Here's something to consider when reading or writing a review. The cards might be stacked, intentionally or unintentionally, in favor of the restaurant, hotel or other service.
Posts: 295 | Location: Connecticut, USA | Registered: 02 March 2003
I still say treat reviews like Olympic judges, throw away the gushing ones, and the totally negative ones, and somewhere in the middle you'll find the closest picture.
But it does point out a common psychology: When we find something good - restaurant, rental, destination, - we are happy and eager to share it. Imagining other's future pleasure enhances the pleasure of our memory. But if we have an iffy experience within a generally positive experience, we - I - stay silent, giving a chance for the service providers to improve. If we have a truly negative experience, we - I - just want to turn the page, move on, not rehash. I for one am much more reluctant to tell when things don't work out. Because often it is about a generally good thing with one flaw: a good rental smack in the middle of Rome but with limpy mattress in one of the three bedrooms, or a perfect farmhouse in Basque country with a "hotte" over the burners that any average height man would bump his head on, - all the time, - or a restaurant with a delicious and inventive menu, good price, but a "B" dessert instead of an "A" for the other courses. Even in clearly lost causes, it takes courage to squeal. Am still debating whether to share with ST the address of a ferme-auberge in Burgundy, where we waited for more than an hour for a so-so main dish, while the bleary-eyed chef came out to greet everyone of us and turned to the neighborhing table, which meant he had his back to us, and proceed to scratch his derriere vigorously, to the point of lowering the top of the back of his trousers, right at our eye level. We stopped eating right there (but giggled for days to come). If you write me personally, I will give you THAT address. (But the b&b rooms are indeed wonderful, with a view of the exquisite countryside. And the landlady, who is probably the mother of the chef who mooned us, was angelic and gave us, besides great rooms, a wonderful breakfast with homemade jams, no undue exposure). Mods, go ahead and clean up this msg if you want.
I look at a sort of consensus. There has been places I have looked at with overwhelming positive reviews but always someone has this awful, "it was horrible" review.
If its 10 to 1 positive, thats good enough for me.
I think there is the tendancy to tell about positive things and hense more positive reviews. a truly horrible experience is even more important to review, Help someone else avoid it! RR
I am one of those who will happily give out recommendations for a good place -- doesn't have to be perfect, but satisfying for the quality and service -- but keep quiet about the bad places unless someone specifically asks if I've been there.
This is, after all, the WORLDWIDE WEB and those things we put in writing cannot be reeled back in.
It's unfortunate that people will not post bad reviews. There is one example from my experience that I can relate.
One very popular restaurant in Montalcino, which does not appear any more on reviews (closed?) had two good reviews on this site. We met another couple there and had a mediocre lunch at best. what a waste of time.
When I got home and posted the review I had 5 people in one thread say "oh yeah that place isn't good anymore" . That was very irritating.
I agree with Dr. Rainey. I too wish for a more even-keeled set of reviews. If I wanted to read nothing but effusive praise I would pick up a travel guidebook.
Sometimes, I think people are having such a good time with the people they are with, or they are so enchanted by the view, or the whole experience, that they translate that over to the hotel or the restaurant or whatever. I sort of factor in that "drunk on Venice/Tuscany" element into a recommendation.
I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. The day I'm not so "drunk on Venice" that I only smell the canals and see the napkins are frayed is the day I should stay home. I too, take reviews as an aggregate: Several mentions of something is to be taken note of, but not just one. And not necessarily a deal-breaker.
The other thing is, NOBODY knows your taste. The hotel you think is quiet and refined your friends say was like a morgue full and they checked out after a day. Your friend the chef recommends her favorite restaurants in a city -- and they're all serving raw octopus and black pudding foam. Some of the most recommended things on these boards are places I don't care for. So the perfect recommendation may still be wrong -- for you. It doesn't mean the critic is necessarily uncritical.
When it comes down to it, there are precious few things that stand out as being different from the rest.
And those usually aren't the things with 100 percent approval ratings.
Of course we all have different tastes. What I am complaining about is having a bad experience and not posting, leading the readers here to think that the place is still good!
Why have even an average experience in Italy? when alternatives which are great abound!! RR
I also agree re the need for negative, or realistic reviews. I never write restaurant reviews mainly as we are not foodies, but accommodation is important to us. One meal does not a holiday ruin, but a bad apartment or cottage has greater impact.
Realising everyone´s taste is different, I always try to be as honest as possible, and imagine I am describing it to one of my friends.
I am always grateful to know about the noise factor in a city and the ´feel´of the spaces as these things are important to me, whereas how well equipped the kitchen is or whether it is a queen size bed is not so important but I do appreciate they are to many.
What I am complaining about is having a bad experience and not posting,
I've just run into this very situation re an apartment rental agency. Although I've seen nothing but good reviews of the agency here, this person, in the context of a discussion of another apartment, suddenly observed that the apartment I had rented was lovely, but that she'd had quite a bit of trouble with the agency. And also, her brother had had similar trouble.
Well, now that I've booked, this is not really very useful to me. And I have a feeling that this may be a fluke, anyway. But, as I asked on that thread, why didn't she post a review?????
I guess I feel it's my responsibility to my fellow travellers to post a negative experience. Overall most of my negative comments have been on the mild side....more warnings of inconsistencies than outright negative. However, I've posted a few "stay at your own risk" reviews. I also find sometimes people complain about the trivial or about problems they've caused themselves. I think it's important to be as objective as possible if you're writing about a negative experiance.
We know of two differnt couples who've both had really disappointing stays at a local inn but don't want to write bad reviews - so they post nothing at all. The fact that the owner is (infrequently) on the message board, and the couples feel as if she is part of the ST family may also affect their decision.
For me, if I'm disappointed, I'll say so. I always try to explain why I was disappointed, and yes, sometimes it's personal taste. Maybe others wouldn't have the same expectatons as I, so they can draw their own conclusions.
IMO, there are just so many choices of where to stay and where to eat, and my money is just too precious to spend on anything less than what I expect.
When you have good things to say, go public. If you're wrong, the worst that can happen is that the people who heeded your advice will have been disappointed, and you will have to take your share of the blame for their misjudgment. THEIR misjudgment, because after all is said and done, THEY made the final decision.
When you have bad things to say, keep them to yourself until asked. Because if you're wrong, you owe the subject of your criticism the benefit of the doubt. It's true that each one of us expect a certain minimum standard with regards to any service we receive, but the supplier of a service can't, and maybe even doesn't want to, maintain that requested standard all the time. They're also human, and we, the beneficiaries of that certain service, don't have to get hysterical over each mishap.
If it's important for you to make the most of a certain service, develop the skills to ascertain beforehand the true nature of said service. This does not always necessarily mean judging the service according to all the praise it's been given. There's no doubt that public reviews on the web have significantly helped consumers in their choices, but that's only part of the research the consumer has to do.
Posts: 171 | Location: Israel | Registered: 21 July 2007
Originally posted by Robert Rainey: I am suspicious of some negative reviews, but come on there are some places that are just unacceptable by ANY standard.
True - but I think that a serious traveler will be smart enough to avoid them. And while I didn't have full access to the article mentioned in the original post, I believe that what worries us as reviewers are the instances in which we are not sure that our personal preferences/dislikes are of the type that are shared by those that read our reviews.
Posts: 171 | Location: Israel | Registered: 21 July 2007
I really have to disagree with the advice to keep the negative to yourself. Given the cost of travel we need to arm our fellow travellers with the best information we can. I think most people are savvy enough to pick out the trivial or chronically dissatified review.
Originally posted by Katherine: I really have to disagree with the advice to keep the negative to yourself. Given the cost of travel we need to arm our fellow travellers with the best information we can....
I'm with Katherine on this one. If the staff is rude, the mattress saggy or there were spiders in the bathroom, I want to know about it. Yes, those problems might have been resolved, but at least I'm forewarned and can ask relevant questions before committing.
A friend of ours was thrilled when she booked an apartment in Perugia recently - and with a view of the Corso Vannucci! HOw fun! NOT! The church bells in Perugia ring every 15 minutes - ALL NIGHT LONG! And of course the Duomo steps are a favorite hangout for all the kids - and they're not a soft-spoken bunch. She said just about the time the kids left for the night (around 4 a.m.), the garbage trucks came, then the street cleaners, then the delivery trucks - and of course those %#@! bells all night long. So - what looked like a great apartment in a great location turned out to be a disaster! When she asked to move the staff wasn't surprised at all- I'm sure they've had the same complaints before!
This sort of thing certainly isn't the fault of the apartment owners, but still, if I was checking reviews I'd want this information.
I am very puzzled by that article. We travel regularly and are also always looking out for places to recommend to our guests for stays before and after they stay here.
My biggest problem is the number of negative or unenthusiastic reviews, and that includes Trip Advisor which works on a scale of 5. On other booking/review sites, working on a scale of 10, I have difficulty in finding anywhere which scores above 8, no matter how many reviews they have. And when I read the reviews, I find they are complaining about exactly the things which would spoil my stay - out of date bathrooms, grumpy staff, poor food. On our last trip, I actually chose an area and sorted the list of hotels to show the highest rating at the top - even then, it was rare to find anywhere above 8.5. I did actually book the highest rated place for the area I wanted and it was excellent value for money - and not expensive at 80 Euros a night.
My feeling sometimes is that only people who are serial complainers write reviews and that the only satisfied people are the ones who have low standards anyway.
I'm not sure - it may be cowardice, it may be interpretation.
An example: I recently went to Southern Italy and visited a restaurant - advertised as a Pizzeria.
The decor was excellent, the pizze were of the highest quality -as good as any I have eaten but also very expensive (about 75% more than the average for the area). There was also a (I felt) very high service charge included.
There were however "problems". The owner/maitre d'/greeter was exceptionally pushy. She may have been American, or an Italian whose English was exceptional but she was always "in your face", trying to sell us extras or enquiring as to everything being alright. So much so that all of my family refer to it as "the pushy pizza place". I would rate the food highly, but give the place major minuses for pushy staff and expense.
So the problem with reviewing is this - An American friend of mine thought that it sounded very good - "This is exactly the sort of service I am used to in the US, and that I find lacking in Europe" were her exact words. To her, the very things that I found irritating and "unitalian" where what appealled to her in my description. My overall impression would be low 3/10 maybe. Hers would be high (8/10) yet it would be the same night at the same place.
I am wary of putting a negative review onto a respected internet forum. If I neglect to place a review, and a fellow slow traveller has a poor meal because of this ommission, then they have lost €60. If many travellers deliberately avoid a place because of my grouchy review, then that may damage a business.
TimW
Posts: 911 | Location: Hampshire, UK | Registered: 28 March 2005
When you have bad things to say, keep them to yourself until asked. Because if you're wrong, you owe the subject of your criticism the benefit of the doubt. It's true that each one of us expect a certain minimum standard with regards to any service we receive, but the supplier of a service can't, and maybe even doesn't want to, maintain that requested standard all the time. They're also human, and we, the beneficiaries of that certain service, don't have to get hysterical over each mishap.
I strongly disagree with this advice, for all the reasons others have stated. If you KNOW something is bad, why keep it to yourself?
Shannon and I rented a poorly maintained (i.e., dirty) apartment in France, and spent way too much of our precious vacation time discussing whether to stay or spend money that neither of us had budgeted for and find a different place for a few days. In the end we decided to stay, but it certainly put a damper on that portion of our trip. I sure wish the previous renters had mentioned the poor housekeeping and upkeep in their reviews.
No one got "hysterical" about it. My cleanliness standards aren't up there with Mr. Clean, but a layer of dust on everything, food scraps wilting on the floor, and icky crumbs on a breadboard are really unacceptable. Believe me, that place was cleaner when we left than when we arrived.
I'm also saddened to think that those of us who take the time to write honest reviews - as eliza says, "...imagine I am describing it to one of my friends," are dismissed as being "serial complainers" or having "low standards." Really makes me rethink my contributions to Slow Trav...
Posts: 16049 | Location: The Beautiful San Francisco Bay Area | Registered: 06 August 2001
Originally posted by TimW: I am wary of putting a negative review onto a respected internet forum. If I neglect to place a review, and a fellow slow traveller has a poor meal because of this ommission, then they have lost €60. If many travellers deliberately avoid a place because of my grouchy review, then that may damage a business. TimW
But couldn't you just say in the review exactly what you said here? "Great pizza, but more expensive than equally good pizzerias in the area"? Or "the service was more American, in-your-face instead of the laid-back Italian style"?
I strongly disagree with this advice, for all the reasons others have stated. If you KNOW something is bad, why keep it to yourself? Confused
I can't agree with you more!!
"I'm also saddened to think that those of us who take the time to write honest reviews - as eliza says, "...imagine I am describing it to one of my friends," are dismissed as being "serial complainers" or having "low standards." Really makes me rethink my contributions to Slow Trav..."
I have always suspected that the reviews by and large were not reliable. That suspicion was manifest by the overwhelming percentage of "good grades" given to the reviews.
Peter
Posts: 1632 | Location: Essex Fells, NJ and Longboat Key, Florida | Registered: 21 July 2002
I'm also saddened to think that those of us who take the time to write honest reviews -.......... are dismissed as being "serial complainers" or having "low standards." Really makes me rethink my contributions to Slow Trav...
At the risk of sounding mean, where are the accusations of low standards or serial complainers? In fact, although I am sure you did not mean it in that way, your posting suggests that those not posting negatively are somehow dishonest, or lazy.
quote:
"But couldn't you just say in the review exactly what you said here? "Great pizza, but more expensive than equally good pizzerias in the area"? Or "the service was more American, in-your-face instead of the laid-back Italian style"?"
Point taken - I probably will write it up exactly in this way - but if I then put a thumbs down on the place, isn't this enough to condemn it out of hand to the casual reader of reviews?
TimW
Posts: 911 | Location: Hampshire, UK | Registered: 28 March 2005
Originally posted by Margaret in Bavaria: My feeling sometimes is that only people who are serial complainers write reviews and that the only satisfied people are the ones who have low standards anyway.
You're right, I didn't mean this: "your posting suggests that those not posting negatively are somehow dishonest, or lazy."
I meant that if ANY review I submit (positive or negative) is dismissed out of hand ... that makes me wonder why I bother. What's the point of sharing my experience?
Posts: 16049 | Location: The Beautiful San Francisco Bay Area | Registered: 06 August 2001
When you have bad things to say, keep them to yourself until asked. Because if you're wrong, you owe the subject of your criticism the benefit of the doubt.
I strongly disagree with this advice, for all the reasons others have stated. If you KNOW something is bad, why keep it to yourself?
Hello Colleen,
As I stated, I prefer to keep criticism to myself "UNTIL ASKED" . Which means that if someone on one of the Slow Travel forums were to post a question asking what us fellow ST's have to say about such-and-such, I would chip in with my criticism if I had any. But I would not go and post a review, here or on the web, about a place or service that I had been disappointed with. And if someone DOES that, I believe they owe the place or service an e-mail informing them of said review.
I fully understand and accept the right and the logic of those that disagree with me - I am just expressing how I treat this issue. I have traveled very little in my life, but have had a fair share of bad experiences - and still I lean towards keeping the volume down on publicly-voiced criticism.
I look at it this way - the owner of the hotel with the saggy mattress and leaking toilet is not going to get ANY reviews from me, while his competition is going to get praise. So where will any smart tourist decide to stay?
I have written a few positive reviews here, which I hope express my gratitude for the services I enjoyed and might help the businesses draw new customers, but I am also aware that not everyone who will use these same services will share my praise. On the other hand, I have withheld criticism of certain accommodations I used in order NOT to encourage the use of them. If someone will ask specifically about them, I will make my criticism public.
I certainly agree that a bad holiday experience raises all sorts of negative feelings - betrayal, dishonesty, frustration - and each of us reacts according to what they believe is the proper thing to do.
Regards, Joe
Posts: 171 | Location: Israel | Registered: 21 July 2007
Originally posted by joe n: I look at it this way - the owner of the hotel with the saggy mattress and leaking toilet is not going to get ANY reviews from me, while his competition is going to get praise. So where will any smart tourist decide to stay?
I have written a few positive reviews here, which I hope express my gratitude for the services I enjoyed and might help the businesses draw new customers, but I am also aware that not everyone who will use these same services will share my praise. On the other hand, I have withheld criticism of certain accommodations I used in order NOT to encourage the use of them. If someone will ask specifically about them, I will make my criticism public.
My problem with that approach, Joe, (and I agree with Colleen, Katherine, and others here) is that there may be others who have written positive reviews of the service of which you had a negative experience. So by withholding your negative information, if someone does not specifically ask you about a service, they will rely on what reviews they have read. If they are all only positive, perhaps the reader is getting a skewed (dated?) view and not a realistic (current?) one.
Also, if you are responding to questions about a service in a public forum, where you make your criticism public, what is the difference between doing that on a public forum and writing a critical review of a service on the internet? To me, it seems the same, only... by waiting to be asked, you are actually withholding information.
I have written many reviews. The bulk of them are positive. I do find the number system confusing and misleading. I also agree that if you explain and detail, be specific, about what you find "negative" or "positive" about a service, then that is the most helpful and instructive route to take.
Originally posted by teaberry: My problem with that approach, Joe, (and I agree with Colleen, Katherine, and others here) is that there may be others who have written positive reviews of the service of which you had a negative experience. So by withholding your negative information, if someone does not specifically ask you about a service, they will rely on what reviews they have read. If they are all only positive, perhaps the reader is getting a skewed (dated?) view and not a realistic (current?) one.
You might be right - but only if the reviews are not dated, which is usually not the case. If I have to choose where to dine on my last evening in a certain city, where one restaurant has received four high ratings in the last four months, and another one has not received a single review (good or bad) in the last eight months - then it's obvious which one I'll choose. Of course, I might choose the one that hasn't received any recent feedback, but then I might have found reasons that justify me taking that chance. The point is - I don't need the negative reviews.
quote:
Also, if you are responding to questions about a service in a public forum, where you make your criticism public, what is the difference between doing that on a public forum and writing a critical review of a service on the internet? To me, it seems the same, only... by waiting to be asked, you are actually withholding information.
That is exactly the nuance I'm talking about - that is the small difference that, for me, keeps my conscience a bit quieter. I just feel that expressing criticism is a last resort, to be used when there is no other choice - as is the case when a fellow traveler specifically asks me for my critical opinion, in which case I will (cautiously) give it, because this is an instance where a person is in need of help and has requested it.
Think of it as the difference between a restaurant critic and a judge in a court of law. The restaurant critic can get off with pretty much anything he says - restaurant owners that have taken critics to court claiming libel usually lose, because the critics' right to express an opinion usually overrides any other consideration ( for example).
A judge in a court of law has to take both parties' sides into account. He has to protect rights of less-than-worthy parties, because the law is not just a matter of a saggy mattress or a hair in the soup. The law recognizes the rights of people who annoy us and make our lives miserable. Likewise, I believe that negative criticism should be voiced only in limited circumstances.
Of course, if I were to encounter something clearly criminal, I would not keep this information to myself.
Posts: 171 | Location: Israel | Registered: 21 July 2007
Of course, if I were to encounter something clearly criminal, I would not keep this information to myself.
I think it is criminal to have a bad meal in italy! My time there is precious, going back to my example 5 people posted negative comments after I posted my experience in a particular restaurant.If they had posted a review before I went I would have avoided the place entirely, it was extremely aggravating!
Fortunately these experiences are rare I have only given 2-3 bad reviews and about 30 good ones. Of course things can be nuanced,if you describe accurately your experience with facts and not hyperbole what's wrong with that?
I find it easy when there are several reviews to pick good places, but telling only the positive? RR
Originally posted by Robert Rainey: I think it is criminal to have a bad meal in italy!
...if you describe accurately your experience with facts and not hyperbole what's wrong with that? RR
Hello Robert,
Perhaps inadvertently, you have just showed a sort of example of the very thing you preach against : you have used what can be construed as hyperbole (calling it criminal to have a bad meal in Italy) to describe an eating experience not up to your standard. I know you mean well, feel passionate about your travel experiences, and probably write your reviews with much thought and consideration. I am not judging you - I'm just saying that this is not the way I like to address these matters.
Posts: 171 | Location: Israel | Registered: 21 July 2007
I know it was hyperbole.But the place mentioned wasn't just "not up to my standard" but it wasn't up to the standards of what I now know was a majority of the people who post on this board (of course only those who have been there).
I would not have gone if those 5 people all posted negative comments. The only reviews were two positive ones.
My business is reviwed on the internet as well, mostly positively and folks who read the reviews get a good overall sense of my business.There are 2-3 negative reviews. I wish I could rebut them but I can't, most people who make it here have filtered them out. In totality it's better to have the information posted. RR
Very interesting comments. For me its simple, If the service or commodity I am purchasing is sub-standard I complain there and then. If the response is of the 'suit yourself' variety or worse, then it gives me great joy not only to avoid said service or commodity in future but to broadcast the experience to all via the public domain. To ripped-off or presented with the sub-mediocre is,to me, a form of contempt not to be tolerated.
When you have bad things to say, keep them to yourself until asked.
But a website that invites review is indeed asking . Therefore it really is our duty to report the good as well as the bad. A negative review is not a rant. In fact a rant is easiest to spot; sounds like a rant, looks like a rant, is a rant. And readers can tell and are more turned off by the subjective vehement tone than by the establishment reviewed.
If slowtrav were to have only positive reviews and no negative ones, the site would be like one advertisement after another. Who would want to read a buncha ads? The negative reviews actually give the positive reviews authenticity and hence value.
What I'm going to say is deliberately somewhat vague, for two reasons. Two contributors to this forum, each of whom I like and respect, are affected by what follows.
A rental in France my wife and I stayed at a while back was great. It was everything we expected. But the couple whose stay overlapped with ours (each of us stayed a week, but different overlapping weeks) had a vastly different experience after we left. They were much more forgiving/understanding than we would have been. Vast understatement here.
A subsequent renter was clearly unhappy.
So: I would not advise a friend to stay there unless there was a significant change in "management."
What is my responsibility? What is our "co-tenant's" responsibility? I'm not sure either of us would consider staying there again without a significant change in the "management", not the ownership.
This seems to be the sort of ambivalence our members are expressing.
But if I'd gone to the rental I'm referring to, and received the treatment two other couples experienced . . . I'd post my extremely negative comments here and hope that the owner realized that he had a serious problem.
Otherwise a future renter might be subject to the same outrageous treatment renters after us experienced.
What do you all think?
Posts: 164 | Location: Richmond, CA | Registered: 29 December 2006
Just piping in here. I feel my general obligation is when I am dissatisfied greatly by a service I receive is to let the person who NEEDS to know the information first.
Let's say I would feel it fair to let the "owner" know that I had difficulty getting satisfaction from the "manager". But to tell you the truth, I would also want to be sure that I let the "manager" know that I had issues, so that it wasn't a sneak attack.
If I received a positive response from whomever I directed the criticism or information to the story would stop there if I felt the response was legitimate.
If their response was non-extinct or inadequate I would consider posting the information in a narrative way so people could read the story and then decide themselves if they would identify with my concern or not.
I have read negative reviews and dismissed them because I felt the writer was overly fussy and just did not share my view about what was acceptable.
I think it is just an extension of all conflict resolution efforts and that (to me) it is not wise to slander a business by saying things that are just a blanket statement like...they serve rotten food....they treated me like crap, etc. (not that people say that here, but you get my drift...)
However, if I feel a business is totally mis-representing itself and people are being taken advantage, or could be harmed, I probably would feel more obligated to post something.
I do share that concern that you can write something in the heat of the moment and if you didn't really give the business a chance to redress the wrong or even make them aware of your issues, it can be unfair to post it where it can sit for a looooooong time.
One thing I would like to say is that I really appreciate how open people are on this board and how non-judgemental people try to be. So many online communities engage in such negative talk that it is creepy. We are polite which is why it is such a pleasure to visit here. People are not attacked...although sometimes you can certainly feel a little tension but that is to be expected from time to time. I think the worry is that the politeness can turn into a falseness so the truth is not spoken when it needs to be. It is a dilemma and an interesting discussion!
Debrah, I get what you are saying. But I feel It is not up to me to fix their problems. I would never post about some subtle thing that was slightly off. But for example a restaurant should know the quality of the food it is putting out, things that are at the core of their business.
What would I say Hire a better cook and shop for better ingrediants? In two cases the food was simply not acceptable. I am sure that is the best they could do, so why complain?. If something wasn't cooked enough that might be fixable but something outright awful? In two cases I posted bad reviews for food that could best be described as edible. RR
When you have bad things to say, keep them to yourself until asked.
But a website that invites review is indeed asking . Therefore it really is our duty to report the good as well as the bad. A negative review is not a rant. In fact a rant is easiest to spot; sounds like a rant, looks like a rant, is a rant. And readers can tell and are more turned off by the subjective vehement tone than by the establishment reviewed.
Hello American in Parigi,
Firstly, I agree that there are reviews - both negative and positive - that can be defined as rants, and that the discerning planner going over such reviews is usually put off by extravagant praise or criticism. But I think we are not talking about that sort of criticism here, because they do not project authenticity.
Secondly, a website that asks for reviews usually doesn't take any responsibility for the potential damage it is creating by publicizing negative criticism. It is really an impersonal body that is mainly interested in traffic on its site - where I believe that because of the caution that should be used when advertising negative criticism, this should be kept between people who share some sort of real time connection and can go into specific details about what bothers them and what they're looking for.
This forum is a good example - people from all over the world who share what appear to be certain common travel aims and methods ( Slow Travel) - can ask specific questions about specific businesses, while others take the time to make their criticism clear.
quote:
If slowtrav were to have only positive reviews and no negative ones, the site would be like one advertisement after another. Who would want to read a buncha ads?
I would. You only have to look at the reviews posted on Slow Travel for certain reviews of businesses that contain only very high praise for them - I can easily paste a section of reviews here of a B&B in Italy (which I have never seen, nor do I have any connection with the owners) that contains thirteen such very positive reviews (and not a single negative one). I would have no doubt in my mind that I couldn't go wrong if I booked a vacation there. Why? Because of the authenticity of the reviews and the forum they are posted on.
That is why I think you are wrong in the following statement :
quote:
The negative reviews actually give the positive reviews authenticity and hence value.
Which is why I will say again : you don't need the negative criticism.
I think Debrah summed it up nicely :
quote:
However, if I feel a business is totally mis-representing itself and people are being taken advantage, or could be harmed, I probably would feel more obligated to post something.
I do share that concern that you can write something in the heat of the moment and if you didn't really give the business a chance to redress the wrong or even make them aware of your issues, it can be unfair to post it where it can sit for a looooooong time.
Regards, Joe
Posts: 171 | Location: Israel | Registered: 21 July 2007
Wouldn't it be amusing (and informative) if the hosts -- managers of B&Bs, gites, or rental apartments -- got to write/post reviews of their guests?
We've had some wonderful conversations with owner/managers about their truly memorable "bad" guests. So remember... it's a two-way street.
When reading either a positive or negative review, try to detect the important differences and similarities between yourself and the writer. And when writing, give some background on what triggers your kudos or your outrage.
Example: Are you a super-neatnik? If so, you probably wouldn't like visiting our home any more than you'd be comfy in some of the places we've loved staying.
Do you do everything last minute? That's not us either. So you should know those things when you read our reviews.
What is it about the mere act of someone asking that will prompt you to respond? Or, what will make your honest response any less damaging to an establishment -- which seems to be your main concern here -- than if you had given an unsolicited opinion? Why not keep your conscience dead silent -- and not just quieter -- by saying you won't give any (public) negative reviews at all?
What is it about the mere act of someone asking that will prompt you to respond? Why not keep your conscience dead silent -- and not just quieter -- by saying you won't give any (public) negative reviews at all?
Hello Duane,
I think that this is the small difference that enables one to keep the balance between the interests (rights?) of the one who asks and those of the one being reviewed. The one who asks is in need of help (just like anyone surveying a travel review site or resource), but the fact that you are giving your feedback in real time, are answering specific questions, are taking the time to make yourself clear, and are usually doing so in either a private message or on a forum where all participants can clearly see what's going on - in my opinion this establishes the balance between the proper (and rightful) way to express a negative opinion, and the rights of the place being reviewed.
Ideally, of course, the place being reviewed should be on the watch on the various resources and be given the chance to respond to criticism - but with the tens or hundreds of these resources (some printed in books with no possibility of giving an effective response), I think this is a load too big to be realistic, and might even be construed as being artificial lip-service to appease all customers.
It's easy to say that businesses who supply a service have taken upon themselves, by definition, to be of the highest service possible, and those that do not live up to that should not enter the trade; and we, the users, shall be the judge of that, in public, and according to whatever subjective notions we have. But I disagree with this.
Roz's Driver made a provocative point in the post above :
quote:
Wouldn't it be amusing (and informative) if the hosts -- managers of B&Bs, gites, or rental apartments -- got to write/post reviews of their guests? So remember... it's a two-way street.
Exactly.
Posts: 171 | Location: Israel | Registered: 21 July 2007
