Menupages.ie - negative reviews are removed

shinny · 22-10-2008 12:32pm

Thanks for putting the word out there. I submitted a negative review on a local restaurant here a while back and it didn't even get acknowledged.

Makes this site a complete joke and it'll only be a matter of time before everyone knows. I'll be sure to pass this on to all of my friends, that's for sure.

Oryx · 22-10-2008 12:58pm

It is interesting that the spokesperson for menupages, who was very vocal at first, has not returned to address any of the further points made here.

KhanTheMan · 22-10-2008 9:03pm

Oryx wrote: »

It is interesting that the spokesperson for menupages, who was very vocal at first, has not returned to address any of the further points made here.

Probably just gave a free meal to faceman and aidan_walsh and sent them in

faceman · 23-10-2008 11:43am

KhanTheMan wrote: »

Probably just gave a free meal to faceman and aidan_walsh and sent them in

No comment...

Climate Expert · 23-10-2008 11:46am

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Which you made sound like it was a standard practice - even going so far as to call out the Menupages rep to explain herself over it, not because your brother acted the prick on the phone, threw his toys out of his pram and threatened to sue over a bad review. Wonder if he would take the same stance if he was poorly reviewed in a newspaper rather than a website?

Thats what they all probably do. Menupages should have a bit of backbone and keep the reviews.

Oryx · 23-10-2008 11:55am

This whole problem is the same reason you never see restaurant reviews in smaller local papers. You dont bite the hand that feeds you (badumtish) as in, you dont offend your advertisers. You cannot be a promotion tool and still be impartial. You cannot take peoples advertising and then say bad things about them. So menupages simply cannot work as it states it does. They also have that awful irish state of affairs where someone can sue even if whats said is effectively true. So again, it just cant work.

And it bugs me that a restauranteur would phone them up and threaten them with the law over a bad review, rather than thinking 'Hey, we gave sh1t service. We ought to fix that'. A good business is not one that has no customer service problems. A good business is one that handles its customers' problems well.

Climate Expert · 23-10-2008 11:56am

someone can sue even if whats said is effectively true.

You can sue but it doesn't mean it will be succesful.

Oryx · 23-10-2008 11:58am

Climate Expert wrote: »

You can sue but it doesn't mean it will be succesful.

Have a gander at defamation law here. Its a huge risk to a defendant to let a case proceed.

Climate Expert · 23-10-2008 12:01pm

Oryx wrote: »

Have a gander at defamation law here. Its a huge risk to a defendant to let a case proceed.

I'm not sure about it. The amount awarded is usually fairly miniscule. You would see very few restaraunteurs actually pursuing a legal case.

Oryx · 23-10-2008 12:05pm

Climate Expert wrote: »

I'm not sure about it. The amount awarded is usually fairly miniscule. You would see very few restaraunteurs actually pursuing a legal case.

I dont want this to slide waaaay off topic, I can just see why people try to be careful in not allowing negative comments on a website. Ahem. This site in particular is aware of the problems when that situation occurs. (Note the stickies on every single forum). But enough. I wouldnt risk it, and I can see why others dont either.

Climate Expert · 23-10-2008 12:09pm

Oryx wrote: »

I dont want this to slide waaaay off topic, I can just see why people try to be careful in not allowing negative comments on a website. Ahem. This site in particular is aware of the problems when that situation occurs. (Note the stickies on every single forum). But enough. I wouldnt risk it, and I can see why others dont either.

I can see their side but if thats the case then why bother with the charade of saying you are a review site. A bit of transparency is needed.

AARRRGH · 23-10-2008 12:22pm

Climate Expert wrote: »

A bit of transparency is needed.

That's the problem, and why I suggested a compromise where they can edit the negative reviews to state the restaurant asked for the review to be removed.

Simply removing the reviews and assuming the public is too dumb to notice is retarded arrogance.

Darragh29 · 23-10-2008 10:55pm

Oryx wrote: »

I dont want this to slide waaaay off topic, I can just see why people try to be careful in not allowing negative comments on a website. Ahem. This site in particular is aware of the problems when that situation occurs. (Note the stickies on every single forum). But enough. I wouldnt risk it, and I can see why others dont either.

Grand, so don't set up a web site claiming to give impartial advice on restaurants.

LolaDub · 23-10-2008 11:38pm

I checked back on menupages and my emails. I'd say a fair bunch of my reviews are over 300 days but a few negative ones since then have still been deleted. I got an email from menupages over one saying they weren't sure if they could publish and the girl was waiting on a decision from her manager. I replied saying the restaurant was appalling and i haven't said anything abusive but gave a good account of what happened when i was there and told people not to bother going, i thanked the girl for letting me know and i'd like to know what it was that they couldn't publish and said i looked forward to hearing from her again, which i never did and my review is not there. I was never offered a free meal or an explanation etc

Also a lot of my points were deleted, when i emailed asking about this i was told they would go back up but never did....

admiralofthefleet · 24-10-2008 3:32pm

i regularly check it as my place had 1 review with 4 stars. i checked today and the stars had been reduced to 3 yet the comment didnt change, strange

ChickCool · 24-10-2008 3:40pm

email them about it.sounds like there doing the restaurants a dis service to.

Go to the second page of this restaurant, the third review left is one saying their shocked to read such a bad review but the reviews before it are nice so they must have deleted one bad one

http://www.menupages.ie/Restaurants/Valparaiso.aspx

seraphimvc · 24-10-2008 3:47pm

i heard they charge about 2000euro a year or something.of course one of the restaurant i know turned them down :pac:sad to hear that news,OP,they r gonna disappear soon if they keep doing that

AARRRGH · 24-10-2008 4:30pm

I think it is now fair to say menupages delete negative reviews, and their marketing manager was stretching the truth somewhat, to put it kindly!

Sandra, if you are reading this: are you going to stop removing negative reviews, or is it going to be business as usual for menupages?

boardsie08 · 24-10-2008 4:52pm

I too would also love to hear back from Sandra regarding all of this seeing as new evidence of more deletions has come to light.

In fairness, she was very vocal at the start, but now that more damning evidence has come to light, not a peep!

This really doesn't look good for menupages at all.. I know that I shall never be using that site again now unless changes are made. I will also be informing friends of mine who are regular users of the site how it's ran, I doubt they'll be so eager to use it in future now either.

Sandra, if you still are still reading these comments we'd love to hear back from you. The "bury your head in the sand" approach really isn't the best way to entice people back to your site nor give it any credibility. The silence is deafening.

ChickCool · 24-10-2008 4:59pm

The silense is deafaning because she was so vocal at the start, even tracking a user down on his blog and calling another member out here with i know who you are etc, thats not a way for a professional person to behave

ntlbell · 24-10-2008 5:31pm

It looks like she got her hand slapped and now they're just hoping it all blows away

Oryx · 24-10-2008 5:33pm

I had a mental picture of her sitting at her desk with her fingers in her ears going lalalalalalalala till it all goes away.

The silence is not only deafening, its damaging. Its worse to begin debate and not continue, than not to have come here at all to give her pov.

LolaDub · 24-10-2008 7:41pm

Its pretty simple, they either delete the reviews or they don't

KhanTheMan · 24-10-2008 7:55pm

boardsie08 wrote: »

I too would also love to hear back from Sandra regarding all of this seeing as new evidence of more deletions has come to light.

No doubt when she decides that her absence is causing more damage, she'll be back saying she was away on holiday or a relative died or something

Darragh29 · 24-10-2008 9:59pm

With a little bit of common sense, basic cop on and humility, the website would generate revenue and also do what it says on the tin....

The problem here is that they want to be all things to all people. Not happy with selling advertising and taking money from businesses that are not subject to review on the website and having the discipline to stick to the business script and maintain impartiality and integrity above all else, they are by their own admission taking money from restaurants for premium membership and also for advertising. If one of these restaurants gets a negative review, they will remove it because it compromises revenue income, all caused by a conflict of interest if there ever was one.

You would be inclined to kind of look at it as learning "on the fly", if the website itself didn't look like a badly designed porn/malware site, and the company spokesperson didn't come on to defend the indefensible and try to explain away cases of feedback clearly been removed at the whim of one of their customers... If you're caught out like this, the best thing to do is put the hands up, take the hit, make apologies and commit to resolving the problem, not insist that you are in fact impartial when you are not...

SerialComplaint · 25-10-2008 9:00am

youcancallme>al wrote: »

I think tripadvisor.com has the right idea, they let you post your review of a hotel and if the hotel isn't happy they can respond and challenge it?

Tripadvisor ain't perfect either, though I do use their site regularly. They are very susceptible to 'one-time-posters' who seem to register for the sole purpose of submitting a positive review about a particular venue. The suspicion of course is that these posters are the hotel operators or owners, and TA don't do anything to highlight the track record of a poster when you read a review.

AARRRGH · 29-10-2008 12:16pm

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Tripadvisor ain't perfect either, though I do use their site regularly. They are very susceptible to 'one-time-posters' who seem to register for the sole purpose of submitting a positive review about a particular venue. The suspicion of course is that these posters are the hotel operators or owners, and TA don't do anything to highlight the track record of a poster when you read a review.

Yeah there's a lot of that on all review websites (including menupages) but it's very hard to tackle. For example, if they started removing positive reviews no doubt there would be threads about that too.

olaola · 30-10-2008 1:44pm

Thing about Tripadvisor, I've NEVER had a review removed … good OR bad. And I've put up a good few, and they've all appeared. I think they might screen them for obscene language etc, but as long as it's a fairly balanced review it will be posted.

AARRRGH · 30-10-2008 4:18pm

They've added a new FAQ: http://www.menupages.ie/FAQ.aspx

I don't believe a word these guys say.

Darragh29 · 30-10-2008 5:19pm

I see they also did some long overdue housekeeping to the front end of their site. Still leaves a lot of be desired but not the sprawling absolute mess it was before they cleaned it up a bit...

SerialComplaint · 30-10-2008 6:43pm

olaola wrote: »

Thing about Tripadvisor, I've NEVER had a review removed … good OR bad. And I've put up a good few, and they've all appeared. I think they might screen them for obscene language etc, but as long as it's a fairly balanced review it will be posted.

I've had one factual negative review that they wouldn't post, and they won't give me any feedback as to why it won't be posted either.

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yeah there's a lot of that on all review websites (including menupages) but it's very hard to tackle. For example, if they started removing positive reviews no doubt there would be threads about that too.

A good and simple start on addressing this problem would be a eBay type system that lists the number of reviews posted by that user beside their name, e.g. review by SerialComplaint (8 reviews) - that would make one-time-posterism much more obvious.

AARRRGH · 30-10-2008 7:21pm

SerialComplaint wrote: »

A good and simple start on addressing this problem would be a eBay type system that lists the number of reviews posted by that user beside their name, e.g. review by SerialComplaint (8 reviews) - that would make one-time-posterism much more obvious.

Menupages actually do that

For example, if you look at the page for EaSt which was the restaurant where I had the bad experience you will see tons of RIDICULOUSLY positive reviews from first time users.

Morgans · 30-10-2008 9:41pm

I like it on the FAQ 99.99% reviews are published but then lists 9 reasons why a review might be pulled.

Good scrambling.

AARRRGH · 30-10-2008 11:33pm

My problem was the review was published... but the "premium member" restaurant then asked for it to be taken down and they complied. So it is pointless if they publish 99.99% of reviews only to be willing to remove them if anyone asks.

As Sandra from Menupages has already lied about their policies in this thread, I have no faith that their new policies are totally honest.

It's a shame.

Darragh29 · 31-10-2008 12:25am

Isn't 99.99% a very convenient statistic??? I mean did they calculate the number of feedback posts, then keep a record of the number that they posted but then removed, devide one into the other and come with 99.99%???

Highly unlikely. The obvious defect within the business model still remains, which is that you cannot be impartial by providing a forum whereby people can apparently provide feedback and then the existance of that feedback is completely compromised by virtue of the fact that the feedback is undesirable to a customer who is paying you money for advertising.

It's a simple case of greed in my opinion. The restaurants win, because many of them are paying for advertising and have positive reviews but no negative reviews if they play ball with menupages. Menupages win, because they get advertising revenue.

The only sucker who takes a hit here, funnily enough, is Joe Public who could be relying on the distorted information that he or she takes from the website, could end up paying up to 200 Euro or more for a meal in a restarant that he probably ought to have avoided, and if he had been fully aware of the facts, could have avoided, had he not been misled by a website that he thought was impartial, because that website doesn't do what it says on the tin.

Is this website nominated for a Golden Spider Award this year???

AARRRGH · 31-10-2008 12:20pm

Darragh29 wrote: »

Is this website nominated for a Golden Spider Award this year???

You pay to win a Golden Spider award (expensive table at awards ceremony = guaranteed win), so I wouldn't trust them either tbh.

faceman · 31-10-2008 12:34pm

Given the way this thread has gone and the information that has arisen, Im disappointed to say I wont be using menu pages again.

Shame, as i used to think it was a good site. Some of my friends and co-workers were pretty shocked at the thread too.

ntlbell · 31-10-2008 1:35pm

I've passed the thread around to friends and co workers also.

plenty of unhappy campers

KhanTheMan · 31-10-2008 3:25pm

ntlbell wrote: »

I've passed the thread around to friends and co workers also.

plenty of unhappy campers

me too

frecklier · 31-10-2008 4:52pm

I just posted a review of a restaurant where I felt I'd never been so ripped in all my life. But it wouldn't let me rate it at 0 for 'value for money', or even at 0.5. Kept saying 'you have to give a value rating'. So I was forced to give this restaurant 1 out of 5. Maybe was just a glitch, but really pained me to give this particulary restaurant anything out of 5 for value.

Pythia · 01-11-2008 12:42pm

frecklier wrote: »

I just posted a review of a restaurant where I felt I'd never been so ripped in all my life. But it wouldn't let me rate it at 0 for 'value for money', or even at 0.5. Kept saying 'you have to give a value rating'. So I was forced to give this restaurant 1 out of 5. Maybe was just a glitch, but really pained me to give this particulary restaurant anything out of 5 for value.

Basically you're giving it a rank so 1 is the worst rank you can give. It's not like giving it 20% out of 100%.

01-11-2008 1:33pm

Never used the site myself ,but this is a very interesting thread. Sheds light on other websites I might use myself.

It's good to talk :pac:

TheBigLebowski · 03-11-2008 6:57am

In all fairness. This is being blown totally out of proportion here. I've read all of the points in this thread and I too was skeptical about Menupages at first. But looking at the evidence, I am definately coming down on the side of menupages.

There are hundreds of negative reviews still on the site (including for premium member restaurants) so obviously it isn't that easy to have removed. We have one 'friend of a friend' who was apparently able to have a review removed but there is the possibility someone along that line including the poster is telling porkies or that there was indeed libelous information in the review and this may be why it was removed. We just don't know.

We have other people who say that reviews were removed but there are other reasons why reviews may not be there and it's possible that they just do not know how the website operates (ie reviews are about dining experinces of more than 3 months ago). It's possible that there are various reasons why reviews could be removed. Libelous, abusive, naming staff etc. Again, we just don't know.

We also seem to have certain individuals here who seem to have it in for menupages for some reason and are willing to go along with any tale of reviews being removed no matter how scant the actual information, how anonymous the poster and without any way of verifying the facts.

ntlbell · 03-11-2008 11:38am

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

In all fairness. This is being blown totally out of proportion here. I've read all of the points in this thread and I too was skeptical about Menupages at first. But looking at the evidence, I am definately coming down on the side of menupages.

There are hundreds of negative reviews still on the site (including for premium member restaurants) so obviously it isn't that easy to have removed. We have one 'friend of a friend' who was apparently able to have a review removed but there is the possibility someone along that line including the poster is telling porkies or that there was indeed libelous information in the review and this may be why it was removed. We just don't know.

We have other people who say that reviews were removed but there are other reasons why reviews may not be there and it's possible that they just do not know how the website operates (ie reviews are about dining experinces of more than 3 months ago). It's possible that there are various reasons why reviews could be removed. Libelous, abusive, naming staff etc. Again, we just don't know.

We also seem to have certain individuals here who seem to have it in for menupages for some reason and are willing to go along with any tale of reviews being removed no matter how scant the actual information, how anonymous the poster and without any way of verifying the facts.

And an email from a menupages openly admitting they removed bad feedback?

hello?

LolaDub · 03-11-2008 11:39am

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

In all fairness. This is being blown totally out of proportion here. I've read all of the points in this thread and I too was skeptical about Menupages at first. But looking at the evidence, I am definately coming down on the side of menupages.

There are hundreds of negative reviews still on the site (including for premium member restaurants) so obviously it isn't that easy to have removed. We have one 'friend of a friend' who was apparently able to have a review removed but there is the possibility someone along that line including the poster is telling porkies or that there was indeed libelous information in the review and this may be why it was removed. We just don't know.

We have other people who say that reviews were removed but there are other reasons why reviews may not be there and it's possible that they just do not know how the website operates (ie reviews are about dining experinces of more than 3 months ago). It's possible that there are various reasons why reviews could be removed. Libelous, abusive, naming staff etc. Again, we just don't know.

We also seem to have certain individuals here who seem to have it in for menupages for some reason and are willing to go along with any tale of reviews being removed no matter how scant the actual information, how anonymous the poster and without any way of verifying the facts.

Hi Menupages!:D

TheBigLebowski · 03-11-2008 5:31pm

LolaDub wrote: »

Hi Menupages!:D

I don't work for menupages. I just think there is a lot of nonsense being spoken here.

AARRRGH · 03-11-2008 6:03pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

I don't work for menupages. I just think there is a lot of nonsense being spoken here.

I posted a polite negative review.
The "premium member" restaurant asked for the review to be taken down.
Menupages obliged and removed the review.
A few weeks later/whenever, I noticed my review had been removed and e-mailed menupages asking why was it removed.
Menupages replied saying they took the review down because the restaurant asked them to take it down.
I had to make a fuss (i.e. this thread) to get the review put back online.
Menupages come here lying about their policies.

I think it is fairly clear menupages cannot be trusted. And as others have pointed out, when you are taking money from the companies being reviewed, it is impossible to remain impartial.

03-11-2008 11:17pm

TheBigLebowski wrote: »

In all fairness. This is being blown totally out of proportion here. I've read all of the points in this thread and I too was skeptical about Menupages at first. But looking at the evidence, I am definately coming down on the side of menupages.

There are hundreds of negative reviews still on the site (including for premium member restaurants) so obviously it isn't that easy to have removed. We have one 'friend of a friend' who was apparently able to have a review removed but there is the possibility someone along that line including the poster is telling porkies or that there was indeed libelous information in the review and this may be why it was removed. We just don't know.

We have other people who say that reviews were removed but there are other reasons why reviews may not be there and it's possible that they just do not know how the website operates (ie reviews are about dining experinces of more than 3 months ago). It's possible that there are various reasons why reviews could be removed. Libelous, abusive, naming staff etc. Again, we just don't know.

We also seem to have certain individuals here who seem to have it in for menupages for some reason and are willing to go along with any tale of reviews being removed no matter how scant the actual information, how anonymous the poster and without any way of verifying the facts.

I've read through the whole thread and it's obvious to me that something was up with menupages.
Especially considering they actually altered their website ,because of this thread.
When they did that ,I seen that as a way of them getting out of any trouble they might have been in.

ntlbell · 04-11-2008 11:09am

AARRRGH wrote: »

I posted a polite negative review.

The "premium member" restaurant asked for the review to be taken down.

Menupages obliged and removed the review.

A few weeks later/whenever, I noticed my review had been removed and e-mailed menupages asking why was it removed.

Menupages replied saying they took the review down because the restaurant asked them to take it down.

I had to make a fuss (i.e. this thread) to get the review put back online.

Menupages come here lying about their policies.

I think it is fairly clear menupages cannot be trusted. And as others have pointed out, when you are taking money from the companies being reviewed, it is impossible to remain impartial.

is this not enough lebowski?

kmick · 04-11-2008 11:47am

If I were going to choose a restaurant from menupages.ie (which I have done before) I would not trust it unless it had lots of reviews. Also most people wil find something wrong with a meal even if it is only something very minor like a glass being smudged - so if all the reviews say wow, omg, omfg, etc you know something fishy is up. Its not a perfect system but I think the website has a place. If it is deleting reviews under owner pressure which it seems like it is then thats pretty stinky practice. Caveat Emptor with all these things.

Menupages.ie - negative reviews are removed

Comments