Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A comparison of hotel ratings between verified and non-verified online review platforms

A comparison of hotel ratings between verified and non-verified online review platforms This study aims to compare the rating dynamics of the same hotels in two online review platforms (Booking.com and Trip Advisor), which mainly differ in requiring or not requiring proof of prior reservation before posting a review (respectively, a verified vs a non-verified platform).Design/methodology/approachA verified system, by definition, cannot host fake reviews. Should also the non-verified system be free from “ambiguous” reviews, the structure of ratings (valence, variability, dynamics) for the same items should also be similar. Any detected structural difference, on the contrary, might be linked to a possible review bias.FindingsTravelers’ scores in the non-verified platform are higher and much more volatile than ratings in the verified platform. Additionally, the verified review system presents a faster convergence of ratings towards the long-term scores of individual hotels, whereas the non-verified system shows much more discordance in the early phases of the review window.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper offers insights into how to detect suspicious reviews. Non-verified platforms should add indices of scores’ dispersion to existing information available in websites and mobile apps. Moreover, they can use time windows to delete older (and more likely biased) reviews. Findings also ring a warning bell to tourists about the reliability of ratings, particularly when only a few reviews are posted online.Originality/valueThe across-platform comparison of single items (in terms of ratings’ dynamics and speed of convergence) is a novel contribution that calls for extending the analysis to different destinations and types of platform. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research Emerald Publishing

A comparison of hotel ratings between verified and non-verified online review platforms

Download PDF
15 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/a-comparison-of-hotel-ratings-between-verified-and-non-verified-online-0Sw2dUMfSj
Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
© Emerald Publishing Limited
ISSN
1750-6182
DOI
10.1108/ijcthr-10-2019-0193
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study aims to compare the rating dynamics of the same hotels in two online review platforms (Booking.com and Trip Advisor), which mainly differ in requiring or not requiring proof of prior reservation before posting a review (respectively, a verified vs a non-verified platform).Design/methodology/approachA verified system, by definition, cannot host fake reviews. Should also the non-verified system be free from “ambiguous” reviews, the structure of ratings (valence, variability, dynamics) for the same items should also be similar. Any detected structural difference, on the contrary, might be linked to a possible review bias.FindingsTravelers’ scores in the non-verified platform are higher and much more volatile than ratings in the verified platform. Additionally, the verified review system presents a faster convergence of ratings towards the long-term scores of individual hotels, whereas the non-verified system shows much more discordance in the early phases of the review window.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper offers insights into how to detect suspicious reviews. Non-verified platforms should add indices of scores’ dispersion to existing information available in websites and mobile apps. Moreover, they can use time windows to delete older (and more likely biased) reviews. Findings also ring a warning bell to tourists about the reliability of ratings, particularly when only a few reviews are posted online.Originality/valueThe across-platform comparison of single items (in terms of ratings’ dynamics and speed of convergence) is a novel contribution that calls for extending the analysis to different destinations and types of platform.

Journal

International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research – Emerald Publishing

Published: Apr 17, 2020

Keywords: Online review; e-Word-of-mouth; Rating convergence; Verified review platforms

References

  • Which future for traditional travel agencies? A dynamic capabilities approach
    Abrate, G.; Bruno, C.; Erbetta, F.; Fraquelli, G.
  • Online review helpfulness: role of qualitative factors
    Agnihotri, A.; Bhattacharya, S.
  • The effect of electronic word of mouth on sales: a meta analytic review of platform, product, and metric factors
    Babić, R.A.; Sotgiu, F.; De Valck, K.; Bijmolt, T.H.
  • A simple model of herd behavior
    Banerjee, A.V.
  • In search of patterns among travellers’ hotel ratings in TripAdvisor
    Banerjee, S.; Chua, A.Y.
  • Similarity and consistency in hotel online ratings across platforms
    Bigné, E.; William, E.; Soria-Olivas, E.
  • A systematic literature review on eWOM in the hotel industry: current trends and suggestions for future research
    Bore, I.; Rutherford, C.; Glasgow, S.; Taheri, B.; Antony, J.
  • Do online hotel rating schemes influence booking behaviors?
    Casalo, L.V.; Flavian, C.; Guinaliu, M.; Ekinci, Y.
  • Are online and offline prices similar? Evidence from large multi-channel retailers
    Cavallo, A.
  • Analyzing conversion rates in online hotel booking: the role of customer reviews, recommendations and rank order in search listings
    Cezar, A.; Ögüt, H.
  • Online social interactions: a natural experiment on word of mouth versus observational learning
    Chen, Y.; Wang, Q.; Xie, J.
  • The effects of online user reviews on movie box office performance: accounting for sequential rollout and aggregation across local markets
    Chintagunta, P.K.; Gopinath, S.; Venkataraman, S.
  • Social influence bias in online ratings: a field experiment
    Cicognani, S.; Figini, P.; Magnani, M.
  • Curvilinear effects of user-generated content on hotels’ market share: a dynamic panel-data analysis
    Duverger, P.
  • Exploiting burstiness in reviews for review spammer detection
    Fei, G.; Mukherjee, A.; Liu, B.; Hsu, M.; Castellanos, M.; Ghosh, R.
  • How online product reviews affect retail sales: a meta-analysis
    Floyd, K.; Freling, R.; Alhoqail, S.; Cho, H.Y.; Freling, T.
  • Feature analysis for fake review detection through supervised classification
    Fontanarava, J.; Pasi, G.; Viviani, M.
  • Measuring motivations for online opinion seeking
    Goldsmith, R.E.; Horowitz, D.
  • Detecting anomalies in dynamic rating data: a robust probabilistic model for rating evolution
    Günnemann, S.; Günnemann, N.; Faloutsos, C.
  • Fraud detection in online consumer reviews
    Hu, N.; Liu, L.; Sambamurthy, V.
  • Why do online product reviews have a J-shaped distribution? Overcoming biases in online word-of-mouth communication
    Hu, N.; Pavlou, P.A.; Zhang, J.
  • Too popular to ignore: the influence of online reviews on purchase intentions of search and experience products
    Jiménez, F.R.; Mendoza, N.A.
  • Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk
    Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A.
  • Emotional expressions in online user reviews: how they influence consumers’ product evaluations
    Kim, J.; Gupta, P.
  • Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors
    Lim, E.P.; Nguyen, V.A.; Jindal, N.; Liu, B.; Lauw, H.W.
  • Fake it till you make it: reputation, competition, and yelp review fraud
    Luca, M.; Zervas, G.
  • The role of electronic word of mouth in reducing information asymmetry: an empirical investigation of online hotel booking
    Manes, E.; Tchetchick, A.
  • Effects of the booking.com rating system: bringing hotel class into the picture
    Mariani, M.M.; Borghi, M.
  • Promotional reviews: an empirical investigation of online review manipulation
    Mayzlin, D.; Dover, Y.; Chevalier, J.
  • Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral footprints
    Mukherjee, A.; Kumar, A.; Liu, B.; Wang, J.; Hsu, M.; Castellanos, M.; Ghosh, R.
  • A test of services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition activities
    Murray, K.B.
  • Asymmetric effects of online consumer reviews
    Park, S.; Nicolau, J.L.
  • The relationship between retailer-hosted and third-party hosted WOM sources and their influence on retailer sales
    Park, J.H.; Gu, B.; Young, L.H.
  • When empathy prevents negative reviewing behavior
    Pera, R.; Viglia, G.; Grazzini, L.; Dalli, D.
  • Illusions of truth. Experimental insights into human and algorithmic detection of fake online reviews
    Plotkina, D.; Munzel, A.; Pallud, J.
  • Social media for large studies of behavior
    Ruths, D.; Pfeffer, J.
  • How does the variance of proudct ratings matter?
    Sun, M.
  • 2019 Trip Advisor Review Transparency Report
  • What drives travelers’ adoption of user-generated content? A literature review
    Ukpabi, D.C.; Karjaluoto, H.
  • Medical innovation revisited: social contagion versus marketing effort
    Van den Bulte, C.; Lilien, G.L.
  • An updated model of travel and tourism purchase-consumption systems
    Woodside, A.G.; King, R.I.
  • Data mining with big data
    Wu, X.; Zhu, X.; Wu, G.Q.; Ding, W.
  • Reliable fake review detection via modeling temporal and behavioral patterns
    Wu, X.; Dong, Y.; Tao, J.; Huang, C.; Chawla, N.V.
  • A comparative analysis of major online review platforms: implications for social media analytics in hospitality and tourism
    Xiang, Z.; Du, Q.; Ma, Y.; Fan, W.
  • Prerelease buzz evolution patterns and new product performance
    Xiong, G.; Bharadwaj, S.
  • Electronic word of mouth and hotel performance: a meta-analysis
    Yang, Y.; Park, S.; Hu, X.
  • Temporal opinion spam detection by multivariate indicative signals
    Ye, J.; Kumar, S.; Akoglu, L.
  • What motivates consumers to write online travel reviews?
    Yoo, K.H.; Gretzel, U.
  • A meta-analysis of electronic word-of-mouth elasticity
    You, Y.; Gautham, G.V.; Joshi, A.M.
  • Manufactured opinions: the effect of manipulating online product reviews
    Zhuang, M.; Cui, G.; Peng, L.