On-Line Reviews
   In recent years we've spent a lot of time looking at on-line review sites such as TripAdvisor, Yahoo, Travelocity, Epinions, and others. Although we believe these review sites have a place, we also believe a reader needs to view them with some skepticisim.  Lest we be accused of sour grapes, we'll say up front that reviews of our property tend to be positive. But ours -- indeed, most properties -- also receive extremely negative comments from time to time. As the people who actively run our hotel, we can say nasty reviews hurt -- even when a valid point is made. Unfortunately, sometimes the points aren't valid.

Valid or not, on-line reviews tend to be wildly inconsistent.Almost any property you look at will show opinions ranging from the greatest place ever to the worst dump in the world. In truth, most properties fall well within those two extremes. For a would-be guest, the task at hand is to sort out which reveiws to believe -- or, perhaps, which parts of reviews to believe.  With that in mind,  we've prepared a list of things worth remembering when reading on-line reviews.

Also keep in mind that this list is from a hotelier's perspective. That means we bring our own bias, even as we strive to be neutral. Except in one instance, we've avoided using our own property as an example. Nevertheless, as people in the business we tend to read on-line reviews somewhat differently than the average traveler. Here's our take:

 
• Reviews tend to be negative: Call it human nature. Even in your daily life you've no doubt noticed that some people are more likely to repeat negative information than positive information. When some people have a bad experience, they will tell everyone they know, whereas their positive experiences may go uncommented upon. This seems particularly true of on-line reviews. After all, posting a reveiw  requires some degree of effort. Thus, those motivated by a bad experience are more likely to spend the time necessary to write comments. Anyone in any business has seen this happen. Then there is the personality type that tends to revel in the flaws of others. You probably know somebody like that. How would you like it if that person could go on-line annonymously and write whatever he wanted. Guess what? He can.
• Lack of consistent standards: Budget chains such as Motel 6, Econolodge and Super 8, don't offer much and guests shouldn't expect much. But .... how are they graded by on-line users? Should a Motel 6 be compared on an absolute scale against the likes of say a Hyatt or Marriott? Or should various budget properties be compared to other properties in the same league? Then there are geographic differences. Should a property in Lennox, SD, be graded on the same scale as a property in Las Vegas? The point here is not to say how it should be done. The point is that you, as a reader, don't know what measure the reviewer used. 
• Incomplete information: This is best explained by an example. In our market many properties do not offer a continental breakfast. So if an on-line poster rips a property for not having a continental breakfast, whose fault is that? The reviewer should have known there was no breakfast before booking. Duh! More generally, reviewers often make comments about prices and quality without understanding specific markets. These comments can border on the ridiculous. For instance, does it make sense to compare a room in Aspen, CO, at the peak of ski season with a room in Minot, ND, in February? For the record, in February you can get a better room in Minot for $59 than you can get in Aspen for $299. The reason escapes some on-line reviewers. 
• Isolated incidents and mistakes: Nobody is perfect. Hotel staff can screw up. Most often this is manifest as a problem with a room, such as improper cleaning or maintenance issues. We've all heard stories about the dreaded hair in the bathtub, a faulty air-conditioner, or (horrors) a snooty front desk clerk. News Flash! Bad things happen ...even at the best properties. What the reviewer cannot know is how a particular property deals with these issues. Is the problem systemic or isolated? A problem experienced by the guest may have been real, but it could have been a one-off or rare event. On the other hand, if the same problem appears in review after review it's probably systemic and the property managers either cannot or will not deal with it. 
• Novice travelers: It seems to us that the nastiest reviews are posted by people who are obviously novice travelers. Sometimes it seems like these people are novice human beings, too. Yes, we mean children. "Oh, Man, the pool sucks!!!!!" Such comments may be helpful to another 15-year-old, but it doesn't say much about the writer's life experiences. In fact, even some adults who may spend only two nights a year in a hotel can't do much better. Experience is not required in writing on-line reviews and novice travelers often have unrealistic expectations of what a property should be like. Sorry, you're not going to get that $1,200-a-night room you saw on the Travel Channel for seventy-nine bucks. Real road warriors know what to expect when they book a property. They know that if they are paying $59 for a room they're not going to find a mint on their pillow or terry bathrobes and slippers in their closets. In fact, they know they won't even be getting a closet.
• Misplaced reviews: Here is a verbatum quote from a review: "I was sold on the Roosevelt Inn after having visited their website, now I wish I had spent more time looking for other reviews. Keystone is a tourist trap plain and simple. The lodging is over priced and the food leaves a lot to be desired. Take my advice and visit Mount Rushmore but stay in Custer or Hill City, much friendlier and a way better value." The observations may be fair enough, but the review is hardly about the Roosevelt Inn. So, if the guy hates Keystone, why bomb us?  We've seen other cases where on-line reviewers made comments that couldn't possibly have been true. Were these poeople liars or just ill informed? Which leads us to ...... 
• Malicious reviews: One of our competitors received a bad review from a guest who didn't even stay there. The issue? Well, here's what the reviewer said: "During the 4th of July week, we experienced car trouble and we were stranded in Wyoming, attempting to get to Keystone, 1,300 miles from home. I phoned to explain we couldn't possibly get there for the night. They refused to cancel the reservation. For $150, we never slept there."  Why, one might ask, should the motel have to write off $150 in lost income because somebody had car trouble? Was the motel responsible for the car's maintenance?  Most often these reviews arise out of pocket-book issues. For instance, a smoker is charged a clean-up fee for smoking in a room, then he proceeds to trash the property on-line withouth ever mentioning the real issue. Sometimes you can detect the real motive behind a review. Sometimes, you can't.
• You can't please everybody reviews: Here's an example from reviews of nearby motels: "The beds were awful"..."the hot tub was too hot" ... "the coffee tasted like re-heated instant." Well ... aside from being glad that the reviews weren't about us, we happen to know that theses particular competitors run a good motels. Their beds are industry standard (thus semi-firm), they use a major brand of pre-portioned coffee and all the hot tubs should be about the same temperature. So when a reviewer says the beds are "awful" what does he mean? Too soft? Too firm? Inner springs poking through the sheets?  Do you know?  Based on our own experience, we suspect the bed was too firm for the person who prefers a super-soft bed. We also suspect the same degree of variablity in the critique of the coffee. Some folks like their coffee really, really strong -- other's don't.  As for the hot tub, almost every property will keep theirs in the 102-104-degree range. The 2-degree difference IS noticeable!  So, while some like it hot, others don't.
• Fake reviews: Have you ever noticed that some chains have tons of great reviews. Holiday Inn Express and Best Western come to mind but these chains are far from alone. We're carefully avoiding specific properties and we don't wish to imply that this is an organized effort by the franchisors, but consider what might happen: At least once a year -- usually more often -- chains will organize meetings for the property owners. At these events small groups of owners might have informal meetings over drinks, say, or at a dinner. At these socials it is not unheard of that a couple of property owners will agree to exchange reviews. So, guess what? A property in South Dakota gets a great review from a "user" in California. Meanwhile, a California property gets a great review from a "user" in South Dakota. Neat huh? So as you are browsing reviews and you see one or two chains consistently at the top, think about why that might be.

It is too bad that on-line reveiw sites can't do a better job of dealing with these issues. We know they are aware of them. Generally the sites settle for a disclaimer that points out that the "opinions expressed" are not their own. That's it, from then on, you are on your own.

Want to read the good, the bad and the ugly about us? Google "roosevelt inn" keystone reviews then follow the links.