1 post tagged “comentrios clientes”

10 principles proposed by the hotel industry relating to hotel review/traveller opinions sites

1.            Editorial control

Guest reviews will only be published after verification by a qualified editorial staff of the authenticity, straightforwardness and reliability of the entry.

2.            Prevention of manipulations

2.1   The site providers have to ensure that reviews of a hotel be provided only by guests actually having stayed at this hotel.

2.2   Ratings should not be based on an arithmetic average but rather on the statistical median. An alternative solution is to exclude the best and worst 10 % of evaluations from the calculation.

3.            Quality insurance

3.1         Reviews should only refer to the hotel facilities that are actually offered by the hotel. For example, an evaluation of the gastronomic “performance” of a hotel offering breakfast only (“hotel garni”) should not influence the rating of this hotel.

3.2         The hotel guest must be invited to comment exclusively upon the services and offers he actually took advantage of during his stay at the hotel. For example if a guest did not use the spa facilities or the gastronomic restaurant of a hotel, he should restrain from posting a review of these hotel facilities.

3.3         Review sites must provide the user with evaluation criteria, which are

·         Relevant

·         With appropriate levels of detail

·         And commensurate with the characteristics of the hotel.

3.4         The user should be given the opportunity to express the evaluation not only via ratings but also via “open” texts.

4.            No anonymous reviews

In principle, reviews should not be anonymous: the hotelier should have the possibility to react.

5.            Guaranteed minimum number of reviews

5.1   Sites should only make reviews available, when the number of reviews for a specific hotel matches as a minimum the number of its rooms.

5.2       In order to avoid a “chicken-and-egg problem” during the construction phase    of a review site, its provider has to pay particular care in supervising the individual reviews as long as the critical number is not reached.

6.     Harmonisation of rating scales

In order to improve their reliability and comparability, hotel review sites should aim at harmonizing their rating scales, e.g. ascending from 1 to 10. Under no circumstances should star symbols be used, so as to avoid any confusion with official hotel classifications.

7.    Right of reply

In case of a negative review, the sites have to offer automatically, via for instance an email “alert” system, the possibility to react to the hotelier concerned. Such a procedure will allow the hotel to verify and manage guest complaints actively and on-time. When available, use should also be made of the official ombudspersons for the hotel industry and their mediation services.

8.    Legal certainty

Reviews must be truthful and based on the personal experiences of their authors. Hoteliers have a legal right to     protection against defamatory criticisms and untruthful declarations. False factual statements have to be            removed from the sites in a quick and non-bureaucratic manner.

9.    Up-to-date data

Sites should only propose current reviews. After maximum two years, reviews should be automatically deleted.

10.  Indication of the official star classification

In order to increase transparency for the guests, hotel review sites should provide information about the official star classifications of hotels in accordance with the system in place in the country(ies) concerned, including a link to the applicable classification criteria . Review sites should regularly check the stars levels of establishments together with the competent classification authorities.