Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Do Retailers Often Screen User Reviews?

Posted by Soulskill on from the four-and-a-half-stars dept.

Mechanist.tm writes "I recently purchased a NAS from a well-known online computer component shop. I have purchased several items from the website and have never had much trouble before. That was until I realized what I had bought was a terrible NAS. All the reviews on the site from users seemed very good. After a little research, it became clear that the product in question was indeed terrible. After finding the product pretty much useless for its intended purpose, I proceeded to write a review for it on the website to inform other would-be buyers. After about a week, I noticed that the review never made it up there, so I wrote another one just in case. After several attempts to leave a negative review for the product, I realized that the website was screening reviews and only posting the ones that made the products look good. All the reviews on the website are positive; I've only found one at less than 3 out of 5 stars. Is this legal? Ethically speaking, it's wrong, and it's intentionally misleading to the customer. Is there a good place to report behavior like this? How common is this among online retailers who provide user reviews?"

36 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. Their site... by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is their site, they are free to publish what they feel on it. Now what -is- illegal and misleading is if you were to write a negative review and they make it be a positive review. Similar to Engadget and Monster Cable.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    1. Re:Their site... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Moral of the story: Don't trust reviews on shop sites unless they also post the negative ones.

      Amazon post all reviews, with the exception of those that use profanity or have links to torrent sites etc. There was a story on /. about it years ago. Apparently it's a major pain the arse for them but it makes the site on of the best places to buy stuff too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Their site... by drooling-dog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is their site, they are free to publish what they feel on it.

      Not so sure about that. If they are misrepresenting the nature of their review site, and further misrepresenting what they're selling by censoring reviews, then that would seem to be a form of fraud. What you are suggesting is that fraud is legally OK if done on the property of the party that perpetrates it. IANAL, but this strikes me as an odd notion.

    3. Re:Their site... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Funny

      AnalPerfume (1356177)

      Just don't write any perfume reviews please...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    4. Re:Their site... by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would consider it illegal advertising. The site misleads customers to believe they are reading actual user reviews (ALL reviews), which is simply not true. It's misleading and deceptive.

      If I found a site like that, I'd report them to consumeraffairs.org, FTC.gov, and any other site I can think of which screens companies. Hopefully the FTC would act to fine that company, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:Their site... by ThatsNotFunny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this illegal? Why is this any different than a commercial from a movie pulling only the good quotes from Roger Ebert and Gene Shalit? The retailer is under no obligation to publish unfavorable reviews on their own website, whether written by professional reviewers or the public at large. Assuming the company is based in the US, from a First Amendment standpoint, the government cannot force them to publish bad reviews on their own website.

      --
      "Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
    6. Re:Their site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not true here -- Amazon does remove negative reviews if the author requests it.

      Once, I posted a negative review of a book to Amazon.com, pointing out specific places where the book made errors. Within 24 hours, the review had disappeared, and simultaneously a "blog" post appeared on the product page where the author denounced and "rebutted" my review (which was no longer even visible.)

    7. Re:Their site... by bit01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this illegal?

      Don't know if it's illegal or not but it should be. They are misrepresenting the site as presenting all reviews, not just ones that they approve. That's fraud with material financial consequences.

      Given that Mechanist.tm wasn't aware of this they probably are misrepresenting the reviews.

      If they made clear that the site is not representative of all customer reviews then there should be no legal problem though it's still shady and I for one would be shopping elsewhere.

      ---

      The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

    8. Re:Their site... by asaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because unless they state they are only publishing positive reviews, it is misleading to show that all feedback from "users" is positive. It is deceptive to filter out the negatives as it misleadingly portrays the product as good based of what is supposedly unbiased user feedback as opposed to vendor advertising.

      For advertising, yes, of course you only show positive reviews, it stands to reason to choose what supports the product (movie etc).

      --
      "If everybody is thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking" - Gen. George S. Patton
    9. Re:Their site... by richmaine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thinking that something "should be illegal" is not particularly close to it being illegal. It sounds to you that you are just saying that it is unethical. I agree with that, but the point was that a prior poster said he "considered this to be illegal", and the parent asked why it was illegal.

      Saying it is unethical does not answer that question. You have to actually find a law that says it is illegal.

      Likewise, asaul says that it is illegal because it is misleading. Again, he doesn't cite any law against being misleading.

      Even blatantly lying is not, in general, illegal. There are cases where it is, but those are specific cases; there is no general law against lying. (Mom's law doesn't count here. :-))

      There are laws against false advertising, which are probably the closest things to applicable ones here. But the standards applied to that in practice tend to be awfully lenient. (Heck, as far as I can tell, darn near all advertising attempts to give false impressions in at least some way. Apparently the lawyers don't use the same standards that I do, since I don't see darn near all advertising slapped down.)

    10. Re:Their site... by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>Why is this illegal?

      Because the law says that illegal advertising is a crime. So is advertising a price of, say $9.99, and then ringing it up as 19.99 at the register. (My former employer JCPenney got a huge fine for that.) So is making claims that are deceptive or misleading (see the lawsuits about 100MPG magnets for cars). I surmise that if this NAC company went before a judge, he would say the use of only positive reviews while leading the customer to think he/she is seeing ALL reviews, is deceptive and misleading.

       

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    11. Re:Their site... by andymadigan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The question is whether the purchaser reasonably expected all reviews to be present. Since it's an online site where they could submit their own review, unless there was a notice to the effect of "we filter out reviews we don't like" it's possible to make the argument.

      On a small scale, the poster could sue the retailer. On a large scale, it may indeed be false advertising.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    12. Re:Their site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Okay, I don't have a copy of black's law on my shelf:
          But let's summarize it as:

      1) It's intentional deception--a reasonable person would expect that a site with reviews would incorporate positive, as well as negative reviews. The removal of negative reviews suggests the absence of them.

      2) It was deception made for gain--they sold a product that they otherwise may not have sold

      You've got the definitive elements of fraud there, even though the statutes/definition vary.

    13. Re:Their site... by scheme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is this illegal?

      Don't know if it's illegal or not but it should be. They are misrepresenting the site as presenting all reviews, not just ones that they approve. That's fraud with material financial consequences.

      Given that Mechanist.tm wasn't aware of this they probably are misrepresenting the reviews.

      If they made clear that the site is not representative of all customer reviews then there should be no legal problem though it's still shady and I for one would be shopping elsewhere.

      ---

      The majority of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race to get mind share. Everybody loses except the parasitic marketing "industry".

      Do you tell potential employers about every major mistake you've made in previous jobs or about the times you've slacked off or skipped out for one reason or another? If not, then you're not making it clear that your resume, cover letter, and job interviews aren't fully representative of your prior work. And as you said, it's fraud with material consequences. How about stuff that you're trying to sell like a car or a home?

      No one gives all the details about something they're trying to sell regardless of whether it's a piece of electronics, a car, or a home. The phrase caveat emptor has been around for at least 2000 years and probably a lot longer than that. As such, I don't think anyone should trust the reviews on a retailer's site entirely.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    14. Re:Their site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope, my review didn't contain any of the above. It did point out the author's admission that he had no personal experience in the topic that he was writing about, which probably labeled the review as a personal attack and got it removed. However, this admission was part of the book being reviewed, and therefore was fair game for comment.

    15. Re:Their site... by Romancer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you tell potential employers about every major mistake you've made in previous jobs or about the times you've slacked off or skipped out for one reason or another? If not, then you're not making it clear that your resume, cover letter, and job interviews aren't fully representative of your prior work.

      Do you think that the interviewers think it is? Do you think that if you read a persons resume that it would be a fair assessment of their past work history and experience?

      Or would you accept that everybody that submits a resume is obviously biased and reporting on themselves is not a full and complete history. Since they have to include references and contact info for their previous jobs it seems that they are by default not trusted to be a complete and balanced source by themselves. So your example stands as it's own opposition. People do not tell about themselves when trying to impress someone to get a job and everybody knows it and expects no less than embellishment. Hence they ask for outside verification as well.

      How about stuff that you're trying to sell like a car or a home?

      If you are trying to sell a car or a home there are third parties that are expected to inspect these objects to ensure your statements are true, it's not expected that you are an expert in all the areas that are important in these cases. You are also judged on your trustworthiness in these cases. It's not the same as if the person was to filter the results of a termite inspection and only report the good parts, or if they altered the carfax report on the car. That's why there are these third party services, because people are not expected to be unbiased in their account of their own worth or the products they are trying to sell.

      Companies are a different matter.

      There are quite a few laws in place that people trust are being obeyed. It is illegal to advertise falsely that your product cures a disease or treats an illness.
      It is illegal to advertise a product of some value and then once the customer is ready to purchase it, switch to selling them an inferior product. (as a practice)
      There are many other laws about advertising because the business world needs trust to operate. And while it doesn't create the level playing field it means to, it does put into the minds of the populous that they can trust to some extent the claims of retailers. There is a big difference that may not be in the front of their minds though. That there is a big difference between an acknowledged advertisement on TV and a retailers own Website.

      To advertise on TV or even place banners through Google adds, the retailer must meet certain criteria. Small print, disclaimers, relevant details that go with their claims of a certain product. That's why we all see things like, "results not typical" "your results may vary" and "see retailer for details". These things don't help sales but they are required when advertising a claim. If they claim something without so much as an asterisk and it is not true, they could be in trouble. But here's the problem. If they have a Website that promotes their product and only has the most glowing reviews but does not claim that the reviews are representative or inclusive or even unpaid. It's not a claim that's false. They don't have to say that the reviews are anything, they could be just marketing people typing the company agenda. And we assume they are real reviews since they allow us to submit them as well. There are no laws in this area. they can delete your review and unless they use your name and change the words, it's within the law. It's a problem with what we expect in one area not applying to another. Like copyright and patents, most people don't know where one stops and the other begins. And I think that's the fault of the ones who are in change of the laws. We should learn them, but we should also not be expected to have law degrees to do so. Like anything that effects us all so much, there should be a brief attached that e

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
  2. The real question is... by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Which shop?

    1. Re:The real question is... by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. This only stops when you name names and shame the bastards into transparency.

      --
      Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    2. Re:The real question is... by cojsl · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Newegg did something similar a couple years back (not claiming the OP refers to Newegg, just posting my personal experience with something similar Newegg did). I posted a negative review of an item, shortly thereafter Newegg emailed me asking to resolve my complaint about the item in exchange for removing the negative review. To their credit, Newegg resolved the issue, but the net result was to artificially alter the reviews of the product.

    3. Re:The real question is... by vxvxvxvx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +1

      Newegg even lets you display only the bad reviews. I've also seen reviews suggesting you purchase products elsewhere when shipping might be an issue. It doesn't seem like Newegg does much screening at all. Probably has any prices listed with dollar signs stripped and any URL's or competitors stripped automatically and then goes with that.

      One thing to keep in mind when reading reviews at any site though is that the ratio of positive to negative reviews differs wildly. Websites that make the review process difficult are likely only going to get reviews from people very strongly opinionated and probably have a higher negative ratio. Websites that make the review process very easy will have more reviews.

    4. Re:The real question is... by noidentity · · Score: 5, Funny

      The real question is... which shop?

      Apparently this guy's summary had that negative information removed.

    5. Re:The real question is... by noidentity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I posted a negative review of an item, shortly thereafter Newegg emailed me asking to resolve my complaint about the item in exchange for removing the negative review. To their credit, Newegg resolved the issue, but the net result was to artificially alter the reviews of the product.

      I don't get it; they resolved the issue, so that you had nothing negative to post in the end. Let's say that instead of posting the negative review, you had contacted them of the problem to see if they would resolve it. If they hadn't, you would have posted the review; if they had, you wouldn't have, since there was no problem. The latter is what happened.

    6. Re:The real question is... by Mechanist.tm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Which shop?

      overclockers

    7. Re:The real question is... by causality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I posted a negative review of an item, shortly thereafter Newegg emailed me asking to resolve my complaint about the item in exchange for removing the negative review. To their credit, Newegg resolved the issue, but the net result was to artificially alter the reviews of the product.

      I don't get it; they resolved the issue, so that you had nothing negative to post in the end. Let's say that instead of posting the negative review, you had contacted them of the problem to see if they would resolve it. If they hadn't, you would have posted the review; if they had, you wouldn't have, since there was no problem. The latter is what happened.

      I like the idea of leaving the negative reviews up and attaching the manufacturer's response. My reasoning is simple: shit happens. At some point there will be problems of some kind. That's a given, and a corporation's attempt to cover up this fact of life to give an illusion of perfect products that don't have even a very small percentage of defects looks pretty damned suspicious to me.

      What's important to me is when a company is willing to stand by their products and take care of its own mistakes. Do they give the customer a certain benefit of doubt, or do they treat complaining customers as though they don't believe a word they say? Do they make you otherwise jump through hoops? Do they admit fault and take responsibility and take reasonable measures to fix any problems they cause? Is it an uphill battle to get them to do the right thing? These are more important to me than how well they can censor their forums. A negative review that shows me a company bending over backwards to make things right isn't negative to me at all.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:The real question is... by Smauler · · Score: 5, Funny

      I personally like this one:

      Pros: Blue LED fan
      Cons: I bought 2 of these the top heatsink fell onto the bottom card and burned down my house and killed my Family. Why
      Other Thoughts: This product is unsafe and should be recalled (but they wont because they dont care) Not neweggs fault they are the best

  3. A comment on Amazon by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

    At least with Amazon.com, one of the best-known websites with user reviews, I can attest that they welcome negative reviews. I've been reviewing there for the last nine years, more to focus my own thoughts on what I read, listen to or use than to guide others in purchases. Still, sometimes I've been scathing about a product and encouraged all and sundry not to buy it, and my review continues to be visible as the years go by. Rare situations where a review was not posted usually occurred because I tripped some keyword meant to discourage profanity, and a simple rewrite of the sentence in question was all it took to get the review up.

  4. http://www.resellerratings.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.resellerratings.com/ - post your honest review there.

  5. Come on... by Chysn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...when you're trying to expose unethical behavior or deceptive practices, the phrase "a well-known online computer component shop" is hollow and flaccid.

    --
    --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
    -- See?
  6. Overstock.com does not publish negative reviews by jestill · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have had my reviews not published on Overstock when they were negative. I tried multiple times to get the review online, and I quit buying anything from overstock without first finding external reviews. I have never had a review not accepted from Amazon, even when they were negative.

    --
    "Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" -- Homer
  7. buy.com by danpritts · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've had this happen at buy.com - i bought this:

    http://www.buy.com/prod/ifrogz-iphone-3g-3gs-luxe-soft-touch-case-red-black/q/loc/101/208441113.html

    and it was a piece of junk, finish ruined after a couple days in my pocket. It broke in pieces after 2 months.

    I posted reviews to buy.com (where i bought it) and they magically never appeared.

    I won't shop there anymore. Amazon rules.

  8. Yes. by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Informative

    Home Depot "approves" reviews and failed to post a negative review I gave for an air conditioner recently.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  9. Re:Overstock.com heavily screens reviews by plasmacutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a conflict of interest but making this type of thing illegal would be a slippery slope.

    A slipper slope to what? A market where consumers are properly protected from corporate abuse?

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  10. legal system by camgirlshide · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Part of the problem may be the legal system in the US. I once ran a review site where users were allowed to post comments. In one case, I was getting a ton of negative comments posted about one particular other website. I assumed (and still do) that these comments were legitimate due to the sheer volume of different users posting them and I never edited for content. Then, I got a lawsuit for defamation. Yea, I was protected legally and won, but it costs a ton of money to defend yourself against frivolous lawsuits. The best thing for most of these retailers is probably to just not allow user submitted reviews at all which is what I do now.

  11. 2 words by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    eBay feedback

    They'll nix feedback just like other sites nix reviews, if they determine that in their judgement, they think the item was bought for the sole purpose of entering negative feedback, for example.

    And an expansive, ever increasing list of reasons.

    sellers will no longer be able to leave negative/neutral feedback for buyers

    And a comprehensive feedback removal policy.

    Examples:

    But at least they are honest enough and tell you (somewhat) what they will remove.

    Most people casually browsing the site however (just as most people browsing retailers sites) have no idea that sites provide policies that allow negative ratings to be stricken from the record, and their effects on "stars" and rating score to be removed, at the whim of someone whose interests are in more sales.

  12. Never buy 5 Star by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative

    I never buy a product that doesn't have at least one review panning it. Any decent product that sells a lot of units is going to have a minimum of two or three buyer who, for whatever reason, thought it was crap. Even if their complaint is that it shipped slow, that's something. That generally shows that the retailer isn't round-filing bad reviews. No product is a panacea for everyone, so if you read the 1, 2, and 3 star reviews and find that their complaints wouldn't apply to you, you can probably safely buy it.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  13. Re:Which one? by Mechanist.tm · · Score: 5, Informative

    .co.uk