User review sites - responding to a poster...

[Bibliophile]

I posted on tripadivsor.com about a few visits I had at one of my neighborhood eateries.  This was my review - word for word:

"I tried, I really did. I want to support neighborhood establishments... I liked their Azaleas, Tilapia Ceviche and the Chicken Roulade, but...

I overlooked the 35 minutes it took one visit to get a bagel with lox, because even though it wasn't busy, I had nowhere else to be.

I was willing to give them another shot after our filets were so fatty/gristly that the knife wouldn't cut through them.

But when a cockroach ran out of my husband's club sandwich towards my husband and then back onto the plate... That was the 3rd strike. I'm sorry, but if you see one cockroach, it usually means there are more in hiding and there's not much a restaurant can do, in my opinion, to make up for cockroaches in the food...

I have 2 $35 Groupons and 1 $25 gift certificate that I just threw away - we won't go back, even for free."

I got a response today and the person said "I do not believe a word of this reviewer."

Is it me, or does that seem really harsh?  Why would I lie?  Would you think it's a restaurant owner or manager?  The person just signed on to tripadvisor today.  I've been a member since 2006.  I have done some other negative reviews on there, but I also have a similar number of positive reviews...

Was my response ok?  This is what I responded with: "I'm not sure why it's so unbelievable - which part wasn't? The manager in charge the day of the cockroach issue was female & she believed us. She comped the bill as we didn't eat anything after that - we had a $25 gift certificate with us that day anyway that arrived in a mailed welcome package when we moved back to Kirkwood (it also had a coupon for Parkers on Ponce). My husband squished the cockroach as evidence - it was on a piece of his fruit that came with the sandwich so the manager could see it. I've mentioned this also on the historic-kirkwood message board for those in the neighborhood. We threw away our other gift certificates. It's sad really, because we loved the bar there."

[MDefarge]

Sounds like the poster has a personal interest in making sure your review isn't believed.

[Harlow]

I'd ignore it.

Actually, this same thing has happened to me on other review sites.

Some people can be very passionate about their favorite places and do not appreciate very deserved negative reviews.

It's the internet, people are all anonymous so they can't really be saying you lie, they don't know who you are.

[Wavicle]

I would write it off as it being an internet jerk. The internet feels so anonymous, some people just seem to lie in wait to attack people for fun. They didn't bother doing anything to back themselves up other than attacking your statement as being untrue, I wouldn't take it as a personal insult.

[Schmoopie3928]

I would do  my best to ignore them too. If they just signed in, maybe it was a manager/emp of the place that ws trying to save face? PM me the place so DH and I don't go there

And I can only imagine the look on your DH face when a roach ran out of his plate!

[Master_Edward]

Cockroaches, eeeeewwww! I agree with everyone else it was probably someone just being a jerk and you should just ignore it. I don't take those kind of comments seriously anyway.

Ed.

[JeanFromBNA]

When I see strongly negative review on Trip Advisor about a place that I'm seriously considering, I will look at the reviewers other contributions.  So if you had a balance of negative and positive reviews, I would consider you credible.  I think that you were fine to defend yourself when your honesty is challenged.  

[Dragons 8 Cactus]

Sounded to me like someone has a vested interest in the establishment.

[Bibliophile]

The funny thing is, that particular restaurant is no longer doing business under the same name.  So if anyone new was looking to try it, they'd look under the new name so if it was an employee, it was a  pointless waste of time on her part (I say her because the user name was female).

[pierrotlunaire0]

It sounded to me like a troll.  If I read a negative review, I usually look at the specifics.  If it is just negative in a generalized vague way, I usually discount it immediately.

When it is detailed, then I read to see if it makes sense.  If the cockroach incident had been the first one, I would have doubts about your veracity, because after that, why would you go back?  Or, if you claimed that when you pointed out the cockroach to the staff, the manager had accused you of bringing in the roach yourself, and then flung it into your face,  -- too fantastic to be believed.

Your review seemed documented and believeable.  I also think your response was okay.  I do however really wonder about your follow up.  Why would someone go to the bother to refute a review of a place that technically doesn't exist?

[Bibliophile]

It sounded to me like a troll.  If I read a negative review, I usually look at the specifics.  If it is just negative in a generalized vague way, I usually discount it immediately.

When it is detailed, then I read to see if it makes sense.  If the cockroach incident had been the first one, I would have doubts about your veracity, because after that, why would you go back?  Or, if you claimed that when you pointed out the cockroach to the staff, the manager had accused you of bringing in the roach yourself, and then flung it into your face,  -- too fantastic to be believed.

Your review seemed documented and believeable.  I also think your response was okay.  I do however really wonder about your follow up.  Why would someone go to the bother to refute a review of a place that technically doesn't exist?

The "refute" actually came to me via a message on the site.  I didn't see it on my review so it was like a personal message, but it seemed like the sender was thinking it was going to be public as that's how it was worded to me. 

[sparklestar]

If I was using one of these user review sites I'd read a few of the reviews and also assess the character of the person posting the complaint.

For example, I often go and stay at a really wonderful hotel in a remote area on the coast.  It's family run, scrupulously clean and the food is out of this world.  It's not superglam though - you don't have central heating, there isn't a gym or concierge service, and they aren't particularly enamoured with bargain hunters or those who make other people's stays uncomfortable.  e.g. their wording on pets is "well behaved animals are allowed in the room under supervision but must eat and sleep outside and may be asked to leave at any time"    They get really bad reviews all the time from people who are expecting 5* service - it's just not that kind of place and they are missing out on its charms. 

[Bibliophile]

That's what I do too.  And you can see other reviews that they've done on there to get some idea.  On one of my other reviews, I gave a shack of a dive (and that's really classin' up the actual status of the joint) bbq restaurant a really good review because it's so good.  I don't care what the place looks like as long as the food is tasty.  The person who sent me the message has done zero activity on the site...

[Mahdoumi]

I LOVE TripAdvisor and have relied on the reviews for years!  The reviewers haven't steered me wrong, yet!

That said, the respondent to your review was probably the owner of the restaurant.  Also, when a place has a host of awful reviews, the one glowing review will, again, most likely be the owner.  Management that is truly interested in improving service will respond the right way.

[Tiamet]

If I was using one of these user review sites I'd read a few of the reviews and also assess the character of the person posting the complaint.

For example, I often go and stay at a really wonderful hotel in a remote area on the coast.  It's family run, scrupulously clean and the food is out of this world.  It's not superglam though - you don't have central heating, there isn't a gym or concierge service, and they aren't particularly enamoured with bargain hunters or those who make other people's stays uncomfortable.  e.g. their wording on pets is "well behaved animals are allowed in the room under supervision but must eat and sleep outside and may be asked to leave at any time"    They get really bad reviews all the time from people who are expecting 5* service - it's just not that kind of place and they are missing out on its charms. 

I know what you mean - I often stay at a chain in central London.  It is about £100 ($150) per night right in the heart of the London theatre area (most hotels start at $350-$400 per night and climb from there).  It is clean, safe and comfortable but very spartan.

They are very clear on the website what they do and don't have.  For example, there is no left luggage.  You can't check in before 3pm unless you pay extra for 12noon check in.  You have to check out at 12noon unless you have paid extra for late checkout.  Internet is also extra.  There are no toiletries, hairdryers etc. in the room.

The majority of bad reviews are for things like 'I arrived at 10 o'clock and they wouldn't give me a room' or 'there was no hairdryer'.  I don't understand people who expect 5 star service on the cheap.  There are plenty of hotels in London that are as lavish as you like.  If you feel not having luxuries will spoil your holiday, pay more for the frills.

When I look at user reviews, I always look at the reviewer's history.  I suspect anyone doing so will know who to belive here.