How to write a review on PropertyChat

Executive summary:

• reviews (both positive and negative) from members who have joined specifically to post them, are not permitted and will be removed
• we will generally accept reviews or comments on service providers from established members who have a history of contribution to the site, provided such posts don't otherwise break the rules
• any post which we consider may be defamatory, is against the rules and will be removed
• we encourage all members - including newly registered users - to post detailed descriptions of their personal experiences, focusing on what they themselves did, what the outcomes were, and what they personally learned.
  • If the focus is on being educational, it adds value
  • If the focus is on causing harm to a service provider, it does not add value and will likely be removed

Introduction and background

With the rapid growth in businesses offering "buyers agent" services, including "property advisory" and other advice based services - we have seen a marked increase in the number of people seeking feedback and posting reviews of such services.

The problems I face as a website operator dealing with such requests and reviews are numerous - but the number one issue I have to deal with on an almost weekly basis, are threats from lawyers representing service providers who feel they have been defamed by comments made on PropertyChat.

I've been dealing with these threats for well over 20 years now, since I took over administration of Somersoft back in 2002. In my experience, the vast majority of the compaints are largely baseless - just because you don't like what someone has to say about you, doesn't necessarily make it defamatory.

However, I cannot ever definitively state that a post is not defamatory - that is up to a court of law to decide, and I have zero interest in defending myself (as the publisher of the site) against claims that I have allowed defamatory comments to be posted by an anonymous third party, regardless of the veracity (or lack therein) of the claim.

If I agree that a post clearly crosses the line and the moderation team haven't already identified the post as problematic, I'll delete the post - it is against my rules for the site to post defamatory material. However, if I decide that the post is a genuine review of someone's experience and likely doesn't stray into the area of defamation, I'll push back and challenge the lawyers to identify exactly what parts of the post are defamatory - which they almost never do because it likely won't hold up in a court of law.

Just as an aside, I have actually been taken to court twice over posts made on PropertyChat - so I'm quite aware of the process and how it works. I also have a relationship with a well regarded defamation lawyer who has helped me deal with extremely aggressive lawyers in the past where their bullying was relentless.

But this is where my next challenge arises - identifying which posters are genuine. The internet is full of review sites containing reviews (both positive and negative) which are made either by people paid to post them - or by people incentivised to post (which includes threats!). Offering someone a discount or some other form of compensation - whether monetary or otherwise - brings the authenticity of the review into question. How can we differentiate between someone who is posting fake reviews for their own profit versus someone who is profiting from posting a genuine review? Is the latter really better than the former if we can't tell the difference between them?

Astroturfing is a massive problem online - this is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organisation to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by "grassroots" participants. Astroturf is a brand of fake grass, hence the term astroturfing to refer to fake reviews. This works both ways - both praising a business to raise their profile, or (typically by a competitor or someone pushing an agenda) criticising a business to cause them harm.

I have no interest in trying to validate someone's authenticity by checking that they are a genuine customer or reviewing invoices and such. I don't want to get involved in any disputes, nor do I have the ability to check that the invoices themselves are even legitimate - it's pretty trivial to mock up a fake invoice. There is no incentive for the service provider to validate things from their end - indeed, privacy laws would generally prevent this in any case, so it's practically impossible for me to conclusively determine whether someone is genuine or not, even if I could be bothered. It also doesn't help identify cases of astroturfing where a business is actively involved in posting or commissioning fake reviews.

I'm not really interested in having people sign up to the site for the sole purpose of posting a negative review of a service provider - even if they are genuine. That's not what this site is for, the user isn't interested in contributing to the community - they just have an axe to grind and are trying to cause harm to a business because they believe that they have been wronged or are trying to force them to provide a refund.

Even if the user is completely genuine - there are always two sides to these stories, and if the service provider is not already engaged on the site or is not interested in replying to random complaints made on forums - then we don't get to hear the other side to provide balance to the argument. That doesn't invalidate the experiences of the user - but it does make it more difficult to justify allowing an anonymous and unverified user to post damaging comments on the site.

I've had a moderation policy on PropertyChat for quite a few years now, banning reviews from new members without any significant post history. This covers both negative and positive reviews. In just the past 48 hours, I've had to explain to four separate users why their posts were removed - they joined solely to post a negative review of a service provider. I don't really suspect that any of these users are less than genuine - but in every case, the posts were clearly intended to cause harm, and could quite possibly have been found defamatory based on the language used, which makes them problematic for me to allow on the site.

How to write a review

At the risk of creating more work for myself, I figured it was possibly worth explaining the circumstances under which I would potentially allow a post to remain - and indeed, how to craft a post that will be taken as a genuine review.

The concept is quite simple: don't make it about them; make it about you.

There is significant benefit to our community to hear people's stories - to hear about their experience, their mistakes, their successes, what worked and what they might do differently next time.

So, don't write a review about a service provider - tell us about what you did, about what happened to you, what mistakes you made, how you managed the issues and what the outcome for you was. Focus on educating people about your experience and your mistakes - not about attacking the service provider. You can't be accused of defamation when writing about yourself.

You can write factual information about what the service provider did or said, and how that affected you and what the outcomes for you were. However, as soon as you start using emotional or aggressive language to describe the events or the provider, as soon as you start calling them names or accusing them of illegal or unethical activity - it becomes very problematic, regardless of how much you've written about yourself. If the entire tone of the post is to try to stop other people from engaging with the service provider, then you're taking the wrong approach. The focus should be on education, not on revenge.

What not to do

Here are some examples of problematic text from posts that have been deleted from PropertyChat in the recent past:

• avoid at all costs
  
• steer clear
  
• stay far away
• I personally wouldn't go near them
• dont go there, they are terrible
  
• do not work with this predatory organisation
• don't buy through them; they're a scam
  
• dodgy
  
• we signed up with these muppets, they were terrible
• rude, condescending, arrogant
  
• I don't think a shower can wash off the filth from this slimy used car salesman
  
• I have been unsuccessful in getting a refund after calling out their lies
  
• they also post fake 5 Star Google reviews on their website from fake accounts, inflating and fabricating their profile
  
• nothing but misleading and deceitful, typical spruiker
  
• they have no morals or dignity, greedy scammers
  
• continually is rude, disrespectful and vague
  
• they sent us forged documents
• our life savings is being held ransom by his lifestyle and shady dealings
  
• they are a bunch of con men
  
• they are incompetent and unprofessional
  
• I would rather lie in a bath of fire ants than deal with them ever again
  
• it's clear the founder has a serious case of Messiah complex and will do anything to continue the illusion that they have the secret weapon to successful investing
  
• a very long list of victims he has swindled millions from across Australia and overseas
  
• one of the most dangerous white collar criminals in this country
  
• nothing but disgusting fraud or criminal
  
• their dirty tricks
  
• do not be the next victim of this ****ing fraud
• couldn't agree more to the incompetence of this person

In a few of these cases, they had largely written well about their experiences and how it affected them - but then ruined it by including the type of language listed above which changed the entire tone of the post from something educational to something clearly intended to attack and likely defamatory.

So while I encourage people to post about their experiences - any use of this type of emotive or aggressive language, or any accusation of illegal or unethical behaviour, will cause posts to be deleted.

To be clear - you cannot accuse anyone of:

• lying
• fraud
• being a scammer
• being dodgy
• being a spruiker
• being a con man or con artist
• being incompetent
• being unprofessional
• being a criminal
• having no morals
• unethical behaviour
• any kind of illegal activity

This is not a complete list - just some examples of what will automatically cause your post to be removed by the moderators.

It doesn't matter if you have evidence of wrongdoing - this is not a court of law and we are not in a position to weigh your evidence or cross examine the parties involved in your dispute. You're not looking for justice - you're looking for revenge, and that is not what this site is here for. You should be looking to educate more than anything else - that's the type of content I want posted on PropertyChat. If nobody can learn anything from your post (other than "don't use this provider" ), then it's probably taking the wrong approach.

I should also point out that posting links to defamatory material on other sites is grounds enough for someone to bring a claim of defamation against the poster and this site (there is legal precendence here!), so such activity will also see your posts deleted.

Regardless of my suggestions above - posts will still be removed if we feel they are problematic in any way, so please be mindful about how you post. I understand the emotive nature of the issues people face - but posting while angry is rarely likely to end well. We do want to know about your experiences - but we want to know what you've learned from the experience, not just who you felt did the wrong thing.

Conclusion

If it's educational and it adds value to the site and our community, I'm going to want it posted here.

 

I've had a few people make reference to ProductReview policies in response to having their posts deleted on PropertyChat. The main difference I see if that ProductReview typically deals with consumer retail products or services worth no more than a few hundreds or perhaps a couple of thousand dollars. Most retailers are high volume low(ish) value and there is generally no implied promise of future performance beyond that which is described in the product marketing. You don't expect that your $2,000 phone will be worth more than it was when you bought it or that you will make a certain amount of income from buying some retail product.

Property investors and property investment advice companies and service providers are dealing with potentially tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars - and typically the implied promise of future growth or income in return for their money. The amount of money at stake and the potential for people to lose everything makes this a very different game - there is so much more at risk, including people's reputation and livlihood.

I have no interest in protecting the bad operators out there - indeed, I wish we could protect people from themselves more readily - but the truth is that not every bad deal was bad or went bad because the operator was themselves bad. Nobody can guarantee what the market will do. Nobody can guarantee that government regulation won't change. And **** happens. It is equally common that a mismatch of expectations leads to someone being dissatisfied with the process or the outcome, regardless of the best efforts and intentions of the service provider. This is why hearing both sides of the story is critical to understanding what actually went on - and even then, it's not always a case that one party is solely to blame.

It's very different expecting that your $1,000 device should do something it won't, or that your dining experience is something that it wasn't - compared to expecting that someone will be able to make you wealthy with little or no risk. But that's exactly what a lot of people do expect - and that's not the reality of how investment works. In some cases, that's the fault of the service provider and their marketing promising things they shouldn't or can't. In other cases, it's simply that the investor doesn't understand the nature of what they're doing or the service they are purchasing, or thinks that paying someone $15,000 absolves them of any responsibility for when they lose that money or more.

When I respond to posts on PropertyChat asking if someone has experience dealing with company XYZ - I typically start by asking them questions. Why are they considering this company? What is it you think they offer that attracts you to them? What do you think you're going to get out of the relationship? Who else have you considered? What is your end goal? etc - there's a million questions that could be asked to try and help the poster think through the issue and understand whether they are even asking the right questions.

At the end of the day, if my $3,000 television stops working and the warranty has expired and it's going to cost too much to repair, I'm going to be annoyed. But if my $500,000 investment purchased for me by my $15K property investment adviser, becomes worth less than I owe and I'm not getting the expected rent to cover my repayments and I'm facing bankruptcy - then this is a potentially life changing event that will take many years to recover from. Having a TV stop working rarely destroys relationships. Having an investment go bad absolutely could.

And then there's the service providers employing multiple staff with all of the overheads that includes, who do their very best for their clients but still have to face bad reviews from unrealistic expectations, maliciously stingy investors who want discounts or freebies for everything, or even just bad luck. Not every service provider is bad and sometimes bad stuff just happens. The risks to service providers from malicious reviews are real and the amount of money involved makes it sometimes necessary (and worthwhile!) to pursue legal avenues to deal with them.

The economics of dealing with low volume high value transactions such as those in real estate makes the consequences of individuals' actions significant, compared to those high volue low value transactions typically found in the retail consumer space.

 

Under Australian law, a company cannot sue for defamation (see note about exceptions below) and most of the reviews on ProductReview will be complaining about a larger company or their products/services rather than an individual, hence there's rarely anything that a company can legally do about such reviews. There is scope for "injurious falsehood" claims - but they are much more difficult to prove given you have to actually prove the comments were malicious and that they caused actual damage.

There are exceptions: not-for-profits and companies which employ fewer than 10 people - particularly if the nature of the comments can be construed as being directed against an individual. This will especially be the case for your typical small businesses that are dealt with in the property investment space - for example, a buyers agent. Even if the individual is not named, these business are generally small enough that comments made about the business are readily construed as comments made about the principal (or principals), such as the directors and thus could be taken as defamatory.

 

The trick with defenses to defamation accusations, is that you have to actually defend yourself, which can be a very very expensive exercise.

 

If an established member were to post a reasonable negative review about any service provider, I would generally allow it to remain posted, regardless of whether they are a business member or not. By reasonable I mean where the poster has gone to the trouble of posting sufficient detail about the issues, without resorting to language that could be defamatory.

Being a business member doesn't provide any automatic protection from negative reviews - but my rules still stand. A member joining specifically to post a negative review about a business member (or any other service provider) would be deleted, and any review which crosses the line and could be seen as defamatory is also going to be removed - regardless of who the subject is.