Recently I saw a one-star review from a first time hit and run poster go up for one of my neighborhood restaurants claiming the set menu took three hours to arrive, the dessert was horrible, they got food poisoning, etc. I reported it as suspect to TripAdvisor mentioning that the restaurant doesn't have a set menu, nor do they offer dessert. It's simply a hole in the wall where you walk up to the counter and order. crickets and the review stands

Have you gone back to TA with your side of the story? It would be interesting to see what the "fraud" was.

They didn't and don't make it easy to find a channel to contact them. And certainly not for responding to the email.

Further, it's a bit ironic the apparent cause of the removal because (I'm certain) the review was flagged BY the owner and his behavior of solicitation itself constitutes fraud. The review had been live for 2 days so it passed TA's initial screening

Thanks for posting the review, deniah.

After reading it and not finding anything that set off my fraud meter, I clicked through on the link they provided you, half expecting an extremely vague definition of fraud that could potentially justify their deletion... but, it turns out the link makes no mention of fraud whatsoever.

If it were me, I'd go a few more rounds with TA over this just for principle/sport. Perhaps, you could offer to resubmit the review with more facts (e.g. the specific dimensions of the window or details about the check-in time rules)?

If you have the time, can you pursue this with TA and see where it leads?

Looking at your post, it seems perfectly legit. If TA is really flagging it to ensure advertising dollars or any other commercial reasons, then maybe I should reconsider contributing as well.

Man, I hope you don't.

TA isn't perfect (nothing designed by humans is), but it remains an extremely useful tool and guide to travel to new places. I really hope cynicism of experienced travelers, and resultant refusal to participate, doesn't hamper that effectiveness.

Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good; I'd encourage everyone to keep that in mind. And to try not to let one bad experience overly color your use of the site.

I agree with you. And, I won't stop contributing based on bad experiences from others (unless they are really bad). That having been sad, if I had taken the time to write a review, TA struck it for no reason that they could justify, and they refused to come around, I'd consider calling it quits.

Agree. I've posted 100+ reviews and have only run into problems once. I sorted that in the end with TA.

I would fight this - we should fight to keep TA as clean as it can be, and that means not giving in to owners who oppose genuine reviews.

(I know TA is also full of sh!t, though I'm sure the savvy users can spot the irrelevant reviews)

this is my stance at the moment.

by the way, here is their document on what constitutes fraud

https://www.tripadvisorsupport.com/h...sidered-fraud-

(exactly what the business owner did when he solicited me)


because its a bit of a rabbit chase to contact T/A for clarification on this matter, I simply resubmitted the review adding a few factual clarifation -- e.g. window dimension, check-in policy. the * rating and summary remain the same.

if this updated review fails to get published, ill also give up on the site

I am off to Tokyo, a city I know quite well, and I was reviewing TA's current advice on restaurants. The present number 1 of some 54000 places listed was a surprise and however good the restaurant actually is, no one on the TA team could realistically promote this place above all the other establishments in a city that offers some of the world's great dining experiences within budgets for everyone.
A mindful reader of TA reviews would note that there has been an unseemly flurry of reviews of this establishment in the past six weeks, and sixteen of the latest thirty two are by first time reviewers. Another seven are by reviewers who have submitted four or fewer reports.
The reviews from people with only a review or two to show for tend to write just a line or two and words like unbelievable, amazing, fantastic, incredible, phenomonal and extraordinary appear often but with little or no solid information to guide interested diners to a new experience. They do look like ticked boxes. Quick and careless. Why?
I suppose that TA's record on the reliability of hotel and restaurant reviews is well established and will not change, so 'caveat emptor' I won't be visiting Tokyo's Number one restaurant this trip. Far too many better places to explore.

This is a recurring mystery that has been noted time and time again over the years. It is so easy to game the system to get a top rating. Happens for the list of London restaurants all the time. The mystery is why they don't fix it when a fourth grader could come up with a better algorithm

Lots of talk about "gaming the system," but I've yet to patronize a highly rated establishment (hotel or restaurant) that failed to deliver. (I speak only of those places with a significant number of reviews.)

Again, I'm less concerned with the details of handling reviews as I am with the results. Maybe it's a little like sausage-making. :)

Look at the current "top 10" in Shanghai:

While none of these hotels suck by any means, aren't you a bit surprised to see that the likes of the Peninsula, the JA Shangri-La, and the RC Pudong are missing from the list? Do #4 and #8 not seem like outliers? How do you explain #10's meteoric rise from #38 just 3 years ago (in light of the fact that service standards have remained constant)?

Actually any algorithm can be "gamed" if you really want to.

But reading TA's review should always be taken in context. I mean comparing "The Fat Duck" to "Wagamama" would be quite a joke. But comparing similar priced and type of food would be fair enough. Please note that when I use the word "enough", as food is a matter of individual taste.

Accommodations though is another matter. If you boil it down to it's essence, most travelers (depending on reason for travel) looks for location, cleanliness, amenities and service standards. Which can be quantified, hence more reliable.