Originally Posted by
You want to go where?
I disagree with some of your post. I think the reason that tripadvisor ratings do not correlate with star ratings is primarily due to the 'value for money' issue combined with reviews from infrequent travelers rather than hotels 'gaming the system'.
As more people review for tripadvisor, you get people with less traveling experience doing the reviewing. These reviewers are far more likely to rate on the extremes rather than the middle....
When I review, I apply the value for money proposition. So, if a five-star hotel charging, multiple several 100€'s a night, I expect the service to be spot on - no inconsistencies in the service. If I get a mix of four- and five-star service, I will rate the hotel much lower, than a 90€ three-star hotel where I get a mix of three get a mix of three- and four- star service....
Note that I am bemoaning
the change in reliability. Tripadvisor was never perfect, but it used to be more useful for my purposes. I think that as the number of reviewers and sources of reviews have grown, the quality of reviews has declined. The percentage of reviews generated by less-discerning first-time travelers seems to have exploded.
I review in the same way as you. My complaint is not that 3-star hotels are being rated more highly than 5-star hotels. It's that 3-star hotels with half-assed service charging rates typical for their class are being rated more highly than 5-star hotels with top-notch service charging rates typical or even low for their class.
Or even take the photos. It used to be that when reviewer-submitted photos first began to be posted, almost all the photos were of the hotels themselves. Now it's very common to find photos of local attractions that have nothing to do with the hotel. I only want to see a photo of the Eiffel Tower on a review about a Paris hotel if that photo shows the view of the tower from one of the hotel rooms! And I don't want to see photos showing how cute someone's kids are! Just show the hotel!