Tiffs between established print critics and relatively new online critics are nothing new. Film sites, for example, are often frowned upon by critics employed by newspapers as being easily bought and unprofessional (as well as having complete freedom and the ability to publish whenever they like). And the clash is also ongoing in the world of restaurant reviewers and food bloggers:

intriguing is the notion in the piece that there is a great divide between amateurs reviewing restaurants online, and the professionals taking a newspaper’s dime to do it. Regularly the article mentions that food bloggers have no credentials and no track record. They just like eating in restaurants.

This is a thought provoking piece by Jay Rayner over on the ever enjoyable Guardian food and drink blog, Word of Mouth. In an even handed way he defends the role of the underdog food blogger (despite being a little harsh on Canada at the same time).

Of course we’re going to be a little biased on TrustedPlaces as our whole reason for being is the belief that everyone’s opinions count and can indeed be counted upon. We wouldn’t have got nearly this far if there wasn’t value in what our users have to say

Rayner defends food bloggers and points out that as a professional himself he began his career with very little in the way of qualifications. He also brings up a couple of interesting issues that lie at the core of what we’re trying to achieve with TrustedPlaces. The quality of the reviews and the trust between reader and reviewer.

Let’s start with quality, defined here as a combination of usefulness of information and enjoyment that one gets by reading the review (anyone with a better suggestion please let us know in the comments below). I’m confident that a lot of user generated reviews are of quality that is second to none of the professionally created ones. We’re lucky to have many of those around here and you can judge by yourselves with exhibits 1, 2 and 3.

We also have plenty of reviews that don’t manage to reach the prose levels of, say, Stephen Fry, but at the same time provide an honest opinion that can help one make a decision on whether to visit a particular restaurant, trust their local physiotherapist or have that first date in the pub down the road. Finally, there are those reviews that may be short, don’t reach the prose levels of say, AA Gill, but are enough to convey an opinion, whether it is an endorsement or not. In all of the above, anyone has the option to add their opinion, voice a comment or put a question to the reviewer.

It’s handy to remember that professional reviewers get paid to help sell papers, increase online readership or deliver advertising as the case may be for ViewLondon for example. One can argue that this influences the style, content and tone of their writing, but I guess it’s up to the reader to decide whether to trust them or not. Individual reviewers don’t suffer from such biases. Sure, someone may want to write more reviews to earn a TrustedPlaces card or receive a T-shirt, but their professional livelihood is not really affected by this, is it?

Please don’t misinterpret the above as an indictment on professionally produced content. Professional writers, editors and producers are responsible for some incredibly valuable and entertaining pieces of work. Here, I’m just highlighting the different motivations between professionals and amateurs and the implication that this has on trust.

The key difference between traditional critics and a social network like TrustedPlaces is that rather than relying on the wisdom of the selected few, you can rely on the collective intelligence of a community that shares the same interests and passions as yourself. You can decide how much you can trust individual members of that community, by looking at their history on the site, the places you have in common, the number of friends they have and finally you can even see how much your tastes are alike or not.

Yes, individual businesses can try to game the system. We have the tools to make it really difficult for them to effectively achieve this, but let’s just do the following thought experiment.

Say, an unscrupulous, or social-media inept, business owner decides to start writing bogus, positive reviews about their venue, rather than trying to establish a dialogue with existing and potential customers. Say, that the said person owns one of the worst restaurants in London, but the continuous 5 star reviews make the place look like a gross omission from the Michelin Guide. A lot of people find this place through TrustedPlaces, are completely fooled by the fake reviews and decide to visit it in droves. What do you think is the next step? Plenty of unhappy customers who have a very easy way to let plenty of others know of their opinion.

In the long term is a losing strategy for any business. The economics of it don’t make sense. If you are a business owner it’s much better to devote your focus on your business. If you do happen to get a review that is not positive our suggestion is to reflect on it, see if it’s fair or not, and in any case come on in and have a conversation with the people who wrote it. This is a perfect example on how to do it. Likewise don’t try to diss a competitor’s business. Open communities are transparent and much more intelligent than you think.

This is a long post indeed and I’d like to thank Jay Rayner for kicking off the debate. The conversation continues on the Guardian’s Word of Mouth and the comments here and of course we’d love to hear your views. We’d also like to thank niamheen for the kind words on TrustedPlaces.

Technorati Tags: local reviews, TrustedPlaces, The Guardian