tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/online-reviews-10646/articlesonline reviews – The Conversation2023-09-13T13:30:46Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2091722023-09-13T13:30:46Z2023-09-13T13:30:46ZHow Tripadvisor for hospitals and clinics can improve healthcare<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539231/original/file-20230725-23-9ysyqh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=6%2C6%2C4577%2C3044&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/doctor-medical-suit-shows-her-hand-2191837701">africa pink/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Online reviews and ratings provided by the likes of Tripadvisor and Yelp have changed how people select their hotels, restaurants, flights, plumbers and hair salons. Even hospitals and health clinics have got in on the act, with websites such as Care Opinion, Doctify and Google Opinion. </p>
<p>But healthcare is different from other sectors. The way patients write comments can have an effect beyond just helping other patients choose a doctor. We’ve <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497222001729">found evidence</a> it can lead to better healthcare. </p>
<p>This optimistic view that patients’ comments could lead to better healthcare is not an idea shared by everyone. In 2008, the launch of the patient review website iWantGreatCare in the UK caused upset among healthcare professionals. </p>
<p>Some doctors <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2008/jul/13/nhs.health">claimed</a> that allowing patients to rate and review every medic who has treated them will expose these healthcare workers to abuse, libel and even personal attack. </p>
<p>There was a similar reaction elsewhere in the world. Healthcare professionals raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of online reviews. How can patients without a medical background evaluate the doctors and the relevance of their decision? </p>
<p>Also, there are concerns about the potential for biased or malicious reviews that could unfairly tarnish a professional’s reputation. There is an entire industry devoted to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/apr/22/it-can-be-incredibly-profitable-the-secret-world-of-fake-online-reviews">selling fake reviews</a> – which could be positive or negative.</p>
<p>And, finally, the evaluation of the comments on patient review websites is mostly focused on what could be referred to as “extra care”. The comments and ratings on almost all of these websites are about the facilities, such as the parking, delays or even doctors’ or receptionists’ attitudes, and not about the care or treatment.</p>
<p>Facing these criticisms, patient online comments are often underused – or just plain ignored. For example, Le Point, a French newspaper, published for the first time <a href="https://www.dailynewsen.com/breaking/doctors-awards-le-point-responds-to-h114138.html">a ranking of 1,000 doctors</a>, but their ranking is based only on academic publications and does not include patients’ online posts. </p>
<p>In the UK in 2014, the first published <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-hospitals-complaints-system-review">report by NHS on patient complaints</a> raised the issue that these online complaints were a “toxic cocktail”. Some health practitioners still use the term to refer to these review websites.</p>
<p>Since patient review websites are still an evolving phenomenon, there are many questions about whether these comments can be beneficial for the healthcare industry and how. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Doctor's receptionist and patient" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545274/original/file-20230829-21-hnqhyk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/545274/original/file-20230829-21-hnqhyk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545274/original/file-20230829-21-hnqhyk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545274/original/file-20230829-21-hnqhyk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545274/original/file-20230829-21-hnqhyk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545274/original/file-20230829-21-hnqhyk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/545274/original/file-20230829-21-hnqhyk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=532&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Comments on these websites often focus on things such as the receptionist’s attitude rather than actual healthcare.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/receptionist-doctors-office-greets-patient-49056157">Lisa F. Young/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Value in the comments</h2>
<p>Drawn to these intriguing questions, our recent study, published in the journal <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497222001729">Technovation</a>, found that patient reviews can be used by hospitals to identify where to act (by localising the department or service addressed with the most negative comments), and on what to act (what theme provides satisfaction and so should be kept, or causes dissatisfaction and needs to be improved?). They can also be used to find new ways to improve the service. </p>
<p>Our findings are based on an analysis of 134 negative reviews that a French hospital (anonymized in the study) received on an online rating platform. We applied a qualitative research method to analyse the reviews and found areas of improvement. </p>
<p>As a result, we observed that the hospital’s overall rating on the platform raised from 3.05 (out of 5.00) to 4.47 after consultants recommended improvements based on the comments.</p>
<p>So the value of patient comments is not just in the number of stars given but in the comment posted. These comments, when included in the three ideas above, can be used by hospitals to rethink how patients are cared for. </p>
<p>There are two implications of this result. First, thanks to having these posts publicly available online, a hospital can use feedback, not just from its own patients but from those of other hospitals, to improve its practices. So a patient’s comment can have a much wider impact than the poster intended. </p>
<p>Second, through the written comments left on a patient-feedback website, patients can take an active role in improving healthcare – but only if their comment is constructive and not merely vengeful.</p>
<p>The emerging patient review platforms, therefore, go beyond just being the Tripadvisors of healthcare. They could be used to improve the experience of patients, help hospitals and clinics to improve the quality of care, and gain better results in national healthcare evaluations, which is often essential for securing state budgets – at least in most European countries.</p>
<p>Patient review platforms could shake up healthcare delivery by helping doctors, clinics and hospitals spot weak points and provide better services when resources are increasingly overstretched.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209172/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mohammad Saleh Farazi received funding from the European Horizon 2020 project DiHECO (grant number 952012). He was previously affiliated with the University of Montpellier.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bez Sea receives funding from the european project H2020 DiHECO (grant number 952012)</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 952012.</span></em></p>Patient online comments are often underused, if they are used at all.Mohammad Saleh Farazi, Senior Lecturer in Innovation and Enterprise, London South Bank UniversityBez Sea, Associate Professor, Université de MontpellierIrene Georgescu, Full Professor, Université de MontpellierLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2006242023-03-05T17:20:15Z2023-03-05T17:20:15ZCanada needs a strategic plan to safeguard consumers against counterfeit and pirated goods<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/513290/original/file-20230302-17-u4h5cy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C17%2C2982%2C1980&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Counterfeiting has become a billion-dollar problem for countries all around the world.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Counterfeiting is a chronic problem faced by Canadian consumers. According to Canadian manufacturers
and exporters, counterfeiting — or the sale of products that purport to be something they are not — <a href="https://bc.ctvnews.ca/crime-stoppers-warns-tens-of-billions-of-dollars-in-counterfeit-goods-imported-into-canada-every-year-1.5348127">costs Canada between $20 billion and $30 billion annually</a>. </p>
<p>Canada is not the only country struggling with counterfeiting — the practice is prevalent in many other countries and across different industries. A 2017 World Health Organization study found that <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/28-11-2017-1-in-10-medical-products-in-developing-countries-is-substandard-or-falsified">around 10 per cent of medicines sold in developing countries may be deceptively counterfeit</a>. </p>
<p>Similarly, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that 20 of 47 items purchased from third-party sellers such as Amazon, eBay and Sears Marketplace <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-216.pdf">were counterfeits</a>. Examples included <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/3m-files-lawsuit-against-merchant-selling-masks-on-amazon-for-18-times-list-price-11591642637">counterfeit versions of 3M N95 masks on Amazon</a>.</p>
<p>Given the scale of this ongoing issue, Canadian governments and industries must come together to design new strategies that will protect Canadians while maintaining <a href="https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/economist-economiste/analysis-analyse/key_facts-2022-01-faits_saillants.aspx?lang=eng">the country’s competitive advantage</a> in the global marketplace.</p>
<h2>Contributing factors</h2>
<p>Several diverse factors contribute to the persistence of counterfeit goods in Canada. The first relates to consumer behaviour, as some buyers may intentionally buy (or fail to avoid) counterfeit goods out of shrewdness or economic necessity. </p>
<p>Second, in terms of product quality, fakes can be very similar to the real thing. For example, the Canadian Intellectual Property Council reported that <a href="https://silo.tips/download/counterfeiting-in-the-canadian-market-how-do-we-stop-it-june-2012">a counterfeit version of a particular Procter & Gamble shampoo was so close to the original</a> even the company’s own sales force couldn’t tell the difference.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A row of sneakers sitting on a table" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/513284/original/file-20230302-1990-23hdik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/513284/original/file-20230302-1990-23hdik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513284/original/file-20230302-1990-23hdik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513284/original/file-20230302-1990-23hdik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513284/original/file-20230302-1990-23hdik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513284/original/file-20230302-1990-23hdik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513284/original/file-20230302-1990-23hdik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Seized counterfeit footwear, including copies of Adidas and Kanye West Yeezy Boost trainers, are displayed at U.K. Border Force offices in London in February 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Matt Dunham)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Third, <a href="https://www.macleans.ca/economy/why-canada-is-a-haven-for-knock-off-goods/">Canadian laws on counterfeit goods are notoriously lax</a>, hindering effective enforcement. In fact, <a href="https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2022/april/ustr-releases-2022-special-301-report-intellectual-property-protection-and-enforcement">the Office of the United States Trade Representative has placed Canada on its watchlist</a> of countries offering the weakest intellectual property (IP) protections.</p>
<p>A fourth factor stems from outsourcing production to overseas suppliers. This leads to a form of counterfeiting called the “third shift.” After a business outsources production, the supplier uses the business’ IP rights to produce counterfeit products in the same factory the original product is made.</p>
<p>Canadian home product manufacturer <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/umbra-struggles-with-copycats-worldwide/article24863725/">Umbra has been plagued by numerous suppliers</a> using a third shift to reproduce its products.</p>
<p>Finally, although some customers may rely on review systems to assess the authenticity of items they buy online, these systems are far from reliable. Counterfeit sellers have found ways to manipulate the review system — <a href="https://hbr.org/2020/11/how-fake-customer-reviews-do-and-dont-work">by purchasing fraudulent five-star reviews</a>, for example.</p>
<p>In light of these difficulties, Canada needs a carefully thought-out approach to mitigate counterfeiting.</p>
<h2>Combating counterfeits</h2>
<p>Because the source of counterfeit products is often the same factory that produces the original product, one remedy is to provide supplier factories with limited quantities of raw materials. Hewlett-Packard does this by <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-21407916">providing its suppliers with a certain number of printheads</a> that are used to manufacture ink cartridges for the company.</p>
<p>Another solution is to allocate parts to different suppliers so that no one supplier has all the parts needed to build a particular product.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A hand peels down the tread on the sole of a boot to reveal a second tread beneath" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/513288/original/file-20230302-16-ag2qer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/513288/original/file-20230302-16-ag2qer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513288/original/file-20230302-16-ag2qer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513288/original/file-20230302-16-ag2qer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513288/original/file-20230302-16-ag2qer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513288/original/file-20230302-16-ag2qer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/513288/original/file-20230302-16-ag2qer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A U.S. Customs and Border Protection deputy chief officer shows how a Timberland brand on a counterfeit boot is hidden at a warehouse in Kearney, N.J. in 2015.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Richard Drew)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the same time, many emerging market governments are stepping up enforcement efforts to strengthen IP protections. In 2020, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation released an <a href="https://research.hktdc.com/en/article/NDM0NjM2NzQ2">IP enforcement plan called Iron Fist</a> to better protect the IP rights of various manufacturers. </p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/e-commerce-battling-over-%20copycat-brands-and-trademarks/articleshow/67399720.cms">India’s IP strategy</a> is to “put greater emphasis on trademark enforcement.” </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.ipophil.gov.ph/news/supreme-courts-revised-rules-on-ip-cases-improves-litigation-driving-innovation-and-creativity/">Philippine government’s recent IP legislation</a> aims to “ensure efficient and expeditious adjudication of IP cases” and make “IP litigation less costly and faster.”</p>
<p>For these governments, addressing IP protection is critical to ensuring manufacturers continue to feel comfortable outsourcing operations to their countries. As such, Canada should prioritize and incentivize outsourcing to countries that embrace IP protections.</p>
<h2>Using technology</h2>
<p>Businesses can also use technologies, such as radio-frequency identification or holograms, on their products to help customers identify counterfeits. </p>
<p>Recently, <a href="https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/use-blockchain-protect-against-counterfeiting-2022-09-16_en">blockchain technology has been considered as a promising solution</a> to counterfeiting. Several blockchain-based applications have been launched with the aim of tagging products with unique identifiers that can’t be duplicated. </p>
<p><a href="https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3067/paper18.pdf">Blockchain solution provider BlockPharma</a> helps patients check the authenticity of their medicines, while luxury goods giant <a href="https://consensys.net/blog/press-release/lvmh-microsoft-consensys-announce-aura-to-power-luxury-industry/">LVMH Group has partnered with blockchain firm ConsenSys and Microsoft</a> to authenticate products. </p>
<p>This tech-focused strategy aligns with the fact that governments around the world are increasingly encouraging blockchain adoption. The U.K. government, through Innovate UK, has <a href="https://cointelegraph.com/news/innovate-uk-offers-15-mln-grants-to-develop-blockchain-solutions">pledged the equivalent of C$24 million to fund blockchain companies</a> and the <a href="https://www.ledgerinsights.com/eu-intellectual-property-office-euipo-blockchain-anti-counterfeit/">European Union Intellectual Property Office uses blockchain for anti-counterfeit</a>.</p>
<h2>A joint approach is key</h2>
<p>The many factors that increase Canada’s risk concerning counterfeits, including weak laws and IP protections, make this a challenging policy issue. </p>
<p>However, anti-counterfeit strategies and the advent of new technologies like blockchain present opportunities for Canadian policymakers and industry leaders to develop an effective plan to combat counterfeiting. </p>
<p>Together, Canada’s business and political leaders can build consumer trust while further building Canada’s global advantage.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200624/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hubert Pun receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Grants (No. 430-2022-00517 and No. 435-2022-0271)</span></em></p>The global trade of counterfeit and pirated products costs countries like Canada billions a year. Governments and industries must come together to protect Canadians.Hubert Pun, Professor, Ivey Business School, Western UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1911492023-01-12T13:19:54Z2023-01-12T13:19:54ZConsumers often can’t detect fake reviews – and underestimate how many negative reviews might be fakes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501162/original/file-20221214-14106-u73s9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=42%2C8%2C5565%2C3724&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fake reviews of products and services are rampant online – and are often hard to pick out from the real ones.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/bad-rating-and-negative-reviews-concept-reputation-royalty-free-image/1271987935?phrase=online%20negative%20rating&adppopup=true">anyaberkut/iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em></p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>Consumers who have a personality that scores high in terms of openness – such as being open to new adventures and intellectually curious – have better success at spotting fake reviews than other personality types, according to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2021-4597">our recently published research</a>. Extroverted people, on the other hand, tend to have a harder time identifying a fake review. </p>
<p>To reach these conclusions, we compiled reviews from a unique data set of 1,600 Chicago hotel reviews, marked as either fake or real, that was compiled by artificial intelligence engineer and researcher <a href="https://myleott.com/">Myle Ott</a> and his team for peer-reviewed research they <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1107.4557">published in 2011</a> and <a href="https://aclanthology.org/D13-1199/">2013</a>.</p>
<p>Ott and colleagues mined real reviews from travel review websites such as Tripadvisor, Hotels.com and Expedia, which have a reasonably small deception rate. They gathered fake reviews by using Amazon Mechanical Turk to recruit people to write fake hotel reviews that sounded truthful.</p>
<p>We then used <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/07/11/what-is-mechanical-turk/">Amazon Mechanical Turk</a> to recruit 400 participants and asked them to imagine they needed to choose a hotel for a planned trip to Chicago. Each participant was assigned a hotel, read eight reviews about it, guessed at which ones were fake and explained why they seemed fake or real. The eight reviews were a balanced set of two positive fake, two positive real, two negative fake and two negative real, shown in a randomized order. </p>
<p>Participants then answered questions that allowed us to assess where they rank in terms of the <a href="https://www.thomas.co/resources/type/hr-guides/what-are-big-5-personality-traits">big five personality types</a>: extroversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness and neuroticism.</p>
<p>Overall, we found that consumers generally trust negative reviews more than positive ones. In evaluating whether an online review is genuine, consumers frequently underestimate the number of negative reviews that can be fake, while assuming that some positive reviews might be fake. </p>
<p>When we asked our participants why they thought a negative review was trustworthy, we found that they didn’t fully take into account that the writer might be motivated to post the review out of a desire to harm the business – for example, hostile competitors or angry customers. </p>
<p>We also found that readability, length and content affected perceptions of the review. Study participants were more likely to trust positive reviews when the sentences were short, and more likely to trust negative reviews when the sentences were long. </p>
<p>Shorter negative reviews with less emotional content were also more believable. </p>
<p>And in terms of personality type, while participants scoring high on openness were best at spotting fake reviews, and those with more extroversion did the worst, it was only for positive reviews. All personality types did pretty poorly at weeding out fake negative reviews. </p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Consumers consider online reviews to be among the <a href="https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00305">most important sources of information</a> for making buying decisions. However, according to <a href="https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/thousands-of-fake-customer-reviews-found-on-popular-tech-categories-on-amazon-agk4L2H5c96L">a 2019 report by Which?</a>, the U.K.’s consumer champion organization, many of these reviews on popular websites such as Amazon are fakes.</p>
<p>But consumers <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2">are consistently bad at detecting</a> fake reviews in their buying decisions.</p>
<p>Our research could help consumers become more aware of how they respond to reviews, especially negative ones.</p>
<h2>What still isn’t known</h2>
<p>Our research has identified certain features in the length, wording and structure of online reviews, as well as consumer personality types, that lead consumers to trust online reviews. We still don’t know why these features convey trustworthiness to consumers or why they differ for positive versus negative reviews.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191149/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shabnam Azimi is an assistant professor of marketing, Quinlan School of Business, Loyola University of Chicago.</span></em></p>Online reviews have a big impact on buying decisions – but how can shoppers sort the real ones from the fakes?Shabnam Azimi, Assistant Professor, Loyola University ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1906662022-12-12T23:35:11Z2022-12-12T23:35:11ZWith so many GPs leaving the profession, how can I find a new one?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499451/original/file-20221207-24-bxleyf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=46%2C18%2C6155%2C3484&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/african-male-pediatrician-hold-stethoscope-600w-1463202677.jpg">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Perhaps you have been happily attending the same GP for many years. They know your medical history better than anyone. Then all of a sudden they retire, or the practice closes, or it gets taken over by a bigger company and everything at the practice changes. Or maybe you’ve just had an unexpected visit to hospital and they ask who your GP is on discharge, then you realise you’re in need of one. </p>
<p>More than 80% of Australians <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29779298/">visit a GP</a> each year and those with chronic medical conditions will attend multiple times within the same period. It’s important to have a good GP who can coordinate your care. So how do you find a new one to develop a trusted relationship with? </p>
<p>As practising GPs ourselves, we are often asked: “Do you know a good GP?” This can be a somewhat difficult question to answer, as each person’s perception of “good” is highly subjective, dependent on many factors.</p>
<p>Studies of peoples’ preferences have varied results. One study found the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21334160/">listening ability</a> of the GP to be important. Other studies found patients put more value in <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18332402/">clinical competency</a>, a <a href="https://bjgp.org/content/70/698/e676">trusting relationship or continuity of care</a>. </p>
<p>So a better question is: what GP will be a good fit for me?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gps-are-abandoning-bulk-billing-what-does-this-mean-for-affordable-family-medical-care-182666">GPs are abandoning bulk billing. What does this mean for affordable family medical care?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What factors are important to you? 6 aspects to consider</h2>
<p>Here are some tips to help speed up your search for your new GP. Remember though, it may take a few visits to develop a trusting relationship and know if the fit is right for you. </p>
<h2>1. Your health needs</h2>
<p>If you are young and healthy, a GP offering a convenient service and who is easy to book in quickly with may suffice. For those living with chronic complex conditions or disabilities who need to visit often, a consistent and thorough doctor is recommended. </p>
<h2>2. Cost</h2>
<p>Bulk-billing doctors are becoming rarer given the rising cost of services, salaries, equipment and utilities. To stay afloat, these doctors are having to see more patients in less time. </p>
<p>This could result in a poorer understanding of you as an individual and your health values and goals. Again, this might not be a problem for simple consults. But if you get a serious disease down the track, you might wish you’d had a regular GP all along, because they would know you and your history. </p>
<p>If you’re able to wear some extra cost but wondering how much to pay, consider the Australian Medical Association recommendation as your guide – a standard 15-minute <a href="https://www.ausdoc.com.au/news/rebate-gap-blows-out-47-standard-gp-consult/#:%7E:text=In%20its%20latest%20list%20of,currently%20sits%20at%20just%20%2439.10.">consult cost</a> is $86 with a $39 rebate from Medicare. </p>
<h2>3. Accessibility and practice size</h2>
<p>Consider the distance you need to travel and the opening hours you may need, including weekend availability. </p>
<p>Bigger practices are more likely to be able to get you in to see a doctor, if not your doctor, and often have longer opening hours. Having more than one preferred GP within the same practice can provide more flexibility and they will each be able to access your medical records and results. You may want to enquire also about disability access and telehealth options.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/more-businesses-are-offering-online-medical-certificates-and-telehealth-prescriptions-what-are-the-pros-and-cons-194154">More businesses are offering online medical certificates and telehealth prescriptions. What are the pros and cons?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499457/original/file-20221207-14-45b636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="doctor's waiting room" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499457/original/file-20221207-14-45b636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499457/original/file-20221207-14-45b636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499457/original/file-20221207-14-45b636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499457/original/file-20221207-14-45b636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499457/original/file-20221207-14-45b636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499457/original/file-20221207-14-45b636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499457/original/file-20221207-14-45b636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You may be able to see a doctor more quickly at a larger practice.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/senior-couple-face-masks-sitting-600w-1828070570.jpg">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. Reviews</h2>
<p>Online recommendations can be tricky to interpret. Only <a href="https://www.center4research.org/believe-online-reviews-doctors/">6–8% of people</a> post online reviews for doctors. And there are plenty of people out there who have inappropriate requests or expectations of GPs, which may be their basis for a negative review. Also, someone who has been happily seeing their GP for decades is less likely to post a rating than a one-off visitor. </p>
<p>Be sure to consider what reasons were given for a negative review – was it because of actions taken, an attitude, or a personality clash? – and how those reasons align with your preferences. In saying that, community Facebook groups are often a hotspot for discussions about local GPs and recurrent positive recommendations can and should be held in higher regard. </p>
<h2>5. New doctors</h2>
<p>There are many young GPs starting off in the profession or new to the area. Many will be fantastically caring and competent. But these doctors are not going to come with recommendations yet. </p>
<p>These GPs often have plenty of appointment slots, and the most recent up-to-date training. Being an early adopter of their services could be to your benefit. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-fix-general-practice-more-gps-wont-be-enough-heres-what-to-do-195447">How do you fix general practice? More GPs won't be enough. Here's what to do</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>6. Sub-specialists</h2>
<p>Many GPs have special interests and advanced skills, such as skin cancer care, musculoskeletal medicine, women’s health or mental health. </p>
<p>They may have done postgraduate training, usually listed on the practice website along with their special interests. They are likely to have a shorter waiting time and lower costs than specialists – so consider these doctors if your needs match their expertise. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1541592411776090113"}"></div></p>
<h2>Other things to check</h2>
<p>About 80% of practices go through a <a href="https://www.semphn.org.au/general-practice-accreditation">practice accreditation process</a>, which proves attainment of standards set by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Such practices will advertise this status on their website and at the entrance to the clinic.</p>
<p>You can also ask about a doctor’s qualifications and about the standard consultation length. This may range from 10 to 20 minutes. Don’t be afraid to ask these questions when calling a practice about your first visit.</p>
<p>The final and arguably most important test is how you connect when you meet them in person. Finding a GP can be like finding your favourite cardigan. You don’t know it’s your favourite until it has been worn in. </p>
<p>Similarly you don’t know that your GP is great until you’ve journeyed with them through some potentially challenging times of your life. We encourage you to use the above tips to find a suitable GP, then give them some time to get to know you and grow a therapeutic relationship. </p>
<p>With continuity of care, trust will grow, as will knowledge about you and your values. This will ultimately improve your overall health care experience. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/general-practices-are-struggling-here-are-5-lessons-from-overseas-to-reform-the-funding-system-188902">General practices are struggling. Here are 5 lessons from overseas to reform the funding system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190666/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>‘See your GP’ is standard advice. But what if you don’t have one? Or yours is shutting up shop? Here’s how to find a new GP who suits you.David King, Senior Lecturer in General Practice, The University of QueenslandRhys Cameron, Senior lecturer, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1883862022-09-02T13:23:31Z2022-09-02T13:23:31ZOnline reviews are broken – here’s how to fix them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482516/original/file-20220902-3755-zc79m1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7361%2C4892&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Online reviews are not always what they might seem.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Thapana_Studio via Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s a crime story fit for the digital era. It was <a href="https://observer.com/2022/07/new-york-restaurants-are-being-extorted-by-scammers-armed-with-one-star-reviews/">recently reported</a> that a number of restaurants in New York had been targeted by internet scammers threatening to leave unfavourable “one-star” reviews unless they received gift certificates. The same threats were made to eateries in Chicago and San Francisco and it appears that a vegan restaurant received as many as eight one-star reviews in the space of a week before being approached for money.</p>
<p>It’s surprising this sort of thing hasn’t emerged before. An over-reliance on the “wisdom of the crowd”, whereby many people measure things by the approval of the rest of the community, leaves us vulnerable to this kind of fraud. </p>
<p>It’s all about numbers. Products and companies are measured online by the number of stars they get on a five-star scale, influencers are measured by numbers of followers, posts are measured by the numbers of likes or retweets. The satirical <a href="https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-014-0424-0">Kardashian index</a> provides a quantitative measure for academics by comparing citations of their research papers with their number of Twitter followers.</p>
<p>But why are these systems considered to be of value and why do we consult them almost blindly? In an age of information overload, feedback and reputation systems enable fast decision-making, providing us with the sense (or illusion) that we are in control as the decision taken is perceived to be informed.</p>
<p>Another idea at play here is the “<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/claralindhbergendorff/2021/03/12/from-the-attention-economy-to-the-creator-economy-a-paradigm-shift/">attention economy paradigm</a>”. Under this way of thinking, human attention is a scarce commodity and – as with all resources that are limited on this planet – it is of high value. </p>
<p>Businesses compete for a high as possible place on the first page of Google’s search results in order to capture this attention. And user feedback is one of the many parameters that influence the search engine’s secret ranking algorithms. </p>
<p>The notable success and acceptance of such reputation systems is grounded in the idea of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-unleash-the-wisdom-of-crowds-52774">wisdom of the crowd</a> comes in. If a sufficiently large sample of the population is asked to estimate something, the average of these estimations is expected to be very close to the actual value. This is because any personal bias becomes insignificant when a considerable amount of opinions is collected.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-unleash-the-wisdom-of-crowds-52774">How to unleash the wisdom of crowds</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But all systems that come along with successful business models are open to abuse and can attract opportunistic and malicious actors, to an extent that organised criminal groups may form and systematically exploit such systems. For example, business opportunities that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic were instantly matched by an <a href="https://www.europol.europa.eu/operations-services-and-innovation/staying-safe-during-covid-19-what-you-need-to-know">assortment of criminal activities</a> including shopping scams, disinformation, illegal streaming and even child sexual exploitation.</p>
<h2>Fake reviews</h2>
<p>There are several reasons and motivations for fake reviews. Business competitors may try to flood a business target with negative reviews in order to harm their competitor. Others may attempt, by creating fake profiles or “bribing” customers with free or discounted products, to engineer positive reviews and misrepresent the quality of their products.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Conceptual picture showing person with a tablet with numerous review words jumping out." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482520/original/file-20220902-24-ko34e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/482520/original/file-20220902-24-ko34e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482520/original/file-20220902-24-ko34e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482520/original/file-20220902-24-ko34e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482520/original/file-20220902-24-ko34e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482520/original/file-20220902-24-ko34e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/482520/original/file-20220902-24-ko34e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Everyone has an opinion, but some people have a vested interest.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">kheira benkada via Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But extortion via threats of negative review is particularly insidious. A surge of negative reviews on a business’s Google profile not only affects its search engine ranking, but significantly influences the potential customers’ <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.865702/full">purchase decisions</a>.</p>
<p>Although these practices are reported to have been streamlined from organised groups in <a href="https://9to5google.com/2022/07/18/google-one-star-reviews/">India</a>, variations of this have also been observed from other countries. Amazon <a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2022-07-20/amazon-sues-10000-facebook-group-admins-over-fake-review">recently sued</a> 10,000 Facebook group administrators exceeding 43,000 members who allegedly solicit fake (positive) reviews in exchange for free products.</p>
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
<p>The abuse of online feedback and reputation systems has grown to epidemic proportion. Countering it will require the coordination of everyone involved.</p>
<p>Google and other feedback and reputation service providers need to invest more resources into the prevention, detection and removal of fake reviews. Machine learning technologies have made impressive leaps in <a href="https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/notable-ai-advancements-in-the-last-decade-2ce496004994">recent years</a> and could help in weeding out fake content. </p>
<p>Tighter rules governing the selection of reviewers enabling their participation under specific conditions. We’ve seen this with <a href="https://support.trustpilot.com/hc/en-us/articles/201819697-Why-are-some-reviews-marked-Verified-">verified buyer</a> schemes that aim to provide assurances that the reviewer has had a genuine experience with the business. </p>
<p>The presentation of the feedback and particularly the star scoring system could also have more contextual information, say through additional colour coding to communicate the sentiment mined out of the textual comments. In this case, highly emotional comments based on less factual or useful information could have a different colour from those trying to be impartial and objective.</p>
<p>Businesses also need to embrace the system for reporting problem reviews and use it responsibly. They should not report negative feedback if it is genuine, as this affects the relationship with the feedback platform, which will understandably be more distrustful to the business.</p>
<p>And consumers should be more alert and educated about this rather than following these rankings religiously. There are many telltale signs of a fake review, including simply checking the language to see if they are generic. It’s also instructive to check whether the reviewer produces a lot of negative reviews across many and seemingly unconnected products in a short time. </p>
<p>We, the crowd should be active participants by being always fair with our purchase experiences and acknowledge and support business when they exceed our expectations – but also provide candid negative reviews and recommendations for improvement. Only then the wisdom of the crowd will truly serve us.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/social-media-and-society-125586" target="_blank"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/479539/original/file-20220817-20-g5jxhm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=144&fit=crop&dpr=1" width="100%"></a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188386/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This work has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the
grant agreement no 830943 (ECHO) and the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2017 project, under the grant agreement no 778228
(IDEAL-CITIES).</span></em></p>A recent extortion scam involved threatening to leave unfavourable reviews to restaurants unless they paid up shows the dangers of relying on the wisdom of crowds.Vasilis Katos, Professor of Cybersecurity, Head of BU-CERT, Bournemouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1210432019-08-12T06:10:20Z2019-08-12T06:10:20ZHow to spot a fake review: you’re probably worse at it than you realise<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286560/original/file-20190801-169706-htdqem.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Survey results suggest about three-quarters of the population trust online reviews at least a moderate amount.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ever relied on an online review to make a purchasing decision? How do you know it was actually genuine?</p>
<p>Consumer reviews can be hugely influential, so it’s hardly surprising there’s a thriving trade in fake ones. Estimates of their prevalence vary – from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2304">16% of all reviews on Yelp</a>, to <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/tripadvisor-denies-claims-one-in-three-reviews-faked/news-story/55243de188cc7f1fb2abb52fee3bac45">33% of all TripAdvisor</a> reviews, to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/how-merchants-secretly-use-facebook-to-flood-amazon-with-fake-reviews/2018/04/23/5dad1e30-4392-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?utm_term=.5790b36db39a">more than half in certain categories</a> on Amazon. </p>
<p>So how good are you at spotting fake consumer reviews?</p>
<p>I surveyed 1,400 Australians about their trust in online reviews and their confidence in telling genuine from fake. The results suggest many of us may be fooling ourselves about not being fooled by others.</p>
<h2>In strangers we trust</h2>
<p>Online consumer reviews were the equal-second most important source for information about products and services, after store browsing. Most of us rate consumer reviews – the views of perfect strangers – just as highly as the opinion of friends and family. </p>
<p>Trust is central to the importance of reviews in our decision-making. The following chart shows the trust results broken down by age: in general, people most trust product information from government sources and experts, followed by consumer reviews.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="bD0vF" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/bD0vF/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>The chart below displays trust ratings according to website, with the most trusted sources for reviews being <a href="https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/">TripAdvisor.com.au</a>, <a href="https://support.google.com/business/answer/3474122?hl=en">Google Reviews</a> and <a href="https://www.productreview.com.au/">ProductReview.com.au</a>. </p>
<p>Those aged 23-38 tended to trust sites the most, and those above 55 tended to trust sites the least.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="EzmJs" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EzmJs/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>While 73% of participants said they trusted online reviews at least a moderate amount, 65% also said it was likely they had read a fake review in the past year.</p>
<p>The paradox of these percentages suggests confidence in spotting fake reviews. Indeed, 48% of respondents believed they were at least moderately good at spotting fake reviews. Confidence tended to correlate with age: those who were younger tended to rate themselves as better at detecting fake reviews.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="0vEJi" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0vEJi/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>In my opinion, respondents’ confidence is a classic example of <a href="https://theconversation.com/overconfidence-is-responsible-for-a-lot-of-mistakes-heres-how-to-avoid-it-61907">overconfidence</a>. It’s a well-documented paradox of human self-perception, known as the <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.77.6.1121">Dunning-Kruger effect</a>. The worse you are at something, the less likely you have the competence to know how bad you are.</p>
<p>The fact is most humans are not particularly good at distinguishing between truth and lies. </p>
<p>A 2006 study involving almost 25,000 participants found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2">lie-truth judgments averaged just 54% accuracy</a> – barely better than flipping a coin. In a study looking more specifically at online reviews (but with only a small number of judges), <a href="https://myleott.com/op_spamACL2011.pdf">Cornell University researchers</a> found an accuracy rate of about 57%. A similiar study based at the University of Copenhagen found an accuracy rate <a href="https://aclweb.org/anthology/P16-2057">of about 65%</a>, with information about reviewers improving scores slightly.</p>
<h2>What we look for</h2>
<p>So what tends to sway people’s judgement about whether a review is fake or not? My research suggests the most important attribute people look out for is “extremity” – going over the top in one-sided praise or criticism. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="1EwjN" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1EwjN/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>This sentiment is a relatively sound rule of thumb, supported by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2013.10.002">analysis</a>. Studies suggest fake reviews also tend to:</p>
<ul>
<li>focus on describing product attributes and features </li>
<li>have much fewer subjective and anecdotal details </li>
<li>be shorter than others</li>
<li>be relatively more difficult to read (probably due to fake reviewers being hired from foreign countries).</li>
</ul>
<p>Fake reviews might also be identified by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2016.1205907">characteristics of the reviewer</a>. Their profiles tend to be new and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.06.002">unverified</a> accounts with few details and little or no history of other reviews. They will have gained very few “helpful” votes from others.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286574/original/file-20190801-169696-137t3rz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286574/original/file-20190801-169696-137t3rz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=820&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286574/original/file-20190801-169696-137t3rz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=820&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286574/original/file-20190801-169696-137t3rz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=820&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286574/original/file-20190801-169696-137t3rz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1030&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286574/original/file-20190801-169696-137t3rz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1030&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286574/original/file-20190801-169696-137t3rz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1030&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation/Author provided content</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<h2>Test yourself</h2>
<p>With all this in mind, it’s now’s time to see how good you are at spotting fake reviews with this quiz.</p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-426" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/426/080bdc1c64e581487e418b774d23f09390dab379/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>Chances are you didn’t do as well as you thought you would. That’s because clever fraudsters work to hide all the attributes of fake reviews outlined above.</p>
<p>So two final pieces of advice.</p>
<p>Use some technology to help. Two websites I recommend are <a href="https://www.fakespot.com/">Fakespot.com</a> and <a href="https://reviewmeta.com/">ReviewMeta.com</a>. In my experience, both do a good job weeding out suspicious reviews (tip: be sure to delete domain suffixes such as “.au” from the URLs you check). </p>
<p>Also check out multiple review sites to get second, third and fourth opinions. It is less likely a fraudster will be paying for fake reviews on every platform.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121043/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian R. Camilleri receives funding from the Consumer Policy Research Centre.</span></em></p>Your trust in online consumer reviews may be misplaced. Check your ability to spot real from fake reviews with our quiz.Adrian R. Camilleri, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1196142019-08-06T13:05:45Z2019-08-06T13:05:45ZEverything in Mecca gets 5 stars — and online reviews of other holy sites are wildly inflated, too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286954/original/file-20190805-36377-100995x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Like any other travelers, Muslim pilgrims review their hajj trips on sites like TripAdvisor — usually with extreme enthusiasm.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Saudi-Hajj/9cedc4c90c064c02baebb81350ada65e/9/0">AP Photo/Khalil Hamra</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For the millions of Muslims preparing to gather in Saudi Arabia on Aug. 9 for <a href="https://theconversation.com/explaining-the-muslim-pilgrimage-of-hajj-83284">the hajj</a>, an obligatory pilgrimage to the Grand Mosque in Mecca, planning is a major part of the process. </p>
<p>Back in the year 630 CE, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/place/Mecca/Economy#ref37835">when the first hajj was made</a>, pilgrims journeyed for months to reach Mecca, many by camel. Today, followers of Islam mostly fly there. Many also book hotels and restaurants based on reviews posted on websites like <a href="https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attraction_Review-g293993-d6881993-Reviews-Grand_Mosque-Mecca_Makkah_Province.html">TripAdvisor</a>, <a href="http://www.hajjratings.com/">Hajj Ratings</a> or <a href="https://www.ummah.com/forum/forum/islam/hajj-umrah-forum/508076-hajj-reviews">Ummah.com</a>.</p>
<p>Yet online reviewers who have gone to Saudi Arabia before may mislead today’s pilgrims. </p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1550434">study</a> of the online reviews of the Grand Mosque indicates they may be unreliable. Reviews of Mecca’s accommodations, clothing stores, eateries and transportation options all have much higher ratings than can be reasonably expected: Mecca’s sites average 4.96 TripAdvisor stars out of 5, while <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965513481498">Europe’s 200 best-rated tourist destinations average 3.96 stars</a>. </p>
<h2>Hajjis are not alone</h2>
<p>To see if this phenomenon was specific to Mecca, we also analyzed online reviews of other religions’ most sacred sites: Haridwar, India, which is <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1323848.Sacred_Waters">sacred to Hindus</a>; the <a href="https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/666">Maya Devi Buddhist temple</a> in Nepal; and, in Jerusalem, Christianity’s <a href="https://churchoftheholysepulchre.net/history-of-the-church-of-the-holy-sepulchre/">Church of the Holy Sepulchre</a> and Judaism’s <a href="https://english.thekotel.org/kotel/about/what_is_western_wall/">Western Wall</a>. </p>
<p>Online reviews for these spiritual places were similarly enthusiastic, with a combined average rating of 4.63 stars on TripAdvisor. </p>
<p>We determined that the ratings for holy sites are so high because they primarily reflect the contributor’s spiritual experience – not their experience of more mundane, practical details like the crowds, the weather or souvenir sellers. </p>
<p>In her <a href="https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowUserReviews-g293983-d318216-r430084126-Western_Wall-Jerusalem_Jerusalem_District.html">5-star TripAdvisor review of the Western Wall</a>, for example, Jennifer O of Orlando Beach, Florida, declares that, “No words can adequately describe what happens.”</p>
<p>“For my husband everything went white and completely quiet,” she writes. “For me a quiet buzzing radiated throughout my whole body and everything went quiet as well. … One has to go there to experience the incredible effects.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286956/original/file-20190805-36367-13ze65w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/286956/original/file-20190805-36367-13ze65w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286956/original/file-20190805-36367-13ze65w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286956/original/file-20190805-36367-13ze65w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286956/original/file-20190805-36367-13ze65w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286956/original/file-20190805-36367-13ze65w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/286956/original/file-20190805-36367-13ze65w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Five stars all around for Mecca’s Grand Mosque.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g293993-d6881993-r281837940-Grand_Mosque-Mecca_Makkah_Province.html#REVIEWS">Screenshot/TripAdvisor.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Internet evaluations of the Grand Mosque, Wailing Wall and other places are not entirely useless for trip-planning, though. Many 5-star reviews include a more moderate, realistic depiction of what to expect on a spiritual pilgrimage in the text itself.</p>
<p>“Be patient with the crowds and remember Allah at all times,” reads a <a href="https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/ShowUserReviews-g293993-d6881993-r281837940-Grand_Mosque-Mecca_Makkah_Province.html">5-star TripAdvisor review</a> of the Grand Mosque headlined “Greatest place on Earth,” written by user Mr. McFaren, of Kuala Lumpur. </p>
<p>He offers concrete advice for future hajjis: “Be careful with your shoes/slippers as it might disappear. … If you lose them during the hot day, be careful of the hot floor surface which are not marble. If you are lucky,” concludes Mr McFaren, “you might find someone selling slippers.”</p>
<h2>Read carefully</h2>
<p>Pilgrims reserve different writing styles when discussing the spiritual and practical elements of their trip.</p>
<p>Reviews highlighting the spiritual aspects of the pilgrimage feature elaborate stories with exaggerated characters and exciting events – a <a href="https://theconversation.com/perfect-information-the-customer-reviews-most-likely-to-influence-purchasing-decisions-103904">persuasive form of communication</a> that people tend to find quite convincing, consumer research shows. </p>
<p>In contrast, reviews that assess tour guides, hotel rooms, other pilgrims, road signs, site managers and the weather typically adopt a more analytical tone. </p>
<p>Recognizing these holy site review trends can help pilgrims planning a trip make more conscious decisions while planning their journey. Whether for sacred sites in Mecca, Haridwar, Jerusalem, Lumbini or another sacred city, the super high ratings and compelling storytelling mostly reflect past visitors’ spiritual experiences – not the real-world practicalities that actually affected their spiritual journeys. </p>
<p>In God we may trust, it seems – but we cannot always trust how God is reviewed.</p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=thanksforreading">Thanks for reading! We can send you The Conversation’s stories every day in an informative email. Sign up today.</a></em> ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119614/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Hajj pilgrims looking online for advice about their upcoming pilgrimage to Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, may not find TripAdvisor so useful.Tom van Laer, Associate Professor of Narratology, University of SydneyElif Izberk-Bilgin, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1039042018-10-11T04:04:57Z2018-10-11T04:04:57ZPerfect information: the customer reviews most likely to influence purchasing decisions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/239662/original/file-20181008-72117-n1spz9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Consumer reviews have changed many an industry.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Whether you are booking a hotel room, choosing a restaurant, deciding on what movie to see or buying any number of things, it is likely you have read online reviews before making your decision. </p>
<p>What makes a consumer review persuasive, though? No matter how short, it tells a story in much the same way as a novel does. Yet, like a journalism report, it starts with its takeaway rather than saving that to the end. </p>
<p>These are among the key findings of research my colleagues and I have done into what gives consumer reviews their power to influence consumer choices.</p>
<p>In view of the influence reviews have, there is considerable interest among marketers, social media influencers and software developers in knowing the qualities that make them compelling and persuasive. So it’s smart for you as a consumer to understand them too. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/spot-the-fake-shoppers-get-help-with-online-reviews-21161">Spot the fake: shoppers get help with online reviews</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy067">recent article</a> in the Journal of Consumer Research, my colleagues Jennifer Escalas, Stephan Ludwig, Ellis van den Hende and I argue that persuasiveness lies in the experience of “transportation”. The level of this transportation depends on the degree and power of narrative offered. </p>
<p>Our theory was that the same elements that grip the reader of a novel might also exist in reviews, because reviews are essentially short stories too. To test that theory, we developed a new computerised technique for measuring a text’s degree of “narrativity”. We then conducted three studies.</p>
<h2>Showing who, where, and when</h2>
<p>In the first, we analysed almost 200,000 reviews from the “things to do in Las Vegas” category on the travel-related review site TripAdvisor. Our computerised technique showed the relationship between combinations of words used and the helpfulness of reviews, as measured by reader ratings.</p>
<p>We found the more a review offered insight into the writer’s state of mind, the greater its helpfulness. Take, for example, this extract from a review of Kà, a circus show in Las Vegas: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There was a lot of action. That I love in this show. I would totally go see it again.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Conveying a sense of place and a sequence of events were also elements that contributed to greater helpfulness. For example, this is a review of the musical Vegas! The Show:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The first half seemed to drag on until the bird trainer and his buddies came on. Because they were hilarious and their performance seemed to add life to the show and energise the crowd. The second half of the show was a lot of fun!</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Emotional curves, not linear narratives</h2>
<p>We also used our computerised technique to tally how many positive and negative words each review contained and where they featured. This analysis tested the effect of the emotional thread in the stories.</p>
<p>Reviews that exhibited emotional curves in their story line, moving from positive to negative and back for example, were rated as more helpful than those that provided a linear narrative. An example is the following review of Mystery Adventures, a live action role-playing game organised in Las Vegas:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is definitely an unusual thing to do in Las Vegas, but can be a wonderful change of pace. Max seemed nervous at first with lots of ‘uhhh’s and ummmms, but warmed up quickly. Very exciting and worth the effort we put into it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As mentioned above, reviews starting with their takeaway, or most dramatic revelation, tended to be more helpful too. The following opening of a Graceland Wedding Chapel review is an example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I was so upset, I did not get married at Graceland Chapel! On our wedding night, there we were….</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the second study, panellists on Amazon Mechanical Turk, a crowdsourcing platform, were asked to rate the transportation and helpfulness of a selection of reviews. In the third study, we asked 156 students to read reviews about a trip to Agra, India. As before, the participants were asked to rate how transporting and helpful the reviews were, as well as how much they wanted to travel to Agra after reading them. </p>
<p>We confirmed in those two studies that the more narrative elements were present, the more the reviews were regarded as captivating and persuasive. We concluded that the most persuasive reviews tell who did what, where, when and why, and have their emotional transitions and climaxes at the beginning.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-split-the-good-from-the-bad-in-online-reviews-and-ratings-74986">How to split the good from the bad in online reviews and ratings</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Implications for you</h2>
<p>Our results show that what story is being told as well as how it is being transferred affect you. If you are aware of this influence, you can make more conscious choices. </p>
<p>When reading online reviews, you should consider what the reviewers’ state of mind was, where and when their experience took place, how emotions flow across the review, and where the climax is. In that way, you consider who is writing the texts and what their helpfulness really is.</p>
<p>Reading critically is a practice we should all adopt, no matter the publication. Narrative qualities are among the hardest ones to fake – so looking out for them minimises the chance that fake reviews sway your opinion.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-dating-profiles-to-brexit-how-to-spot-an-online-lie-61124">From dating profiles to Brexit – how to spot an online lie</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103904/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Marketing Science Institute financially supported part of this work through research grant 4000118.</span></em></p>Reviews are essentially short stories. The best use the same elements that make a novel gripping.Tom van Laer, Reader (Associate Professor) of Marketing, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/925952018-03-19T18:37:49Z2018-03-19T18:37:49ZBefore you write that scathing online review, beware of defamation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210022/original/file-20180313-30989-1ppzbt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Writing an online review can be cathartic. But you can be sued for defamation if you disaparage a person's reputation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mans-using-computer-top-view-1044106981">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Having suffered some terrible product or service, there is something darkly satisfying about publishing a scathing online review. This may not be virtuous or kind, but it can be cathartic. However, if your online review is disparaging of a person’s reputation, that person could sue you for defamation.</p>
<h2>The rise of the keyboard warriors</h2>
<p>Keyboard warriors like me have benefited from an explosion in the number of review <a href="https://www.choice.com.au">websites</a> and <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/foursquare-city-guide/id306934924?mt=8">apps</a> in recent years. These cover everything from <a href="https://www.zomato.com/">food</a>, to <a href="https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/">travel</a>, to <a href="https://www.australiandoctor.com.au/news/doctor-rating-sites-fundamentally-flawed">medical professionals</a>.</p>
<p>Platforms like <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WADC/2015/126.html">Facebook</a> and Google make it very easy to leave a scathing online review. Mobile technology enables customers to vent, or compliment, even while they are still in the store.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210017/original/file-20180313-30989-holmxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210017/original/file-20180313-30989-holmxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210017/original/file-20180313-30989-holmxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210017/original/file-20180313-30989-holmxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210017/original/file-20180313-30989-holmxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210017/original/file-20180313-30989-holmxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210017/original/file-20180313-30989-holmxu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Mobile technology and platforms like Facebook have made it easy to post online reviews.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/1042323541?src=IaG89UZUrjJuR1i6OqyTlw-4-10&size=huge_jpg">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Review websites keep consumers informed while letting the market know what works and what does not. In extreme cases, consumer reviews can even move corporate giants to <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/28/eas-day-of-reckoning-is-here-after-star-wars-game-uproar.html">change their policies</a>. </p>
<p>For those on the other side of the equation, online reviews can be terrifying. I know from experience – anonymous student evaluations are part and parcel of being a <a href="https://au.ratemyteachers.com/">university lecturer</a>. </p>
<p>Bad reviews can be <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/owner-yelp-is-bad-for-small-business-2013-4?r=US&IR=T">disastrous</a> for small businesses. Understandably, some reviewees will be motivated to silence negative reviewers. In extreme cases, they may even go to court.</p>
<h2>You can be sued for a scathing review</h2>
<p>In Australia, freedom of speech is not as free as some might think – even when “spoken” on the internet. Although we have an <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression">implied freedom of political communication in our constitution</a>, we do not have a US-style right to free speech. Defamation law places significant limitations on our freedom of speech.</p>
<p>Courts have the power to force a person to <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321306294_Douglas_M_2017_The_exorbitant_injunction_in_X_v_Twitter_Communications_Law_Bulletin">remove content from the internet</a>, or pay damages to the plaintiff for harm done to their reputation. Failure to comply could mean <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/blogger-shane-dowling-jailed-for-contempt-for-naming-tim-worners-alleged-lovers-20170810-gxt4px.html">prosecution for contempt</a>.</p>
<p>Professional reputation is highly valued by defamation law. Damages can be significant if defamation causes an actual loss of business, or even a <a href="https://theconversation.com/rebel-wilsons-4-5-million-win-a-sobering-reminder-that-defaming-a-celebrity-can-be-costly-83968">loss of opportunity</a>. In the absence of proven economic loss, substantial “general” damages may still be awarded as a consolation for <a href="https://theconversation.com/hockeys-defamation-win-is-dark-news-for-democracy-and-free-speech-44129">hurt and distress</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/social-media-and-defamation-law-pose-threats-to-free-speech-and-its-time-for-reform-64864">Social media and defamation law pose threats to free speech, and it's time for reform</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>When defamation occurs online, damages awards may increase to account for the “<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2811967">grapevine effect</a>”: the way salacious content tends to be shared and repeated on the internet.</p>
<p>However, there are a couple of barriers that could make it harder to sue. </p>
<p>Firstly, some “persons” cannot sue. Under Australia’s <a href="http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/da200599/s9.html">uniform defamation laws</a>, certain corporate bodies – that is, companies – do not have a cause of action in defamation. Unlike overseas, large companies <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2003/jun/04/foodanddrink.shopping">like McDonald’s</a> can’t sue under Australian defamation law, but this does not apply to <a href="https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/54a6364e3004de94513d916a">not-for-profits</a>, or small businesses with 10 employees or less. Hotheads should proceed with caution before slagging off their corner café.</p>
<p>Secondly, a review must identify a person directly or indirectly in order for someone to be able to sue for defamation. A generic Facebook rant about “how bad restaurants are in blah suburb” will not meet the requirements of “identification”.</p>
<p>These barriers are not insurmountable. In 2014, a group of restaurateurs were awarded more than <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/former-reviewer-matthew-evans-who-cost-fairfax-600000-has-turned-to-farming-and-television/news-story/3698276fa706f7f382a33cc2f5759c90">A$600,000 in damages for a defamatory review in The Sydney Morning Herald</a>. Fairfax stood by the critic who made the harsh review, which remained online for years. While the average rant on Zomato won’t cause a restaurant to close down, this case illustrates that an expression of opinion about a business can have very serious consequences. </p>
<h2>What to do if you’re sued</h2>
<p>Take it seriously. See a lawyer. </p>
<p>In 2017, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-surgeon-munjed-al-muderis-awarded-480k-over-online-defamation-by-patient-20170608-gwn17a.html">Sydney surgeon Munjed Al Muderis was awarded A$480,000 damages</a> for a defamatory online campaign of abusive reviews by a former patient and the patient’s brother. There was no evidence of any medical negligence or wrongdoing, and the size of the damages award was partly attributable to the poor conduct of the defendants – <a href="https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5936545fe4b074a7c6e1657a">they failed to participate in the proceedings</a>. </p>
<p>Having been served with a defamation claim, a lawyer may advise that you’re protected by defences to defamation. For example, a defence is available if your review is <a href="http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/da200599/s25.html">substantially true</a>; or if you have expressed an <a href="http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/da200599/s31.html">honest opinion</a> on a matter of public interest, and your opinion is based on proper material.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210025/original/file-20180313-30958-1bjpxne.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210025/original/file-20180313-30958-1bjpxne.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210025/original/file-20180313-30958-1bjpxne.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210025/original/file-20180313-30958-1bjpxne.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210025/original/file-20180313-30958-1bjpxne.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210025/original/file-20180313-30958-1bjpxne.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210025/original/file-20180313-30958-1bjpxne.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There a number of defences to a defamation claim.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=ZmeHkKs1S9wMXHTh_-J7Ug-1-9">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These defences might allow you to defend a trial, but they will not necessarily prevent you from being sued. They also come with practical challenges: for example, the reviewer, rather than reviewee, must prove the substantial truth of the publication. While your lawyer is dealing with those challenges, you will be dealing with your lawyer’s bills. Defending defamation is expensive, even if you win.</p>
<h2>What if your review was anonymous?</h2>
<p>Not all review platforms require you to disclose your identity. A recent example is <a href="http://www.ratemyboss.org.au/">Rate My Boss</a>, a website created by union United Voice, which allows workers to review their employers anonymously. Anonymity makes sense from the workers’ perspective.</p>
<p>From the employers’ perspective, the anonymity problem may be avoided by pursuing the publishers of the website rather than the reviewer. This is the standard model for a lot of defamation litigation; media organisations will often defend defamation on behalf of their writers.</p>
<p>A disgruntled reviewee may go one step further and go after the internet giants that link people to defamatory content. These intermediaries have much deeper pockets and the practical ability to prevent something from being accessed. Whether Google should be responsible as “publisher” of its search engine content is <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLRev/2017/24.html">about to be tested</a> in the High Court. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-court-holds-google-is-responsible-for-linking-to-defamatory-websites-49883">Australian court holds Google is responsible for linking to defamatory websites</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As for you, the reviewer: if you have been particularly nasty in an anonymous review, the reviewee may litigate to find out who you are. It may be tricky, but a would-be plaintiff has options: a couple of years ago, movie pirates were <a href="http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/piracy/dallas-buyers-club-war-with-iinet-downloaders-finally-comes-to-an-end/news-story/a51ba7091b090be07a559a3cab8ad7f1">threatened with the prospect of a court order</a> compelling iiNet to reveal their identities in a copyright dispute. The context is different, but the anxiety felt by those Matthew McConaughey fans demonstrates that online naughtiness is not as anonymous as we might think.</p>
<h2>Play nice and none of this matters</h2>
<p>If you play the ball, not the man; if you focus on what you actually experience, rather than making grandiose claims; and if you focus on the truthful aspects of a product or service in a harsh but fair review, you are less likely to fall afoul of defamation law.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92595/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Douglas is a consultant at Bennett + Co, a law firm with a defamation law practice. Michael is a member of the ALP. All views expressed here are his own.</span></em></p>Writing a negative online review can have serious consequences, so you need to be careful about how, and what, you write.Michael Douglas, Senior Lecturer in Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/912112018-02-08T22:42:32Z2018-02-08T22:42:32ZBelieve nothing: The hoax of the Shed at Dulwich<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205585/original/file-20180208-180826-h6nkwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The stunning hoax of The Shed at Dulwich, deceived millions and showed how willing we are to consume an appetizing story.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Courtesy VICE /Theo McInnes)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Shed at Dulwich recently reached TripAdvisor’s No. 1 rated spot for restaurants in London before it was revealed to be a hoax. The stunt showed how easily we are fooled, and blurred the increasingly narrow line between fake news and satire.</p>
<p>Deception detection researchers (<a href="http://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/03/deception.aspx">yes, such a field exists</a>) observe that “in general, humans are fairly ineffective at recognizing deception.” Victoria Rubin and her colleagues at the Faculty of Information and Media Studies at Western University <a href="https://www.academia.edu/24790089/Fake_News_or_Truth_Using_Satirical_Cues_to_Detect_Potentially_Misleading_News">are studying how to design an algorithm to spot fake news using the cues of satire</a>. </p>
<p>The most disturbing example is the <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/27/554050916/paul-horner-fake-news-purveyor-who-claimed-credit-for-trump-s-win-found-dead-at-">failed satire of Paul Horner</a>, a Bernie Sanders fan whose satirical fake news was taken at face value and may have helped Donald Trump win the election. He thought even the dumbest readers would see his stories as satire. They didn’t. </p>
<p>Now the president of the United States <a href="http://time.com/5084420/donald-trump-lies-claims-fact-checks/">blatantly lies</a> and the media often reports it. Are we becoming increasingly blasé about the difference between fact and fiction? Are we ready to embrace false reality? <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/la/book/9781137427977">We have come to trust satire</a> because it at least reflects the absurdity of our daily world. At the same time, we are finding satire more difficult to discern.</p>
<p>The stunning hoax of The Shed at Dulwich deceived millions and showed how willing we are to consume an appetizing story. Deception used to be the moral dividing line between satire and fake news. If satire dupes its audience, then it misses its target by a mile. </p>
<p>Fake news, on the other hand, is intended to deceive, swapping the high-minded morals of satire for ideological manipulations, lies, propaganda and profit. What happens when deception and satire go hand in hand? </p>
<p>The lesson may be that we should believe in nothing, not even satire. </p>
<h2>Trust no one/believe nothing</h2>
<p>The Shed at Dulwich was revealed as a hoax by <em>Vice</em> writer Oobah Butler, who punked TripAdvisor and its foodies by creating a fake restaurant in a brilliant display of satire and parody of fakery. But his satire took an uncomfortable turn when it turned out to be a little too real. Butler called it “<a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the-top-rated-restaurant-on-tripadvisor">false reality</a>.” </p>
<p>Butler, who had previously written fake TripAdvisor reviews as a source of income at 10 pounds a pop, had an epiphany about the vulnerability of the site and users’ trust. In a <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the-top-rated-restaurant-on-tripadvisor">“climate of misinformation,”</a> and counting on “society’s willingness to believe absolute bullshit,” Butler set himself a challenge: To turn a non-existent restaurant into the No. 1-rated dining establishment in London by having his friends and family write fake reviews.</p>
<p>This wasn’t Butler’s first public mischief. <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/topic/oobah-butler">He’s a longtime prankster</a> who can fool anyone and isn’t afraid to make a fool of himself. Having taught satire for 20 years, I know that most satirists are both sadists and masochists at heart, with a strong streak of nihilism.</p>
<h2>How he did it</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the-top-rated-restaurant-on-tripadvisor">Butler bought a burner phone, created a website and registered the restaurant on TripAdvisor.</a> The Shed at Dulwich offered a menu of “moods,” well-styled photographs of meals made of inedible ingredients. In the most delicious and disgusting deceit, the cropped heel of his foot masqueraded as a ham hock. Tables were by appointment only and the location was secret. </p>
<p>A buzz began and The Shed’s ratings climbed. The phone began to ring and Butler refused all comers, claiming capacity. Over the coming months, The Shed’s phone rang incessantly. </p>
<p>“I realise what it is,” <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/434gqw/i-made-my-shed-the-top-rated-restaurant-on-tripadvisor">he later wrote</a>. “The appointments, lack of address and general exclusivity of this place is so alluring that people can’t see sense. They’re looking at photos of the sole of my foot, drooling.” </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205582/original/file-20180208-180829-5guucn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205582/original/file-20180208-180829-5guucn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205582/original/file-20180208-180829-5guucn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205582/original/file-20180208-180829-5guucn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205582/original/file-20180208-180829-5guucn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205582/original/file-20180208-180829-5guucn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205582/original/file-20180208-180829-5guucn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The cropped heel of his foot masquerades as a ham hock.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Chris Bethell/Vice)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After beginning at No. 18,149 in the TripAdvisor rankings of London restaurants, The Shed had reached the top spot within seven months based on nothing but fake reviews, a website and a refusal to admit anyone. Butler, recording himself in his ratty shed, was near-hysterical with glee and disbelief when he saw the rating. </p>
<p>Once it reached No. 1, Butler revealed the prank to TripAdvisor. The company was miffed, but underplayed the significance of Butler’s prank by arguing the finer points of deception: The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2aCPXQzChE&t=">“distinction between attempted fraud by a real business, as opposed to attempted fraud for a non-existent business, is important.”</a> But is it?</p>
<p>TripAdvisor has its own deception detection algorithms that evaluate the truthfulness of reviews, which, apparently, work no better nor worse than human discretion. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205584/original/file-20180208-180833-1mjv1f7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205584/original/file-20180208-180833-1mjv1f7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205584/original/file-20180208-180833-1mjv1f7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205584/original/file-20180208-180833-1mjv1f7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205584/original/file-20180208-180833-1mjv1f7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205584/original/file-20180208-180833-1mjv1f7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/205584/original/file-20180208-180833-1mjv1f7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Butler opens the Shed for one night.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Courtesy VICE /Theo McInnes)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Butler decided to open The Shed for one night, serving instant soup and frozen dinners to a few unwitting guests (without charging them). It’s hard not to cringe <a href="https://www.facebook.com/VICE/videos/1904858163161557/">watching the scene unfold</a>. Even then, guests said they would come back.</p>
<p>Butler had proven his point: We live in a climate of misinformation and people are suckers.</p>
<h2>A good thing or a bad thing?</h2>
<p>When Butler broke the story publicly on <em>Vice</em>, there was a small media frenzy. Public response was a combination of laughter, embarrassment and concern. Butler’s stunt revealed our naive trust of online information, summed up by an article in the <em>The Washington Post</em>: The Shed <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/food/wp/2017/12/08/it-was-londons-top-rated-restaurant-just-one-problem-it-didnt-exist/?utm_term=.ae73d632c574">“served as another reminder of the ease with which pranksters and other dishonest actors are able to manipulate online platforms to sometimes unthinkable results.”</a></p>
<p>Asked about about the implications for our trust, Butler laughed and said that he thought truth online was “overrated.” If the ruse has a higher purpose, it show us our gullibility through one of the most bland online forms of collective trust —customer reviews.</p>
<p>Some satirists would dispute Butler’s cavalier attitude towards deception, insisting that satire has to be transparent. </p>
<p>Scott Dikkers, the founding editor of <em>The Onion</em>, said in a lecture on media ethics that the key to distinguishing fake news from satire is deception. The Onion, he said, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/aug/28/the-onion-in-the-age-of-trump-what-we-do-becomes-essential-when-its-targets-are-this-clownish">… produces fake news but it’s for laughs – not to intentionally deceive readers…</a>“ </p>
<p>Butler is cynical and optimistic at the same time. His own analysis of his stunningly successful fraud ends with a cheerful conclusion: "You could look at this cynically – argue that the odor of the internet is so strong nowadays that people can no longer use their senses properly. But I like to be positive. If I can transform my garden into London’s best restaurant, literally anything is possible.” </p>
<h2>There is no truth to the internet</h2>
<p>The story might have ended there, but on Jan. 22, 2018 Butler <a href="https://www.facebook.com/VICE/videos/1904858163161557/">posted a video</a> documenting The Shed at Dulwich hoax on Facebook, racking up 33 million views. I’m not sure if we can fact-check that number. Does it matter? The comments are deeply appreciative, at many levels. Lots of readers like the business model, and people love the joke. Nobody really talks about the discomfort of seeing themselves as targets.</p>
<p>So are we to thank Butler? Are we less prone to deception having been deceived? Maybe not — deception detection researchers are hard at work creating truth algorithms to fight deception algorithms, leaving humans out of it altogether. </p>
<p>Howard W. Campbell, Kurt Vonnegut’s fake Nazi propagandist in his 1961 novel, <em>Mother Night</em> offers this assessment of trust: “Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider the capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile.” </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bqPARIKHbN8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Guests said they would come back.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91211/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia Creet does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Shed at Dulwich reached TripAdvisor’s No. 1 spot for restaurants in London before it was revealed to be a hoax. The stunt showed how easily we are fooled. The lesson learned? Trust no one.Julia Creet, Professor of English, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/876602017-11-23T14:34:06Z2017-11-23T14:34:06ZKeeping staff satisfied really is good business, says new study<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196146/original/file-20171123-18021-1879kih.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/business-people-modern-office-celebrating-good-397897816?src=HZkK18abGGzZGd3aD_vnnA-1-3">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine sitting down to your business meeting in a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12192007/Ridiculous-offices-10-utterly-absurd-workplaces.html">ball-pool room</a> with multi-coloured walls and bean bags instead of chairs. If that’s not crazy enough, how about a massive hammock to take a breather on during a hectic nine-hour shift?</p>
<p>Many companies are coming up imaginative ways to keep their staff satisfied. The theory goes that with more entertaining and exciting work spaces, employees no longer feel like they are stuck at work. Instead, they adopt a “work hard, play hard” attitude and the company enjoys greater productivity.</p>
<p>But do companies actually benefit from investing in the satisfaction of their employees? Shareholders are sceptical. Their common <a href="https://hbr.org/2016/03/28-years-of-stock-market-data-shows-a-link-between-employee-satisfaction-and-long-term-value">view</a> is that for every dollar invested in staff satisfaction, a dollar is taken away from them. But my colleagues Efthymia Symitsi, Panagiotis Stamolampros and I have just completed a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176517304433">new study</a> that shows employee satisfaction really does affect the long-term financial success of a business.</p>
<p>To do this, we examined the relationship between reviews by employees of a company and how successful it was using measures of profitability (<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnonassets.asp?ad=dirN&qo=investopediaSiteSearch&qsrc=0&o=40186">return on equity</a>) and value (<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/qratio.asp?ad=dirN&qo=serpSearchTopBox&qsrc=1&o=40186">Tobin’s Q</a>). We found that companies whose employees said they were highly satisfied performed better financially than those who were unsatisfied. The more reviews per employee that a company had, the more pronounced this effect seemed to be.</p>
<h2>What makes this study different?</h2>
<p>Previous <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X11000869">studies</a> on this topic have mainly used Fortune magazine’s “<a href="http://fortune.com/best-companies/">100 Best Places to Work for in America</a>” list to measure staff satisfaction. This rates workplaces using an extensive anonymous employee survey. The <a href="https://www.greatplacetowork.com/best-workplaces/100-best">survey</a> includes questions relating to the support employees get in their personal and professional lives, the quality of communication by management and relationships with colleagues. The problem is that companies have to pay a fee to participate in the survey and be included in this list. So they are only likely to do this if they believe their employees are satisfied, an issue known in statistics as self-selection bias.</p>
<p>To avoid this, we gathered data from a collection of reviews posted by employees on jobs website <a href="https://www.glassdoor.com">Glassdoor</a>. This also meant our analysis wasn’t limited to a small number of companies. To prevent disgruntled ex-employees from unfairly skewing the picture of their old companies, we focused on reviews from employees who were still working at each company. In total, we used approximately 326,000 “overall” satisfaction ratings for 313 public US companies posted from 2009 to 2016 on Glassdoor.</p>
<h2>Does the stock market agree?</h2>
<p>We also looked at whether investors in the stock market recognised the value staff satisfaction brings to a business. The answer was a resounding no. An investment portfolio that included stocks of the top 25% of companies in terms of employee satisfaction produced an “<a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/abnormalreturn.asp">abnormal return</a>” over the period we studied. That is, given the portfolio’s risk, the rate of return was significantly higher than expected according to standard asset pricing models. This supported our finding that employee satisfaction is important for companies and investors, but also revealed it is not fully reflected in companies’ stock prices.</p>
<p>If it was, the portfolio wouldn’t have achieved this abnormal return. The reviews from Glassdoor are public information so if investors recognised the importance of staff satisfaction, they could easily use them when deciding which stocks to buy. The increased demand would translate to an increase in the stock price of companies with high employee satisfaction and so the return of the portfolio wouldn’t be abnormal.</p>
<h2>What are the implications for managers?</h2>
<p>Some economists have been arguing <a href="http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/luigi.zingales/papers/research/search.pdf">for almost two decades</a> that employees are becoming more important to modern corporations. They aren’t just in charge of company assets but are assets themselves. Our findings, which are <a href="http://faculty.london.edu/aedmans/RoweAMP.pdf">consistent with previous studies</a>, support this idea that looking after employees’ job satisfaction is very important to the company’s financial success.</p>
<p>This is especially true in a knowledge and service-based economy where innovation and customer relationships are key for creating value. Managers need to recognise this even when shareholders don’t. Investing in staff satisfaction will pay dividends in the long-term.</p>
<p>Finally, it’s worth noting that doing this doesn’t have to cost a lot of money. Despite the popularity of quirky office design, spending millions of dollars transforming the physical surroundings of a business <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-why-cool-offices-dont-always-make-for-a-happier-workforce-77361">isn’t what keeps employees satisfied</a>. The answer could be that employees simply <a href="https://moneyish.com/ish/this-is-the-no-1-thing-that-will-keep-you-happy-at-work">want to be appreciated</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87660/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Daskalakis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research reveals a happy work force is likely to increase a business’s profitability.George Daskalakis, Lecturer in Finance, University of East AngliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/822032017-11-02T02:52:41Z2017-11-02T02:52:41ZStop doing companies’ digital busywork for free<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192300/original/file-20171027-2402-p3er9r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How much time and energy do people spend rating, reviewing and answering surveys?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/reputation-management-concept-feedback-rating-677453737">Ditty_about_summer/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the past year, I stopped responding to customer surveys, providing user feedback or, mostly, contributing product reviews. Sometimes I feel obligated – even eager – to provide this information. Who doesn’t like being asked their opinion? But, in researching media technologies as an anthropologist, I see these requests as part of a broader trend making home life bureaucratic. </p>
<p>Consumer technologies – whether user reviews and recommendations, social media or health care portals – involve logistical effort that means more administrative work at home. As economic anthropologist <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber">David Graeber</a> <a href="https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit">observes</a>, “All the software designed to save us from administrative responsibilities [has] turned us into part- or full-time administrators.” Companies may benefit when customers create content, provide feedback and do busywork once done by paid employees, but what about the customers themselves – all of us?</p>
<p>Many researchers recognize professional <a href="https://hbr.org/1983/09/moral-mazes-bureaucracy-and-managerial-work">workplaces are becoming more bureaucratic</a>, managing workers through documentation and quantification. But fewer acknowledge the expansion of this logic into private life. It might not feel like a burden to update your Facebook profile, review a business or log in to a web portal to message your doctor. But when you lose time answering customer surveys, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/325807937506242/">setting privacy rules</a>, resetting a password, wading through licensing agreements or updating firmware, it becomes clear how digital technologies increase managerial work at home. In my forthcoming book, I explore this phenomenon, which I call logistical labor.</p>
<h2>Digitizing daily life</h2>
<p>Here’s a typical example of how this happens at home. I recently received an email from my auto insurance requesting I call. Fair enough; I might not answer if the company called me. But instead of reaching a person familiar with the query, my call fed into an automated system where a synthesized voice asked what I was calling about.</p>
<p>“You told me to call!” I replied.</p>
<p>The automated system was confused: “Sorry, what was that again? You can say auto ‘policy,’ ‘claims’ or ‘tell me my options.’” </p>
<p>Eventually I reached a human, who didn’t know why I’d been asked to call either. “I don’t know,” I told her, “That’s what I’m calling about…” Finally, we figured out what was going on and resolved the issue. Then she asked whether I would stay on the line for a customer service survey. I refused. </p>
<p>Rather than calling or emailing me with specific details, the company made me work through all that automated confusion. Requiring that I call in effectively gave me work previously done by paid employees. And then the insurance company asked for yet more of my time to reflect on how well – or not – my work solved the problem the company had. At what point should I expect to be paid for my work?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192523/original/file-20171030-18735-1uc42c6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are these call center workers happy because other people are doing their jobs?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/call-center-worker-accompanied-by-his-707850307">Redpixel.pl/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Managing work</h2>
<p>Bureaucracy – a term coined in the 18th century to mean “<a href="https://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/social-worlds/all-articles/management/desk">rule by writing desk</a>” – refers to the organization of modern government, desk-bound and hierarchical. Max Weber, a <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/weber/">founding theorist of social science</a>, viewed bureaucratic organization as fundamental to modern society. He decried its rigidity as an <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/understanding-max-webers-iron-cage-3026373">“iron cage” of rationalization</a> in which social life is managed quantitatively. Since at least the 1970s, bureaucratic management has become common in corporate workplaces. </p>
<p>Sociologist Robert Jackall termed this shift the “<a href="https://hbr.org/1983/09/moral-mazes-bureaucracy-and-managerial-work">bureaucratization of the economy</a>,” in which rigid hierarchy and constant documentation takes over business places, including “administrative hierarchies, standardized work procedures, regularized timetables, uniform policies, and centralized control.” More bureaucracy means relentlessly tracking metrics and performances in the name of productivity – and internalizing the idea that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95235-9_5">a person’s value can be quantified</a>.</p>
<p>Graeber, the anthropologist of bureaucracy, suggests bureaucratization is becoming more common <a href="https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit">as Western economies export manufacturing work to developing countries</a>. The work that remains <a href="https://monthlyreview.org/2010/10/01/the-financialization-of-accumulation/">increasingly depends</a> on the <a href="https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/fire_finance_insurance_real_estate_ice_intellectual_cultural_educational/">finance, insurance and real estate sectors</a>, businesses that make their money from service fees and employ people to do pointless <a href="http://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/">“bullshit” jobs</a>. Graeber contends that – unlike teaching, manual work, health care or the arts – jobs in management, consulting, PR or other “knowledge” fields could vanish with little effect on society.</p>
<p>In the academic world, <a href="https://www.socanth.cam.ac.uk/directory/professor-marilyn-strathern-cbe-fba">anthropologists like Marilyn Strathern</a> have described the push to quantify and document university work as “<a href="https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/4432135">audit culture</a>.” More broadly, this expansion of administrative work, aided by digital technologies, is transforming how American companies operate. For many companies, shifting administrative labor to consumers and “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-ensure-the-next-generation-of-workers-isnt-worse-off-than-the-last-52110">gig-economy</a>” contractors offers a newly “disruptive” business model. As tech companies <a href="https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/354458/whatever-happened-to-customer-support">replace live customer service</a> with online support “topics,” for example, users must spend additional time wading through these articles, or face endless phone trees when they do find a phone number. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/192524/original/file-20171030-18704-1xnbkte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When is bureaucracy too much?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/busy-businessman-under-stress-due-excessive-551850775">Elnur/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Laboring for social media companies</h2>
<p>New technologies can generate more pointless work, and not just in professional settings. The <a href="https://www.epicpeople.org/how-theory-matters/">logic of tracking and monitoring</a>, for example, threatens to take over American home life as well, from fitness and wearable tech to smart homes that assess <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDlQu1ow_0s">when you need toilet paper</a> or milk.</p>
<p>But spending time on new tech platforms doesn’t always seem like work. <a href="http://www.jordankraemer.com/writings/">Young Europeans I have studied</a>, for example, enjoy spending time on social networking sites and describe them warmly. But Facebook, Yelp, Instagram and the rest profit from the posts, photos, reviews and links people create, because they incite the “engagement” that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ICUFN.2016.7536934">drives ad revenue</a>. As with consumer surveys or user feedback, these firms <a href="http://fuchs.uti.at/books/culture-and-economy-in-the-age-of-social-media/">are harnessing user-generated content</a> to convert people’s leisure time into corporate profit. </p>
<p>As new social network sites are created and become popular, each person spends more time keeping profiles up to date, checking on connections’ activities or chasing down forgotten passwords. Managing these accounts isn’t just time-consuming; it can be mentally taxing. Inspired by Chandra Mukerji’s <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8911.html">research on the logistical power of water in civil engineering projects</a>, I consider this cognitive effort “logistical labor.” Logistical labor is in this sense the work consumers do to manage tech platforms, often as companies outsource content creation and streamline their operations. </p>
<h2>A new digital divide</h2>
<p>The scope of this uncompensated digital busywork – from which companies profit – goes well beyond social media maintenance and taking consumer surveys. Even setting up a home printer requires exploring settings and configurations and troubleshooting, which can be daunting without the right tech know-how. People who are unwilling or unable to do that miss out on some of technology’s benefits.</p>
<p>In my research, for example, one young person in Berlin balked at purchasing a new mobile phone, overwhelmed by the task of sorting through service plans. Another shared wireless internet service with a friend across the street, resigning herself to spotty connections and limited online activity rather than wrestle with choosing, ordering and configuring her own service. Others were concerned about data privacy but were stymied by Facebook’s privacy options.</p>
<p>The scale of these problems is not only about quality of life – but about life itself. </p>
<h2>Handling health care</h2>
<p>Expecting consumers to be deeply involved expert users is especially concerning when it comes to managing health care. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-us-health-economy-is-big-but-is-it-better-80593">dysfunctional U.S. health care system</a> is already a Byzantine system of preauthorizations, insurance codes and impersonal treatment. Digitization alone isn’t to blame, but tech platforms like <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2196%2Fjmir.7099">online portals</a> increase administrative work for patients.</p>
<p>Patients, for example, often encounter multiple online portals in the process of paying bills or obtaining prescriptions. Although these systems save time in some ways, they require patients do more legwork like setting up user accounts. This problem is made worse as doctors <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/14/us/salaried-doctors-may-not-lead-to-cheaper-health-care.html">leave private practice</a> for hospital groups, which often use unwieldy online platforms and automated phone systems that make it difficult to reach a doctor directly. </p>
<p>Although the health care industry touts such portals <a href="https://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/business-case-increasing-patient-portal-adoption">as better for business</a> – and in theory, <a href="https://health.usnews.com/health-news/patient-advice/articles/2014/06/30/how-patient-portals-are-changing-health-care">for coordinating care</a> – little attention has been paid to the additional work they create for patients, or the barriers to accessing their doctors.</p>
<h2>Inequality at home</h2>
<p>In all these examples, managing information on computer systems – for health care, insurance coverage or social media interaction – requires a new level of logistical effort, even with access to computers and the internet. This logistical labor adds to the <a href="https://www.psychologistworld.com/memory/cognitive-load-theory">mental work of managing a household</a>.</p>
<p>In most homes, this additional effort, sometimes called “cognitive load,” <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2017-09-14/the-mental-load-and-what-to-do-about-it/8942032">falls disproportionately to women</a>, who keep track of their families’ needs. For working women, the “second shift” isn’t just about housework or child care, but <a href="http://time.com/money/4561314/women-work-home-gender-gap/">the cumulative fatigue of planning, delegating and worrying</a>. It’s not a coincidence that many “smart home” technologies effectively replace the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDlQu1ow_0s">care work of mothers</a>. This invisible labor typically goes unpaid, further devaluing responsibilities traditionally associated with women. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NDlQu1ow_0s?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Do smart technologies tend to focus on gender-biased tasks?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, the logistical labor of managing new technologies entails a cognitive load that can overtake daily life. Of course, I still follow social media, read consumer reviews and sign up for paperless billing. But I’m more aware of how easily my time and labor become new sources of profit, through an unseen exploitation that places the onus on individuals to manage complex systems in the guise of optimizing user “experience.” This broader trend, however, makes individuals complicit in their own exploitation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82203/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jordan Kraemer received funding previously from Intel Labs.</span></em></p>Companies may benefit when customers create content, provide feedback and do busywork once done by paid employees, but what about the customers themselves – all of us?Jordan Kraemer, Visiting Scholar in Anthropology, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/815292017-08-01T13:31:34Z2017-08-01T13:31:34ZTripAdvisor helps us choose hotels and restaurants – so why not where we end our days?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179847/original/file-20170726-30134-1x7fzwe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'Not too shabby here it says.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/elderly-people-using-computer-sitting-light-540376684?src=rqlrzPOQEF28pjZgAAxw2Q-3-19">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>My 91-year-old mother was deeply unhappy at the geriatric hospital in which she found herself after breaking her ankle. But we knew little of the alternatives. Official inspection ratings offer impersonal information. So how were we, her children, supposed to gauge the quality of other establishments offering care? </p>
<p>Our saviour turned out to be Alison – my mother’s hairdresser. As a specialist in older, housebound clients, she had continued to do her customers’ hair as they moved to various hospitals or care homes. </p>
<p>Alison gave us the names of three places nearby that our mother might prefer, and we arranged her transfer within 36 hours. It was a move which transformed the quality of her last few months of life. </p>
<p>Unlike formal inspectors, Alison was an unthreatening, secret observer of each of the institutions she visited. She proved to be a knowledgeable and reliable guide. Without her, my mother’s life could have ended very differently. </p>
<p>The trouble is, not every family is lucky enough to know an Alison. </p>
<p>In the UK, people are expected to <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-uk-really-the-best-place-in-the-world-to-die-48766">make their own choices</a> about their own care in the final months and years of life. But how can people become well informed about different care providers, especially when a crisis forces decisions to be made at short notice? Alison revealed the importance of informal contacts and social networks in allowing individuals and families to make good choices. </p>
<p>How could her role be made available to all families seeking similar information? Care settings for those nearing the end of life are, in terms of inspection, a bit like restaurants. Technical medical and nursing procedures, like a restaurant’s kitchen, need inspecting by technical inspectors. But most of the care provided at the end of a person’s life is not of the technical kind. It involves hard to measure factors like respect, a sense of belonging, and relationships with staff. It is in many ways like assessing a restaurant’s ambience. In the hospitality trade, this is something best considered by mystery customers who collectively author good food guides, or by informal online ratings like on <a href="https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk">TripAdvisor</a>. </p>
<p>Such assessments rightly abandon the myth of objectivity embedded in formal inspections. Potential consumers perusing TripAdvisor ratings understand them as subjective experiences to be taken on balance. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179851/original/file-20170726-30152-sb5z23.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179851/original/file-20170726-30152-sb5z23.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179851/original/file-20170726-30152-sb5z23.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179851/original/file-20170726-30152-sb5z23.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179851/original/file-20170726-30152-sb5z23.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179851/original/file-20170726-30152-sb5z23.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179851/original/file-20170726-30152-sb5z23.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You choose.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So collective, honestly subjective, online ratings should be available for families to make informed choices about different care settings. For well-being over the course of life, we need to be able to read about customer experiences of health and care agencies just as much as we need to read about experiences of restaurants, hotels and holidays. </p>
<p>A great example of what is needed is <a href="https://www.carehome.co.uk">carehome.co.uk</a>, which gathers and publishes reviews of care homes, along with other information provided by the home. Many of the care homes listed, however, have no reviews. Care at home is reviewed by the online database <a href="https://www.homecare.co.uk">homecare.co.uk</a>, although the vast majority of organisations that look after people in their own homes have no reviews. </p>
<p>Those two websites are funded by industry subscriptions. Proposed reviews are authenticated and vetted before publication, and reviewers are advised not to publish complaints but send them direct to the agency. These safeguards should eradicate vexatious reviews, although they may also present an unrealistically positive overall view of user experience. The sites are, however, a step in the right direction.</p>
<p>Of course, TripAdvisor-style ratings for the “last journey” tend to come not from the actual service-user or patient. Most reviews are from family and friends, which could be an issue. Complex family dynamics – such as guilt at putting parents into care, or anxiety that care costs are eating up the inheritance – can mean families are rarely the baggage-free observers that Alison was. </p>
<h2>Reviewing the situation</h2>
<p>Of more concern is that even the most loving, attentive and observant family member may know little about the person’s experiences at the hands of their paid carers. This might only be achieved by CCTV cameras, but do we really want care homes, hospital wards and (in the case of home care) even the person’s own home to become <a href="https://theconversation.com/proposal-for-hidden-cameras-in-care-homes-is-misguided-19216">zones of electronic surveillance</a>? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179849/original/file-20170726-17560-u8wlzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179849/original/file-20170726-17560-u8wlzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179849/original/file-20170726-17560-u8wlzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179849/original/file-20170726-17560-u8wlzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179849/original/file-20170726-17560-u8wlzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179849/original/file-20170726-17560-u8wlzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179849/original/file-20170726-17560-u8wlzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Taking a view.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>No way of monitoring or collecting information will be perfect. And we should acknowledge that the <a href="http://policypress.co.uk/what-death-means-now">trajectory of frail elderly dying</a> is always uncertain. No one can predict how they will feel as bodies and minds fail, so all choices will entail a degree of guesswork. </p>
<p>Rigorous formal inspection – and public enquiries when things go dramatically wrong – are of course essential. But if people nearing the end of life (or their families) are to adopt the prescribed role of informed consumer, comprehensive collations of user experiences are vital. </p>
<p>End of life care is more important than booking a restaurant or the next holiday – so information needs to be just as good, or better.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81529/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tony Walter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sharing information would inform important decisions about elderly care.Tony Walter, Professor of Death Studies, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/502952015-11-10T10:47:38Z2015-11-10T10:47:38ZBusinesses can actually sue you for posting negative reviews – and now Congress is fighting back<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101321/original/image-20151109-29305-ag3ywn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Upon purchasing a product, many consumers will sign contracts that contain gag clauses in the fine print.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=gZruLoRkjYu2nd5zViFu8w&searchterm=silenced&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=150536339">'Zipper' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In late September, the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov">Federal Trade Commission</a> (FTC) filed a complaint against two marketers of weight-loss supplements – <a href="https://rocalabs.com">Roca Labs, Inc</a> and Roca Labs Nutraceutical USA, Inc.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/09/ftc-sues-marketers-who-used-gag-clauses-monetary-threats-lawsuits">According to the FTC</a>, Roca Labs, Inc “allegedly made baseless claims for their products, and then threatened to enforce ‘gag clause’ provisions against consumers to stop them from posting negative reviews and testimonials online.”</p>
<p>The gag clause that the FTC refers to – in which customers unwittingly sign away their rights to post online reviews after making a purchase – is becoming increasingly common. And it’s only one of several strategies that companies have used to suppress negative reviews of their products.</p>
<p>A bill that’s <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2015/11/congress-may-ban-gag-clauses-that-prohibit.html">picking up steam</a> in the US Senate – the <a href="http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2015/9/thune-schatz-and-moran-introduce-bill-to-protect-consumers-from-fines-for-negative-online-reviews">Consumer Review Freedom Act</a> – directly addresses these gag clauses. But while it represents a step in the right direction, the bill fails to address other shady practices of the online review industry. </p>
<h2>The messy world of online reviews</h2>
<p>Who knows what to believe these days about the authenticity and veracity of online – typically anonymous – reviews, which assess everything from restaurants to <a href="http://www.sfbar.org/forms/sfam/q42013/online-reviews.pdf">physicians</a>. </p>
<p>Some reviews are <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2015/11/06/four-ways-spot-fake-online-review/75264050/">fake</a> (known as “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/25/fake-yelp-reviews-guide">astroturfed</a>” reviews) and some are real. Some might contain truthful and honest views, while some might be <a href="http://www.reviewtrackers.com/legal-risks-writing-positive-fake-astroturf-online-business-reputation/">bought and paid for</a>, which includes <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/technology/give-yourself-4-stars-online-it-might-cost-you.html">fake positive reviews</a> posted by the companies themselves.</p>
<p>But either way, let’s face it: most businesses, large and small, don’t want you to post negative comments about their products or services on internet sites such as <a href="http://www.yelp.com/">Yelp</a>, <a href="http://www.tripadvisor.com">TripAdvisor</a>, <a href="http://www.angieslist.com">Angie’s List</a> and the aptly named <a href="http://www.pissedconsumer.com">PissedConsumer.com</a>. Even a short and damning tweet on your own Twitter account might tick off a business. </p>
<p>There’s a reason businesses care. <a href="http://searchengineland.com/88-consumers-trust-online-reviews-much-personal-recommendations-195803">One study</a> in 2014 found that 39% of consumers read online reviews on a regular basis, up from 32% in 2013. <a href="http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/81-shoppers-conduct-online-research-making-purchase-infographic/208527">Another survey</a> found that 61% of shoppers will read product reviews before making a purchase. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101184/original/image-20151108-16273-fwpja7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/101184/original/image-20151108-16273-fwpja7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101184/original/image-20151108-16273-fwpja7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101184/original/image-20151108-16273-fwpja7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=432&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101184/original/image-20151108-16273-fwpja7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101184/original/image-20151108-16273-fwpja7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/101184/original/image-20151108-16273-fwpja7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=543&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">61% of consumers will peruse reviews before buying a product.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=GQ0a0-A4lOuEx9v5hGP7Fw&searchterm=yelp&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=175540520">'Yelp' via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So, what’s a company to do when faced with negative reviews, real or otherwise?</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/2012/12/04/1cdfa582-3978-11e2-a263-f0ebffed2f15_story.html">typical strategy</a> is to try to silence online critics by suing them for <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation">defamation</a> and claiming the reviews contain <a href="http://www.law360.com/articles/490334/trends-in-defamation-cases-involving-online-reviews">false allegations</a>. </p>
<p>In fact, some businesses may go even further and file <em>meritless</em> defamation cases against reviewers, hoping the high costs of litigation will squelch the critics and cause them to retract their comments. These baseless libel suits are known as <a href="http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-strategic-lawsuits-against-public-participation-slapps">SLAPPs</a> – strategic lawsuits against public participation. </p>
<p>A 2010 New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/us/01slapp.html">article</a> first called public attention to the issue. It told the story of a young man who posted a negative review about a towing company and soon found himself facing a defamation suit, with the company seeking US$750,000 in damages.</p>
<p>Today, many states now have <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/anti-slapp-laws-0/">anti-SLAPP statutes</a> that allow victims to quickly dismiss these frivolous cases, thus taking some sting out of defamation as a remedy for negative reviews.</p>
<h2>Read the fine print</h2>
<p>Now, there’s a new technique that some thin-skinned businesses are adopting to prevent peeved customers for speaking out: the use of <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/11/04/senators-look-to-end-gag-clauses-for-online-reviews/">gag clauses</a>, in which customers sign away their rights to criticize a company when they enter into a contract with it. </p>
<p>These gag clauses are usually buried in the fine print and often go unread. <a href="http://consumerist.com/2015/11/04/things-are-looking-up-for-federal-law-banning-gag-clauses-that-prevent-customers-from-writing-honest-reviews/">According to Chris Morran of The Consumerist</a>, they’re appearing in contracts for “everything from cheapo cellphone accessories, to wedding contractors, to hotels, to dentists, to weight-loss products, to apartment complexes.”</p>
<p>A major problem, attorney <a href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2015/11/senate-steps-closer-towards-gag-clause-legislation.html">Jonathan Tung</a> observes, is that “there is no national consensus on whether such gags are legal or not,” as “some courts have deemed such clauses unconscionable while other courts have been very reluctant to interfere, citing freedom to contract.” </p>
<p>In other words, some courts consider gag clauses invalid and unenforceable, while others uphold them. A customer who violates a gag clause by posting a negative review of a company thus risks paying the company whatever amount was specified in the contract for breaking the gag clause. </p>
<h2>Congress steps in</h2>
<p>The US Congress has entered the fray with the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2044/text">Consumer Review Freedom Act of 2015</a>. Sponsored by Senator <a href="http://www.thune.senate.gov/public/">John Thune</a> (R – South Dakota), the bill renders contractual gag clauses void if they prohibit consumers from reviewing products or assessing performance, and if the clauses constitute “form contracts.” (Many lawyers would term these <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_contract_of_adhesion">adhesion contracts</a> because the consumer has almost no power or leverage to negotiate a better deal.) The Consumer Review Freedom Act also gives the <a href="https://www.ftc.gov">Federal Trade Commission</a> the power to enforce the law on behalf of gagged consumers. </p>
<p>Here, Congress is following the lead of California, which in 2014 became the first state to adopt <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2014/09/10/california-tells-businesses-stop-trying-to-ban-consumer-reviews/">a statute</a> forbidding businesses from gagging their customers. The measure is also supported by <a href="http://officialblog.yelp.com/2015/05/freedom-of-speech-deserves-better-federal-protection.html">Yelp</a>, where more than <a href="http://www.yelp.com/about">90 million</a> reviews have been posted. </p>
<h2>A matter of contract, not the First Amendment</h2>
<p>Surprisingly, perhaps, this is not a <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment">First Amendment</a> free speech issue. The First Amendment certainly protects our ability to express our opinions, and opinions – as opposed to false allegations – are also typically shielded from defamation liability. </p>
<p>For example, posting online that a restaurant has “horrible service” or that it is “too loud” are matters of protected opinion. Conversely, claiming that the restaurant has “rats in the kitchen” or that it uses “stale products” in its recipes are factual allegations that, if false, are not protected.</p>
<p>But the First Amendment only protects speech from government censorship. The companies including gag provisions in their contracts are not government entities. Gag clauses thus are a matter of contract – not constitutional – law. </p>
<p>Although it has some quibbles with the language used in the Consumer Review Freedom Act, the <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/11/consumer-review-freedom-act-would-protect-customers-right-post-reviews">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a> says “it’s great to see lawmakers addressing some of the most overtly unfair contract clauses.” </p>
<p>There are, of course, many more problems with online reviews not addressed by the new bill, such as how to deal with completely fake and paid-for reviews. But some companies are taking action on their own.</p>
<p>In April, the <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/amazon-sues-to-block-fake-reviews-on-its-site/">Seattle Times</a> reported that <a href="http://www.amazon.com">Amazon</a> “sued three websites it accuses of purveying fake reviews, demanding that they stop the practice.” It was only the first legal punch thrown by the giant Internet-based retailer. Last month, Amazon <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-16/amazon-targets-web-freelancers-peddling-fake-customer-reviews">sued</a> “more than 1,000 unidentified people selling fake reviews on its Web store.”</p>
<p>Make no mistake: the Consumer Review Freedom Act is a great step forward for consumers who want to speak out, and it is wonderful to see Yelp <a href="http://www.responsemagazine.com/direct-response-marketing/news/yelp-backs-ftc-fight-against-gag-clauses-8970">supporting it</a>. But by failing to address fake posts and preventing companies from filing SLAPPs, it only nibbles at the edges of the larger problems in the Wild West of online reviews.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50295/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clay Calvert does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Companies have increasingly been using hidden gag clauses, in which customers unwittingly sign away their rights to post online reviews after purchasing a product.Clay Calvert, Brechner Eminent Scholar in Mass Communication, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/407432015-04-30T10:17:10Z2015-04-30T10:17:10ZThe social graph won’t save us from what’s wrong with online reviews<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79626/original/image-20150428-3048-1742xqw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sure you're connected to them, but can you trust them?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelgallagher/5076994348/">Michael Sean Gallagher</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In early 2015, the Belfast Telegraph sent reporter Kim Kelly <a href="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/we-check-out-northern-irelands-worst-hotel-the-under-cover-truth-after-online-abuse-30959295.html">undercover</a> to visit Northern Ireland’s “worst” hotel — according to its on online reputation. Kelly reported that although some TripAdvisor reviews had called it a “hell hole” and “dustbin,” she was pleasantly surprised with the “clean and compact” rooms.</p>
<p>This story is indicative of how important online reviews have become and the skepticism many have toward them. In a 2014 <a href="https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/11/24/americans-rely-online-reviews-despite-not-trusting/">survey</a> of Americans by the market research firm YouGov, 90% of respondents said that checking online reviews was an important part of shopping. An equal percentage believed that such reviews are sometimes manipulated — for motives not difficult to discern.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79615/original/image-20150428-3084-1bb9en6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79615/original/image-20150428-3084-1bb9en6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79615/original/image-20150428-3084-1bb9en6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79615/original/image-20150428-3084-1bb9en6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79615/original/image-20150428-3084-1bb9en6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79615/original/image-20150428-3084-1bb9en6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79615/original/image-20150428-3084-1bb9en6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79615/original/image-20150428-3084-1bb9en6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">I hear the coffee’s very good here.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tvoe/15006006350">Jay</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Online reviews translate to big bucks</h2>
<p>As I document in my new book <a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/reading-comments">Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web</a>, online reviews affect merchants’ bottom lines. Multiple studies have shown that good reviews permit merchants to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.385206">charge</a> higher <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13571516.2012.642645">prices</a>, increase restaurant <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02512.x">bookings</a>, and sales of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.345">books</a>, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2010.529436">hotel rooms</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.2.133">video games</a>. Accordingly, review platforms are worth millions. TripAdvisor 2011’s IPO was <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/how-tripadvisors-business-works-2011-12">valued</a> at over US$3 billion. In 2013, Amazon <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/03/29/amazon-moves-toward-kindle-social-network-with-goodreads/">purchased</a> Goodreads, the book review and discussion site, for US$150 million. Google had its own review acquisition spree, including <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/08/google-acquires-zagat-to-flesh-out-local-ratings/">Zagat in 2011</a> and <a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/google-mines-frommers-travel-for-social-data-then-sells-the-name-back/">Frommer’s Travel in 2012</a>.</p>
<p>Beyond consumers, merchants, and review platforms, there’s another actor keen on benefiting from online reviews: illicit manipulators. From overseas “<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393412/Amazon-TripAdvisor-centre-scandal-companies-post-fake-reviews.html">sweatshops</a>” (that earn pennies per post) to the <a href="http://nymag.com/news/features/online-reputation-management-2013-6/">“boutique” reputation services</a> for the rich, there is a vast market for online deceit. By finding patterns in posts (such as the ratio of positive to negative words) and activity (such as a negative review quickly followed by a positive one), <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1341531.1341560">studies</a> estimate that 10%–30% of reviews are fake. Similarly, Yelp discloses that about a quarter of its reviews are “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2293164">filtered</a>” as unreliable – they are not easily seen and are excluded from services’ average number of stars.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79616/original/image-20150428-3098-2mt6uu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79616/original/image-20150428-3098-2mt6uu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79616/original/image-20150428-3098-2mt6uu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79616/original/image-20150428-3098-2mt6uu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79616/original/image-20150428-3098-2mt6uu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79616/original/image-20150428-3098-2mt6uu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79616/original/image-20150428-3098-2mt6uu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79616/original/image-20150428-3098-2mt6uu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Like it? Loyal? What’s in it for me?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/searchinfluence/8589945269">Search Influence</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Social steps in</h2>
<p>What to do? Some suggest the “social graph” as a solution: favoring the comments and activities of users’ friends over the recommendations of strangers. Instead of reading an anonymous review of an eatery, you are informed that your friend Alice enjoyed her sandwich there.</p>
<p>But this solution assumes that platforms themselves (and your buddy Alice) can be trusted. Review sites including Yelp have been accused of <a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/yelp-extortion-allegations-stack-up/Content?oid=1176984&showFullText=true">extorting</a> merchants by rigging which reviews are seen depending on whether merchants paid for advertising — especially when Yelp’s own employees write a bad review after a merchant <a href="http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/yelp-and-the-business-of-extortion-20/Content?oid=1176635&showFullText=true">declines to advertise</a>. So far, Yelp has <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/70421921/Levitt-v-Yelp-Dismissal">prevailed</a> in the courts and review platforms will <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/10/yelp_gets_compl.htm">continue</a> to profit by manipulating the visibility of users’ praise and pillory.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79622/original/image-20150428-3071-lzk3kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79622/original/image-20150428-3071-lzk3kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79622/original/image-20150428-3071-lzk3kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79622/original/image-20150428-3071-lzk3kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79622/original/image-20150428-3071-lzk3kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79622/original/image-20150428-3071-lzk3kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79622/original/image-20150428-3071-lzk3kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79622/original/image-20150428-3071-lzk3kj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Me no like.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/smemon/9369457579">Sean MacEntee</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Facebook was accused of abusing both its advertisers and end users with its “Sponsored Stories” program, which it <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20121225012107/http://www.facebook.com/help/162317430499238/">described</a> as “messages coming from friends about them engaging with a Page, app or event that a business, organization or individual has paid to highlight so there’s a better chance people see them.” Businesses that had Page accounts were upset when they found they were having a <em>more</em> difficult time reaching their fans: on average, only 15% saw these Sponsored Story messages. If clients wished to reach more fans, they needed to pay for more Sponsored Stories; <a href="http://observer.com/2012/09/broken-on-purpose/">many</a> <a href="http://dangerousminds.net/comments/facebook_i_want_my_friends_back">complaints</a> soon <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/02/14/facebooks_big_like_problem_major_money_and_major_scams/">followed</a>.</p>
<p>Worse yet, end users were surprised to find themselves appearing in Facebook ads. A plaintiff in a lawsuit against Facebook appeared in ads because she had “liked” an online French language course in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/technology/so-much-for-sharing-his-like.html">hopes</a> of getting a discount. Facebook is not alone. Google+ has “<a href="http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/10/google-will-soon-put-your-face-name-and-content-in-its-ads/">shared endorsements</a>” and, in addition to its “<a href="https://support.twitter.com/articles/142101-what-are-promoted-tweets">promoted tweets</a>,” Twitter will reportedly start <a href="https://gigaom.com/2014/09/04/twitter-cfo-says-a-facebook-style-filtered-feed-is-coming-whether-you-like-it-or-not/">filtering and shaping</a> its users’ timelines later in 2015.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79613/original/image-20150428-3093-1iaaeu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79613/original/image-20150428-3093-1iaaeu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/79613/original/image-20150428-3093-1iaaeu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79613/original/image-20150428-3093-1iaaeu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79613/original/image-20150428-3093-1iaaeu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79613/original/image-20150428-3093-1iaaeu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79613/original/image-20150428-3093-1iaaeu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/79613/original/image-20150428-3093-1iaaeu8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Geek & Poke by Oliver Widder.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://geek-and-poke.com/geekandpoke/2011/4/18/try-it-the-social-way.html">http://geek-and-poke.com</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Additionally, moving to the social graph is only likely to implicate one’s acquaintances in the same game. Users, too, are tempted to exploit the social graph. When our friend Alice posted that she enjoyed the sandwich, perhaps it was because she also got a free drink for doing so? Shoppers click “like” in hopes of a discount and recommend products to acquaintances so as to get a referral fee. Much of this is driven by the extraordinary value of review today, the rapacious desire to rate and rank everything, the consequent dynamic of competition and the sense that everyone else is already doing it.</p>
<p>The social graph will not save us, it may very well make shills of us all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40743/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joseph Reagle does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Checking online reviews is a big part of shopping. But review sites can be manipulated. Does favoring reviews posted by your social media contacts help with trustworthy, meaningful content?Joseph Reagle, Assistant Professor of Digital Communications, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/270602014-05-26T04:29:07Z2014-05-26T04:29:07ZOnline publishers beware, Europe wants to shoot the messenger<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49408/original/r29vjhjf-1401067370.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Review sites like TripAdvisor could become liable for any fake reviews they host under a new crackdown in Italy.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">scanna283/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The internet is an endless source of information. But who is liable if the information is wrong or, at least, misleading?</p>
<p>Existing laws on publishing, information and privacy were not designed for the internet. Authorities around the world are applying old rules to new technology. Some rules can be adapted. In Australia, for example, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/google-and-everyone-else-wins-by-high-court-decision-12098">High Court clarified</a> that search engines, like Google, have similar protections to publishers, like Fairfax. </p>
<p>But this common-sense result is the exception. Instead, internet companies are finding themselves hog-tied by legal process and costs.</p>
<p>For example, competition authorities in Italy are investigating TripAdvisor over <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/21/italy_competition_watchdog_tripadvisor_expedia/">“fake reviews”</a>. TripAdvisor allows individuals to post reviews about restaurants, hotels or attractions. It is an invaluable resource for tourists. </p>
<p>Unsurprisingly, however, some parties post reviews on TripAdvisor that are self-interested. A hotel owner may post favourable reviews of his or her hotel. Restaurant employees may post unfavourable reviews of their rivals. </p>
<p>These fake reviews harm TripAdvisor’s reputation. It has procedures to try to identify and remove them, but some will get through. TripAdvisor’s business model depends on crowd-sourced information, and the company cannot perfectly check everyone in the “crowd”. </p>
<p>Fake reviews raise two legal issues for TripAdvisor. First, TripAdvisor needs to be careful how it promotes itself. It can’t guarantee that its reviews are all “genuine” and it has <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/2006d41e-e0da-11e3-a934-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32WYx6sFp">previously been investigated</a> in the UK for making such claims.</p>
<p>Second, fake reviews may mislead consumers. So who is liable for this misleading and deceptive behaviour? </p>
<p>The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has taken a common-sense approach. The fake reviewer is liable, and the ACCC has <a href="https://theconversation.com/spot-the-fake-shoppers-get-help-with-online-reviews-21161">taken action</a> against those who post fake reviews. </p>
<p>However, Italian authorities may want to go further and make TripAdvisor liable for fake reviews. TripAdvisor cannot perfectly prevent such reviews and consumers need to be aware of the potential for fake reviews. But if TripAdvisor is made liable for fake reviews or has to ensure that all reviews are “genuine”, its business will be unviable. In their haste to protect a few consumers, over-zealous competition authorities could make many other consumers worse off. </p>
<p>If the Italian authorities follow the ACCC’s lead, then it will be a good outcome. But if the Italian regulators go further, then they could harm, not help, many consumers.</p>
<h2>Interventionist approach</h2>
<p>As two recent decisions highlight, the Europeans appear to be favouring strong internet intervention.</p>
<p>Two weeks ago the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/17/google-privacy-ruling-thin-end-censorship-wedge">European Court of Justice determined</a> that individuals have a right to require search engines to remove links to some information. The information may be true, but if it violates a “respect for private life” or a “right to protection of personal data” then the search engine is obliged to sever the link.</p>
<p>This decision has been called a “right to be forgotten”. But the ruling applies to the search engine, not the newspaper that has a web page with the information. So the “right” is really a constraint on search engines. The information is true, public and exists on the internet. But a search engine is not allowed to find it for you.</p>
<p>This decision is the internet equivalent of “shooting the messenger”. Don’t fix the source of the information. Stop the person who allows you to find it!</p>
<p>Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights recently considered the requirement for <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/9c0cf256-e197-11e3-b7c4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz32hBeT96P">news sites to monitor</a> (and remove) comments on stories. In the case of <em>Delfi AS v Estonia</em>, the Court decided that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“If a commercial website allows anonymous comments, it is both ‘practical’ and ‘reasonable’ for it to be held legally responsible for the contents of those comments.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The internet as ‘co-author’</h2>
<p>This decision goes further than simply requiring that websites act quickly to remove (for example) defamatory comments. If a website is publishing an article that may lead to such comments, it must monitor anonymous comments and is liable if any harmful comments are posted. </p>
<p>The decision may spell the end of anonymous comments because monitoring, for large news sites, is expensive. </p>
<p>Some may say “good riddance”. But the ruling reflects a bias towards controlling websites rather than placing the onus on those who use the website. It is moving away from the internet as publisher, as in the Australian High Court decision, to the internet as co-author. Website owners are becoming liable for the actions of users of their website, whether those users are posting misleading reviews, looking up information that others prefer to forget, or ranting in an anonymous comment. </p>
<p>More broadly, these European decisions reflect a split in the application of law to the internet. Some jurisidictions, like Australia, are requiring that users of websites are responsible for their actions. If an individual or company posts a misleading and deceptive fake review, then that individual or company is liable. </p>
<p>Europe, in contrast, is placing the responsibility on the website itself. </p>
<p>This split wouldn’t matter except that the world wide web is, well, world wide. European laws that restrict websites will affect Australian users of those websites. Having sensible legal interpretation in Australia will not save us from the impacts of interventionist policies overseas. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27060/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen King does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The internet is an endless source of information. But who is liable if the information is wrong or, at least, misleading? Existing laws on publishing, information and privacy were not designed for the…Stephen King, Professor, Department of Economics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.