Talk:Tripadvisor/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Comment late 2006

won't discuss whether the article subject is valid. Will say that it is easy to re-write this, by following an outline - history (how founded, what services initially, how the field has evolved) and by removing all references to "biggest" and "most"... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.131.22.245 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

... OK just re-wrote it, by removing adjectives. Easier to read now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.131.22.245 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... "entirely free" smacks of marketingese. Could we just say "free"? Awaiting consensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.157.230 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 31 December 2006‎ (UTC)

Tripadvisor reviews restaurants?

Can anyone confirm if Tripadvisor reviews restaurants? I don't think it does after searching for some restaurant recommendations on it. By the way, I'd be grateful if anyone knows a site that does review restaurants (especially in Europe) in a similar manner to Tripadvisor. Most of the sites I've seen are US or just local. Looks like a gap in the market - I'm surprised Tripadvisor haven't moved into that market space by now (assuming I'm right that they don't). thanks --Brian Fenton 12:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In TripAdvisor's main page you can search for restaurants in the United States within the search window. TripAdvisor also has an application on Facebook that is primarily focused on restaurant reviews throughout the world. It is called Local Picks and is very helpful. Wes Dorne (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Single-purpose account editing and conflict of interest

It appears this article is suffering from the activities of a tag team of single-purpose account editors who, over the last year, have been reverting and resisting any edits they do not like; the latest has been two wholesale reverts of carefully documented edits and ignoring a request to discuss readding content not meeting Wikipedia standards. I have again reverted the edits and request that content be discussed here first. Please also review WP:COI, WP:SPAM and WP:OWN. Flowanda | Talk 05:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You reverted my edits, and since I've been on wikipedia since 2003 and made umpty-gazillion edits (give or take a gazillion), I hope you don't think I'm a single-purpose account. However, this article does get lots of changes from folks who want to turn it into a big, happy advertisement, so perhaps you were responding to those. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: You have reinstated some of what I did, so I think you were referring to earlier edits than mine. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion...I just couldn't figure how to preserve your edits, so I just added them back in. It's actually your work that's been the most abused and disrespected. I'll bet some of the edits I made were similar to the ones you've made repeatedly that have been reverted, along with your attempts to better the promotional content added by these SPAs. Gazillion may be the new trillion, but we shouldn't have to waste that many edits on this article. Flowanda | Talk 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking closer at the edits being made, I moved the criticism section into the history section, and added a referenced link to TripAdvisor's position on those criticisms. Having both sides of the issue, as well as not flagging it under a section labelled "criticism" provides a more neutral tone.

I didn't restore some of the other edits being made. One of those were to insert a section for "Impact on the Hotel Industry". The edit only mentioned a study by Loudhouse Research, but didn't link to the text of it or provide publishing details of it. I searched, and the results were to mirrors of older versions of Wikipedia where it was mentioned, and this study which does not state what the edits have stated. Even if derived from this source, it would be WP:OR so not useable here. The last section being added was a "popular culture" reference - but those are incidental mentions at best, and don't seem to be notable for inclusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Acquisitions

Unless the company acquired was itself notable enough for a Wikipedia article, I fail to see why this unsourced section would be notable. I'm removing the section, but would like to see comments if someone believes the content is notable, please explain how it meets WP:N. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

New issues (linkfarm and advert)

Recently, Mabeza (talk · contribs) has made several changes to the article. While the article did need expanding, these changes have resulted in the article reading more like an advertisement - especially the "Website features" and "Description" sections. When I've tried making changes with explainations in my edit summaries - they were reverted with no reasons given.

The other problem is the repeated addition of marginally related external links to the article, which is an issue with both WP:ELNO and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. At first, these links were being added to the body of the article, then when I warned the user on his talk page and removed them, the user restored the links to the external links section with no discussion or explaination. I again removed them, warned the user again on his talk page, and added the {{No more links}} tag into the external links section ... again they wqere restored with no explaination or discussion.

I've reported the issue to WT:WPSPAM; but also wanted to start the discussion here - to flag the issues and explain the reasons for the cleanup tags that I've now added to the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Another editor beat me to it in removing the links, but most of the "website features" are copied verbatim from the tripadvisor website, as has the management team, so I've removed those sections. I've also added a second level linkspam warning to his talk page. Nelson50^T 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio

Why have you taken out the board of directors listing for Trip Advisor? This information is strictly informational and should be included on the page. While I believe you are misinterpreting my inclusion of links for spam or soliscitation, because I am including them for informational purposes, I will accept your changes pertaining to tghe links to avoid the back and forth. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabeza (talk • contribs) 17:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(Copied from my talk page). User readded the infringing material.

I have now added the copy vio template over the material taken from the web site. Nelson50^T 10:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked close at the source yet, but I think the "management team" section should be excluded from the tagging, although I believe that it should be trimmed to only the CEO, CMO, and maybe the group counsel if that's their title for CLO.

The "website features" section would require a closer review, and to my view seems too much like an advert anyway ... but I'll leave it to others to discuss that section. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That could certainly be argued. Anyway, the tag is on now, so let's let an admin take a look. Nelson50^T 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The information in the website features section is taken from the Trip Advisor fact sheet the whole point of which to provide the public with information about the company. The information is in the public domain and is factual in nature. There is no copyrighted material on the page from which this information is taken. I think that expanding the trip advisor wiki page provides more information to the public. I do not see how this is a copyright issue... when the information is property referenced/cited and the information itself is public information and even held out the company as such...--71.184.246.79 (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

TripAdvisor Notice

Trip Advisor allows users to freely take factual information from our Fact sheet page. We believe in providing the public with accurate information about our company. We grant wiki community users a license to take factual content from our Fact Sheet page (http://www.tripadvisor.com/PressCenter-c4-Fact_Sheet.html) under the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.--TAHeather (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From the tag on the article:

If you hold the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts):

Explain this on this article's discussion page, then either display a notice to this effect at the site of original publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.

Note: Articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources; copyright issues aside, your text may not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. (emphasis mine). --CliffC (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Permission received at Ticket:2009072110055088. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Subjective wording

Now that the COPYVIO tag is off and the article can be viewed, I've tagged the article for subjective wording (see WP:PEACOCK for an explanation). As an example, "Offers travelers the largest inventory of flights with the best deals available and a first-of-its-kind fees estimator". This article needs to be rewritten to remove subjective wording and stick to verifiable facts from reliable sources, or reverted to an earlier date. --CliffC (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy: are the reviews unfounded/unedited, or just negative?

"Unfounded and unedited" is problematic: "unfounded" implies a verified investigation into the truth of the reviews, which is not mentioned in the reference. "Unedited" is irrelevant; presumably the edits that are, by the use of the word "unedited", implicitly necessary to the TripAdvisor reviews in question would change the tone of the reviews from negative to positive. I have replaced these phrases with "negative", since the reviews' negativity seems to be the thing with which the law firm in the reference took issue. Zbbentley (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored it. What you are ignoring is that these are claims from hoteliers made in lawsuits. It is their claim that the reviews are unfounded. As for "unedited", I think you fail to understand the meaning of the word. They are not criticizing the reviews for spelling errors. What they are upset about is that there is no editorial oversight, as you would get in a newspaper, to prevent untrue or poorly investigated reviews to be published. -Rrius (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

'Suggested changes to ‘Criticism and Legal Action’

We are from the communications division at TripAdvisor and would like to suggest some changes to the ‘Criticism and Legal Action’ section of our Wikipedia article.

Overall, we think that the language in the article needs to be more neutral in tone to properly adhere to the guidelines: WP:NPOV

It also includes some Peacock terms: WP:PEACOCK

We believe that a lot of the content is also unbalanced and does not make both sides of the argument as well as it could: WP:NPOV

Please note that the numbers in the square brackets represent the citations in the current article.

Suggested changes

Current paragraph 1: TripAdvisor has been criticized for allowing completely anonymous reviews to be posted by anyone about any hotel, B&B, Inn or restaurant, without the need for any supporting evidence.[13] In September 2010 a group of over 420 hospitality operators considered taking TripAdvisor to court over unfounded and unedited reviews posted by the website’s visitors.[14] A number of hotels have been reported to somehow "pay" their guests in return of a positive review,[15] which is an illegal practice in many countries.[citation needed]

Suggested paragraph 1: In September 2010 it was reported that over 420 hospitality operators were considering taking legal action against TripAdvisor, claiming that they had been the subject of unfounded and unedited reviews posted by the website’s visitors.[14] TripAdvisor has been criticized for allowing anonymous reviews to be posted without the need for any supporting evidence.[13] It has also been reported that a number of hotels have offered to pay their guests in return for a positive review[15].

Current paragraph 2: TripAdvisor claims that reviews are systematically screened by TripAdvisor's proprietary site tools that are continuously upgraded. Their large and passionate community of more than 40 million monthly visitors help report suspicious content. Also, a team of quality assurance specialists investigate suspicious reviews.[16] Despite these claims from Tripadvisor, more Hotels, Inns and B&B's are joining up with the original 420 properties with the intention of taking legal action against trip advisor for failing to remove fictitious reviews even when they are brought to Trip Advisor's attention.

Suggested paragraph 2: TripAdvisor has stated that reviews are not posted to the website instantly, but are subject to a verification process that considers the IP address and email address of the author, and tries to detect any suspicious patterns or obscene or abusive language. [Citation: http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/10/11/2011/341016/caterer-and-hotelkeeper-interview-christine-petersen-tripadvisor.htm] The website also allows the community of more than 50 million people to report suspicious content, which is then assessed by a team of quality assurance specialists.[16] TripAdvisor also alerts the owner or manager of a TripAdvisor listed establishment whenever a negative review is posted about them on their listing. [Citation: http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/travel-tripadvisor-cmo-barbara-messing-136010]

Current paragraph 3: In September 2011, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) launched a formal investigation into TripAdvisor after receiving a complaint on behalf of thousands of hotels that its claims to provide trustworthy and honest reviews from travellers are false.[17] In response to investigation from the ASA, TripAdvisor amended its Hotel review section slogan to read 'Reviews from our Community', this replacing the slogan used for many years of 'reviews you can trust' indicating that they acknowledge that many reviews may be false.[18]

Suggested paragraph 3: In September 2011, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) launched a formal investigation into TripAdvisor after receiving a complaint on behalf of several thousand hotels who claim that the reviews on TripAdvisor are not wholly trustworthy or honest reviews from travellers.[17] TripAdvisor has said that although one organisation, KwikChex, has complained to the ASA, the site lists over one million businesses. [Citation: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/holidays/article-2064363/TripAdvisor-Steve-Kaufer-Well-beat-fake-reviews-secrets-success.html] In September 2011, TripAdvisor amended its Hotel review section slogan from 'reviews you can trust' to 'reviews from our community'. TripAdvisor stated that the branding change had been planned for some time and that changes had begun in June 2011, three months before the ASA investigation.[18]

Current paragraph 4: In growing criticism of Trip Advisor, several websites have been set up by owners of Hotels, Inns and B&B's to collectively pursue joint action against Trip Advisor, the main lead in this being http://www.KwikChex.com/ with others like http://www.ihatetripadvisor.org.uk/ providing a political lobby group for Hoteliers.

Suggested paragraph 4: Several websites have been set up to represent owners of hotels, inns and B&Bs to collectively pursue joint action against Trip Advisor. These include http://www.KwikChex.com/ and http://www.ihatetripadvisor.org.uk/ which is a political lobby group for hoteliers.

Current paragraph 5: Hoteliers have started to hit back by utilising the web based 'Guest Black Listing' service provided by Guestscan.co.uk whereby guests who fail to pay their bill, damage the Hotel or leave false reviews are blacklisted thereby warning all other accommodation providers in advance.[19]

Suggested paragraph 5: A new 'Guest Black Listing' service provided by Guestscan.co.uk has been set up to warn other accommodation providers of guests who fail to pay their bill, damage the Hotel or leave false reviews.[19]

Current paragraph 6: Legal action has been started by one Hotelier who has had a warning notice placed on the Hotels listing on Trip Advisor accusing it of trying to subvert its listing system. This is the first believed Legal Action to take place against Trip Advisor by an individual Hotelier for loss of revenue.[20]

Suggested paragraph 6: One hotelier is reported to have begun legal action against TripAdvisor after receiving a warning notice on their hotel listing. The hotelier claims that the notice was applied because TripAdvisor believed them to be attempting to subvert the listing system. [20] However, TripAdvisor has since stated that the warning notice was placed on the establishment because TripAdvisor believed that the company posted both positive reviews about themselves and negative reviews about competitors. [Citation: www.caterersearch.com/Articles/30/09/2011/340518/Evesham-hotelier-protests-as-TripAdvisor-39red-flags39-her.htm] It is believed to be the first legal action to take place against Trip Advisor by an individual hotelier for loss of revenue.[20]

In November 2011, TripAdvisor launched a customer support telephone number for registered owners and managers on the review website. [Citation: http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/08/11/2011/340988/TripAdvisor-launches-dedicated-customer-support-phone.htm]

Feedback

If you could give us some feedback we’d be most grateful, so we can best know to how to approach making any changes if it’s appropriate.

Thanks --TripAdvisorUK (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

{{request edit}}

Partially done. I think I made it more neutral-POV. Thanks for the links. Honestly, though, doesn't every company have a customer support telephone number? That's hardly notable. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page or put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk page and someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Further suggested changes

{{Request edit}}

Thanks for your feedback. There is one further change we’d like to suggest.

In paragraph three it says “In response to investigation from the ASA, TripAdvisor amended its Hotel review section slogan to read 'Reviews from our Community', replacing the slogan used for many years of 'reviews you can trust’.” To add balance to this (WP:NPOV) we wondered whether it would be possible to include a sentence from the cited article along the lines of, “However, TripAdvisor has stated that the branding change had been planned for some time and that changes had begun in June 2011, three months before the ASA investigation.” [Citation: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2036846/TripAdvisor-removes-reviews-trust-slogan-website.html]

If someone can consider this addition that would be great.

Thanks TripAdvisorUK (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dailymail article checked and change made to make sure the text reflects the source; quite welcome. Allens (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

{{request edit}}

Given our WP:CONFLICT, we’d like to suggest a change to this section of the article on the basis on WP:NPOV. The last sentence of the section reads, “Trip Advisor has been ordered to change its marketing claims following claims from the Advertising Standards Authority that consumers could be fooled by the fraudulent claims made in reviews, which are made without any form of verification.” We would like to suggest the following points to ensure balance in the article:

The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority ASA held that TripAdvisor.co.uk could not market itself as having “reviews that you can trust” – the ruling only affects the UK site – all other 29 TripAdvisor domains are unaffected.
The ASA’s ruling only affects marketing of the TripAdvisor website. A rebranding of the site took place prior to the ASA judgment meaning that there has been no change to the site. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8760616/TripAdvisor-removes-reviews-you-can-trust-slogan-from-website.html)
Whilst the ASA commented that “it was concerned that consumers might be fooled by fraudulent posts since the entries could be made “without any form of verification”, it also recognised that TripAdvisor used “advanced and highly effective fraud systems” to identify and remove fake content.
According to a July 2011 PhoCusWright survey of 3,641 respondents, solicited at random through a pop-up invitation link on TripAdvisor.com, “98% of participants found that TripAdvisor’s hotel reviews … accurately reflect the experience.” (http://www.tnooz.com/2011/11/22/news/expedia-readies-tripadvisor-spinoff-citing-hotel-review-reliability/)

If someone can please take a look at this that would be great.

Thanks TripAdvisorUK (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've copied this over from User talk:TripAdvisorUK where it was posted. SmartSE (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems fair. I added the requested citations. Woz2 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed press release

Hello. I have just reverted an edit restoring a press release: http://www.tnooz.com/2011/11/22/news/expedia-readies-tripadvisor-spinoff-citing-hotel-review-reliability/ to the article. Although the article appears to be in a semi-notable news source, it replicates exactly a report commissioned by the parent company of TripAdvisor, based on a survey carried out on the TripAdvisor website. This seems hardly a WP:NPOV neutral point of view. Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ABOUTSELF. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Reading the page you recommended, I find it includes point no 1: the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature. I would be inclined to think that basing the statement "98% of participants found that TripAdvisor’s hotel reviews … accurately reflect the experience." on one piece of research, carried out by the company in question, to be exceptional, and if it is the only source of such data, then likely to be self-serving. If there are other pieces of research carried out on the accuract of TripAdvisor's hotel reviews by uninvolved parties, then I would imagine this data could remain, but would ask you not to restore the content until this has been resolved on the talk page, as it seems to be a contentious issue. Many thanks, Anthony J Pintglass (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You did not explain why this material is "unduly self-serving" or "exceptional." Companies carry out market research all the time. Nothing exceptional at all. Actually, the rest of the criticism section makes other claims on the same issue, reliability of reviews. According to WP:DUE, you are supposed to tell both sides of the story. To be perfectly honest, your level of self-confidence in making deletions does not seem to be matched by your knowledge of WP policies. I encourage you to to become more knowledgeable about WP policies. Logical Cowboy (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the press release is that is single sided and unbalanced in every aspect. It asked only existing users of Trip Advisor, was under the full control of Trip Advisor and it's paid for agents, was setup and run with a bias in questions to promote a reply that was in Trip Advisors positive view. And under the Heading Criticism and Legal Action, it is in the wrong section. History would be more appropriate. Scaredmo (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

See comments above about WP:DUE. Many sources are single sided. That's why we use multiple sources, to provide both sides. The criticism that it asked only users of TripAdvisor doesn't make sense--it was a survey of TripAdvisor users. In general, this is not the place to do original research, see WP:OR. That is, if you have your own concerns about the methodology of this survey, WP is not the place to air them. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that you are missing the discussion topics concerning both the legitimacy of a survey and also the placing of that survey in a critisicm and legal action section. The sole purpose of the survey was to promote the organisation to potential investors, therefore by that it fails WP:NPOV. The report being produced and controlled by TA would form a WP:CONFLICT. Any organisation can produce it's own survey that they will know the result of before the actual survey has been undertaken, however there is no legal block against this type of activity by any organisation. However WP's is here to promote a neutral viewpoint, the survey is neither neutral or contribute to a balanced viewpoint.Scaredmo (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As long as the wording of the claim is clear and properly attributed, it is allowed in Wikipedia. Readers can judge for themselves whether or not to ascribe weight to the market research. NPOV does not mean we do not have POVs, it means we balance articles, rather than only presenting one POV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

investment advice link

For good and substantial reasons, Wikipedia is not in a position to relay "investment advice." Collect (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, great, that means I have to go back to trading stocks, bonds and commodities based on the information in Uncyclopedia. Poor house, here I come... 66.102.83.61 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your perfect guide for the Vatican Museum: Luigi

He has the power of a Hercules. The retoric of a Cicero and the knowledge of a Plato and a Aristotle. He loves his people like Jesus. He leads his sheep like a good pastor. It is impossible to be absent when he is explaining something. You learn a lot, for sure. When your ears are not so good, try to be in his neighborhood. His energy, density of information, the clearness and loudness of his voice and words are unequivocal. He has the good spirit of the renaissance, of a Michelangelo and a Rafaël.

Michaël and Renée van den Brink Amsterdam The Netherlands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.138.69 (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggested changes to 'Criticism and legal actions'

Further suggested changes

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I work at TripAdvisor and would like to suggest some updates to the ‘Criticism and legal action’ section of our Wikipedia article.

The second paragraph reads "TripAdvisor also alerts the owner or manager of a TripAdvisor-listed establishment whenever a negative review is posted about them on their listing.[22]"

Registered owners actually receive a notification whenever ANY review is posted about their listing - negative or positive.

Here is a link to the TripAdvisor blog confirming this, citation: http://tripadvisor4biz.wordpress.com/notification-of-new-reviews/

And here is an external article advising of this too, citation: http://www.hotelwebsitedesigners.com/blog/tripadvisor-tips/

If someone can consider this amendment that would be great.

Many thanks EmmaTA2012 (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A website has been set up (not anything to do with me) which chronicles alleged failings with TripAdvisor http://tripadvisor-warning.com/ (Coachtripfan (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

Criticisms and legal

The list of criticisms could be elaborated (to the point where "legal" could be a separate section)

Current criticisms have a slight bias toward dishonest businesses i.e. those that attempt to defame their competitors or those that post fake, positive reviews in their favor. However honest businesses have a reason to be critical of Tripadvisor. (See http://tripadvisorwatch.wordpress.com/about/)

A business should be weary of appearing on the site because of the potential for abuse of various types. Not the least of which are blackmail and revenge. Disputes between merchants and clients could end up on Tripadvisor. Tripadvisor could be leveraged by "claimants" as a tool to "manage" disputes that should be handled by lawyers, ombudsman, customer service, or consumer protection. Businesses have no way to opt out of Tripadvisor to shield themselves from precisely such abuse.

Although Tripadvisor has mechanisms in place to manage such abuse,

1) the process can be complex and lengthy. As such although many merchants have ultimately had the satisfaction of seeing an abusive and defamatory review removed, the abusive review may have taken its toll in the interim as they will not suspend its publication during the investigation.

2) the methods Tripadvisor uses to detect and arbitrate abuse are not public. No disinterested 3rd party has evaluated them.

3) if there has been an abuse with the ultimate intent of defamation it is a legal matter. Yet there is a gray area where Tripadvisor gets to be judge and jury. Merchants that are victims of abuse and defamation are at the mercy of Tripadvisor's system of arbitration which is not exactly a recognized code of law.

Additional criticisms regard a possible conflict of interest and a kind extortion/exploitation. Merchants regularly receive advertisements from Tripadvisor encouraging them to subscribe to a fee based service that supposedly will increase their exposure and business. Do paying merchants get preferential treatment? Who's watching the watchdog? Is Tripadvisor exploiting their status as a watchdog for financial gain? What does that say about its neutrality? Is it a legitimate watchdog? Irritablevowelsyndrome (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Odlums

Image:Odlums Group logo.jpg

@Babestress: hi, you added Odlums group logo to the article. Except for both using an owl in their logos, is there any connection between it and the subject ? I couldn't find any. “WarKosign ” 07:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Some Proposed Edit Changes

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Some or all of the changes weren't supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.

Asking for two key updates to TripAdvisor's profile. 1) that TripAdvisor's unique user number be updated from 60 million to 390 million average monthly unique visitors and 2) from 170 million to 435 million reviews and opinions covering 6.8 million accommodations, restaurants and attractions. <ref TripAdvisor Q3 2016 Earnings Announcement: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-MMXS5/2231532609x0x916577/91473DE0-2247-4110-8152-03AA5BE3FDE8/TripAdvisor_Reports_Third_Quarter_2016_Financial_Results.pdf ref> BrhoytTripAdvisor (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I will have to reject this. We require reliable secondary third party sources. The report you provided is not a third party source and is also hosted somewhere else. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Resubmitting request. Asking for two key updates to TripAdvisor's profile. 1) that TripAdvisor's unique user number be updated from 60 million to 390 million average monthly unique visitors and 2) from 170 million to 435 million reviews and opinions covering 6.8 million accommodations, restaurants and attractions. <ref> https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1526520/000156459016028323/trip-10q_20160930.htm (see page 25, this first reference is our U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 10-Q quarterly filing); Other media sources include: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/14/can-tripadvisor-bounce-back-from-last-week-20-drop.html; http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/12/16/3-reasons-tripadvisor-could-have-plenty-of-growth.aspx; http://www.star2.com/travel/malaysia/2016/12/31/malaysias-year-in-travel/; http://marketrealist.com/2016/11/tripadvisor-key-metrics-trends-suggest/ <ref>BrhoytTripAdvisor (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Resubmit: Requested edits with new source information for reference

Resubmitting request. Asking for two key updates to TripAdvisor's profile. 1) that TripAdvisor's unique user number be updated from 60 million to 390 million average monthly unique visitors and 2) from 170 million to 435 million reviews and opinions covering 6.8 million accommodations, restaurants and attractions. <ref> https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1526520/000156459016028323/trip-10q_20160930.htm (see page 25, this first reference is our U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 10-Q quarterly filing); Other media sources include: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/14/can-tripadvisor-bounce-back-from-last-week-20-drop.html; http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/12/16/3-reasons-tripadvisor-could-have-plenty-of-growth.aspx; http://www.star2.com/travel/malaysia/2016/12/31/malaysias-year-in-travel/; http://marketrealist.com/2016/11/tripadvisor-key-metrics-trends-suggest/ <ref> BrhoytTripAdvisor (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on TripAdvisor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on TripAdvisor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on TripAdvisor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Minoritized languages

Hi, I would like to introduce a section with some comments about this company:

In comparison with other big companies, like google, TripAdvisor, reject in their web any comments about hotels or restaurants in minoritized languagues. I writed some comments about restaurants or hotels I was stayed in, because the comments was in my first language. I always tryed to write the comments in the language of the country; but they reject it if it is not in the any of their languages, some of them (I will respect it) with less users than mine. I writed some comments about restaurants and hotels that are in catalan speakers region and they ask me to translate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.178.140.118 (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

We would need a citation to a description of this practice in some published article in order to add that. It doesn't seem particularly surprising, since people probably don't want to have to scroll through reviews that are written in obscure languages that don't seem relevant to the people interested in the topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment late 2006

Tripadvisor reviews restaurants?

Single-purpose account editing and conflict of interest

Acquisitions

New issues (linkfarm and advert)

Copyvio

TripAdvisor Notice

Subjective wording

Controversy: are the reviews unfounded/unedited, or just negative?

'Suggested changes to ‘Criticism and Legal Action’

Suggested changes

Feedback

Further suggested changes

Further suggested changes

Suggested changes to the article

Further suggested changes

Removed press release

investment advice link

Suggested changes to 'Criticism and legal actions'

Further suggested changes

Criticisms and legal

Odlums

Some Proposed Edit Changes

Resubmit: Requested edits with new source information for reference

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified (January 2018)

Minoritized languages