Blogger fined for restaurant review

[csgohan4]

Just read this article here about someone who placed a reveiw of a restaurant on her blog.

Unfortunately for her, it appeared in the top for google results for said restaurant and the owner took her to court and won for damages caused by poor rep.

Is it the bloggers fault or google's? or it just a bad case of sour grapes?

Either way the restaurant loses with this negative publicity.

What you think? Freedom of expression curtailed for business? or a simple case of an unfairly skewed google search in favour of one bad review?

[csgohan4]

The owner posted this statement: '"But this article showed in the Google search results and did my business more and more harm, even though we have worked seven days a week for 15 years. I could not accept that.

"People can criticise, but there is a way of doing it - with respect. That was not the case here."

15 years of service does not excuse a restuarant. My local chippy has been in service for over 30 years but serves awful food, does that excuse them because they have been around for longer lol?

Interestingly the blogger is not the only one to voice her displeasure at the restaurant, I have found their tripadvisor page here Although having a traul through seems alot seem to be from the a backlash of the ruling.

It's a free world and we can voice our opinion about restaurants, personally I use Trip advisor for this.

[jim]

I do find it quite worrying.

It just shows what a knife-edge we're on sometimes, and without even realising. I've happily condemned companies in the past for poor service etc, and rarely contemplated the risk of the company pursuing me through the courts.

It shows as well the risks that places like HEXUS are exposed to every day, where anyone can see their opinions rocketed to the top of Google search results in minutes.

[santa claus]

Instead of taking the blogger to court, might not the owner have contacted her to clarify her dissatisfaction and perhaps try to mitigate her displeasure with a free meal? Unless the blogger was moaning for moaning's sake, she's entitled to an opinion. Turns out she has been made to pay an awful lot of money for a meal/service she was unhappy with. That is bad publicity getting worse.

[csgohan4]

Instead of taking the blogger to court, might not the owner have contacted her to clarify her dissatisfaction and perhaps try to mitigate her displeasure with a free meal? Unless the blogger was moaning for moaning's sake, she's entitled to an opinion. Turns out she has been made to pay an awful lot of money for a meal/service she was unhappy with. That is bad publicity getting worse.

Well they are paying for it with plumetting Tripadvisor reviews as well

[kompukare]

That is bad publicity getting worse.

Yes, this is up there with Ryanair 'giving' their millionth passenger 'free flights for life' and then after getting the publicity they changing their mind:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-26045284.html
Bad publicity like that cannot be bought and ever since wherever people talk about bad service from Ryanair, this tends to come up. In fact I read one thread on Ryanair and people suggested a scoring system and while having your luggage lost etc. gets a few points, being personally insulted by possibly the world's most friendly boss (as happened in this case) scores 1000 points...

[Galant]

The scariest thing here is that the central argument doesn't seem to challenge what has been said, or who said, just the prominence of the opinion in Google.

"The restaurant owners said the article's prominence was unfairly hurting their business."

Surely that's a matter for Google, as the OP suggested.

[OilSheikh]

Should have mentioned on a independent site like Tripadvisor, and that too anonymously.
Anonymosity is everything on the net.

[csgohan4]

Should have mentioned on a independent site like Tripadvisor, and that too anonymously.
Anonymosity is everything on the net.

Problem is that won't protect you. Look at the twitter accounts which are being looked by the police and prosecuting for defamation and abuse. We all leave a digital foot print and wil be found by the authorities if need be.

[Saracen]

The scariest thing here is that the central argument doesn't seem to challenge what has been said, or who said, just the prominence of the opinion in Google.

"The restaurant owners said the article's prominence was unfairly hurting their business."

Surely that's a matter for Google, as the OP suggested.

That's the bit that worries me. The restaurant owner doesn't seem to be challenging the dacts in the review, but rather, simply the extent of the damage to their business.

And that is the danger of online reviews.

Firstly, it may well be the subjective opinion of one person, but worse, it may be based on one misrepresenrative experience.

I had a poor (but not dire) experience at a local pub/restaurant. It was just enough to make me reluctant to go back, but we did. And I had a worse experience. Not anything disastrous, but bangers and mash with onion gravy where the onions were nearly raw, and the mash a lumpy blob. I can do better mash than that, blindfolded. So I decided, never again.

But, shortly afterwards, a group of us were going for a meal, and the group decided to go there. Great (not), I thought. Well, the meal was superb. I've been there dozens of times since, and not yet had another meal I'd describe as less than (for pub food prices, up to about £15/head, excl drinks) very good indeed.

Had I written a review, and been entirely fair and balanced, but based it on my first, ir worse, second experience, it would be very likely to put people off. Well, a year or so later I was talking to the owner and mentioned my first two experiences. When we worked out when it had been, it turned out that their chef had left and the replacement was .... sub-par, but only lasted a few weeks. My first two experiences both occurred in that few weeks.

That experience VERY nearly put me off ever going there again, and would but for that group decision.

What does worry me is that if a few people veto a restaurant over a poor experience or two, it's not a disaster, but a prominent bad review could be seriously detrimental, and even if true, fair and balanced could be based on a wholly misrepresentative experience.

If it's a user-review rating system, the damage that one bad experience can do is limited, but for a (locally) prominent critic to give a bad review could stick for a very long time.

So, I'm split on thus article. On one hand, a restauranteur shouldn't have their life's work wrecked over one bad, or even mediocre, experience. The penalty is way disproportionate to the experience. And, if that single experience, poor though it was, is not representative (like my lumpy mash and raw onions wasn't) it isn't even libellous.

On the other hand, the review writer certainly hasn't done anything wrong, assuming she accurately portrayed what she experienced.

Seems to me the ussue us from two factors :

- a review based on a one-off experience MIGHT just have been a bad day, and we all get them, and

- a bad review on the net lasts a VERY long time, especially if whatever causes Google to rank it high happens to affect that review. The price paid for the "bad day" can be wholly disproportionate.

Who did wrong? Based on the facts we can see, probably nobody.

What could be done? Perhaps when publishing a bad review, go back a couple of months later and (anonymously, of course, perhaps a different reviewer) retest. And update the original review.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well instead of going OTT,the restaurant should have contacted the person,and tried to allay their fears,or even apologise for the poor meal. That might have prompted people to change their reviews or at least update them to say the restaurant tried to rectify the issue. If you look at various review sites the restaurant has not had massively good ratings it appears in the last few years anyway. People tend to look at more than one review on these websites anymore. One or two bad reviews is unlikely to have a massive affect,if the rest are positive.

Instead the restaurant went OTT,and all the publicity means they have screwed themselves,and it probably means that due to the notoriety many people will just avoid them now,probably even people who would have gone their anyway. It seems they have never heard of the Streisand effect.

[Saracen]

Should have mentioned on a independent site like Tripadvisor, and that too anonymously.
Anonymosity is everything on the net.

Maybe, but two issues. First, as csgohan4 said, most things aren't quite as anonymous on the net as you think, especially once it goes legal. But second, a blogger usually makes money my selling advertising, and that is based on sire popularity, which in turn depends entirely on the public liking and trusting that blogger, or site.

How much trust do any of us put in a single anonymous review? But one by someone whose name and reputation you trust?

It does, though, clearly demonstrate the risks of "publishing". And EVERYONE expressing opinions, etc, on the net, can be held up to court scrutiny for defamation, and in some cases, criminal charges too.

Some years ago, a company REALLY didn't like a review I did in a welk-known computer mag, and threatened to sue. I had a long chat with the editor over what my testing process had been (thorough), what evidence I had (loads of photos, plus all test results logged in a hardbound notebook, where I logged ALL reviews, so I couldn't add or amend anything without it being obvious) and whether I stood behind my conclusions (I did).

So, the publishing group, a multi-million pound large company, stood behind me and the review. Faced with their lawyers, the comoany decided not to pursue their legal threats ... or if they did, nobody ever mentioned it to me again.

This blogger, however, didn't have an extremely wealthy publishing group's lawyers shielding her.

[shaithis]

Very shocking, lets hope the practice doesn't carry over the channel...or anywhere else for that matter!

[csgohan4]

Maybe, but two issues. First, as csgohan4 said, most things aren't quite as anonymous on the net as you think, especially once it goes legal. But second, a blogger usually makes money my selling advertising, and that is based on sire popularity, which in turn depends entirely on the public liking and trusting that blogger, or site.

How much trust do any of us put in a single anonymous review? But one by someone whose name and reputation you trust?

It does, though, clearly demonstrate the risks of "publishing". And EVERYONE expressing opinions, etc, on the net, can be held up to court scrutiny for defamation, and in some cases, criminal charges too.

Some years ago, a company REALLY didn't like a review I did in a welk-known computer mag, and threatened to sue. I had a long chat with the editor over what my testing process had been (thorough), what evidence I had (loads of photos, plus all test results logged in a hardbound notebook, where I logged ALL reviews, so I couldn't add or amend anything without it being obvious) and whether I stood behind my conclusions (I did).

So, the publishing group, a multi-million pound large company, stood behind me and the review. Faced with their lawyers, the comoany decided not to pursue their legal threats ... or if they did, nobody ever mentioned it to me again.

This blogger, however, didn't have an extremely wealthy publishing group's lawyers shielding her.

Realistically it boiled down to who had the most bucks and the blogger didn't have enough to even get her own lawyer which makes it even sadder.

A self respecting business would notice they would be a PR disaster if they went public and sued the blogger. What was going through their heads?

When i see a restaurant and they have a couple of bad reviews, I don't immediately palm it off, I look through the lines, what are they complaining of? Prices? dirty toilets? service? gripe with the manager e,t,c?

Food then service in that order matters to me more than anything else.

i wouldn't be surprised if the restaurant changed it's name and underwent 'new management' to get rid of the tag, because reviews on Tripadvisor are really slamming it atm.

[Saracen]

Realistically it boiled down to who had the most bucks and the blogger didn't have enough to even get her own lawyer which makes it even sadder.

A self respecting business would notice they would be a PR disaster if they went public and sued the blogger. What was going through their heads?

When i see a restaurant and they have a couple of bad reviews, I don't immediately palm it off, I look through the lines, what are they complaining of? Prices? dirty toilets? service? gripe with the manager e,t,c?

Food then service in that order matters to me more than anything else.

i wouldn't be surprised if the restaurant changed it's name and underwent 'new management' to get rid of the tag, because reviews on Tripadvisor are really slamming it atm.

It's not unknown for many types of court case to only be viable if both sides have deep pockets, especially defamation. If one side does and the other doesn't, it can be used as a bludgeon.

Sadly, though, the nature of the internet is that any publicity can result in a sort-of keyboard-warrior bandwagon-jumping, not dissimilar to a pack of wild animals turning on a wounded member of the pack. It doesn't necessarily have to be rational, or at all fair or fact-based. It's sort-of cyber lynch mob.

Given that, I entirely agree about the prospect, at least, of this being a PR disaster for the restaurant, but it sounds like they were in a bind, with the review doing (fairly or otherwise) REAL damage, over a long period. Damned if they don't, but maybe extra-damned if they do.

I've only read brief reports of the actual problem, not the review itself, or TripAdvisor comments, let alone experienced the actual restaurant, so I won't even try to form an opinion on this particular incident, but ANY blogger ought to be aware of the risks. A serious part of any decent journalism course is on the law and journalism, what you can do and can't do, and how to do things in a way to at a bare minimum, cover your .... erm, rear.

Being an amateur blogger, or even a private individual, is NOT going to exempt you from legal responsibility, even on the internet. And anyone setting up a blog, never mind writing "reviews" really needs to understand that, or their ... ummm .... "rear" is hanging right out there, in the wind, and might as well have a big bulls-eye painted on it .... if one were needed.

[Saracen]

Oh, and extending on my last point, I stppped working fir one publisher because they wanted, first, the right to edit or amend my work at their whim, and second, wanted me to indemnify them against any and all risk resulting ftom publication. So, they could amend my work, make it say something I didn't either say, or mean, and then if they get sued, they make the decision whether to settle, and I get to reimburse them, or fight it, and I get to pay any and all costs incurred, including their lawyer's fees.

Anyone who would agree to a contract like that, where my payment for the original article would be in the low hundreds of pounds, but the costs of that contract term could be hundreds of thousands, and complete home-losing financial disaster gor the writer, is an idiot. It's a ludicrously biased situation, and a risk utterly not worth running. I'd rather run a blog, or review site, where at least I get to devide exactly what to publish, and how much to dpend on lawyers fighting it if it goes wrong.

But I would say to ANYONE thinking of "publishing", even on an amateur basis, be aware, it MIGHT go wrong. There are steps you can take to protect yourself (the first being, get legal advice first), and you're taking one hell of a risk if you don't. The highly artificial cyber world of the internet can have very real and very nasty real-world consequences if you don't.