dpd1 - 9:02 pm on Mar 16, 2012 (gmt 0)
This. The first Yelp about my B&M was one star over the price, after it was agreed upon before beginning successful repairs on her widget, and the competitor who first charged more for unnecessary ineffective widget repairs got more stars. Bizarre on the face of it, but it was the only Yelp for over 6 months, and it palpably hurt business. Waiting for a statistically meaningful number of samples makes sense, but taking away the instant gratification factor will probably reduce the motivation to post reviews to nil, so such a system sounds difficult to get rolling.
And that's why the whole system is inherently flawed... They're never going to do something like that, because they want participation, they want traffic, they want crap filling up pages... Any kind of crap, whether it's logical, fair... whatever. Which is why a system like that should not have the power to destroy somebody's business.
It's like the Dun & Bradstreet scam. They still hold the title for being the "official" method of checking how reputable a business is financially... Yet, they will have third party sales reps from other countries tell people on the phone that they will bump up their credit rating, if they buy a package from them. Extortion. You can't even do business with the government without having a DUN. Total scam.
It's easy to say... Well, people are smart... They'll ignore the cranks. Maybe... Maybe not. I've seen people post stuff on forums, asking if everybody thinks it will be safe dealing with some guy on ebay, because he has a single negative. Then you go and look and the guy has one neg out of thousands of positives. What on earth would even make somebody focus on the one neg? But that's how a lot of people's minds work. So it definitely does make a difference.