If by raw you mean "paid for" then maybe

I would like to know whatever crack it is you are smoking because it sounds good to me.

It used to be, but is hardly now. The actual reviews on the hotel sites are the best source now. If all the one user reviews were deleted, you may have a point with Trip Advisor, but as long as the stays are unverified, the reviews are far from reputable.

I didn't know there were different types. By I guess it takes a pro to know there are different types of crack cocaine.

Any forum can have someone paid to monitor the forums. On Trip Advisor, General Managers are paid, in turn part of their job is to ensure customer satisfaction, and follow up Trip Advisor comments.

Here on Flyer Talk, there are paid liaisons from various loyalty programs and businesses involved. So if by neutral you mean lack of paid postings, then I think you may want to rethink the forums you are involved on.

While I am always wary of one post wonders, I am surprised how many people post for the first time about the hotel I work in. They are not paid, or asked to post, and for the most part, their reviews are pretty accurate. This has led me to not discount the single posts anymore, but to just average them in with the others. I still give more weight to a user review that has many many posts though.

I NEVER failed when selecting a hotel room with TripAdvisor

the hotel pictures at hotel websites are the most unreliable things on earth

the ability to see real pictures of the place is the most important thing that TA provides

just compare rankings with other websites + be suspicious when reading 1 time reviews and that's it

it's still a great tool

If you think there are not huge swathes of paid-for fake reviews on TripAdvisor you either a) naive, b) not very clever, c) smoking crack or d) all of the above. But go ahead and fool yourself otherwise. And TA doesn't care because it gets money for more and more content. Quantity is far more important than quality

Then perhaps you will want to go back and read your post 337 and your subsequent [post attempting to discredit me where the discussion was specifically about actual 'reviews' on Trip Advisor, and not about email alerts, rates, and advertising.
I'm pleased that I was able to teach you something new, but I don't agree with you about it being an outlier. Nor do the courts or regulatory bodies (nor do the majority of people on this thread agree with you either, apparently)

And unfortunately just like on Flyertalk, quantity of posts doesn't always equate to quality of posts.

I reviewed post 337, but it seems to me there is a language barrier (you mention previously you are German, thus I assume your primary language is German), my post you quoted has me referring to other posters who was questioning the neutrality of the site due to external mechanisms such as email alerts, marketing and advertisng, etc. I stand by my posts and see no contradiction.

Sure there may be a problem with one hotel, but is there a lawsuit against every hotel on Trip Advisor.. a lawsuit of the same nature? The answer is no. This again is a perfect example of outlier, even in the sense of litigation.

If you're talking about my posts, funny, I think the same about yours.

yet another "outlier"

http://loyaltylobby.com/2013/11/26/v..._source=feedly

After reading this thread, its time for me to grab my tin foil hat. Be right back.

As I've advised up thread. I read to worst reviews and see if I can handle staying at the subject hotels. Doesn't matter what the ranking is. You can read all the positive reviews you want.. but in the end, without reviewing the horrible reviews, we don't get a complete picture.

For example, we stayed at Trip Advisors #1 rated Family Hotel in the US.. 21 nights at Floridays, Orlando.. this past spring break. Reading the horrible reviews, I thought, ok.. I think my family can handle this. Just gotta make sure if I book with an owner, we've got daily towel refresh and regular room service. Problem arises.. GM handles the situation perfectly. I ended up giving them a 5 star review.. My only review posted in probably in 3 years.

It was a 3 bedroom condo, 2 bathrooms, 1,600 square feet. Granite in bathrooms and full kitchen. 4 TVs. Free parking. $116 per night.

Here is a problem for me. If this place is five stars, then what is a truly impeccable and luxurious establishment such as The Dorchester in London or the Plaza Athénée in Paris, 10 stars? Why would you give them five stars?

About 20 years ago when Zagat expanded to other cities outside their home base they printed a warning that restaurants were rated compared to each other locally not nationally. Thus, if Daniel is a 28 (out of 30) for food in New York, you should not expect the same quality meal in a restaurant rated 28 in Indianapolis. I understand that approach although I do not agree with it.

Giving an establishment a high rating when it is the best of the lot, all of which are substandard, is like rating a restaurant "Best Sushi In Mogadishu."

Landing Gear, that's a good point.

However, the same topic comes up with costs:

In Zurich (or New York, or Singapore, for that matter) you can get a 3* hotel hardly for 100$, and 5* won't be found for less than 200++$

Compare it to, say Bangkok, Hangzhou, Kuala Lumpur, where 3* will cost you maybe 30$ and 5* can be have for as low as 60$..

You won't rate the hotels in Zurich overpriced because of that, will you? Also, you don't expect LESS from the hotel in Bangkok just because it's only 1/4 of the one in Singapore, or do you?

There should always be some kind of "localisation" with any ratings in my opinion.

And not just that - depending on the location, I've also different "expectations". A 5* hotel in ZRH which is 300m away from a train station certainly won't offer free pickup service from there. Go to BKK, it's very common to offer such services. Will I rate the hotel in ZRH worse because of no-pickup service? Certainly not!

However, a 5* hotel with only an outdoor pool in Switzerland would get downrated by myself, while a 5* in BKK also just having an outdoor pool certainly wouldn't.

For me, a lot of things can be seen either as positive or negative, depending on the situation. Just a few things are either always good or always bad, no matter what. It's those things that I try to look / filter for.

Unfortunately there are plenty of morons out there who do exactly that. Example. A guest comment card I received a few months ago tore us up because our prices were double the price that they paid in Mexico for a larger room, closer to the water. They seriously were comparing a hotel in downtown Seattle, to one in Mexico, based on price and distance from water.

That is why you have to read between the lines on Tripadvisor. It does not make it any less accurate, as this thread suggests, that hotel in Mexico WAS half the price. That is a completely accurate statement. If someone is stupid enough to take a statement like that at face value, then they probably should hire a travel agent to do their work for them, and therefore have someone to complain to.

Just in time for Christmas, a rather famous inn has been given a five star review on Trip Advisorr, spoofing the inaccurate and biased nature of the site.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...or-review.html

I do use multiple languages daily in both my professional and my personal life, but I am confident that my English skills are not in question, nor are my reading comprehension skills a concern. If a language barrier exists, then it certainly is not on the part of this poster.

However, being able to read and properly comprehend multiple languages does have a benefit on Trip Advisor, as I can filter out tourist-type comments which may not be relevant to me. For instance, one of the top rated restaurants (not just gelateria, but restaurants) in Rome sells gelato near San Pietro. It regularly has queues out the door thanks to North American tourists who are visiting the Vatican, and they rave about it on Trip Advisor. It is the same mass produced, highly coloured, piled in mounds poor quality gelato found at countless low range shops around Italy and France. Yet the artisan gelateria are rated quite poorly from the same type of traveller, who often complain that the gelato is kept in small quantities in a lidded metal container, and that they were not permitted to sample every flavour. (It is the norm to produce small batches of quality product, and to protect it from light and air, and most of these places do not consider themselves to be the local Baskin-Robbins, offering unlimited sampling)

Reading reviews in local language provides me with a more accurate assessment of the establishment.

Why thank you. That's very kind of you, as I certainly don't have a quantity of posts and strive for quality of posts instead.

Quantity of posts on Trip Advisor is however relevant to me generally only to be able to assess a reviewer's personal tastes. If for instance a reviewer considers M Horton to be an excellent boulanger, or visits Red Lobster for a quality seafood dinner, then I know that their opinions are of little relevance to me.

For those who do not believe that Trip Advisor is reliable, and that reviews are balanced, I'm curious if they feel that this poster was being untruthful?