back to article Congrats America, you can now safely slag off who you like online

The US Congress has handed over the Consumer Review Freedom Act, which stops businesses from gagging online reviews of their products or services, to President Obama for his signature. With the growth of online review sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor, some businesses have started to require customers to sign contracts that ban …

  1. Nate Amsden

    now if

    only every social media type thing that allows you to "like" something would allow you to "dislike" as well then maybe we can make some more progress.

    1. MrDamage Silver badge

      Re: now if

      Downvoted to express my support for your proposal. :P

    2. MNGrrrl
      Trollface

      Re: now if

      > only every social media type thing that allows you to "like" something would allow you to "dislike" as well then maybe we can make some more progress.

      You're more on point than you know. eBay stopped having the ability to rate negatively a long time ago. An "A-" rating is like, the worst thing you can say... "WEEEEEERNSTROM!" And they tweaked the hell out of the system so a negative review can be deleted by the seller. Steam changed its reviewing system so you only see the "most recent" reviews, and it resets with every patch. You may notice that crappy games are patched many times a day, thus burying any negative reviews. Businesses are already well ahead of this: Even Google allows you to "report" negative reports as "abusive", and get them removed. Businesses may not be charging people but they have something better: They're gaming the system itself.

      1. Moosh
        Thumb Up

        Re: now if

        Even on bloody youtube comments, the dislike button has a lag before updating (possibly pending a review even), whereas the like button updates the comment instantly.

        I do quite like register comments. While there are some salty buggers who I feel have "downvoted" a comment despite the comment not being overly negative or containing bad content, the vast majority here seem to simply move on from the post if it's mediocre, and only actually downvote if its particularly ignorant or incendiary (usually purposefully so).

        And then you have sites like Reddit, where downvoting is used as a weapon to suppress dissenting opinion. And on the opposite end of the spectrum, 4chan, where you cannot discern good from bad before reading the content and then wishing you hadn't and closing the page.

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: now if

          "And then you have sites like Reddit, where downvoting is used as a weapon to suppress dissenting opinion"

          THAT would be the ENTIRE INTARWEBS. This web site is no exception to that. Heh.

          [thanks in advance for your downvotes, heh]

          1. PNGuinn
            Trollface

            Re: now if @ bombastic bob

            You're welcome. -1

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: now if

      > only every social media type thing that allows you to "like" something would allow you to "dislike" as well then maybe we can make some more progress.

      And the same for petitions (online or otherwise). Everybody who is given the opportunity to sign in favour, should also have the opportunity to sign against.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Most unusual

    "When these kinds of gagging orders have become public in the past, hordes of keyboard warriors have nuked the businesses' ratings to zero."

    And the business climate was becoming such that many had to do this stuff to try to stay competitive. This legislation means that no business can do it, so none of them are ground-up in the web's ever-hungry maw. And meanwhile the consumer/raters are safe.

    Odd, but this sounds almost reasonable. We are talking about the US Congress, right?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Most unusual

      It's very reasonable, but Congress here isn't Congress everywhere.

      The closest thing I know of to a "honest" review site is TrustPilot out of Denmark. But even they have their paid advert quirks (although I'm not sure how influential their paid options are). This act won't affect TrustPilot, so if TrustPilot becomes the top duckduckgo result for reviews, this act won't help.

      The god awful resellerratings.com really, really did me in on putting merit into a review site. I don't think anything can bring me back to putting any merit into any review anywhere unless it is a 3/5 star review from someone who uploaded mspaint product pictures. Strangely enough, the mspaint photos with the red pencil drawn ALL OVER the place actually lets me know they cared, go figure.

  3. Ole Juul

    Good for freedom of speech and consumer rights.

    Reviews are still mostly useless though.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good for freedom of speech and consumer rights.

      True it does require careful reading to pick out the relevant reviews. Having been the target of a lawsuit in the '80's on review comments posted on CompuServe, it would have been nice to have coverage then.

    2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Good for freedom of speech and consumer rights.

      Great news for London libel lawyers

      As long as they can show one person in the UK read the review they can choose to have it heard in London, and with the UK's accommodating libel laws you can be assured of a generous payout

      1. William 3 Bronze badge

        Re: Good for freedom of speech and consumer rights.

        You still running with that old trope even though a US court has told the UK court to politely fuck themselves regarding this issue.

        Given the US constitution and the history with the UK government an all that.

        But it's fine. Carry on make believing.

      2. Arthur the cat Silver badge

        Re: Good for freedom of speech and consumer rights.

        Great news for London libel lawyers

        Nope. The Defamation Act 2013 made both truth and expression of honest opinion valid defences against a charge of defamation, and also required that when the plaintiff is a "body that trades for profit" they have to show that it has caused, or is likely to cause, serious financial loss.

        The law used to be an ass in this area, but the 2013 changes are pretty sensible. Expression of honest opinion covers reviews pretty well unless the plaintiff can show malice.

        [I'm familiar with this because the other half has had a run in with a bunch of cowboys whose product she'd rightly slagged off as a con. Their arguments weren't helped when the ASA said much the same thing.]

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: Good for freedom of speech and consumer rights.

          "Expression of honest opinion" sounds more restrictive than what used to be called "fair comment", which encompasses anything that is clearly subjective and can't reasonably be taken literally.

          Example: "Person X eats kittens" - statement of alleged fact, actionable unless you can show it to be true.

          "Person Y is a worthless waste of skin with the insight of a constipated beagle and the moral compass of a Bangkok pimp" - fair comment, feel free to apply to the politician of your choice, naming no names but any recently elected/appointed presidents/prime ministers you can think of would be pretty fair.

    3. Mark 85
      Trollface

      Re: Good for freedom of speech and consumer rights.

      I guess it's time to unleash the trolls.... The reviews ought to be hilarious.

      Oh wait... the Congressional Record doesn't have reviews....

  4. Mikel

    Oh wow

    Like we wouldn't anyway.

    1. Jan 0 Silver badge

      Re: Oh wow

      Yoda you are and pounds five mine I claim.

  5. David 132 Silver badge

    Great article A+ would read again

    Bytes arrived promptly and as described. 5/5

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Great article A+ would read again

      "Bytes arrived promptly and as described"

      ...but were they well packed?

    2. Arthur the cat Silver badge

      Re: Great article A+ would read again

      Bytes arrived promptly and as described. 5/5

      :-)

      Or the typical Amazon 1 star review version(*):

      This was not the article I wanted to read, I wanted one with pictures of kittens. 1 star.

      (*) My favourite pair of 1 star reviews were both for copies of Flaubert's Madame Bovary. One read "this book is in English but I wanted the French version" and the other read "this book is in French and I don't read French".

      1. David 132 Silver badge

        Re: Great article A+ would read again

        @Arthur the cat: This SMBC strip comes to mind. (SFW but the site might be considered N- by some filters)

  6. Number6

    I'm sure Trump will try to revoke it next year if enough people give him and his businesses bad reviews.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Ain't going to happen. The sort of public which goes to a Trump golf course is not the sort of public that will find some time to write a review.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        No, but this touches on another problem from the business side. Say I'd want to damage a business because, for instance, I am not a fan of the owner - let's take Trump, as example. All hypothetically, of course, because some of these people have lawyers on call that would sue you for the sheer fact of breathing.

        The issue is working out what is free speech and a real review versus something that is simply created to harm a business. Who can the business under attack go after? The site holding those opinions? The people making those comments, potentially anonymously?

        It's not as simple as it seems IMHO.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Bad reviews by non-customers will always be a problem

          Its too bad there isn't a way to prove a customer relationship before you can review something. At least that would stop the crap where people share something on Facebook about a business doing something "bad" (which depends on the viewpoint of the reader of course) and encourage everyone to go to their page and give them a 1* review. The downside of fixing this would be that the funny Amazon reviews would become a thing of the past...

          Fixing that wouldn't fully solve the problem though. You want reviews to be unbiased, knowledgeable, and avoid self-selection. Let's forget unbiased, because there will always be people who feel bias one way or another about certain companies (think about how a Samsung loyalist might review an Apple product and vice versa) Knowledgeable is a problem also - I don't want to read the review of someone clueless about what they bought, but if I was buying a set of tools I wouldn't want the opinion of a car mechanic who uses tools 40 hours a week either, as his needs are way beyond my own and tools he finds unsuitable could be perfect for me.

          Self-selection is the biggest problem though. People are far more likely to bother to enter a review when they are unhappy than when they are happy, and you have to take that into account when reading reviews. Even if you did something like offering a small rebate for people reviewing a product, most will give a cursory "great product, would buy again" like eBay reviews that is pretty worthless.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Bad reviews by non-customers will always be a problem

            "Its too bad there isn't a way to prove a customer relationship [...]"

            IIRC Amazon indicate if the reviewer had bought the product through them.

  7. GrumpyKiwi

    Celebrating bipartisanship?

    Bipartisanship is not to be celebrated. The biggest unlubricated rogerings the general public have had inflicted on them - most usually in the name of teh terrorists or think of the children - have been bipartisan.

    Gridlock is much more worth celebrating. A parliament that can't pass any legislation can't do any further harm.

    1. Eric Olson

      Re: Celebrating bipartisanship?

      Hear hear! The advance of time and technology should never be acknowledged through updates to law or stature. If it was good enough for Samuel Morse's curt review of a local bed and breakfast, it's bloody well good enough for us!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Celebrating bipartisanship?

      Gridlock is good insofar as it stops democrats from passing things only democrats want, or republicans passing things only republicans want. If we needed a 2/3 majority to pass anything we'd probably be better off because it would force compromise. We wouldn't have seen Obamacare, nor would we see whatever the republican majority is about to give us next year. We'd see middle of the road policies, without the wide swings when a party gets the president+congress. We'd see Supreme Court nominees who are more moderate, instead of nominating the most liberal or most conservative justice they can push through.

      When it is something that the vast majority wants, bipartisanship is a good thing - but this is becoming more and more rare these days, unfortunately.

      Agreed that crap like the Patriot Act were very bipartisan, but that's a separate issue. The idea is that we vote for politicians who will do what the people want - but they should protect the people against themselves when they think they want "eek terrorists" or "think of the children" laws. Really what those are is a fear of "even though I know this isn't a good idea, I'm afraid if I vote against it I'll lose my cushy seat".

      That's what term limits would fix. Two terms in congress max for any individual's lifetime. That would insure enough incumbents return each session that there's some continuity, but aren't so concerned about re-election that political calculations drive all their voting.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Celebrating bipartisanship?

        " If we needed a 2/3 majority to pass anything we'd probably be better off"

        and every bill would be even MORE loaded with 'piglet riders' or outright blatant PORK to appease the various factions and get them to vote "for" it.

        If you're going to require 2/3 majority, do it for any TAX INCREASE or DEBT INCREASE. that will stop them dead in their tracks! That kind of thing has kept Cali-fornicate-you 'mostly in check' since the 70's, and it's only recently that the spending and taxing and regulating has become completely unhinged out here on the 'left coast'. Yeah, we need 'an enema' out here... starting in Sacramento.

      2. Eric Olson

        Re: Celebrating bipartisanship?

        Gridlock is good insofar as...

        There are numerous issues with your post, including the reality that some of the worst excesses of government that you seem to complain about came about through razor-thin, single-party votes. The Democrats has a large majority in both the House and Senate in 2010 when the ACA was passed, and moreso, it would have had some kinds of legitimate compromise in it if Republicans had come to the table as invited by President Obama. Instead, it was a bill filled with ideas (many from conservative think-tanks, but that's another story) that were never debated, just stuffed in there.

        Supreme Court Justices were nominated on merit, even through the Bush years. I frankly don't care to waste a moment of my time trying to figure out who you find to be radical, and even don't care if we agreed perfectly. They often passed with large majorities, because the Senate took the Advise and Consent clause to mean "provide Advice, then Consent to the President's choice." Other than Bork in the 80s, and Nixon's various attempts to appoint avowed segregationists, Supreme Court nominees outright rejected by the Senate were rare; it was much more common for them to ask to be withdrawn, usually after a skeleton or two were outed.

        And term limits fix nothing; they just move the problem down the road, empower the party apparatus even further, and provide outsize influence to outside money because of the need for large sums of cash to advertise when a new face has little name recognition. Guess what the solution is if you don't like an old Senator from Iowa or the philandering Representative from New York? Nothing, unless you want to move there. They don't represent you, period. If their constituents like them enough to keep them around, that's what a representative republic is all about. I don't like a lot of the old Representatives and Senators from a lot of states across party lines, but they aren't my call. I don't live in those districts and states. I can only work in my backyard and keep my nose out of my neighbor's business. And in the end, if you don't like them, dis-empower their party and handlers, not pump those same folks full of steroids by removing the protection of incumbency from a politician who feels safe in their position to reflect their representatives instead of the party boss who put them in place.

        And here's a radical idea: Increase the number of Representatives. The number we have now has been fixed since the 1910s, when the country was only a third of today's population (and only 48 states to boot). That also dilutes their individual power and also blunts the influence of cash, because it's easier to connect to 250,000 people than 700,000 or more. And certain media markets would be so expensive it would be prohibitive for anything besides issue ads.

  8. Barry Rueger

    Horse, meet Barn Door

    I'd argue that the majority of review sites have long ago become entirely untrustworthy.

    Does anyone ever trust Yelp? Much less the Play store?

    I just can't be bothered sorting through the obviously bogus reviews any more.

    And that's not even considering the "review" or "bargain" spam sites that make up the top twenty items whenever you Google a product.

  9. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    As a rule of thumb I'm wary of any laws that have words like 'freedom' or 'patriot' in their titles. This one could be the odd one out, though.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Porridge was lumpy.

    And the pillow menu was nowhere to be found.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There is a skill to reading user reviews

    Once learned, finding good accommodation (for instance) is almost fool proof.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There is a skill to reading user reviews

      Very much agreed. You have to look at where the reviewers are all from, for example, to determine if you're guaranteed the accommodation is not a flea pit.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There is a skill to reading user reviews

        "Once learned, [...]"

        The UK NHS system seems to operate a similar "between the lines" code. Nowadays any hospital consultation results in a brief report that is sent to the patient as well as their GP.

        I have noticed a pattern emerging referring to me as "a very sensible gentleman". Are they telling my GP I'm a cooperative patient?

  12. Aqua Marina

    Double edged sword?

    Are dishonest and malicious reviews now protected?

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Double edged sword?

      They already are. If I want to be malicious, I will spend some time crafting a review that takes care to be plausible. That probably makes it more defensible in court. If, however, I just want to throw out an honest rant, I'll probably say something rash and that means I'll be wanting the sort of protection that this new law will provide.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Double edged sword?

        plausible

        ˈplɔːzɪb(ə)l/

        adjective

        adjective: plausible

        (second meaning)

        (of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive.

        "a plausible liar"***

        ***The example in that context appears to be a tautology.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In america 4 out of 5 is a bad review, my old dear runs a b&b thing via airb&b and if you get a couple of 4 star ratings they start sending you motivational content on how to get a 5.

    This is Europe, if you want a 5 you need on tap drugs and oral sex.

    1. disgruntled yank

      Ratings

      A fellow who had been a dean at Virginia Tech wrote a book, To Rise Above Principle, and along the way spoke of the difficulties in understanding evaluations. For example, he said, the British "His work is quite sound, actually." might mean the same or more as the American "His work sets the standard we all aspire to."

      I don't know why this is, but the problem is of long standing. As long ago as WW II, "above average" on an officer's efficiency rating meant "incompetent."

    2. Arthur the cat Silver badge

      This is Europe, if you want a 5 you need on tap drugs and oral sex.

      Amsterdam hotel, was it?

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Reviewing reviews

    Ignore any less than 10 words.

    Ignore any 5* reviews over about 200 words (paid for shill)

    Read them to see if the person was a complete idiot (Tech reviews are great for this).

    Then take it from there.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Reviewing reviews

      Better yet, go straight to the negative reviews. If they're just nitpickers and morons, it's probably ok; check the positive reviews for "slight cons".

      If they're pointing out flaws that concern you, red flag.

      If the reviews are overwhelmingly positive, assume shilling/censorship/hype. Huge red flag.

    2. Palpy

      Re: Reviewing reviews, the multilingual web...

      ... the Web of Many Tongues ...

      On tech, I occasionally come across reviews which are written in execrable English, but which seem quite sound on the technology being reviewed. (OTOH, some are horribly written and also ignorant of the technology...the wurst of both sausages.)

      But yes, a nuanced approach to reading user reviews is necessary. I'm tempted to say that full-length blog and magazine reviews are better than five-sentence user reviews, but it's only true some of the time.

  15. Olius

    **** Would read again

    (I would have given five stars, but the cutlery was dirty and I had to send it back)

  16. Maty

    evaluating reviews

    Something else to look for is polarization. If a product has mostly 1 and 2 star reviews on one side and 5 star reviews on the other with nothing in the middle, that's a red flag.

    I recently reviewed a book like that on Amazon. Some one star reviewers went into great detail about how and why the book was terrible, and the 5-star reviews were mostly 'Good book'. and 'I loved it.' Most of the 5-star reviewers had never reviewed anything else. As you might guess, the book was an abomination.

  17. Tikimon

    Polarization - another explanation

    Not to disagree, but sometimes extreme-weighted reviews are legit. Consider a rilly kewl product with some dodgy quality control. When it works, people love it - 5-stars. But if you get a defective one that dies after a week, you hate it. 1-star!

    I've seen this effect many times on Amazon. Good product idea, inconsistent quality.

    1. Queasy Rider

      Re: Polarization - another explanation

      Yup, see this all the time. Bought a Chinese portable washing machine rated 4 point something from Amazon last month. I read all 370 reviews twice. Mostly 4s and 5s. The few 1s and 2s were like you said, machine failed on delivery or soon after, or the carton was damaged. But it was the abundance of 4 ratings that caught my eye. As the first dozen ratings abundantly pointed out, the water hoses were a non-standard size, and had to be adapted. But reviewer after reviewer continued to deduct one star for this, even though they had well been informed by previous reviews but purchased the product anyway. I finally did a recalculation, mentally converting those 4s to 5s, and came up with an overall rating of about 4.9. Averaged over that many reviews, that is an almost miraculous rating, so I purchased.

      P S. Love the machine so far.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon