Re the blog entry on the removal of a "bad review" of a restaurant due to threats/bribes/sweet-talking, it sets a precedent for anyone who doesn't like a review to have it removed by similar pressure.

Not having to face the consequences myself, I won't suggest just ignoring them, but they could be given the option of having no listing or reviews at all if they complain about uncomplimentary posts, rather than leaving emasculated good-news only reviews. Anyone who reads these reviews at all can balance the good against the bad.

Sorry, you misunderstood, Alan.

They did NOT object to a "bad review" - one of which I posted myself last year - but to a message complaining about an actual food poisoning, a most serious accusation that can lead to the closure of a restaurant if it's verified by the Hygiene Dept.

It was posted two years ago and the restaurant's management back then didn't care or complain about it. But the new owners did and as they were not responsible for it, I agreed to take the accusation out, allowing them a fresh start and leaving ancient, sometimes bad history behind. I'm considering to do this for all restaurants changing ownership recently, like Aroy Thai and Honey Bee.

Alan, I take offense to your comment about "threats/bribes/sweet-talking" being responsible for deleting the food poisoning allegation:

Threats: I told them there's no chance of legal action. I've run websites for 10 years in HK, I know the relevant laws pretty well.
Bribes: What bribes? I even turned down the free meal they offered beforehand. I've also written that they're NOT an advertiser. As a Chinese-run business who rarely believe in advertising & promotion they probably never will pay for advertising anywhere, relying on free publicity and word of mouth.
Sweet-talking: I've to admit to be suspectible to being sweet-talked sometimes - especially by friends and friendly (no need to be pretty) females - but only as long as it's not against my principles, like free speech. The best way for anybody to "sweet-talk" me is with good facts and good reasons.

Bad reviews - of advertising or non-advertising restaurants - have NEVER been deleted or "emasculated" in these forums. Quite a few of my advertisers didn't like some of the reviews and ratings they got, but had to accept it as I've never deleted any bad reviews. It has cost me money, but so be it. But a re-launched restaurant and new owners should be given a fresh chance and not be punished for the mistakes of their predecessors forever.

Good or bad or indifferent reviews are always welcome and will NOT be censored, as long as I'm in charge. These forums are still free speech for everybody, but criminal issues, lies, personal attacks and very offensive stuff don't belong in here. There's a huge difference between a personal opinion or a serious allegation (food poisoning) that could potentially close a restaurant down or at least severely damage its reputation.

_________________
Click here for Lamma-zine stories and recent Lamma Spotlights of the Week:
Photo, Video, Person, Wildlife, Bird, Artwork.

I wasn't distinguishing between your reviews and comments posted by others.
If they objected on those grounds, it was obviously rubbish, as no one is going to, or can, investigate a two-year-old anonymous comment. I think their fear was of poor publicity; though if such an allegation is substaniated, the restaurant <B>should</b> be shut down. Though from what I read, you have to poison a lot of people before that happens in HK.

It sounded like they tried all three. It was a criticism of the restaurateur, not you. Obviously you could have just quietly deleted the message if you wanted to.

This whole method of pressuring you to remove an uncomplimetary post rather than either ignoring it or replying to it is distasteful, (in a metaphorical sense, of course).,