http://www.epinions.com/content_185230986884

This writer appears to be a travel agent who's passing on information from her clients. The information offered is useful, but isn't it a standard convention in this category that writers are supposed to have stayed at the hotel in question? I suggested she move her review here:

http://www.epinions.com/lodg-topic-warnings
Thoughts anyone? Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for raising this issue. I've taken a look at the review and the first few lines read:-

Not only have I experienced the dreadful Holiday Inn Orlando at Universal, but I know so many others who all understand the inside jokes regarding our stays at this mediocre hotel.

This suggests the reviewer did stay here, although they are also relaying heresay information about the hotel in their review.

In my book, adding heresay information can enhance a review, but shouldn't really form the bulk of it. As an example, in the Cubana Airlines review I'm currently writing, I'm going to include perhaps 50-75 words about what someone else told me about their experience of the airline, but the remaining 2000, will be mine.

Not sure what everyone else thinks?

Interesting subject

Chris

I must have missed that part somehow. I still get the impression that she didn't stay there, but have changed my rating. To return to the question, how does everyone feel about writers who use a site visit to the property as the basis for a review? I honestly don't feel this is enough. I could write hundreds of reviews of hotels I have visited, but unless I stayed there, I wouldn't consider it. Tom

maybe the travel agent knows her clients very well and feels like it is information she feels confident passing along. travel agents take alot of time to get to know their good clients and you get a sense of what is acceptable by their standards. I'm sure she wouldn't have passed along some information she felt was questionable without saying. And if she did then I agree with you. It's just 2nd hand info at that point.