Reviews in motion: a large scale, longitudinal study of review recommendations on Yelp

Abstract

The United Nations Consumer Protection Guidelines lists "access ... to adequate information ... to make informed choices" as a core consumer protection right. However, problematic online reviews and imperfections in algorithms that detect those reviews pose obstacles to the fulfillment of this right. Research on reviews and review platforms often derives insights from a single web crawl, but the decisions those crawls observe may not be static. A platform may feature a review one day and filter it from view the next day. An appreciation for these dynamics is necessary to understand how a platform chooses which reviews consumers encounter and which reviews may be unhelpful or suspicious. We introduce a novel longitudinal angle to the study of reviews. We focus on "reclassification," wherein a platform changes its filtering decision for a review. To that end, we perform repeated web crawls of Yelp to create three longitudinal datasets. These datasets highlight the platform's dynamic treatment of reviews. We compile over 12.5M reviews-more than 2M unique-across over 10k businesses. Our datasets are available for researchers to use.Our longitudinal approach gives us a unique perspective on Yelp's classifier and allows us to explore reclassification. We find that reviews routinely move between Yelp's two main classifier classes ("Recommended" and "Not Recommended") -up to 8% over eight years -raising concerns about prior works' use of Yelp's classes as ground truth. These changes have impacts on small scales; for example, a business going from a 3.5 to 4.5 star rating despite no new reviews. Some reviews move multiple times: we observed up to five reclassifications in eleven months. Our data suggests demographic disparities in reclassifications, with more changes in lower density and low-middle income areas. Because our web crawls coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, our data also allowed limited exploration of the impact of mask policies and discussions on reviews.