Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Debate heats up over online 'everyman' opinions, which often are biased

By Jeff Smith, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 24, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.

Text size  

Related Links

More Tech & Telecom

More stories »

Denver public relations consultant Pat Smith worries that everybody and his sister, qualified or not, are reviewing products on the Internet.

Smith has firsthand experience. A former client, TracMe, which made a locator beacon for outdoor enthusiasts, sparked brutal comments online when it went on sale in the U.S. last year.

One called the product useless. Another said it should be pulled from the market.

In at least one case, Smith said, TracMe determined the person making the comment was the dealer of a competing product.

Smith acknowledged part of the problem was that TracMe was labeled as a personal locator beacon, a term used by the U.S. search and rescue industry to mean satellite-linked. TracMe, backed by an Australian-based company, sends out a distress signal via a walkie-talkie-like radio frequency and depends on a search party knowing the lost person's route.

"Some were defaming the product based on the fact they were angry with the label, which had nothing to do with the safety of the product," Smith said.

The example, though imperfect, raises questions about "everyman" product reviews on the Internet.

Should Web sites allow amateur reviews and anonymous postings? What about the reliability of reviewers who - often unknown to readers - are competitors, have an ax to grind, or a financial or familial connection? Can such comments make or break a new product?

The issue plays out to varying degrees every day across the Internet, ranging from hotel guest reviews on TripAdvisor.com to scathing comments about everything from bank fees to auto dealers on RipoffReport.com.

Experts say consumers must beware that information on the Internet may be biased. The good news is that research shows consumers don't seem to rely heavily on such information.

The Pew Internet & American Life Project found in a survey published in May that only about 10 percent of respondents said online information had a major impact on purchasing decisions of music, cell phones and real estate.

"An implication of the data is that consumers don't put all their eggs in one media basket," said John Horrigan, associate director of research. "So as a general matter, few consumers rely only on online ratings in the course of decision making for a purchase, thus reducing the chance that bad or biased info at a rating site creates too much havoc."

Still, the issue is getting attention, in part because of Andrew Kean's book The Cult of the Amateur. In the book, Kean touches on what he views as the unhealthy trend of people trusting the "everyman" rather than experts.

Neither Consumer Reports nor Underwriters Laboratories, two groups that perform rigorous scientific tests on products, wanted to debate the topic.

"UL does not assess product review blogs," said UL Consumer Affairs Manager John Drengenberg by e-mail. But he emphasized that UL "always encourages consumers to look for the UL Mark for safety."

There is a legal foundation for anonymous comments on the Internet.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides immunity to Web site operators from liability for content created by third parties.

Still, a Web site operator has to be careful about aiding an illegal act, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh noted at last week's Aspen Summit, a technology conference.

The legal question is more complex if "A injures B and does so using C's help," Volokh said - C, in this case, being a Web site.

This year, for example, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California found Roommates.com had violated the fair housing law by providing a menu where users could ask for roommates based on age, sex and sexual preference.

Volokh said that if someone sends him a message saying a comment posted online is defamatory, "I generally delete it." But, he added, "I'm not going to over-censor (a blog) because I have an interest in keeping the posts up."

Ilene Kamsler, the outgoing director of the Colorado Hotel & Lodging Association, said her industry has mixed feelings.

The positive aspect of amateur reviews, she said, is that guest comments can serve as an independent appraisal beyond the description and photos on a hotel's Web site. "And it's one of those things that if someone has a bad experience, it gives the property an opportunity to learn firsthand from a guest what went wrong."

The problem, Kamsler said, is when a guest has had a bad experience that isn't the property's fault and has become vindictive.

"It's hard in that instance for the hotel operator to go back and correct that," she said.

If a hotel does decide to counter the comment, it often either prolongs the story or doesn't sound genuine, she said.

For their part, Smith and TracMe's former U.S. General Manager Brent Turner launched a vigorous campaign encouraging certain Web sites to remove the negative comments and adopt more stringent guidelines.

"We essentially expressed our concern with reviews from people who actually hadn't ever used the product," Turner said. "My overriding concern is that there are so many reviews on so many Web sites and there's often no vetting process as to who has owned or used the products."

Eastern Mountain Sports (EMS.com) refused to take down two negative reviews, including the one that said a product should be pulled.

But Turner gives credit to EMS for offering its own product evaluation underneath the negative comments. EMS explained how TracMe works and that even though it isn't satellite-based, "it helps searchers determine your location and find you quickly and efficiently."

As for TracMe, it now promotes itself as just a "locator beacon" and notes on its home page that it's "NOT" a satellite beacon. But the startup isn't actively being marketed in the U.S. right now because it needs another round of financing, Turner said.

Turner said he believes the negative reviews hurt. "Especially with a new product, a lot of people rely on the Internet and reviews to get their information."

smithje@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5155

What to watch for

Take anonymous and amateur reviews on the Internet with a grain of salt. They can be valuable sources of information, or they can be biased.

A number of similar comments about a product generally will be more reliable than a single negative review.

Look for a Web site's explanation of how it reviews products and the professional background of the reviewer.

Reputable product-review companies such as Underwriters Laboratories, Consumer Reports and CNET typically provide specific information on their Web sites about how they test the products in their laboratories.

Featured above A sampling of Web sites that offer product reviews, from left to right

Top row

* ConsumerReports.org

* cnet.com

* TripAdvisor.com

* wize.com

Middle row

* UL.com

* consumersearch.com

* mtbr.com (mountain bikes)

Bottom row

* Amazon.com

* RipoffReport.com

* epinions.com

Comments

  • August 25, 2008

    6:07 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    JohnSWren writes:

    The Internet just amplifies and makes more visible word-of-mouth publicity, the buzz that makes or breaks any business.

    Before the Internet, one bad customer experience would be shared with an average of 20 people, according to a survey that Mountain Bell used to quote in Phone Power seminars for business customers I used to help conduct.

    Has anyone seen what this statistic is now with the Internet? Must be at least 200, I'd guess, maybe 2000.

    Of course that same same power is available to smart businesses to help get the word out about what they are doing. Internet Power is often a topic at my free, weekly Denver IDEA Cafe. Join us! More info and RSVP at http://ideacafe.meetup.com/1 (RSVP "No" for this weeks meeting and you'll get an invitation to future sessions.)

  • August 25, 2008

    9:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    teblackman writes:

    I love online reviews. How is a consumer supposed to know how good a product is when compared to others? How good is a razor or knife set for the price? I would say that for the most part (say 80 to 90% of the time), the reviews have been pretty accurate. I never make a decision based on a single review and sites like Amazon typically have many reviews.

    The hotel reviews are extremely useful since there is not very many ways to find out the quality of a hotel in another state or even country. I have used travelocity a few times for hotel reviews and have been extremely happy with my choices. I have stayed at a few hotels without checking them out ahead of time and I have been universally dissappointed.

  • August 25, 2008

    10:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ottis writes:

    This is pretty simple to deal with. Anyone with a brain knows that any one review can be someone with an ulterior motive. That's why you look for people who have many reviews and are often designated a "popular reviewer" or a similar term and you weigh those opinions more than just some guy with a rant. Also, you take into account Consumer Reports or other more objective sources. Finally, you do look at the rants, because sometimes they do hit on a specific issue that others haven't noticed or considered.