tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca-fr/topics/yelp-16498/articlesYelp – La Conversation2019-06-21T06:13:25Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1176702019-06-21T06:13:25Z2019-06-21T06:13:25ZHow to find a good restaurant? Economists can help<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280651/original/file-20190621-149822-11irmfc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Stay away from the tourists traps, economics tells us. Your best bet are those cozy places away from the bustle.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Where to eat? It’s a question you’ve probably pondered when visiting somewhere unfamiliar. Though it’s fun to explore a strange suburb, town or city, when you’re hungry you’d rather minimise the chance of paying exorbitant prices for an unpleasant experience.</p>
<p>Can economics help?</p>
<p>We’ve combined economic theory with data from online restaurant ratings to identify a few simple strategies that will help you find a decent restaurant in unfamiliar places.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/changing-tastes-why-foodies-are-the-new-food-critics-19105">Changing tastes: why foodies are the new food critics</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The key? Location is almost everything – but in the opposite sense to what a real estate agent would have you think. When it comes to restaurants, quality of location is inversely correlated to quality of food and service. </p>
<h2>Search costs</h2>
<p>The first economic principle that’s important here are “search costs”. </p>
<p>If you’re from out of town, it’s likely your search strategy will involve looking for something appealing within walking distance of where you are staying. To decide if it’s appealing will involve walking past it.</p>
<p>Suppose you do this. Perhaps it not exactly what you wanted. Should you press on, looking for a better option? </p>
<p>It’s a risk. You may end up trudging around only to end back at the same spot 30 minutes later. Settling on the first restaurant you find may therefore be the best option to minimise search costs.</p>
<p>Economic theory provides a key insight about markets with search costs for customers. Businesses can take advantage of these costs to raise prices or lower quality. They can do this because they deal with more uninformed customers. </p>
<p>Consider a large city with tourist and non-tourist areas. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276028/original/file-20190523-187189-12d61r3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276028/original/file-20190523-187189-12d61r3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276028/original/file-20190523-187189-12d61r3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276028/original/file-20190523-187189-12d61r3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276028/original/file-20190523-187189-12d61r3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276028/original/file-20190523-187189-12d61r3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276028/original/file-20190523-187189-12d61r3.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">Being close to tourist hot spots increases the probability of food being lower quality and higher priced.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/bLF3vK_X2Vc">Paul Rysz/Unsplash</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In non-tourist areas, restaurants will rely on local customers. If they do not provide good food and prices, customers are likely to go elsewhere next time. A restaurant that satisfies its customers will get return business; one that doesn’t is more likely to go out of business.</p>
<p>In tourist areas, the situation is different. Visitors do not know the quality of each restaurant they encounter, and at best might be repeat customers for a few days. So restaurants can charge higher prices and serve lower quality food without much risk of harming long-term profits.</p>
<h2>Big data to the rescue</h2>
<p>To investigate how customer ignorance influences restaurants price and quality, we used data from Yelp, a major online platform where users rate restaurants. </p>
<p>Yelp has a global outreach that allowed us to investigate this question in cities all over the world, such as Paris, London and Sydney. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/perfect-information-the-customer-reviews-most-likely-to-influence-purchasing-decisions-103904">Perfect information: the customer reviews most likely to influence purchasing decisions</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We mapped Yelp’s ratings onto topographical information from OpenStreetMap, an open-source repository of local information on streets and buildings. </p>
<p>What we found was exactly what was predicted by economic theory: restaurants in tourist areas have lower ratings than those in non-tourist areas.</p>
<h2>Mapping Sydney</h2>
<p>The map below presents the results for Sydney. You can see the valley of tourist points (the red dots) in the centre of the city generally align with average ratings. There are just a few cases of exceptional ratings near tourist attractions, such as around the Sydney Opera House.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279351/original/file-20190613-32356-1hm1zbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279351/original/file-20190613-32356-1hm1zbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279351/original/file-20190613-32356-1hm1zbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279351/original/file-20190613-32356-1hm1zbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279351/original/file-20190613-32356-1hm1zbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279351/original/file-20190613-32356-1hm1zbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=658&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279351/original/file-20190613-32356-1hm1zbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=658&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279351/original/file-20190613-32356-1hm1zbw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=658&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sydney.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeanne Dall'Orso, Romain Gauriot & Lionel Page</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Mapping London</h2>
<p>The pattern is even clearer in London, where areas with higher local ratings seem to be systematically away from touristic locations. Our map suggests that you’d be advised not to look for lunch around Victoria Station, near Buckingham Palace (in the southwest corner) or near the British Museum (northwest from the centre of the map).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279352/original/file-20190613-32317-1obm5xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279352/original/file-20190613-32317-1obm5xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279352/original/file-20190613-32317-1obm5xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279352/original/file-20190613-32317-1obm5xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279352/original/file-20190613-32317-1obm5xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279352/original/file-20190613-32317-1obm5xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279352/original/file-20190613-32317-1obm5xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279352/original/file-20190613-32317-1obm5xr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">London.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeanne Dall'Orso, Romain Gauriot & Lionel Page</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Mapping Paris</h2>
<p>Finally this Paris map suggests you are advised to venture away from all the landmarks you know – Eiffel Tower, the Sacré-Cœur Basilica, the Louvre – when looking for some good French food. Definitely steer clear of the area around the Paris-Gare de Lyon train station.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279353/original/file-20190613-32335-235fwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279353/original/file-20190613-32335-235fwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/279353/original/file-20190613-32335-235fwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279353/original/file-20190613-32335-235fwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279353/original/file-20190613-32335-235fwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279353/original/file-20190613-32335-235fwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279353/original/file-20190613-32335-235fwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/279353/original/file-20190613-32335-235fwo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=533&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paris.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jeanne Dall'Orso, Romain Gauriot & Lionel Page</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Visibility trap</h2>
<p>The existence of tourist traps may come as no surprise. If you’ve ever gone sight-seeing in a big city, you know there are restaurants whose business is based on attracting tourists, and that they are often pricey and ordinary. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276024/original/file-20190523-187179-17q2eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276024/original/file-20190523-187179-17q2eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/276024/original/file-20190523-187179-17q2eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276024/original/file-20190523-187179-17q2eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276024/original/file-20190523-187179-17q2eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=901&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276024/original/file-20190523-187179-17q2eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276024/original/file-20190523-187179-17q2eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/276024/original/file-20190523-187179-17q2eyg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Small restaurants, away from the tourist traps of inner city, are often the perfect places to chow down.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/twR54xVerrI">Dominic Dreier/unsplash</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This insight goes beyond just restaurants. In economic terms, any time a business deals with uninformed customers, higher prices and lower quality is more likely. </p>
<p>A key characteristic to attract uninformed customers is visibility. A restaurant on a main road or busy thoroughfare, for example, can be found by potential customers simply walking around. </p>
<p>To test whether restaurants with high visibility are indeeed more likely to offer worse deals, we looked at restaurants that were more visible but not necessarily in touristic locations.</p>
<p>We focused on corner restaurants – visible to pedestrians from two streets instead of just one. </p>
<p>Again we looked at Yelp ratings, and again the effect was there: corner restaurants had lower average ratings. The largest effect was for corner restaurants on big avenues in tourist areas, where average restaurant ratings were more than 0.2 stars (out of 5 stars) lower.</p>
<h2>Chain reactions</h2>
<p>Though our results show restaurants in tourist areas and in visible locations are generally more likely to offer worse quality and prices, there are some caveats. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280642/original/file-20190621-149810-1t68x22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280642/original/file-20190621-149810-1t68x22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280642/original/file-20190621-149810-1t68x22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280642/original/file-20190621-149810-1t68x22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280642/original/file-20190621-149810-1t68x22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280642/original/file-20190621-149810-1t68x22.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280642/original/file-20190621-149810-1t68x22.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">An advantage of fast-food franchises is that they tend to provide the same quality across locations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Economic theory suggests chain restaurants should have more incentive to keep the standard their consumers are used too, even if located in visible locations.</p>
<p>A customer dissatisfied by the food/service of one chain restaurant is less likely to come back to the chain elsewhere. Corporate headquarters can therefore not allow individual franchises to use a visible location to lower quality or raise prices.</p>
<p>This economic prediction was also confirmed in our data: restaurants that belong to a chain are not rated significantly lower in visible locations. </p>
<h2>Find the hidden restaurants</h2>
<p>So our advice is the following: </p>
<p>You maximise your chance of finding a fantastic dining experience by stepping away from the beaten tracks. Whether searching online or on foot, look for the “hidden restaurants” tucked away on side streets and the like. Avoid the establishments with huge garish signs that are clearly pitching themselves to tourists. </p>
<p>Your second-best option, when in doubt, is to look for a chain restaurant as a “safe haven” in a touristic location. Such establishments are unlikely to offer you a surprising experience, one way or other other. What you expect is probably what you’ll get.</p>
<p>But when it comes to restaurants, the better option is usually around the corner.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was co-authored by Jeanne Dall’Orso, who now works as a data scientist for Masae Analytics in Paris. Jeanne also co-authored the 2016 paper <a href="https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/qutqubewp/wp041.htm">Disappointment looms around the corner: Visibility and local businesses’ market power</a> with Lionel Page and Romain Gauriot.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117670/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>Finding a place to eat in a new city can be daunting. Economics and big data have a few tips to find the right place.Lionel Page, Professor in Economics, The University of QueenslandRomain Gauriot, Postdoctoral Associate, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/763642017-05-11T01:05:08Z2017-05-11T01:05:08ZSocial media helps officials spot public health threats – but only for the rich?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167406/original/file-20170501-17310-tsw03x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Capturing the moment for the internet.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-couple-sitting-restaurant-taking-pictures-452269993">astarot/shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Think of the last time you had food poisoning. Did you tweet about it? Did you Google your symptoms? Or did you write an angry review on Yelp?</p>
<p>Every day, people use the internet to seek and share health information. This opens up exciting new ways for scientists to study the health of a population, an approach known as <a href="https://theconversation.com/digital-epidemiology-tracking-diseases-in-the-mobile-age-37741">digital epidemiology</a>.</p>
<p>But, in most cases, we do not know much about the individuals who post this information. We don’t know if the data include people from poor households, or how the data break down according to race, gender or age group. We also don’t know if they include those who are most vulnerable to the disease of interest in a particular study. </p>
<p>Before we can start addressing disparities in digital data, we need to show that these disparities exist. Our study of more than one million Yelp reviews suggests that poorer populations are being left out of digital data used for disease surveillance. </p>
<h2>Data detectives</h2>
<p>Since digital data are generated in nearly real time, they can be a valuable way for researchers to track disease trends. </p>
<p>For example, health departments in <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/MMWr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6320a1.htm">New York</a>, <a href="https://gcn.com/articles/2016/03/16/nemesis-twitter-food-poisoning.aspx">Las Vegas</a> and <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6332a1.htm">Chicago</a> can now choose which restaurants to inspect by tracking reports of food poisoning on Twitter and Yelp. They also use the data to monitor disease outbreaks from contaminated food. </p>
<p>However, the evidence suggests that these cutting-edge techniques overlook a major segment of the population. For example, in 2015, a research team led by biologist Samuel Scarpino <a href="http://128.248.156.56/ojs/index.php/ojphi/article/view/6451">brought</a> together digital and nondigital data sources to model influenza – from Google searches to <a href="https://wwwn.cdc.gov/ILINet/">ILINet</a>, a nondigital government project that monitors outpatient health care providers. </p>
<p>ILINet might not cover lower socioeconomic populations, Scarpino told me. Adding social media data into his model didn’t seem to mitigate these disparities in representation. The team discovered they could accurately predict influenza hospitalizations for wealthier zip codes in the U.S., but not for poorer ones. </p>
<p>This suggests that other public health surveillance systems powered by digital data likely suffer from the same problems. We <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009174351730172X">wanted to see</a> if similar patterns were reflected in data from Yelp.com, and to better understand what factors are most correlated with U.S. restaurant reviews. </p>
<h2>Our study</h2>
<p>Yelp provided us with more than 1.5 million reviews posted between 2004 and 2014 for food service businesses in Oregon, Massachusetts and Georgia. We looked at how the volume of reviews changed with seasons and day of the week. We also studied the most recent data, from June 2013 through May 2014, to assess food poisoning reporting at the county level.</p>
<p>Since the Yelp data included both good and bad reviews, we built a machine learning algorithm to extract the bad reviews that talked about food poisoning. Next, we estimated the correlation between reports of food poisoning and various socioeconomic factors, demographic factors and the geographic concentration of food service establishments.</p>
<p>We discovered that traits typically associated with higher socioeconomic status (such as high percentage of residents with higher education or higher income) were consistently positively correlated with reports of food poisoning. For example, the strength of the relationship between the percentage of residents with a bachelor’s degree and reporting of foodborne illness was 0.44, where 0 indicates no association and 1 is a perfect association.</p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VKAG1/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/20XGd/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<p>Meanwhile, people who were unemployed, didn’t have health insurance or were living in poverty were less likely to report food poisoning from restaurants.</p>
<p>Our models suggested that counties with a high concentration of restaurants and people with bachelor degrees were most likely to report food poisoning on Yelp. </p>
<p>However, this does not imply that these counties have higher incidences of foodborne illness or outbreaks. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3774461/">suggest</a> that populations of low socioeconomic status have higher incidences of foodborne illness. The disparities in reporting of illness could be explained by differences in access to the internet or health and computer literacy.</p>
<h2>Dealing with disparities</h2>
<p>If we do not monitor populations of low socioeconomic status, then we cannot adequately address their public health concerns. </p>
<p>While these studies hint at disparities in digital data, we need additional demographic data to properly quantify the representation of different populations. </p>
<p>Knowing the demographic and socioeconomic breakdown of the data can inform us about its biases toward particular groups. That can shape how we design research studies and public health surveillance systems. </p>
<p>It can also help us to develop methods to address data limitations, so that we do not continue perpetuating existing health disparities due to poverty, educational inequalities and other factors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76364/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elaine Nsoesie receives funding from the National Institute of Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. </span></em></p>Yelp and Twitter can help us spot food poisoning outbreaks quickly. But a new study shows the data favor some communities over others.Elaine Nsoesie, Assistant Professor of Global Health, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of WashingtonLicensed 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/485152015-10-02T15:27:53Z2015-10-02T15:27:53ZWith the Peeple app you will be judged by the crowd – whether you like it or not<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97056/original/image-20151002-23105-frcngp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For the people, by the people, enraging the people.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Peeple</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Never shy of publicity or fearful of controversy, Silicon Valley’s app entrepreneur scene seems on course to establish a new low in ethical values and/or self-delusional thinking with the planned launch of the <a href="http://forthepeeple.com/">Peeple</a> app – described as “Yelp for people”.</p>
<p>Having reportedly <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/30/everyone-you-know-will-be-able-to-rate-you-on-the-terrifying-yelp-for-people-whether-you-want-them-to-or-not/">raised US$7.6m from venture capitalists</a>, Peeple aims to use the crowdsourced review model of Yelp, TripAdvisor and other sites where customers review and rate restaurants, hotels, companies, films or whatever else. Except that this time it’s people who are rated – people rating people as the people they are, rather than for any professional skills or service they might provide. Co-founder Julia Cordray says: “People do so much research when they buy a car or make those kinds of decisions, why not do the same kind of research on other aspects of your life?” It’s the equivalent of reducing human beings to a five-star rating. </p>
<p>So how have people generally reacted to the news of this app? A brief look at the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/peeptheapp">Facebook page for the Peeple app</a> quickly reveals the enormous chasm between the world views of Peeple’s creators who post about the supportive emails they claim to have received, and more or less everyone else commenting on their page. Comments include:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKYPcKUWM10">This app is disgusting</a> you have to be a sociopath to even consider wanting to do this. If you’ve ever been stalked online let alone bullied in real life you’ll know exactly how this is going to go.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/peeptheapp/posts/1055098324524518?comment_id=1055103354524015">You will find out the hard way</a> what a monster you have unleashed. Then you will be hypocritical and edit out negative stuff about you while leaving everybody else’s negative information, subscriber or no, up for the world to see.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/peeptheapp/posts/1055098324524518?comment_id=1055105397857144">I do not give my consent</a> for Peeple, or any user of its platform to use my name, photograph, likeness, or personal information including but not limited to my phone number and email address in any way whether for profit or not for profit. I will be keeping a record of this message for future legal proceedings should you choose to disregard my failure to provide consent.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some of the founders’ statements also border on the delusional, marketing Peeple as a “positivity app for positive people” where you can post positive comments on friends and acquaintances, while failing to recognise the potential for the app to become a repository of unwarranted criticism and personal attacks (after all, Yelp itself has been <a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/07/yelp-poacher">abused this way</a>):</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"649377563807121409"}"></div></p>
<p>Given the prevailing business model for online services however, it’s not so strange that someone would equate people and products in this way. After all, internet companies do it all the time when they harvest and trade personal data without truly informed consent. Or, as it was put in a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/09/30/everyone-you-know-will-be-able-to-rate-you-on-the-terrifying-yelp-for-people-whether-you-want-them-to-or-not/">Washington Post article</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The most surprising thing about Peeple — basically Yelp, but for humans — may be the fact that no one has yet had the gall to launch something like it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s been pointed out that some dating apps, such as Lulu, have <a href="http://jezebel.com/lulu-quietly-made-their-app-a-lot-more-dude-friendly-1536244775">very similar features</a>. However, these dating apps only allow people to rate others who joined the same dating app. Peeple by contrast intends to allow users to create profiles for someone else – anyone else. <a href="http://forthepeeple.com/#faq">They state</a>: “You will need their cell phone number to start their profile and they will receive a text that you were the person to do so and that they should check out what you said about them on our app.” But the website’s FAQ doesn’t state what Peeple would do in cases where the phone number given doesn’t belong to the person for whom a profile is being made. </p>
<p>The site also states that only those who have joined the app and agreed to the terms and conditions can see the information it contains. But combined with the previous statement that looks a lot like someone else can create a profile for you, without your consent, which you cannot see without joining the app. It sounds almost like a way of pressurising people into joining. A cynic might interpret this as a shrewd strategy to promote rapid growth in the number of registered users for the app, which will make it more appealing to advertisers and investors. </p>
<p>However, in the UK any restriction that prevented people seeing the data on them held by the app would be in violation of the <a href="https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/personal-information/">right of subject access</a> under the Data Protection Act 1998, which gives everyone the right to request a copy of the data held by any organisation holding or processing their personal data. Would a Peeple profile created by someone else come under this definition? Under the legislation, personal data <a href="https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/key-definitions/">is defined</a> as:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… data which relate to a living individual who can be identified (a) from those data, or (b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller, and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In this context the ratings on Peeple are similar to tax records, bank statements or health records: they are personal information about you.</p>
<p>So far the Peeple app is still in beta testing and in light of the overwhelmingly negative response to the app in the media and on social networks, its creators might still decide not to launch in November. Who knows – if we’re lucky they may reveal themselves to be performance artists engaged in an <a href="http://m.snopes.com/2015/10/01/peeple/">elaborate hoax</a> or act of social critique against the decline of ethical standards by Silicon Valley venture capitalists.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48515/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ansgar Koene is a Senior Research Fellow on the Citizen-Centric Approaches to Social Media Analysis (CaSMa) project, which is based at the Horizon Digital Economy Research Institute of The University of Nottingham and is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). He is also affiliated with the University of Birmingham where he is a visiting researcher at the Psychology Department. Views in the article are those of the author and not the Research Councils.</span></em></p>A “Yelp for people” app that offers crowdsourced opinions on people is a terrible idea, and probably illegal.Ansgar Koene, Senior Research Fellow, Horizon Digital Economy, CaSMa, University of NottinghamLicensed 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.