We noticed that you're using an unsupported browser. The TripAdvisor website may not display properly.We support the following browsers:
Windows: Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome. Mac: Safari.

Consistency of review vetting

Chester, United...
Level Contributor
60,329 posts
69 reviews
Save Topic
Consistency of review vetting

Hi

I did post a thread about this on the Support Forum but in view of how things are shaping up I thought I would post it here as a suggestion on how TA can improve things

We recently returned from a 21 night multi-resort trip to Punta Cana

where we also checked out a couple of other for future trips

As you are all aware TA contacts us all on a regular basis asking us to write reviews and accordingly I wrote 8 very detailed reviews which I submitted to TA

So far three have been rejected as they contained links to a photo sharing website - which is allowed and I have enough reviews that contain them to prove it. At the same time they have published two which cntain the same URL's and wording about the links

I should add I had the same problem with the photo sharing weblinks about 4 months ago and in the end TA said sorry that new person had looked at the review and had not realised they were OK

Another was rejected as they do not deem it to be a first hand experience although we spend a whole day at the resort, had a room and had two meals there - the review ran to some 1,456 words

"We try our best to limit our review section to first-hand traveller reviews. General commentary, bulletins and questions for other reviewers are best suited to the TripAdvisor Forums (http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ForumHome)"

Again TA have in the past published similar reviews I have submitted about day trips to resorts

I have also contacted TA direct about my recent problems and am waiting to hear back

It is no wonder that some people become frustrated or disallusioned with the review process

Newton Aycliffe...
Destination Expert
for Cuba, Rafael Freyre, Guardalavaca, Holguin
Level Contributor
100,649 posts
57 reviews
Save Reply
1. Re: Consistency of review vetting

flipflop_man:

I can understand your frustration. This is just one of a few problems that TA seem to be having at the moment. Communication doesn't seem to be their strong point at present.

Chester, United...
Level Contributor
60,329 posts
69 reviews
Save Reply
2. Re: Consistency of review vetting

OK an update

Of the 9 reviews I have now submitted only 4 have been published and I have not heard back from TA via my contacts through the Help Centre

The one that was rejected on the basis of not being a first hand experience has now been published after I altered one sentence to amplify that we were there all day, etc

Another review that was rejected on the same basis and again was resubmitted has now been rejected as it has the photo sharing URL????

The four reviews I have had published all have the same URL - explain that!!!!

In a sad way I am kind of glad this is happening to me as it explains why so many new people to TA become disillusioned and give up

TA really needs to get a grip of this as reviews are meant to be a corner stone on it's business

If someone from TA reads this do me a big favour and have a word with the review department

Chester, United...
Level Contributor
60,329 posts
69 reviews
Save Reply
3. Re: Consistency of review vetting

OK a further update

They have this morning published 3 reviews which all contain the URL to a photo sharing website and rejected another for having the same link - DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO ANYONE???

Calgary, Canada
Destination Expert
for Calgary
Level Contributor
25,902 posts
86 reviews
Save Reply
4. Re: Consistency of review vetting

Nope. Sounds like there is serious confusion within TA about whether such links are allowed or not. Someone in TA needs to send a memo!

Chester, United...
Level Contributor
60,329 posts
69 reviews
Save Reply
5. Re: Consistency of review vetting

Matter has now been resolved and I will post an update later

Thanks Jeanine

Edited: 02 November 2012, 13:38
Constanta, Romania
Level Contributor
27 posts
141 reviews
Save Reply
6. Re: Consistency of review vetting

hmmm, same issue to me.

I have wrote 2 reviews and TA rejected because: "We try our best to limit our review section to first-hand traveler reviews"

The funny part of the situation (if I may to say funny) is the both of them are major sightseeing from the city I LIVE & work !!! One of the reviews was about a park which I crossing DAILY on the way to work (I prefer to walk then to go by public transportation on the way to the office. And this park is on my way to the office).

So, what TA understands by "first-hand traveler"? If I live in a city I can not review the spots from there? I think the best reviews are made by insiders...

7. Re: Consistency of review vetting

-:- Message from TripAdvisor staff -:-

This post was determined to be inappropriate by the TripAdvisor community and has been removed.

To review the TripAdvisor Forums Posting Guidelines, please follow this link: http://www.tripadvisor.com/pages/forums_posting_guidelines.html

Our staff may also remove posts that do not follow our posting guidelines, and we reserve the right to remove any post for any reason. Thanks for being a part of the TripAdvisor travel community!

Removed on: 08 November 2012, 18:03
Vancouver, Canada
Level Contributor
12,039 posts
71 reviews
Save Reply
8. Re: Consistency of review vetting

GoPenguins,

This is the process: reviews go through auto-filters. If the auto-filter is triggered after submission for a possible guideline infraction, the review is then set aside and queued for TA Staff to read and assess. If there is a guideline infraction, the reviewer is informed and they can then make the change and resubmit.

The other process you're mentioning is when the auto-filter prevents the review from actually being submitted as the profanity filter was triggered. If the reviewer is unable to figure out what may have prevented the review from going through (it's marked in red), members of the Support Forum are there to help.

Bear in mind, that TA receives approximately 11,000 reviews daily; I suspect that the vast majority go through without an issue.

L4

Edited: 05 November 2012, 03:16
Boston...
Level Contributor
2,787 posts
TripAdvisor Staff  
Save Reply
9. Re: Consistency of review vetting

Mustaine2011,

Your reviews were rejected for just stating facts and contained no information about your experience/visit.

B-

Chester, United...
Level Contributor
60,329 posts
69 reviews
Save Reply
10. Re: Consistency of review vetting

OK further update as promised

I now have all 9 reviews published - a big thank you to Jeanine for her intervention with regards to the URL

I will put my hands up and admit that I got a couple of things wrong. In one review I did mention a conversation we had had with another couple who were unhappy with their room and had to upgrade to get a better room. In one photo album I did include some photos that were given to me as we were unable to see some room types as they were occupied - I had included a statement to this effect and a slide in the album also mentioned it - nothing to hide

Anyway the main problem was that several reviews were rejected as they included a URL whilst some with the same URL were published. It would seem common sense to me that the people vetting reviews have some sort of master list of approved sites and the auto filters could even check these for them

I had a couple of others rejected for not being first hand experiences when another for a day trip sailed through - when I resubmited these with just the "odd word" changed one was published and the other was rejected again but this time for having the URL. I will admit my reviews do contain a lot of facts as this us what many people want to read and from the number of PM's I get thanking me for my detailed reviews I know this is the case

Was it annoying and frustrating to have reviews rejected - yes and even more so that you know that when you ask TA why they will take a very long time to reply

Is it the end of the world - no but it did take the edge of taking a lot of time to write very detailed reviews backed up with large photo albums