Are Yelp reviews a reliable source of information for consumers in your opinion? Tell us what you think.

“Fake reviews [are] a constant battle,” said Stoppelman. “It’s something that we’ve faced from literally day one. Within a couple weeks of launching the site, we saw our first fake reviews. My co-founder and I knew immediately that we were going to have to solve this. So we set about finding an algorithmic solution, much like Google, and we call it the Review Filter. What it does is it looks at patterns of behavior on the site, and tries to decide as accurately as possible which reviews really can be relied on by consumers in the community and which we’re unsure about, we should set aside. And so on every business page, at the bottom, there’s a little link that says how many reviews have been filtered, and you can go follow that link, and see what we’ve taken off of that page. I think that’s been one of our, frankly, keys to success is that consumers, on average, can rely on the content they see on Yelp.”

Stoppelman continued, “We’re going to do our best to identify those strange patterns, and pull that content down, and so it does…it’s a new thing, and it’s caught businesses off guard because you know, frankly, the world prior to that, you know, sites like CitySearch and so forth, really didn’t spend a lot of time trying to protect against that, and so businesses got into the habit of just ‘Hey, if I want to be five stars, I just need to get enough friends to review me or I need to write enough fake reviews,’ and we’ve made sure that Yelp…you can’t do that. It’s not gonna work.”

Stoppelman told Le Meur that Yelp is ‘disrupting the Yellow Pages”.

“The Yellow Pages world was one of completely pay-to-play,” he said. “So if you had a local business, and you really wanted to be seen, you had to just pay an enormous amount of money, and that was it. Yelp turns that on its head, and actually puts consumers first. And so in our world now, if you’re a great local business, you actually get some exposure for free because your reviews speak for themselves. That’s going to get you some additional eyeballs, so that’s going to turn into some customers. If you want to go beyond that, and actually get some additional traffic, that’s where the advertising model comes in.”

It’s that advertising model that has led some businesses to go so far as to accuse Yelp of extortion, an accusation that the company takes a great deal of offense to.

Businesses have been throwing around such allegations for quite some time, but last month, the discussion came into a greater focus – so much that Yelp felt it needed to take to its corporate blog to defend itself. The post, titled, “No, Yelp Doesn’t ‘Extort’ Small Businesses. See For Yourself,” pointed specifically to a story run by The Washington Post full of businesses alleging wrongdoing on Yelp’s part.

The basic story, according to the report, is that a business gets a bunch of new customers because of reviews on Yelp, then Yelp reaches out to the business to advertise. If it doesn’t advertise, then the positive reviews start disappearing, and only negative or indifferent reviews stay, while the positive ones get buried in the filtered section, which is accessed when a user clicks and enteres a CAPTCHA.

Yelp maintains that advertiser data is not taken into account with the filtered section, but one business in the Washington Post’s story went so far as to say that a Yelp salesperson said they would unfilter filtered reviews if they advertised. The business owner claimed they did some “small scale” advertising, and “magically,” five or six of the filtered reviews became unfiltered.

But nobody has been able to prove any of this, and Yelp says this is all simply false.

But the complaints don’t stop with a few “sensational” (as Yelp calls them) reports. On our own coverage of the story, we’ve seen numerous readers express anger with Yelp.

Either way, users continue to flock to Yelp, and Yelp maintains that it’s generally reliable. Earlier this year, Yelp topped 100 million unique monthly visitors for the first time ,and in May, it revealed that its average uniques grew 43% year-over-year to 102 million, while revenue was up 68% year-over-year.

As a business, do you feel Yelp is presenting consumers with a reliable representation of your business? As a consumer, do think it has been reliable? Let us know in the comments.

Do you think Yelp is extorting businesses or are businesses allegations simply false? Have you had negative experiences with Yelp? Let us know in the comments.

This is not a new story. Businesses have been accusing Yelp of extortion for quite some time. Back in September, for example, a restaurant in Connecticut told a local news station that Yelp had been taking down their positive reviews because they refused to buy advertising. Here’s that report:

Fast forward to this week, and similar stories are appearing. Here’s a report from Brook Silva-Braga at The Washington Post:

“A lot of business owners say what Yelp is really doing is extorting them for advertising money,” says Silva-Braga.

The piece discusses a business who lost all of its customers, and attributed this to a one-star rating and bad reviews on Yelp. Interestingly, it claims deals services like Groupon and LivingSocial will no longer work with the business either, due to the poor rating.

“I signed a contract with Groupon about a month ago to run a deal, and they’re not running a deal because of the reviews,” the business owner says in the interview.

Silva-Braga says in the piece that many business owners say Yelp wields its power unfairly. He goes on to point to the paid Yelp ads for competitors that appear above actual reviews on listings for specific businesses. He notes that when he clicks on a listing for one of the paid advertisers, there are no competitor ads.

“But that’s just a small example – one Yelp doesn’t debate,” he says. “It’s something else much harder to prove that gets business owners really upset with Yelp.”

The basic story, according to the report, is that a business gets a bunch of new customers because of the reviews, Yelp reaches out to the business to advertise, then after it doesn’t advertise, the positive reviews start disappearing, and only negative or indifferent reviews stay. The other reviews appear in the filtered section, which is accessed when a user clicks and enteres a CAPTCHA.

Yelp strongly denies that any of this is going on, which the report also mentions. It even includes footage of Yelp’s VP Communications & Public Affairs, Vince Sollitto, discussing how the filtering algorithm works. The review filter, he says, does not take into account advertiser status. The report then goes on, however to showcase a business owner claiming that a Yelp salesperson said they would unfilter filtered reviews if they advertised. The business reportedly did start some “small scale” advertising, and “magically,” five or six of the filtered reviews became unfiltered. Finally, the report notes that all “evidence” of the allegations at hand are circumstantial.

Sollitto took to the Yelp blog to discuss Yelp’s side of the story further, calling out the Washington Post report and an LA Times article as stories that rehash “sensational” allegations, which he says are not, and have never been true.

Sollitto points to research from Harvard Business School and Yale professors finding no connection between advertising and Yelp’s automated filtering, though the claim in the Washington Post piece indicates there was human intervention in the automated process. He then notes that courts have “rejected the conspiracy”.

“Some business owners have even gone so far as to take these accusations to court, but their claims keep getting dismissed for lack of any fact-based evidence,” he writes.

“A simple Google search debunks the conspiracy,” he adds. “Want to see if businesses that advertise on Yelp really do get ‘special treatment?’ Feel free to do your own version of a simple Google test like this [site:yelp.com/biz 'Yelp sponsor' AND 'rude staff'] by inserting your own negative phrases in the last set of quotation marks. The words ‘Yelp Sponsor’ only appear on pages of advertisers, which begs the question: if these Yelp advertisers get a special ‘Delete’ button for negative reviews, why in the world aren’t they using it? (Hint: because it doesn’t exist.) Nor is there any rational incentive for a Yelp sales team member to jeopardize his or her career by pitching a product that can’t be delivered because it doesn’t exist.”

I’m not sure what that says about the possibility that reviews could be hidden on Yelp in the “filtered” section rather than actually being deleted.

Sollitto goes on to note that you can also find many non-advertisers with good ratings.

“So why does this misbelief exist?” he asks. “Ironically, it stems from Yelp’s efforts to protect consumers from those who are constantly trying to game the system. Yelp uses automated software to showcase the most helpful and reliable reviews from among the millions submitted. Those that don’t make the grade — about 20 percent — are posted to a separate ‘Filtered Review’ page. So, in trying to prevent unethical wrongdoing on Yelp, Yelp gets accused of the same.”

Earlier this month, Yelp revealed that its average monthly unique visitors grew 43% year over year to 102 million, and revenue was up 68% year-over-year. Cumulative reviews grew 42% year over year to more than 39 million.

Do you think Yelp is wronging businesses? Let us know in the comments.

Currently sitting at a 25 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, The Hangover 3 is a certified critical bomb. Critics around the country are complaining that the film isn’t funny, and that it reeks of a cheap cash-in. Here’s what some of the critics are saying:

Odie Henderson for the Chicago Sun-Times says: “I had to wait until halfway through the closing credits for my first, and only, laugh.

Scott Weinberg of GeekNation was a little more harsh: “Exists for the producers, the studios and nobody else. Insulting, amateurish garbage.”

Richard Roeper delivers what is perhaps the most damning review: “Director Todd Phillips delivers a film so different from the first two, I’m not even sure it’s supposed to be a comedy.”

Despite all the hate for the film, some critics seemed to have enjoyed the film. Those who did enjoy it say that it’s not as good as the first one, but argue that it’s better than the second. Some are also saying that Zack Galifianakis’ performance is solid.

It seems that audiences who have seen the film so far overwhelmingly agree with the minority of critics that liked it. It’s currently sitting at an 88 percent on the audience meter on Rotten Tomatoes.

Thankfully for those who didn’t like it, The Hangover 3 is being billed as the last film in the franchise.

The car got a 99 out of 100, which is reportedly the highest it has ever rated a car. Here’s Consumer Reports’ overview:

The Tesla Model S takes everything you know about cars and stands it on its head. It’s a very agile, super-quick electric luxury sedan (with a hatchback!) that seats seven and gets the equivalent of 84 mpg. Got your attention yet? With the 85 kWh battery, the largest available, it can go between 180 and 225 miles on a charge, depending on the weather. That’s about twice as far as any other electric car. With optional equipment, it can be charged from empty in as little as five hours. Performance all-around is exceptional, with short stops, a superb ride, and an eerily hushed cabin. Almost all controls are done through a quick and capable iPad-like center screen. Tight access and visibility and initial teething pains are demerits, as is the luxury-car price.

Here’s their quick take:

“We’ve been testing cars at Consumer Reports for a very long time, but we’ve never seen anything quite like the Tesla Model S,” says Jake Fisher, Director, Auto Testing at Consumer Reports. “This car performs better than anything we’ver ever tested before. Let me repeat that – not just the best electric car, but the best car. It does just about everything really, really well.”

The car, he says, ties as the quietest car they’ve ever tested, in addition to be extremely energy efficient.

It turns out that 99 out of 100 was originally 110 out of 100. Matt Hardigree at Gawker’s Jalopnik says:

I spoke with CR’s Jake Fisher who explained to me that the car actually scored 110 out of a 100-point scale, but that because of the limitations still inherent in owning an electric car (range, access to charging) they regularly subtract about 10% from a car’s score. It’s still the best score they’ve ever given, tied only with the 2007 Lexus LS but that car, according to Fisher, isn’t even in the same league as the Model S.

The car is designed and built in California. The rear wheel drive vehicle does not use gasoline, and is engineered to perform in both hot and cold climates. It accelerates to 60 mph in 4.2 seconds, according to Tesla (though Consumer Reports said a “lightning quick 5.6 seconds”). More specs here.

It features Whitney Lemon from Google’s’ “Get Your Business Online” team and Cody Julian, the associate marketing manager at Google Fiber.

According to a study Julian cites, seventy percent of Americans say they look at product reviews before making a purchase decision.

Are anonymous reviews on Google business pages a problem? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Google Now was introduced last year as part of the Android Jelly Bean update. It is often referred to as the future of search, or at least the future of Google Search. It pushes information to users when they need it (or when Google thinks they need or want it) without the user having to search for it.

The majority of Android phones still don’t even have it yet, but as time goes on, that will change. I only recently upgraded my own device to one that has access to the feature, and have only begun to learn first-hand just how powerful Google Now can be. The more it learns about you, the more it has to offer.

One of the things Google Now has to offer is a flow of suggestions for places that are near you when you spend any considerable amount of time in some location. For local businesses, this can be a great thing.

What’s not so great for a business, is when Google pushes negative reviews in front of any number of users.

Negative reviews are one thing, but anonymous reviews allow people to say whatever they want without being held accountable. Businesses are already suing people for defamation over some of the things they say in online reviews, when they are saying things they can be held accountable for. Anonymity just lets people say whatever they want. Even if they’re trashing your business. And anonymous reviews are still appearing right in front of Google Now users curious about what place Google is telling them is nearby.

I noticed this the other day. I took a look at the Google Now “Places” card and saw that the Lock & Key cafe was nearby. Here, you can take a look at their page. The top reviews from real people have “Very Good” and “Excellent” descriptions across the board. Then it gets into the anonymous “A Google user” and the rating is “Poor to fair”. This is followed with another anonymous review, also with a rating “poor to fair”.

At least Google is showing the positive reviews from users with names at the top, but are they always doing this? Sure, not all anonymous reviews are negative, but many are.

Google has actually moved away from anonymous reviews in policy. When they made the move from Google Places to Google+ Local as the format for local business pages, users were supposed to be required to sign in with their Google account to leave reviews (they’ve adopted a similar policy for Google Play). When I have tried to leave a review while not logged into mine, I’ve been prompted to sign in. But as we’ve seen in recent months, this isn’t always working for some reason.

Old anonymous reviews from before the change are staying on business pages. That’s nothing new, but a few months back, we looked at an example where even new reviews were coming in from anonymous users. One user complained about this in a Google help thread. The Google representative acknowledged the problem, and indicated they were looking into it.

I checked back on the page in question today, and those anonymous reviews are still there. It’s unclear whether they’re still accepting new anonymous reviews. I’ve seen no indication from Google that they have corrected the problem.

When I looked at that Lock & Key page that Google pushed to my attention, it dawned on me that Google is likely pushing a whole lot of anonymous negative reviews to a lot of Google Now users. Then this week, they greatly expanded the user base for Google Now by launching it for iPhones and iPads.

For those concerned about Google Now pushing negative reviews in front of users, there is a silver lining. Well, for one, it also pushed positive reviews, which hopefully far outweigh the negative ones anyway. But also, iOS simply isn’t able to take advantage of Google Now the way Android is. It doesn’t use the iOS notifications system, so basically users have to specifically open the Google Search app, log in (if they’re not already logged in), and find the cards at the bottom. Not quite as much of a game changer as the Android version. In fact, Fast Company says, “The future of Google Search is leaving iPhone users behind.”

But still, Google Now is (apparently) the future of Google Search. It’s expected to come to the Chrome browser, which will put it in front of significantly more people. It might even come to the Google homepage, which would obviously be huge.

It will be interesting to see if Google does anything with the anonymous reviews. Even as the old ones (which apparently Google has no intention of getting rid of) continue to show up, local businesses would do well to encourage new customers to write reviews, and hopefully bury any old unfavorable, anonymous reviews. Of course, it would also help if Google keeps from letting new ones flow in.

Have anonymous reviews been a problem for your business? Let us know in the comments.

But people are still downloading it and trying it out. As of today, Facebook Home on Google Play has surpassed 500,000 installs.

We don’t know the exact number of installs, as Google Play only gives us an unspecific snapshot of the numbers. Right now, it says that the number of installs is somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million. The Next Web noticed that Twitter users noticed the jump from “100,000 to 500,000″ to “500,000 to 1 million” some time on Sunday.

500,000 may seem like a small number of installs, considering that Facebook has over a billion monthly active users and that something like the Facebook app has between 100 million and 500 million installs. But in a week’s time, to be working its way to a million installs, is pretty good for Facebook Home considering it’s only available on a handful of Android devices.

Still, the news isn’t nearly all positive for Facebook. Facebook Home is still suffering from poor user reviews. Last week, we told you that after just 3 days on the market, Facebook Home had sunk to an average rating of 2.4 out of 5 in the Google Play Store. At that time, 47% of all reviews awarded the app 1 star.

Now, at Facebook Home surpassed 500,000 installs, the negativity is growing. The average rating has fallen to 2.2 and 1-star reviews now account for nearly 52% of all reviews.

And the early reviews are in, and they aren’t looking good for Netflix’s third major original series. Here are some blips from some of them:

The L.A. Times: “Let me be clear: As a for-profit visual arts experience, ‘Hemlock Grove’ is terrible in ways that mock the meaning of the word ‘terrible,’ with clunky acting, tra-la-la transitions and at least one monster that walks like a bad Frankenstein and appears to be wearing the very same wig/hat we used.”

The Telegraph: “So is Hemlock Grove another triumph for the TV and film streaming site? The short answer is no. Quite the reverse in fact. Hoping to be a cross between Twin Peaks and True Blood, with a hint of E4′s soapy thriller Revenge thrown in for good measure, this sexed-up 13-part series, I’m afraid, is Netflix’s first dud. Where it tries so desperately to be eerie and esoteric, it winds up as derivative as anything the basic TV channels churn out on a regular basis: hammy, hackneyed and disjointed.”

Variety: “If the underlying formula is as old as ‘Dark Shadows,’ there’s still a need for more narrative momentum than the 13-episode series initially delivers. So while one can understand why Netflix would augment its original slate with this mix of talent, ‘Hemlock Grove’ remains a mere niche confection, one likely to play best among those genre fans who can’t see the forest for the trees.”

HitFix: “But it’s also a mess: a horror series with a weirdly slow build (you don’t even see the lead werewolf character transform until the end of the second episode), a mix of campy performances and competent ones, and just enough intriguing ideas to make me wish the entire thing was a lot better than it is.”

There is a glimmer or hope, as Entertainment Weekly gave it a B+, saying, “When all the blood is mopped up, Hemlock, like so many horror flicks before it, is about the ­monster inside all of us and the human bonds that prevent us from becoming our beastliest selves.”

Of course, reviews aren’t everything – just one person’s opinion. But it definitely appears that Hemlock Grove isn’t going to benefit from the widespread, nearly-universal acclaim handed out to Netflix’s last original series – the superb political thriller House of Cards.

Well, apparently Ebert and his wife Chaz worked to make sure that “was” remains “is.” They tapped a digital strategist to help ensure that the site, visited by millions, would remain a top destination for those hungry for film critique and discussion. And that new site is now live.

“Roger wanted to bridge film criticism and the community of fans like never before,” Chaz Ebert said. “The new site enlists many more critics, reviewing many more movies, displayed side-by-side with the most comprehensive collection of Roger’s Pulitzer Prize-winning content online.”

You may have noticed that the site has gone through a transformation since Ebert’s death earlier this month. And quite frankly, it’s a huge improvement. The old rogerebert.com was one of the best online resources for film lovers, but it wasn’t very easy on the eyes. The new site is cleaner and more visually impressive.

The new content will be powered by a network of contributors – nearly 20 listed on the site. They’ll provide the week’s reviews.

“The site focuses on three things: criticism, commentary and community,” said site designer Josh Golden. “Everything is aggregated in one place. It’s both library and playground for serious film buffs, but it’s easy to navigate for people who are just looking for a good movie.”

And of course, all of Ebert’s reviews and Great Movies essays are accessible on the site.

The plan is to keep people coming to the site for their reviews, even though Ebert has passed on. By the looks of things, they’ve got things going in the right direction.

Since hitting the Google Play store on Friday, nearly 4,000 users reviews have been logged (3.955). And out of those nearly 4,000 reviews, nearly half of them have given the app group a 1-star rating.

Just over 47%, actually. There are nearly three times as many 1-star ratings as 5-star ratings.

Let’s take a look at some of the 1-star reviews, shall we?

Not an intuitive app. Made my phone so frustratingly complicated to use that I uninstalled after just four or five hours. Unless major changes are made including an easy way to get to my home screen I will not reinstall.

Cool way to use facebook, but with no support for my other widgets, it limits my phone. If I wanted a single company to take over my homescreen appearance, I could use an iphone.

This home app is garbage! Sucks your battery down. Doesn’t let other widgets run. And, to much stuff from people’s profile in your face 24/7.

What the hell is facebook home doing? It’s a homescreen that invades your phone. There s no way at all to access your widgets…can’t see weather, time, nothing…what a big dud!

So, it looks like the major complaints are that it’s invasive, doesn’t play well with others, and drains battery. To be fair, there are plenty of good and even great reviews for Facebook Home – but the negative outweighs the positive in a big way.

As of right now, the average rating is a lackluster 2.4 out of 5.

The way the Google Play operates, reviews are only accepted by people wo have actually downloaded the app in question. So we can assume that the majority of the nearly 1,900 1-star reviews are from people who are legitimately unimpressed with the app. By comparison, the basic Facebook app has a 3.6 average rating, Facebook Messenger sports a 4.4 average rating, and Facebook Pages Manager has a 3.8 average rating. So far, Facebook Home is the bad apple of the group.