I may stay a while

[Sojourner]

Try writing a review for Airbnb if you are a neighbour of a rental Ian Sutton. Where is their voice heard? Certainly not on the Airbnb site. If I wrote a review of an apartment you were looking at staying in, saying that I lived next door and did not appreciate people treating my home like a hotel and if I met you in the hallway I would make my displeasure clear to you, would you want to stay there still?

A closed loop is not necessarily any better than an open loop when it comes to the reliability of reviews. A closed loop simply makes it easier for the loop owner to manipulate the reviews rather than outsiders manipulating them.

Your perception of the reviews you read on Airbnb is not the perception of everyone. Did you know that, " The company furthered altered their review policy to let hosts and guests leave both public and private feedback simultaneously. While it lets hosts/guests see what can be improved upon during the experience, it significantly minimizes the amount of public negative feedback. Both hosts and guests feel freer to comment honestly, but the thing is that it all happens behind closed doors with no accountability that the issue will be fixed in the future. There is no transparency for future host/guests, who are forking over their cash or their home."

Read more here:
http://maphappy.org/2015/05/why-you-really-cant-trust-airbnb-reviews-at-all/

One more thing to consider when looking at Airbnb. Some listing sites charge the host a fixed fee to list on their site. Airbnb charges them 3%on every booking. They also charge the traveller using them, as much as 15%(sliding scale based on total booking amount). So Airbnb have up to a 18% vested interest in keeping listings and in getting bookings. Do not for a moment think that Airbnb is unbiased in terms of reviews. If 10 guests in a row suggest in their 'private feedback' to a host that the place could have been cleaner, that comment will not reach the 'public' review that you see and that property will continue to be listed on Airbnb. For a listing to be pulled by Airbnb, the host really has to do something they cannot be overlooked.

The question of money also begs a question for both host and guest. If Airbnb is getting up to 18% on your booking, both the host and the guest if they left out the middle man could have received/paid 9% more/less each on the transaction. All third party sites are parasites (pun intended) and cost you money.

I do agree that if you read a review here from a known regular poster, it will be reliable in as far as it reflects a real person's perception. The question would be how reasonable is that person's expectations and how in line with your own. But that at least you have a chance to judge based on other postings by that regular poster. But then, isn't that really going back to what I wrote before Ian that, "Any review you read that was not written by a person you actually know is suspect and that pretty much makes reading reviews a waste of time." You're saying you would trust a review here because you 'know' the person writing it. Know in the sense that they are a regular poster who you believe will write what they believe.

 

[joe]

Sojourner, you are right that there is a clear economic objective behind AirBnB's policies. However, again : it's not true that negative reviews are not posted, and that all is suspect with regard to feedback.
I myself have written a negative review of a place we stayed at through AirBnB. It was posted publicly exactly how I wrote it, and added itself to other negative comments that other reviewers had made before me. I could post a link here to show it, but I don't feel like exposing myself or the host.

In fact, the presence of negative comments from previous reviewers of this apt. made me think hard about booking there. I gambled, because of the great location, free parking and good price, and because I had the impression that we wouldn't be bothered by the things that bothered others. Turned out that this wasn't the best decision, and we wouldn't return to this apt. But I hid nothing, even though it wasn't pleasant - as stated in the article you mentioned - to write negative comments.

We have only started to use AirBnB, and we don't travel much - but I have prepared myself for the next time, if we decide to return to a wonderful apt. we stayed at. The owner and I exchanged private e-mails (something you can't do through the website), and we agreed that we'd consider booking directly if we return one day. This will give both sides a chance to cut AirBnB's take. This should be something that every user of AirBnB considers to do - I certainly trust this owner, and he trusts me, and there is no reason we can't do business based on this trust. This way pressure might be put on AirBnB to lower their take. A good host can be so successful that he won't need the platform.
Other travelers might shun this type of behavior, but that's because, like you have mentioned, they are used to doing things in an orderly fashion through regular channels, and are too frightened to try anything else.

 

[Roz]

We have only started to use AirBnB, and we don't travel much - but I have prepared myself for the next time, if we decide to return to a wonderful apt. we stayed at. The owner and I exchanged private e-mails (something you can't do through the website), and we agreed that we'd consider booking directly if we return one day. This will give both sides a chance to cut AirBnB's take. This should be something that every user of AirBnB considers to do - I certainly trust this owner, and he trusts me, and there is no reason we can't do business based on this trust. This way pressure might be put on AirBnB to lower their take. A good host can be so successful that he won't need the platform.

This is exactly why I recommended that people write reviews here in the review forums and include direct owner contact info. Of course, Slow Europe won't attract nearly so many reviews as the big guys, but these reviews could be very helpful to SE members.

Sojourner, thanks for the link to that article about Airbnb reviews. Very interesting.

 

[Pauline]

When I ran SlowTrav we were threatened with lawsuits by some owners that received bad reviews. That is why my policy here is that we post recommended places. I hated dealing with bad reviews. Many were by people who were posting them everywhere and were not active members of the community.

 

[Pauline]

Regarding reviews. It is up to us to read the listing, look at photos, check the location of a vacation rental and decide if it suits us. Reviews can give some extra information to help us decide. They also let us know that a place is legit so you can pay your deposit in confidence.

 

[Sojourner]

I can understand not wanting to deal with bad reviews. There are new posters in every travel forum who sign up, post one negative rant against something and never return again. Even if what they post is a true picture of something, they have no credibility with me anyway, as unless they are a regular poster, there is no way of knowing whether they are perhaps just a competitor, disgruntled ex-employee or something. Your method of only accepting reviews of places people like makes sense to me Pauline. I assume you do not accept positive reviews from new posters as well though.

Reading reviews by known regular posters does have some value but I don't see how they 'let us know that a place is legit' Pauline. Unless all you mean by that is that they let you know the place actually exists. A review does not necessarily let you know if a place is a 'legitimate' legal rental unless the person posting the review states that they did their due diligence and confirmed that it is a legal rental. And let's be honest about that, most people don't even know to check if a rental is legal or not or how to go about checking it if the question does occur to them.

 

[joe]

Once upon a time we had quite a lengthy discussion on Slow Travel about negative reviews vs. positive reviews.

I got into trouble then for stating that as a rule, I don't post negative reviews, only positive ones. I have my reasons for this, and we might start a whole new discussion about this as well.

The negative review that I wrote on AirBnB (which I mentioned above) was an exception to my rule, and I did it because I became convinced that the owner was indeed not heeding the criticism she was getting from reviewers - criticism about things which I saw as important and basic with regard to standards of hosting/accommodating, and which indeed made our stay much less pleasant than what it might have been.

 

[Ian Sutton]

When I ran SlowTrav we were threatened with lawsuits by some owners that received bad reviews. That is why my policy here is that we post recommended places. I hated dealing with bad reviews. Many were by people who were posting them everywhere and were not active members of the community.

Hi Pauline
I can understand the pressure.

What if we use a rating of 'not recommended, please contact reviewer if you wish to know more', effectively giving the absolute clarity that the negative review does not appear on the site? I'm a firm believer that a positive review is all the more encouraging when negative reviews are possible, however I cannot support putting you at risk of legal costs, even if thei case is demonstrably 'vexatious'.

In reality, there is only one place I've stayed in that I would give a mostly negative review - a grotty cave-like apartment in Torino. Everywhere else I can think of will be a balance of positives and negatives, and I'd try to describe more than judging (we should applaud that scores out of 100 aren't awarded!). In this I suppose there is a problem that an owner objects to 2 negative aspects in amongst 10 positive ones. The review is generally very positive, but the risk (of a grumpy owner) is only reduced, not avoided.

regards
Ian

 

[Pauline]

Your method of only accepting reviews of places people like makes sense to me Pauline. I assume you do not accept positive reviews from new posters as well though.

I can't control that but you can see how many posts a person has done on the forums.

Yes, I used legit incorrectly. I meant the reviews tells you that the place exists. I don't think the traveler should be responsible for making sure a place is legal, but I can see that we might not want to book a place that might get shut down by local authorities.

 

[Pauline]

I got into trouble then for stating that as a rule, I don't post negative reviews, only positive ones. I have my reasons for this, and we might start a whole new discussion about this as well.

I agree. My experience with SlowTrav convinced me. If I did not like a place I do not review it and I don't say anything to the owner.

 

[Roz]

Related to this Airbnb discussion, there is an interesting article in the NY Times:
Airbnb tries to behave more like a hotel

 

[phirhon]

I have been following this discussion with interest. My first comment is that it would be more suited to the travel section as opposed to the introduction forum.
We have been travelling to France since 2006 and have stayed in self catering holiday rentals the whole time. As of now, we have spent 46 weeks in gites in France. We also stayed in Italy in two rentals. So we could be considered experienced . A lot of the places we have stayed have not had reviews . Some forums say to never stay in a place where you find no reviews. So how do new rentals ever get a start? One of the reasons I do not look for reviews and I rarely do reviews myself is that we are budget travellers . I look at links people on forums post to the rentals they stay in and invariably they are above our budget. " At 800 euros a week, we thought it good value ". This is more than two weeks for us, so you get my drift. So reviews for the gites we choose are often not out there. We have had some lovely gites over the years that have no reviews any where. But they are not where people want to stay. So I am reluctant to post a review here or on Trip Advisor. I have also never been concerned that the gite will not actually exist. This seems to concern some. On the very few times I have suggested somewhere, there have been complaints. No restaurants within walking distance, bathroom too small, no WIFI. People should do their own due diligence. What I am prepared to accommodate may not suit you.
On our last trip we used Gites de France exclusively for our rentals. It does not get mentioned here often but we have always been satisfied with our experiences with it. After our stay we were always asked for a review and this time we did. I did read the reviews on the site for the gites, some good, some not as much. What it showed me is that what bothers some people is not such an issue for others. Perhaps we are fairly easily pleased.
We will continue to do as we do and are already planning our trip for 2018. Self catering all the way. And yes, I cook most nights. If I said I was not going to cook, we would not be going. Roll on September 2018. My apron is ready.

 

[Sojourner]

I can't control that but you can see how many posts a person has done on the forums
Yes, I used legit incorrectly. I meant the reviews tells you that the place exists. I don't think the traveler should be responsible for making sure a place is legal, but I can see that we might not want to book a place that might get shut down by local authorities.

Well Pauline I have a couple of issues with that. If there are reasons why you don't allow a review because it is negative but allow a first time poster to post a review that is positive, then I think you are not being fair in your moderating. It makes it sound like your only concern is avoiding hassle to you. I'm sure that's not true. I'm sure you do not want fake positive reviews on the site either. So when someone registers and their first post is a positive review of a place, I think that review should not be allowed. It's too easy for a property owner or employee etc. to register for the sole purpose of posting that positive review. You could send them a PM saying, reviews are not allowed for that reason until a poster has demonstrated they are there for more than just that purpose. I hope I've explained what I mean clearly enough.

So I don't buy, "I can't control that". You can see it is their first and only post as easily as any reader can and have the ability to remove it, we don't.

Regarding legal rentals, I do believe the traveller is responsible for making sure a place is legal and not just in case it might get shut down and disrupt their plans. We are responsible for our own actions and we cannot put the onus on others to do the right thing. If we know illegal rentals exist, under what conditions can we say that it is OK to rent one?

If we contribute to an illegal transaction, how are we not responsible for doing so? We cannot plead ignorance that illegal rentals exist once we have been made aware of that fact. Therefore, once aware, we have a responsibility to make sure we do not participate in such a transaction. It's like someone selling you a TV off the back of a truck and then you say, 'oh, I didn't know it was stolen'. That defense doesn't work in any court of law. The only difference with an illegal rental is that you don't get fined or imprisoned for participating. So you see no real punishment vs. reward to be weighed other than, 'they might get shut down and disrupt our plans.' But the moral obligation to do right is still there and you can't justify something that is immoral even if there is no great legal punishment for you to worry about.

'Situational morality' is what is often used to justify something we do that is in fact wrong. If your kids are starving and you have no money, it is situational morality that you use to justify stealing a loaf of bread to feed them. But you cannot use that argument to justify renting an illegal rental. No one is starving. What motivates it is simply personal interests but not life threatening. If necessary, you can do without that rental.

'Absolute morality' on the other hand is when there is an absolute right and wrong that cannot be denied or justified by a given situation. Renting an illegal rental is such a case. There is no way to try and say that the situation justifies doing the wrong thing and that is all morality is, doing the right thing.

Phirhon, gites and 'self-catering' have been around for a long time. They have long been a legitimate part of the vacation rental business in many countries. But they have been a small part of the industry and just like B&Bs, have never been an issue.

The difference between them and Airbnb, is that it would be the rare gite, self-catering vacation rental or B&B that is not legal. On Airbnb, the vast majority of listing are illegal. If you rent using Gites de France, you are renting through a site that screens their listings. I doubt anyone can find a way to list an illegal rental with them. Airbnb takes no responsibility for screening listings at all. They KNOWINGLY allow illegal rentals to list. When a company knowingly allows something illegal onto their site, it tells me all I need to know about that company. It is not a company I would do business with. Absolute morality exists in what they are doing and there are no situational circumstances that can justify it. They simply choose to do what is absolutely immoral, to make money.

It all comes down to money in the end. People want what they want and when they cannot afford what they want, they become willing to turn to situational morality to justify doing something that is wrong. Those who say they want an apartment in Paris for the space and kitchen facilities have no answer when asked, 'then why don't you rent in a legal Apartment Hotel?' Apartment hotels exist in Paris just as they do in most places. 'Self-catering apartments' have long been a big part of the package holiday business in many places. Most Brits who go on package holidays for example have probably stayed in a 'self-catering apartment' in Spain's Costa Del Sol, etc. but they are all legal rentals.

The difference between an Apartment Hotel in Paris vs. an Airbnb listed apartment besides the first being legal and the second probably not, comes down to one simple thing. MONEY. The Apartment Hotel wants more money than the private apartment owner and that's what it's all about. It's not space and it's not a kitchen, they both have that.

 

[Ian Sutton]

Hi Sojourner
There have been instances where both poster and site owner have been held responsible for what is written. As such, with Pauline footing the bill for this site, the 'negative review' may be up for discussion, but it's ultimately her site and her risk and hence her decision.

It's worth wondering how many truly negative experiences you've had. Just the one for us, though there are plenty I would not return to or warmly recommend. I get the impression it's the emotive "Don't go to this hell-hole" type reviews that cause the problem, rather than: I liked ABC and disliked XYZ. Personally I wouldn't return, but if those dislikes don't matter to you then give it a go.

I get the impression a first poster with a glowing review of a property with IP address in same location as the property... well Pauline's too smart to fall for that one. She is one of the best moderators I've encountered, being very much on the ball.

regards
Ian

 

[Sojourner]

No offense was intended to Pauline or this forum Ian Sutton. I just didn't agree with, "I can't control that". A new first time poster who posts a positive review as their first post is absolutely suspect in my opinion that's all. I agree with there being valid reasons for not allowing negative reviews. I just think there are equally valid reasons for not allowing positive 'first post' reviews as well.

I'm not sure what is worth wondering about how many negative experiences I have had. Did I understand what you wrote there correctly? Are you asking me how many negative experiences I have had? If so, I'd say a few but none
'truly negative' enough that I would write a review anywhere about it. Generally speaking, I think we get what we deserve.

What I mean is, if you book a room etc. sight unseen for example and then don't like it when you get there, well to me that simply means you should have known better than to book something sight unseen. There was a time when pretty much everyone asked to see a hotel room before they booked in. I still do that as a norm. There's no surprise usually if you do that. I can see if the room is clean, etc. Yes, we inspect the room. It is still quite common in Europe for people to ask to see a room before booking in. In N. America when I have done that in some places, you do get some strange looks.

Obviously, if you go to any of the large chain hotels that are everywhere now, you pretty much know what to expect and there is little real need to inspect the room first. Holiday Inn revolutionized the hotel industry in N. America by the simple means of standardizing every room in every one of their hotels. That appealed to people like my parents because you 'knew what to expect' and they delivered it, the same every time. That could be one definition of boring of course. The chains have put almost all of the 'mom and pop' little motels out of business in N. America. Some of those were very interesting. I've yet to see an interesting Holiday Inn.

But in Europe, while there is some of that chain hotel uniformity, there are still a lot of individual hotels and obviously they can vary in all kinds of ways. That is where someone might get an unwelcome surprise when they arrive and stay in a hotel/apartment they booked ahead of time without seeing it.

As I have indicated before, I don't use third party booking sites. I don't book hotels or apartments, sight unseen online. I generally only book ahead if I know a place ahead of time. If I go somewhere I do not already know, I wait till I get there to find a place to stay and in doing so, there is no problem with being able to inspect the room/apartment before agreeing to rent it. The other factor is I don't pay deposits or have to be concerned with 'cancellation charges' if I don't book ahead.

I wonder how many times people have arrived in a place and found it not suitable but stayed because they had already paid for it and could not afford to leave and go elsewhere. Then they go home and write a negative review of the 'emotive' type as you say. They put themselves in that situation, but when they write about the negatives, which to be fair may be totally true, it is unlikely that they will also write about their own part in it. ie. 'I shouldn't have booked without seeing it first and I've learned my lesson and will never do that again.'

It is human nature to put all the blame on someone else but if we always do that, we don't necessarily learn to change our own behaviour. If you do have a bad experience because you booked sight unseen, you can complain about it all you want but my question would be, how many times you are going to have to experience that before you decide to change what you are doing?

Forget negative reviews, they won't reduce they odds of you making the same mistake again and they won't even reduce the odds of someone else not making the same mistake with another place even if they read your review and avoid the place you wrote about. Don't book a room/apartment before you have seen it and you are very unlikely to ever feel the need to write a negative review about where you stayed. Don't blame the place, blame your method of finding places and change how you find them.

Consider this. One definition of insanity (according to Albert Einstein) is, "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

So if someone books ahead online and as a result has a negative experience let's say once in 50 times.(or any number at all) Do they have any reason to expect they will not continue to have a negative experience once in every 50 times? Are they not simply getting what is to be expected? Why complain about it then if you continue with the same behaviour and get the same results? Change the behaviour.

 

[Ian Sutton]

Hi Sojourner
The question was to get a feel for how many experiences we have had which are truly negative such that a review would come out almost wholly negative. I've got one, and it sounds like you would have none. i.e. whilst neither of us would want to feel we were being biased by only writing positive reviews, the reality is, barring my one experience, everything else would be a balanced review. i.e. the scenario in question is one which doesn't actually occur (excepting that 'cave-like' apartment I encountered).

Trip advisor does seem to attract full-on negative reviews (and full-on positive reviews). Often it only takes a few lines of those reviews to realise the reviewer is unreasonably negative (or positive) and I will often discount such reviews. It is these sort of reviews that IMO fall into the negative reviews Pauline refers to, where it comes across as a tirade.

There is indeed definitely an art to finding a place to stay and the mastery of this is often around looking for what is not said and what is not shown. One place in Ravello didn't show the shower... because it turned out to be a tiny alcove and shower curtain! I agree with you that I should have been smarter here, but if I were to write a review, I would indeed mention the shower. It didn't inconvenience us much and was a good reminder to be doubtful of omissions.

regards
Ian

 

[Pauline]

Well Pauline I have a couple of issues with that. If there are reasons why you don't allow a review because it is negative but allow a first time poster to post a review that is positive, then I think you are not being fair in your moderating. It makes it sound like your only concern is avoiding hassle to you. I'm sure that's not true.

We are not at the point with these forums to worry about this, and we may never be. So far we have only a few reviews. If the forum suddenly gets big traffic (e.g. 200 people online instead of 20) and lots of reviews are posted, then I will look into this.

You are correct that my current position is just to avoid hassle to me. This is not a business the way SlowTrav was. This is something I am doing for fun.

Renting sight unseen is what vacation rental accommodation is about. Who can afford to fly to Italy, look a vacation rentals, then book one for their summer vacation? I have done this a couple of times, viewing places while on a trip, and realised that you do not know what a place is like until you have spent 24 hours in it.

That is why we need reviews. Even positive reviews give you a hint of possible problems for you.

I have stayed in places where I had a good trip but would not stay in the place again or recommend it to someone. Not completely negative, but I wouldn't recommend it, and I wouldn't post a review here.

Some city rentals are legal, some are not. I don't see how a traveler can figure it out. Each city is different. I don't want to stay in a hotel or apartment-hotel. I want to stay in an apartment in a neighbourhood.

AirBnB lists a lot of places. Some are legal, some are not. Many are vacation rentals that have been around for years and the owners are fed up with the lame HomeAway platform so have moved to the excellent AirBnB platform (better display of information, better payment system, no third party ads).

My complaint is that the marketing of AirBnB lures travelers who would be better off in a hotel to their listings, thereby hurting small hotels. I have been thinking a lot about this topic (thank you for starting it) and have reversed my opinion on AirBnB. Maybe this is a new kind of hotel. One with full apartments that people like me need because I have to cook most of our meals (dietary restrictions that are important to us). One that is in an area with food shops. One that may take over neighborhoods in city centres. And one that can convert back to long term housing easily if this trend dies out. One that is usually run by someone who puts their heart into creating a comfortable place for travelers to stay.

I think I have just realised that I am part of this sharing economy. Next up, Uber! I'm always late to the game.

 

[Sojourner]

Well, in an ideal world there is no doubt room for what you want Pauline.

"Maybe this is a new kind of hotel. One with full apartments that people like me need because I have to cook most of our meals (dietary restrictions that are important to us). One that is in an area with food shops. One that may take over neighborhoods in city centres. And one that can convert back to long term housing easily if this trend dies out. One that is usually run by someone who puts their heart into creating a comfortable place for travelers to stay."

But in the real world we live in what that translates to is a way to avoid the regulations that hotels have to conform to including those that apply to health and safety. Ones that are taking over neighbourhoods and forcing out long term residents who do not want to live somewhere else until 'the trend dies out'. Many that are run by someone who has multiple listings and is in it only for the money.

Nothing in what you want or what Airbnb or the property owner/leasee wants has any concern whatsover for what the neighbour wants. While you may be an unobstrusive guest, you are not all guests. The neighbour does not get a say in who rents the apartment next door to them but they do get to put up with whoever rents it. What about them?

This is not a new kind of hotel. Apartment hotels do exist and always have. All your needs can be met by one without having to rent in a residential building where people are trying to live normal lives. What justification is there for you or anyone else disrupting their lives?

Airbnb has 55,000+ listings for Paris. There are around 125 registered privately owned 'vacation apartments' in Paris. The only other way for a rental to be legal is if it is the owner's primary residence and they do not rent for more than 120 days per year. It seems pretty clear to me that there is no doubt there is a huge number of illegal rentals. Every rental that is for a full property (owner not resident) and is not one of the 125 registered, is an illegal rental. It's easy for a traveller to figure it out if the traveller wants to figure it out. It's even easier to say, 'how are we supposed to figure it out' and then ignore it.

Anyway, I think I will end my comments on this specific topic. The truth is known, the evidence is more than clear for anyone who wants to look for it. But then truth and evidence never stopped anyone from justifying anything to themself.

 

[Roz]

Pauline, when you say you don't accept negative reviews, you don't mean that a review can't include any negative comments, do you? It can be helpful to know what problems someone may have had in a rental that over-all they liked.

Also, I think someone suggested that this whole very interesting discussion might be moved into another, general travel forum where more people might see it. I agree with that suggestion.

 

[William]

There's so many things that affect 'quality of life' in urban centers that I don't see my lodging decisions as having much effect on things.

I really don't see myself as having any influence at all on the direction of our ever-changing world.

Perhaps the exception is when I decide what to eat and drink. Then I do seem to have some control. No dead animals for me!

As for reviews, I've never left one. Being in the 'protection program' I can't really ramble on about where I've been, where I am, and where I'm going, don't you know