I’ve previously mentioned Yelp for their “community censoring” — deleting unflattering reviews and allowing obviously faked positive reviews to remain posted. For a while it was just interesting “Web 2.0” type news, but I’ve recently had a number of reviews removed from the site for various reasons. That’s fine. Yelp’s a private entity that can do what they wish. (Thank God for Google cache). I’ll post the stuff that was deleted below (including emails explaining why).
Unfortunately, the first one was for a restaurant called Nightwood, and was deleted. I assume this is because I wrote the review based on Time Out Chicago and a few other sources commenting on the place before it even opened… ha. Yeah, I love Lula’s and I couldn’t resist breaking the news that a sister restaurant was opening. Anyway, I received this email on 5/25 from Yelp HQ:
We’re writing to you regarding your review of Nightwood. Your review was flagged by the Yelp community, and after looking it over we’ve decided that it falls outside of Yelp’s review guidelines because it links to outside content.
We’ve also noticed that several of your other reviews also contain such links to outside content. Rather than removing these reviews, we’d like for you to use the edit function to remove these links from the body of the reviews in question. Please make the necessary changes by week’s end, or we’ll have to take them down.
We hope you’ll understand our stance here, which is meant to keep Yelp reviews fresh, fair, and original.
Thanks for being a part of the Yelp community.
Yelp User Support
Aside from my enthusiasm for the Nightwood owners and the area of Pilsen in general, my review was based entirely on other sources and, as a good blogger should do, I linked back to the stories that I drew from. I wasn’t about to take what I’d read and pretend it was my own. Anyway. The plot thickens I guess. I wrote to our Chicago Yelp liaison, who is a very nice gal….
I got this email and I’m confused.
Yelp is going to take down my reviews because of links to “outside content”.
What they’re referring to as “outside content” are my references to sources I’ve used to write the post. I.E. if I hear about someplace from TimeOut Chicago (which is what happened in the case of the Nightwood), I’m going to reference it as a source as opposed to plagiarizing. Or, in another case, if the Art Institute used Johnny’s Grill as a place to re-imagine “Nighthawks“, finding an image online and reposting it on Yelp as my own is stealing — acknowledging outside content, I would feel, is the right thing to do.
As a site that depends on community and member reputation, I would think that transparency is of the utmost importance. Blogging without referencing where your information is coming from, to me, would seem like the antithesis of what Yelp is about.
I would ask that Yelp reconsider what they consider “outside content” compared to proper citation.
Meanwhile, in the world of actual journalism (as opposed to the cult of passive criticism that is Yelp) Chuck Sudo of Chicagoist wrote a review of Nightwood, in which I got made fun of… deservedly… on 5/27
To review Nightwood after one night would be a disservice to Hammel and wife Amalea Tshilds, Executive Chef Jason Vincent and the humping-to-please staff we encountered last night. (Although it didn’t stop Brian B. on Yelp, who apparently gave Nightwood a four-star rating based on TOC’s preview without even visiting). We’ll have a full-on review after a few more visits. But the Chicagoist food and drink staff have had cameras at the ready lately, so we took photos of some of the dishes we sampled. Enjoy.
Then I got this email at 7pm that same day:
Hi Brian (and *****[Yelp Chicago liason]*****),
After much careful review and discussion, we’ve decided to remove your review of Nightwood. We’re doing so for a number of reasons, but primarily it’s the copious linking and quoting, which do not represent a firsthand experience with this business. And yes, granted, we have in the past allowed “coming soon” reviews, and so, of course, a firsthand experience with a business that has yet to open is impossible. In these instances, we look to the user to write something useful about the business based on firsthand knowledge (i.e. past businesses operated by the owner; location; likely menu), but these reviews must contain firsthand information; additionally, this type of “coming soon” review is only left on the site for one month.
We hope you’ll understand our decision in this case, Brian. We also strongly urge you to make sure your reviews comply with Yelp’s review guidelines because we’ve also removed your reviews of teecycle.org since you state yourself that you have a conflict of interest with this organization.
Thank you for your understanding in this matter and thank you for being a part of the Yelp community.
Yelp User Support
————— Original Message —————
Sent: 5/26/2009 9:33 AM
Subject: FW: Message from Yelp.com HQ
Hmm, he has a point. Any thoughts? I think his outside content is mostly just images, etc. And the Nightwood post was actually very helpful (moreso than people posting before an opening saying “Can’t wait to check it out.”)
He’s elite, and very well behaved…
Chicago Yelp Community Manager
Yelp.com | *******
Ha! I love the chain of command! Our local Chicago community manager calls me “very well behaved”! Yay! I should get a gold sticker. Despite that, Yelp San Fransisco pulls my review… after the suspicious use of the word “copious”. (Copious = 3, btw).
Anyway, the review clearly mentioned I’m fond of their owners, their chef, their other restaurant and also describes the menu. Yet, they deem it unworthy of Yelp. Which, considering what gets onto Yelp, hurts bad.
What’s worse, upon further dissection of my posts, Big Yelp pulls my review of TeeCycle.Org too. Ouch. Ah, well. The nail that sticks up, yada yada yada.
More on a tirade about a Lincoln Park puppy mill later.