even illegal we will be sure to not "mouth off" for you and don't get a lawyer either because he was not involved your situation.

[www.eastbayexpress.com]

[www.dailycal.org]

[chicagoist.com]

That's the same reason I read Netflix reviews from Netflix users and I wouldn't want just anyone on the net writing them. I don't want to know how the newest Disney movie was in a theaterful of screaming kids, or how the biggest hyped thriller didn't live up to its marketing 10 years ago. I want to know how good the movie was on its own, in your living room, in this DVD edition.

So,I'm saying, review sites should be specific and policed.

Yelp is a scam. It allows anonymous false reviews but very little opportunity for a business to respond unless it "happens" to be an advertiser. I know a local restaurant that got a 1-star review for its "Peking Duck" but has never had Peking Duck on its menu. When it contacted Yelp, it was basically told to go away. And then the next day a Yelp sales rep called implying that if it advertised, it would have more control over reviews. I have a new strategy - unless there is documented rat feces or cockroaches - I seek out restaurants with bad reviews for service. 90% of the time the restaurant is awesome.

If Yelp is a site for reviews of restaurants or businesses, then only those that have actually used the business should be posting.

I found it highly objectionable that the manager of a restaurant would go to such extreme's to force a customer to pay a tip for services they didn't consider rendered but, that was their solution. I trust that if he/she runs the business so poorly that it won't last long anyway, with or without all the drive by second hand reviews on Yelp.

@bryanpass: Yelp was correct to remove the non-customers but since they allow businesses to pay them for favorable treatment, I would never use the site.

I already said that the manager made a customer service blunder, and possibly a false report if they called the cops after OK'ing the transaction - but it's not a "civil rights violation."

I think it's reasonable - the point of reviews is to get the reaction of normal customers, not people reacting to news articles or to an honest price mistake.

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter:

Ya think?

Oh, your are right. Yelp does the same thing as the BBB.

BBB contacted me, if I "donated" money to their cause they would make my problems disappear.

Fark you.

BTW, I have one BBB comment.....customer complained our poor customer service becaus the business closed promptly as advertised and our employees would not allow the customer to enter and shop after business hours.

I guess I should have donated the $500 to the BBB and my problem would never have been posted.

reminds me of the LA restaurant that got "yelp bombed" when an employee/owner contributed a few hundred dollars to the Yes on 8 (anti gay marriage) campaign last year.

non-customers shouldn't review...but my threshold is small. if you walk into a store and it smells funny and has rude employees and you walk out, i count that as "contact" and a yelp review is allowable. reviewing based on politics/outside incident shouldn't be allowed.

I do not think you would get very far with that in court.

"Gratuity," is, by definition, not required. If it's required, it's a fee.

And, as others have noted, the restaurant failed in several other regards. Assume for the sake of argument they have the right to call the cops.
A) They shouldn't if they want anyone to ever patronize them again.
B) They indicated to the patrons that everything was OK (implying they were waiving the gratuity) and then had them arrested anyway.

@Megalomania: What false advertising? I think you're grasping at straws there. The menu isn't "advertising," you're already in the restaurant. And every indication is that the fee is displayed right on the menu.

They have a fee for groups over six - I don't see the justification for saying the fee is optional. If they want to charge for water, or refills, or a bottle opening charge, or tables over six, they can.

Yelp has zero credibility in my book.

@bryanpass: Comments of people who were protesting the way that the "no tip arrest" situation played out were essentially spamming Yelp, I agree with you that Yelp was correct in removing the posts of people who had not actually done business with the establishment.

BTW, here is a terrific and *award-winning* article about Yelp by the East Bay Express in Berkeley.

I have a love-hate relationship with Yelp, and I have no idea if removing these reviews is a good thing or not.

[www.eastbayexpress.com]

A small restaurant in a small neighborhood would never be this officious because they'd get a terrible reputation for being inflexible and uncaring.

Large restaurants get away with this officiousness because everyone is anonymous - well, no more. They can no longer use the laws to screw people with impunity. So, it really doesn't matter what we think. The fact of the matter is that people are going to rise up and react to these bastards.

One problem with this site is that it doesn't channel consumer anger. It fuels it, but it doesn't do anything with it, and often discourages action in ways that would shame corporations for acting selfishly.

Comments that are not reviews but are merely REACTIONS to second or third-hand reports of an isolated incident, are NOT valid.
They're merely someone's reaction to SOMEONE ELSE'S review.

Courts don't allow testimony from people whose only knowledge of the crime consists of a news report.

You can't just turn on Oprah hear her talk about some tragic murder, then based solely on THAT experience (Oprah's flapping maw) expect to be able to testify in court as to the ACTUAL events as if you have FIRST HAND knowledge.

When I visit a review site like Yelp, I expect to get KNOWLEDGEABLE opinions of the RESTAURANT.
Not regurgitated thread-consensuses/internet mob-rabble about a single event.

I've also seen negative reviews just deleted outright with no explanation (probably due to business owner complaint).

I don't trust yelp ratings at all.

Lesson to businesses everywhere: don't make The Interwebs mad!

But yeah, I'd rather Yelp was kept fairly clean of random non-customer posts...I think. hmmm... Would be nice to know of this kind of thing though, on second thought.

But it must be kept in mind that we only know that the establishment in question screwed over that ONE group. We only know of that ONE isolated incident.

Yes, people should know about it when a business pulls shenanigans. Especially overboard legal shenanigans *cough*riaa*cough*
And this is EXACTLY the purpose of consumerist.

But 300+ negative reviews of a restaurant based on third-hand(at best) knowledge of a single unfortunate event is HIGHLY inappropriate and skews reviews made by people who have actually eaten there.
Not only inappropriate, I'd go so far as to say it's counter-productive to what you should be doing (helping the consumer) because as I said, it's skewing the review data which any other consumer may want to see.

So while when it comes to responding to the isolated incident, anyone is free to contact the restaurant and voice to management that they would not stand for it if put in the same position they put those kids. And comments about the incident are appropriate in threads ABOUT THE INCIDENT.

But when it comes to REVIEWS of the restaurant, on Yelp (or any other review site) that ONE incident should be reflected with ONE (albeit VERY NEGATIVE) review by THE person who experienced it first-hand.

One report was that the the manager said "We're cool!" but then called the cops afterward - that sounds like filing a false police report or somesuch, but still not a civil right violation.

That said, perhaps an option is to segregate their reviews, separating votes by first-hand reviewers from third parties. This means each business would have 2 ratings instead of one, but it would be more accurate.

Word of mouth is a powerful thing. They can remove all of the negative comments from their site that they want, but they can't remove opinions from sites like The Consumerist. All they're doing is making themselves look even more petty and childish.

We just have to get those kids who were unfairly arrested to post THEIR real reviews.

It's a site with user-driven content, and as-such, is as good as what users post.

There are some flaws, as there are with any site, but a discriminating reader should be able to discern legit reviews from shills AND slams by people who have no firsthand experience.

Not a taco joint; a longstanding Mexican restaurant with a large gay clientele. It wasn't actually the restaurant that donated money, it was someone who worked there who happened to be the niece of the owner. It sparked quite a debate whether to boycott the place because of one employee's beliefs.

I definitely think non-customers should be able to give reviews. If a business is screwing over people, other should know about it. Think about when turbotax came out with a new version but didn't tell anyone or put on the box that you can only do 1 tax return and would have to pay for each additional return. That's sneaky and they got KILLED on amazon for it. They eventually changed it because of the negative feedback and reviews. If i didn't see those reviews, my mom would have purchased that program and would have been very very very upset. She got TaxAct instead.

of course these reviews shouldn't be things like 'I hear they make a horrible meatloaf', it should be concrete facts. them calling the police because someone didn't leave a tip for bad service is a fact. while it doesn't say anything about the food, it does let me know whether i want to spend my money at a place that is so petty.

@h0mi: Good, business that participate in such things deserve to be exposed to the public.

Also, Yelp is removing the overwhelmingly (and non-customer) negative reviews. They're leaving the 5-star ones that are just as fake, though. Looking through, you see people from California and Florida who are cutting against the shitstorm with comments like:

"the food and service here rocks! well worth the 18% gratuity added tip. only d-bags try to weasel out of tipping."

Sarcastic or not, they're just as fake Yelp mods!

It doesn't really change the extent to which Yelp can be trusted or not, nor does Yelp deleting comments.

I guess the solution would be to take your tip to the manager. "I am leaving a 5% tip. 3% is for the cook, 1% is for the bartender (since I don't drink and see it as a waste of money), 1% is for the busboy, 0% is for the server, that did a horrendous job."

Those articles about Yelp offering better ratings for money have never been substantiated. I think all of that was a misunderstanding on behalf of upset restaurateurs.

The fact that the restaurant will call the cops on displeased diners is relevant to my choice of restaurants. The bar is within their rights, but they made the wrong choice. The manager should have kissed the patron's asses, not called the cops.

Very hard to enforce, i know.

Aside from that, yes, yelp should. Their rules state it must be a first hand experience.

Actual topic aside, I do hope this establishment closes due to this incident. It would be a good reminder to all customer service-based employees (wait staff, managers, owners) that when you create a poor customer experience, the word spreads. Best practice: treat your customer fairly. It's cheaper in the long run.

The accused can post a one star review about how the service was abysmal, and they were arrested for not paying a tip that was greater than the amount listed on the menu. It'll probably get voted to the top.

But I don't need 250 people who read an article to come in and say "this place should go to hell".

Anything else is just raises the noise floor.

Regardless, the whole Yelp review situation is out of hand in any event, and cannot be trusted.

"Now that average is back up to two stars..." Back UP to two stars? Damn. This place be awful. Now I know why they instituted mandatory tipping there!

I wonder how the Pub is doing these days after all the publicity.