Google Reviews - Please.

[Caffeinator]

Good thing. If his teeth were crap, all the dentist was likely to achieve was whiter crap.

Is it uncomfortable? Yep. A mouth full of keep this nasty peroxide mix away from your gums is never gonna be a first class flight.

Sensitivity. Yep- also routine and variable across different patients.

For mine, it's clear that the guy was grossly under-researched about the procedure and then tried to shoot the messenger. He had it coming.

Perhaps the threat of litigation may mean that some keyboard cowards might think before shooting and if that's the case, bonus.

I'd be very surprised if the dentist didn't want to do the best job possible. Perhaps the mistake was accepting the patient in the first place.

My opinion? I'd be happy to see Google bin the whole review process because it's way too open to abuse. When you can buy and sell reviews and people get sucked in by "200+ 5 star dodgy reviews", the system is stuffed.

[Yelta]

...and 24 hours later Barry's 1 star review has disappeared from Asprodontics google reviews as has the original one that bought court action.


Like magic!

Its surprising what the threat of litigation can achieve.

[Andy]

Interesting to see that "Barry Grinter" has also posted a 1 star review (in reaction to this article and I assume not as a customer)

...and 24 hours later Barry's 1 star review has disappeared from Asprodontics google reviews as has the original one that bought court action.


Like magic!

[pamount]

5 star review left.

[Andy]

I expect that lawyer Mark Stanarevic has/will do well out of this regardless if google play along.

Interesting to see that "Barry Grinter" has also posted a 1 star review (in reaction to this article and I assume not as a customer):

"Sour grapes! Don't offer a review service if you're not prepared for anything negative. Instead of persecuting someone who made considerable effort to provide detailed feedback how about you consider not giving your money to google? I'll be avoiding your clinic on principle alone."

The review in question had a polite reply too:
https://www.google.com/maps/contrib/...405997/reviews

Will be interesting to see the punchline to this... one day.

[Yelta]

"Judge allows Melbourne dentist to try new tactic to more quickly unmask negative online reviewer"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-14/small-business-launches-anonymous-google-review-defamation-case/11963250

Sooner or later anonymous publishers of malicious negative reviews will be held to account.

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Australia's defamation laws are antiquated, vary from state to state, and make publishing "the truth" difficult, especially across state borders.

Truth alone is not a defence. Truth, combined with public interest, can be a defence in some juristictions. Expressing an opinion rather than passing it as a fact can be a defence.

The offending article is libellous if there was malicious intent in publishing it.

Anything written which lowers an individual's standing in the eyes of his or her peers can be defamatory. It's called libel. Anything spoken which does the same is called slander.

Why? Shakespeare perhaps highlights what it's all about in Othello: "reputation, reputation, reputation, oh I have lost my reputation."

Reputation is deemed more important than losing an arm or leg in an accident, and so compensation is much higher

I believe bad reviews became classified as libellous in the 1980s when restaurant critic Leo Schofield gave a Sydney eatery a bad one in the Sydney Morning Herald and was successfully sued.

An offended party may sue the author, editor and publisher.

Newspapers mostly refuse to publish something even if true but potentially libellous because to defend it is going to be time consuming and costly with no guarantee of winning.

Substantive truth is a plausible defense in NSW, without any reliance on public interest. Just sayin. But with respect to publication of stuff on the internet, you're dead right. I was kinda sorta half-associated with a case about 20 years ago that ended up in the High Court largely over a dispute over where publication was effected. Let me just say that the judge presiding made some of those in Rumpole look like absolute boffins

[Yelta]

Australia's defamation laws are antiquated, vary from state to state, and make publishing "the truth" difficult, especially across state borders.

Truth alone is not a defence. Truth, combined with public interest, can be a defence in some juristictions. Expressing an opinion rather than passing it as a fact can be a defence.

The offending article is libellous if there was malicious intent in publishing it.

Anything written which lowers an individual's standing in the eyes of his or her peers can be defamatory. It's called libel. Anything spoken which does the same is called slander.

Why? Shakespeare perhaps highlights what it's all about in Othello: "reputation, reputation, reputation, oh I have lost my reputation."

Reputation is deemed more important than losing an arm or leg in an accident, and so compensation is much higher

I believe bad reviews became classified as libellous in the 1980s when restaurant critic Leo Schofield gave a Sydney eatery a bad one in the Sydney Morning Herald and was successfully sued.

An offended party may sue the author, editor and publisher.

Newspapers mostly refuse to publish something even if true but potentially libellous because to defend it is going to be time consuming and costly with no guarantee of winning.

You seem to know your way around this subject pretty well Robusto, enlightening post.

[robusto]

Australia's defamation laws are antiquated, vary from state to state, and make publishing "the truth" difficult, especially across state borders.

Truth alone is not a defence. Truth, combined with public interest, can be a defence in some juristictions. Expressing an opinion rather than passing it as a fact can be a defence.

The offending article is libellous if there was malicious intent in publishing it.

Anything written which lowers an individual's standing in the eyes of his or her peers can be defamatory. It's called libel. Anything spoken which does the same is called slander.

Why? Shakespeare perhaps highlights what it's all about in Othello: "reputation, reputation, reputation, oh I have lost my reputation."

Reputation is deemed more important than losing an arm or leg in an accident, and so compensation is much higher

I believe bad reviews became classified as libellous in the 1980s when restaurant critic Leo Schofield gave a Sydney eatery a bad one in the Sydney Morning Herald and was successfully sued.

An offended party may sue the author, editor and publisher.

Newspapers mostly refuse to publish something even if true but potentially libellous because to defend it is going to be time consuming and costly with no guarantee of winning.

[flynnaus]

Well worth a read, suspect we will see plenty more of this type of litigation in years to come.
"Adelaide lawyer Gordon Cheng wins $750,000 defamation judgment over bad Google review"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-07/adelaide-lawyer-wins-defamation-payout-over-bad-google-review/11942064

You would have to question the wisdom of taking on a lawyer in an on line verbal joust, and whats more playing the alias game, very much like our dodgy mate has done in the past.

Google "online review defamation" to see all the law companies lined up to get on this bandwagon. Also, have a read of this article and be very careful about what you post online.

[Yelta]

Well worth a read, suspect we will see plenty more of this type of litigation in years to come.
"Adelaide lawyer Gordon Cheng wins $750,000 defamation judgment over bad Google review"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-07/adelaide-lawyer-wins-defamation-payout-over-bad-google-review/11942064

You would have to question the wisdom of taking on a lawyer in an on line verbal joust, and whats more playing the alias game, very much like our dodgy mate has done in the past.

[Caffeinator]

Poor form by both, I would have hoped they would reconsider after they cooled down a bit...

Nar- The reviewer is always right (or so they say...)

[Andy]

They do suck. I received 1 star reviews from a bloke who purchased a cafelat group seal for his machine, took it home and couldn't fit it properly and another from a guy who had to wait his turn rather than push in front of a couple of others.

Poor form by both, I would have hoped they would reconsider after they cooled down a bit.

So the offending review and one star rating has now been removed from Google. You are officially 5 star Andy.

We feel like we deserve 5 star, we put in tons of hours to make sure everything goes out when it should and often before it should!

I do a lot of Tripadviser reviews... ...Can you believe what you read?

Oh yeah, travel sites are the worst. I've stayed in plenty of cheap hotels and well, I expect to get what I pay for. Clean but dated is okay, secure room with a no hassle check-in and I'll give it 5 stars every time but others sook that the wall paper was old and give it one star.
This is someone's livelihood and often an elderly couples retirement income. While it might not be the Marriot it also wasn't $400/night.

There are some miserable humans out there, I bet they drink instant coffee too.

[robusto]

I do a lot of Tripadviser reviews, and of course read what others review there (and on many other forums).
Can you believe what you read?
What weight do you attach to the reviews?

Always a difficult question.

Perhaps it is helpful if you read reviews about a venue with which you are very familiar, and read what others say about it and whether
they aligns with you own thoughts.
(I go to one country Victorian cafe which is always unbelievably spotless, the owner friendly, and yet a reviewer said it was dirty and the owner rude.
Obviously I would tend to disregard what that reviewer says in other reviews.)

I guess you have to read the detail of the positive reviews, how many there are, and compare them to the negatives.
Compare not only the proportion of one to the other, but whether the negatives appear to be from mean-spirited angry types, from people who
appear to know what they are talking about etc.

[flynnaus]

So the offending review and one star rating has now been removed from Google. You are officially 5 star Andy.

However, the reviewer still found it necessary to add gratuitous and perhaps libelous comments about CS in his recent review of another Melbourne based supplier whose name shall not be mentioned.