Yelp is the poster child of the disingenuous Internet problem.
In a nutshell the problem is that people who are not verifiable by "the service" provide information or data which is essential to the operation of the "the service." Further the beneficiaries of the service (customers) are not paying for the service, and the people who can be harmed or benefit from the service (establishments) have every motivation to game the system to increase business and little downside.
So your business which has modestly thin margins to begin with, grows slowly, and the more popular it gets the more it tries to get gamed and the more margins are squeezed if you're paying people to filter those reviews.
There aren't really any 'good' answers. But there are other examples of businesses like this that have done well. The ones that do well however use the 'review' portal to push more customers to the 'value' area where higher rates of returns are to be had.
I hope someone writes up Yelp, Ripoffreport, TripAdvisor, Expedia, and AngiesList up for a Harvard Business Review group study. There have been a lot of experiments in this space taking different tacks and it would be interesting to compare their effectiveness.
I swear by AngiesList for services like moving companies.
They just called us up a couple weeks ago and sat on the phone for over a half hour (because we were willing) taking reviews from us on a bunch of companies that we had used.
This is why it costs money; they actually provide a service. If they don't have enough reviews, they hire people to call you up and write up the reviews for you.
It's a pretty expensive undertaking. You have to be a subscriber (at non-trivial cost) to be a member/reviewer. The vendor would have to create multiple puppet accounts at $20/pop to shill up reviews. But, what of all the other actual reviewers that will write bad ones? You tend to see patterns in the reviews and, when a shining review of a vendor leaves me skeptical, I always look at the members' other reviews to see if they left at least 2 or more. If they did, then I suspect less that they're in cahoots with the one vendor.
If you're always double checking reviewers, it's easy to do the same thing on Yelp, or anywhere else for that matter. Most people don't, which is why Yelp filters and Amazon ranks.
I don't defend their decision to advertise with Rush Limbaugh. He said some pretty unforgivable things, and frankly I was surprised when they returned to advertising for him.
But they provide a good service, and they also support NPR. I am under no illusion that every company I do business with will agree with me politically in all ways.
In a nutshell the problem is that people who are not verifiable by "the service" provide information or data which is essential to the operation of the "the service." Further the beneficiaries of the service (customers) are not paying for the service, and the people who can be harmed or benefit from the service (establishments) have every motivation to game the system to increase business and little downside.
So your business which has modestly thin margins to begin with, grows slowly, and the more popular it gets the more it tries to get gamed and the more margins are squeezed if you're paying people to filter those reviews.
There aren't really any 'good' answers. But there are other examples of businesses like this that have done well. The ones that do well however use the 'review' portal to push more customers to the 'value' area where higher rates of returns are to be had.
I hope someone writes up Yelp, Ripoffreport, TripAdvisor, Expedia, and AngiesList up for a Harvard Business Review group study. There have been a lot of experiments in this space taking different tacks and it would be interesting to compare their effectiveness.