Italian Court Throws Out TripAdvisor Fine Over Bad Reviews
jfruh writes: TripAdvisor had been fined half a million euros in Italy for publishing "misleading" information in its reviews. But now an Italian court has thrown out that punishment, saying that the site clearly states that the reviews are user-submitted and that TripAdvisor can't confirm all details. In a statement the company said the court's decision, "confirmed what we always knew: that TripAdvisor is a hugely valuable and reliable resource.”
But the problem was not the reviews, but that in advertisement tripadvisor said that reviews are verified, and of course they are not.
But holding a small businesses reputation hostage is a dicey business model. And when dotcoms get so big that they cam lobby for favorable laws / rulings then the world becomes a scarier place.
So they can say it's a "reliable" resource even though they can't verify any of the details in the reviews?
In a statement the company said the court's decision, "confirmed what we always knew: that TripAdvisor is a hugely valuable and reliable resource.”
TripAdvisor were then called back in and fined €1m for contempt of court.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
So give them as much credence as the paid positive reviews then? It's gotten to the point that I won't buy anything that doesn't have at least a couple of negative reviews to balance out a product's cheerleaders. Nothing is so perfect that somebody somewhere can't find something wrong with it.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
To me this means that it is unrealiable as it is unverifiable. As they are unable tp verify the details, we do not know if the reviews are true or not.
And this goes for both the good and the bad.
And just like with IMdB ratings, it is highly different per individual what you like or dislike.It can also vary on a day per day basis on how e.g. the revieuwer felt like that day or how the people he met where at that day.
When I look at the negative comments from e.g. Americans on bookings.com, I know that I have a complete different (not better or worse, different) expectation on what I want in a stay.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
My mum says I'm perfect. Are you calling her a liar?
So did mine, a half a century ago. Overtime though the warts and blemishes developed so today we just accept each other as being mere humans.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
No, the court said that you weren't liable because you stated up front that your reviews aren't reliable.
I have some reviews on TripAdvisor. The good: You write a review, they post it, you can look at it. The bad: You write a review of a new restaurant, presumably they call them up just like Yelp and if they don't get money, they don't go in the index. The best restaurant I ate at in Panama (I was there for a month) didn't make the index. Probably went out of business before people even realized it existed... hmm no, I see that they did finally add it, but they didn't use the picture I took or the review I wrote.
My problem is that the site doesn't work, at all, if I have any protections on. You know, Ghostery, noscript, etc. I permitted their domain and their CDN and yet none of the links work. So they won't be getting any more content from me... but they wouldn't anyway, since they ate my last and most important review.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I forwarded this message above along to webmaster, pr, and support@tripadvisor.com. webmaster and pr bounced, and support gave an autoreply saying to use the website to contact them. But the website doesn't work, so I can't do that. So, Tripadvisor broke their website, and they don't care. They deserve to fail. Just let them fail.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You are supposed to register your own business on TripAdvisor. There is no fee for doing so.
Maybe that's true now but when I wrote the review, they explicitly told me that they would review and decide whether the restaurant should be added. If that wasn't true, then they should not have set my expectations incorrectly.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Things may have changed but I have added a restaurant in the past as part of submitting a review. It didn't take any special magic.