Knowledgeistics

Continued from http://www.knowledgeistics.com/2009/05/how-big-of-a-problem-is-astro-turfing/

The Bad News:

Information sources sometimes have a conflict of interest
Sites that feature reviews or consumer information are known to accept payment for manipulation of supposedly “user-generated” content, or allow third parties to do so. Heavyweights like Amazon, Yelp, and Ripoff Report , among others, have been implicated as such. These outlets have an economic incentive to manipulate the content, as well as prevent users from detecting the manipulation.

Conclusive detection of astro-turf can be hard or impossible
Supposing an information outlet would only allow the posting of positive user reviews after payment, proof would be hard to come by, and the content itself would be genuine, if not representative. Further, without serious technological sleuthing, isolated and credible instances of astro-turfing may be hard or impossible to detect. When the total set of reviews is small or non-existent, one convincingly written advertisement-cum-genuine testimonial can effectively stuff the ballot box. In cases such as these, without telltale signs of astro-turf, the misrepresentation may pass.

Nothing is stopping the astro-turfers
An unsuccessful astro-turfing attempt often results in a cascade of bad publicity. However, these instances are relatively rare. Furthermore, a sincere-seeming apology to users can sometimes make “better to ask forgiveness than permission” an apt motto. While astro-turfing may violate the TOS of some sites, and be removed when detected, this is by no means a sure thing. Most likely, an astro-turfer won’t run across any resistance, and in the unlikely event that they do, they may be able to salvage their reputation regardless. Unfortunately for those interested in unbiased information, the costs are low and the benefits potentially large for astro-turfing.

So, is astro-turf a real problem? It certainly complicates things, and requires a careful researcher to take all “user generated data” with a grain of salt. By injecting bias into the information, marketers remove value for users and make researchers’ jobs harder. That said, it doesn’t warrant full-scale panic or despair. The bias of astro-turf is unlikely to generally subsume true consumer opinions, by virtue of sheer numbers, combined with careful detection of fishy information.

While it would certainly be desirable to do away with astro-turf, expanded legislation is unlikely to produce effective enforcement, consumer pressure is unlikely to increase the cost of dishonesty to the point where it is not a viable policy, and consolidation of media into electronic formats will only increase the potential value of the practice. While watchdog groups like the BBB and Consumerist.org are able to provide a check on bad behavior, caveat emptor remains good advice.

Comments are closed.