var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
SlappyWhite
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

I think the main purpose of the comments on Yelp are to show the owners that even if they had a choice, they now would never go to Lehigh Pub, just because of the little stunt they pulled with the tip.

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

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SlappyWhite: Considering it's prolly one of three places to get a beer after 9 pm on a Wednesday in Bethlehem, PA...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bobcatred
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SlappyWhite: Be that as it may, Yelp is supposed to be a review site, which implies that you have some personal experience with the product or service you are reviewing. This tendency to flood review sites with opinions on things you've never used and places you've never been to is what makes review sites so unreliable to begin with. 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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hi
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
qwickone
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hi: Well now you're just being silly. No one is saying mouthing off is bad or unnecessary, it just doesn't belong on Yelp. That's not the purpose of that particular website. This site, however, is the perfect venue for that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Loias calls you out if you can't RTFA
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"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!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Loias: Most bars outside the cities in PA are utterly revolting. Liquor licenses are v expensive so in the small towns, there's usually 3 bars and nowhere else to get alcohol after the liquor stores close at 5 pm. So the bars really don't make any effort to look or smell pleasant.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Freeloader
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BytheSea: Lehigh Pub has... probably 10 other bars within walking distance? They're all of the same caliber.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jdmba
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, non-customers should not be able to comment, but neither should the owners in disguise. Also, if I recall correctly, there were articles about Yelp offering better ratings (or only positive ratings) to businesses who paid them money.

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

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: only customers should be able to rate, but non-customers should still be able to comment. think about a small local eatery that may have received poor marks on their health inspection - should i have to go eat there to post a comment that \"FYI, they got an 83 on their health inspection on 8/13/09\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

should i have to go eat there to post a comment that \"FYI, they got an 83 on their health inspection on 8/13/09\"?

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: Yelp doesn't allow owners to review their businesses either. I've seen them removed.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
djanes1
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: That is exactly what a Yelp owner in disguise would say.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ludwigk
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: This is all part and parcel with crowd sourcing reviews. If you get \"Yelp-bombed\", or whatever the correct term is, you essentially fucked up, and a consequence is that Yelp is no longer a useful venue to you for most readers.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jdmba: I'm a heavy user of Yelp, and I have to contest the idea that Yelp cannot be trusted.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coffeeculture
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kateblack: I agree, I use and contribute to yelp a lot. There's a lot of trash on there and opinions that are retarded. But, hey, they're called opinions...I usually weed them out (like vegans reviewing texas BBQ places).

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@coffeeculture: Yes, to me that's still a customer--it was just a customer who wasn't sufficiently satisfied to even buy something.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bryanpass
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They were 100% in the right to remove comments. I rely on sites like Yelp, Urbanspoon, etc. to make informed decisions on where to spend my money, and the only credible advice in that situation is from paying customers who have experienced their service first hand.

Anything else is just raises the noise floor.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
meehawl
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bryanpass: You trust Yelp? Did you miss the stories over the past year about how Yelp biases its review selection for paying advertisers:

[www.eastbayexpress.com]

[www.dailycal.org]

[chicagoist.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Nate128
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bryanpass: So are you saying that you would eat at this restaurant?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sleze69
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
arguewithme
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bryanpass:
Wrong! what if the people WERE paying customers, but still complained because they didn't like the events that happened?

How do you know if a reviewer has been to a restaurant or not?

I also use yelp as a restaurant guide, and i'd be much happier knowing these types of reviews stay up because it keeps the site OBJECTIVE. Anyone that agreed with the arrests can write bullshit positive reviews if they please, in this case they haven't....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bryanpass: I totally agree with you. Yelp's purpose is to post real reviews by real people. By deleting reviews by people who have no firsthand experience with a business, they're maintaining the integrity of their mission statement.

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Michael Belisle
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm behind Yelp on this one. If I go to read reviews of a place, I don't want 250 reviews that all say the same thing, from people who haven't been to the place.

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\".

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
h0mi
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This also happened a lot to businesses that donated money to prop 8 last year; some taco joint in LA was boycotted and yelp-bombed.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
xsmasher
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h0mi: Yep, and Yelp did the same thing - they removed the rogue reviews. I can see Yelp's point, they only want reviews that pertain to the quality of the restaurant, but if a restaurant is run by fascists I'd like to know about it.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xsmasher: Local news in PA said that the couple called the cops themselves.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
[DFX] Deimos
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
outshined
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h0mi:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
That's Consumer007 to you
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h0mi: @xsmasher: No they actually they were NOT within their legal rights to call the cops. The patron's civil rights were violated.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xsmasher
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: I don't see that. If we were talking about an optional gratuity I would agree. The 18% was indicated on the menu; I say it's part of the bill, not optional. The manger *should* have waived as good customer service, but is not legally obligated to do so.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xsmasher: Yes, 18% was indicated on the menu. And they were charged well over that, which I suspect isn't legal, even if you believe that the advertised gratuity could be mandatory.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sqlrob
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xsmasher: Except there's legal precedent that says it is optional.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xsmasher
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sqlrob: Citation, please.

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xsmasherx
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sqlrob: Charges were dropped - that's one DA deciding not to prosecute, which is a good decision, but not a legal precedent.

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Myrna_Minkoff
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xsmasher:
By that logic, if a restaurant seats you and on the menu it says \"mandatory gratuity of 18% -- or 100% depending on server's mood\" you're obligated to pay 100% if the server tells you too.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xsmasher
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Myrna_Minkoff: You minx! I don't think your example follows from mine at all. There's a big difference between \"we charge whatever we feel like\" and \"we have a clear charge for groups over size X.\" Next you'll tell me that theaters can't forbid outside food because they can't count the food already in our stomachs. You're moving the goalposts.

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.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xsmasher: It wasn't a clear charge--they hit them with an over 22% gratuity.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Megalomania
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xsmasher: If they want a mandatory tip amount, then they can damn well raise their prices by 18%. If it is mandatory to pay a certain percent extra, then it is false advertising to not show the prices with that taken into account.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Loias calls you out if you can't RTFA
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
bryanpass
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Loias: So a bartender, server or cook who works hard and had nothing to do with the incident should be put out of work in a time when jobs are hard to come by, just to make a point about fair customer service?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bryanpass:

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.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s017jrs
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth:
After a horrid Sunday brunch experience we tipped the busboy because he was the only person in the restaurant that was actually working.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bryanpass: It's really sad that other employees at this place are going to be affected by this, but that's the fault of the crappy waitstaff and management. It is not the fault of the customers or anyone reporting the incident.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

First off...yelp is a scam. They call registered businesses and if you dont pay them for an account, good reviews get removed, and bad reviews bummped.

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

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
StanTheManDean
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@StanTheManDean: A friend of mine owns a restaurant, I know that after they called him and he declined, several legit positive reviews were removed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
el_dusto
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: Anecdotal evidence: It's like a fact, but truthier!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
wrjohnston91283
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think it should be for customers or people with first hand knowledge only. So if I was walking by John's Bar, and I saw John beating a customer that should be allowed, but someone across the country reading about it should not be able to.

Very hard to enforce, i know.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
G.O.B.: Come on!
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Owned (at least temporarily). Feel the wrath of the internet.

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!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
bravo369
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
2 replies
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bravo369: \"If a business is screwing over people, other should know about it.\"
This is very true.

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
AngryK9
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Triterion
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Everyone knows Yelp is a scam. I just can't seem to delete my account there though, just too darn helpful, grr!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yelp gets to set its own rules, and if one of them is that people can only report first-hand experiences, then that's the way it is. Anyone who disagrees, can just create his/her own version of Yelp.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
sir_eccles
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ms Streisand, you are needed in wardrobe, curtain call in five minutes.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Gnort
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
citrus538
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yelp does plenty of fishy things. I've seen people leave reviews that were \"invisible\" to everyone except themselves. Pretty underhanded if you ask me. They make the business look better, and customers are happy to see their negative reviews are online. Except nobody else can see them.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
2 replies
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yes.
And I APPLAUD Yelp.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@2 replies by:

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CoarseLive
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I say \"Yes!\"

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lajoan
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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]

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
lehrdude
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lajoan:
That article is disturbing in many ways. I think Yelp has just lost any and all credibility in my book...and I will no longer be using it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dbshaw
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

SHOULD non customers be allowed to review? No. But, hey, that's marketplace. Piss off your consumers, word-of-mouth, whats the problem?

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
PhilFR
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yelp should remove themselves from the Internet. As many have said earlier, they juice the results, extorting money from small business owners to either delete bad reviews, or else they'll delete the good reviews. Have this on authority from a close friend who runs a small business and who yelp tried to scam in this way.

Yelp has zero credibility in my book.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
madanthony
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Several years ago, there was a very small company that had a price mistake on their website that got picked up by one of the big deal sites. After they canceled, a bunch of people posted negative comments on resellerratings, which led to them instituting a similar policy of removing price mistake complaints.

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.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dougp26364
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
BytheSea
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yelp is not epinions. It's for reading the opinions of people who actually went there. If someone recommends me a resturant and I ask, \"How's their chicken parm,\" and they say, \"I don't know, but I read about this one time the police were called there,\" they're not helping me. Except that maybe the place is kinda ghetto but police get called to the Ritz once in a while, ykno?

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.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
November 23, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As for the picture in this post ... eeeww! Too reminiscent of the ladybug (OK, \"Asian lady beetle\") invasion that hit here a month ago. Dis-freaking-gusting, is all I can say ... !

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
boshaus
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@xsmasher:

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think a better move would be for Yelp to remove ratings by non-customers, but leave the comments in, since they are informational. Pictures/videos should be left in only if they depict the establishment being reviewed, or its wares. If they don't sell poop, no poop pictures. If the picture shows the arrest scene that really took place at the restaurant, that should be left in.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
trujunglist
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

bah, yelp sucks anyway. lots of people that complain about things that make absolutely no sense. I've read plenty of unreasonable reviews by people that maybe didn't even end up going into the place due to some idiotic shit that they come up with. so if yelp wants to be legit, they need someone going through and reading the reviews and then banning people that write shit reviews. I don't think it's necessarily bad to write a negative review about a place that has customers arrested for not tipping, because that's not a downright lie like half the shit I've read.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jehovazion001
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

YELP in HELL!
We pray YELP goes bankrupt and sinks to the bottom of hell, and takes its MAFIA YELPERS with them. We pray that GOD shows no mercy for all the damage and EXTORTION they have inflicted upon small business owners and the children they support. YELP is a den of snakes and deserve to BURN for the lies and slander they spread on the web.
PRAY PSALMS 140 FOR THEIR DESTRUCTION!
Say five times: \"Archangel Michael destroy YELP now!\"
*Small business owners DO NOT REGISTER WITH YELP or pay \"sponsor\" extortion fees. PLEASE CANCEL your YELP subscription ASAP! YELP will be bankrupt soon!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Dirtybot
November 23, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LADogworks
November 24, 2009 9:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yelp has proven to be the most unreliable dishonest review site on the web. We had a four and a half star rating until a competitor opened across the street. Suddenly bad reviews were posted by people that had never been to my business, we checked! We dropped to three stars. The same people posting negative reviews about us wrote positive reviews about our competitor. My enraged clients started writing reviews, over 13 five star reviews were posted. The positive reviews disappeared in two days!!! While on the competitors site suddenly ALL the negative reviews were gone. Something is very wrong at yelp! In the month that we were slammed our page had over 500 views, were normal is around just over 200. I wrote to yelp and they told me it is a automated system they can not control. If that is true why does the automated system only delete positive reviews?! Bad reviews from 2007(a bad year) remain intact! THIS IS BULL CRAP!! The smear campaign launched against us by our competitor was exposed to yelp but will do nothing about it! Yelp is a scam! I am very seriously thinking about legal action!!

Reply
");