No evidence of Purplebricks contravening reviews guidelines, says Trustpilot

Reviews website Trustpilot has clarified its policy on postings amid concern by agents over the validity of posts about Purplebricks, stating that the online agent hasn’t breached any guidelines.

Agents have taken to Twitter in recent months to question why certain Purplebricks reviews have been removed and how genuine some are.

Trustpilot said its investigations haven’t identified any behaviour that contravenes its guidelines.

The online agent says all reviews, positive and negative, are validated to ensure they are genuine, and Trustpilot says the firm has reported more four- or five-star reviews than one-star ratings.

In an attempt to appease “a small handful of individuals” who raise regular queries on Purplebricks’ posts and Trustpilot’s policies, the reviews website has issued an open letter detailing guidelines for how posts are monitored.

The open letter says the Trustpilot platform is “open to all” and reviews aren’t pre-moderated, while incentives to leave positive reviews are forbidden. Additionally, it says companies can’t pay for reviews to be removed.

Any company or individual can report a review it believes to be incorrect or libellous.

The letter said: “When reviews are reported by companies they are temporarily taken offline and investigated carefully.

“When those reviews are found to be authentic and compliant they are reinstated. Reviews only remain offline when the consumer does not provide the further information requested after a week.

“Should a consumer’s review not meet our guidelines then they have the opportunity to edit their review to ensure compliance (for example, by removing foul language).”

The letter says fake reviews are treated seriously and consumers can be banned for persistent violations, while businesses can have notices added to their profile or be suspended.

Read the full open letter.

x

Email the story to a friend



38 Comments

  1. Hillofwad71

    What they fail of course to mention is that they pass the role of policing reviews  to Bricks themselves .They are hardly going to investigate the provenance or authenticity of 5*  reviews and remove them So the whole system is flawed

     

    Many have been sugar sweety with the usual mantra of “so much cheaper than the average  agent “at all hours of the  day and night from many reviewers who only make 1 company review . So taken with the experience of dealing with Bricks than any other  company   to be sufficentally  motivated to make a single review at 2 am in the morning

     

    The Bricks police are on the case of a negative review immediately I had a manager on the phone before  9,00am pleading with me to get it removed  Unless you can show  some proof of purchase etc they can remove it For instance   potential buyers who have  problems with the call centre get the full removal treatment

    Report
    1. cyberduck46

      Hillofwad71,

       

      >What they fail of course to mention is that they pass the role of policing reviews  to Bricks themselves .They are hardly going to investigate the provenance or authenticity of 5*  reviews and remove them So the whole system is flawed

       

      Yes, but what’s the commercially viable alternative that allows a comparison of online companies?

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

      Report
      1. Hillofwad71

        Cybs For Trustpilot themselves to authenticate reviews would be a good start

        Report
        1. cyberduck46

          If I understand what they are saying correctly, it is TrustPilot who authenticate the reviews. Also, it’s the only system that makes sense

           

          “When reviews are reported by companies they are temporarily taken offline and investigated carefully. When those reviews are found to be authentic and compliant they are reinstated. Reviews only remain offline when the consumer does not provide the further information requested after a week.”

          Report
          1. Property Pundit

            ‘When reviews are reported by companies they are temporarily taken offline and investigated carefully’ Quick question – Who thinks they treat all reviews equally or just go for the negative ones?

            Report
  2. smile please

    Cannot wait for Peebee’s comments. Buckle In!

    Report
    1. PeeBee

      Just for you, smile please – EYES DOWN…!

      Report
  3. Andrew Overman

    Oh come on PeeBee, we are all waiting. I bought popcorn too!

    Report
    1. PeeBee

      There you go, Mr Overman – but I wouldn’t necessarily open the popcorn just yet

      Report
  4. Hillofwad71

    http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/PURP/13363770.html

     

    California here I come!  Get those doggies moving

    Report
  5. J1

    I spoke to a woman yesterday who sacked PB – she said it was the worst customer experience of her life!!!

    What made it worse was that it took her three months to get her house keys back, and the LPE had just ignored her requests for their return.

    Where do they hold clients’ keys?

    In a tin in a car boot?

    And how do you march into their office to demand them back when you want or need them after they let you down ??

     

    Report
  6. Chris Wood

    Data on the most recent 200 of each ‘Star’ category conducted by PeeBee
     These are the findings:
     5-Star – 32 ‘Verified’; 3 “Reviewer contacted”
     4-Star – 64 ‘Verified’; 8 “Reviewer contacted”
     3-Star – 118 ‘Verified’; 8 “Reviewer contacted”
     2-Star – 111 ‘Verified’; 9 “Reviewer contacted”
     1-Star – 55 ‘Verified’; 38 “Reviewer contacted”
    My take: The higher the score, the least likely to a challenge of report or ‘contacted’ and, the lower the score a significantly increased chance of being verified or reviewed; i.e. In my opinion clear evidence of bias in reporting, checking and policing the system. Add in to the mix that Trustpilot forbid the practice of one company using the reviews of another (as in an independent LPE franchise being reviewed but the review being attributed to Purplebricks PLC) yet seem perfectly happy to break their own rules when it comes to Purplebricks.
    Feel free to raise this with them on social media folks. They don’t appear to like hard facts being aired.

    Report
  7. Robert May

    Unfortunately for Trustpilot when they stay they didn’t eat all the chocolate biscuits the hastily applied brown lipstick sort of suggests  their pants might well be on fire.

    Agent_Peebee, the digital detective, has Reeves and Mortimer syndrome;  he just cannot let it go! for over a year he has been  recording (with screenshots the goings) on and  apparently not manipulations of Trustpilot reviews.  He posts them on Twitter.  Seems the Trustpilot system is so sophisticated it can update screenshots that show how the number of reviews  did not change, at all, in a year;   the number of reviews in August 16 was the same in January 17, May 17 and August 17.  The number of reviews obviously  does change but somehow the screen shots are showing only the latest review totals (can someone get a chainsaw for Pinocchio, his nose is a little overgrown)

    Peebee  can tell you the whole story but I’d trust Rolf Harris to run a finishing school for young ladies more than I trust the Trustpilot review system

     

    Report
    1. cyberduck46

      Robert,

       

      I don’t follow what you are saying. Could you explain what you (or PeeBee) are seeing that you think is dishonest?

      Report
      1. PeeBee

        Watch out, Robert – someone’s bin up all night manufacturing a whole 5h!tpile of ducky-dust…

        Report
      2. Robert May

        I am not saying it is dishonest what I have said is I do not trust the Trustpilot review system  (at all) and so strong is the reaction to  what I have seen, whenever I see a firm promoting itself with a Trustpilot review I look elsewhere.  To me the yellow and black branding of Trustpilot offers the same warning signal as a wasp. The observations of this one firm’s reviews is negatively affecting my opinion of anyone else using them.  Trustpilot won’t bother with a few shouty folk on Twitter but they will listen to customers whose trade is affected by customer distrust of the system

         

        Report
        1. cyberduck46

          Robert,

           

          What I do is look to see how many 1* reviews there are and then look at some of them to see whether it’s a misunderstanding of the contract or whether the contract hasn’t been honoured (in the case of customers). Then look at the number as a percentage of the number of customers.

           

          I personally would be worried about a company that didn’t allow online reviews in this day and age. At least TrustPilot is the same for all its customers. or are you disputing this? I would certainly have left negative reviews about a few of the estate Agents I’ve used over the years but they’re not allowing this for some reason.

           

          What were the specific concerns about TrustPilot that you were getting at above? Number of reviews, “it can update screenshots that show how the number of reviews  did not change” etc.

           

           

          Report
          1. cyberduck46

            >The number of reviews obviously  does change but somehow the screen shots are showing only the latest review totals (can someone get a chainsaw for Pinocchio, his nose is a little overgrown)

             

            Robert, are you withdrawing this comment which appears to suggest dishonest behaviour.

             

            Can you explain what you mean? Can you put a link to the page you are describing?

             

            Report
  8. Hillofwad71

    One acid test  to see if  unverified 5*favourable reviews  remain is for everyone to send in a review along the lines and see how many get removed

    Wayne was wonderful I love their TV ads .I knew straight away he wasthe one for me So much better than the local estate agents who charge a fortune and are not available 24/7 .  Tranquility from Shard End was really helpful in customer services  too she  knew everything about Muswell Hill

    Report
  9. ama18

    Interesting that the timing coincides with the launch of Purplebricks in the USA. Was this more a Joint PR stunt rather than Trustpilot trying to protect its  image?? Time will tell

    Report
  10. jboyslick47

    What a complete joke of a response….. if anyone has been paying attention to the plethora of comments from TP on twitter with various different people / agents the reviews are very clearly being manipulated, there are even cases of the PB staff reviewing themselves.

    The whole thing is a complete joke & makes a mockery of what we do as an industry, I’m not quite sure how certain companies can continue making unfounded claims & manipulating data to suit their own means.

    If you get a good review then great, verify it and keep it there. Dont allow multiple reviews for one transaction (sale or rental) and don’t delete ‘verified’ bad reviews.

    TP are as much to blame for all of this as PB are so must accept some culpability & show themselves as a company that can be respected, as far as I can see their due diligence is about as far reaching as their counterparts

     

    Report
  11. Property Paddy

    WHAT TRUBBLES ME, GOV!

    There are lots of drugs and other illegal things in prisons (apart from the prisoners themselves!) often the prison guards are to blame for turning a blind eye and usually for some kind of reward, like money.

    TP & PB work well together, it could be a symbiotic relationship where they need each other to survive.

    Either way you wouldn’t have prison guards if they had no prisoners.

     

    Report
  12. PeeBee

    Further to the figures that Chris Wood posted above.

    I have also completed an exercise in which I have analysed the 107 1-star reviews which were not tagged as either ‘Verified’ or “reviewer contacted”.

    Of that number,

    Ninety-two of them were responded to by PurpleBricks

    80 of those actually confirmed the validity of the review by stating that they had made contact in some way, shape or form.

    8 of them stated that the reviewer could not be identified by the information given to @Trustpilot and requested the reviewer contact them direct.

    4 of them acknowledged the complaint but did neither of the above.

    I have yet to carry out the same exercise on the 2, 3, 4, and 5-star reviews…

    …but I will.

    I 100% know as a certainty before I do it that there won’t be a 92.5% response score, though.

    Report
    1. cyberduck46

      PeeBee,

       

      Correct me if I’m wrong (as if I need to ask) but am I correct in thinking there are two ways of giving reviews:

       

      1) In response to an email invitation; and

      2) Just by visiting the TrustPilot site.

       

      Do you have separate figures for both of these approaches?

       

      I’m thinking that when a review is provided via the email invitation it is automatically verified (in the view of PurpleBricks) and that it is only reviews from the second category that are flagged as being potentially fraudulent.

       

      Have you considered this effect when coming to conclusions from your data?

       

      Report
      1. Chris Wood

        Where reviewers have been contacted by Purplebricks it’s self-evident that they are customers as PB PLC must have had the contact details for the reviewer unless, of course, Trustpilot have breached data protection rules and supplied PB PLC with reviewer contact information.

        QED, it follows that there should be a statistically similar number of queries for all reviews whether 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 that are unverified. Interestingly, as PeeBee will confirm, where PB PLC have contacted the reviewer, there are many cases where, despite having contacted the reviewer, the reviews are still marked as ‘un’-verified.

        Furthermore, as mentioned previously and above TP are permitting the aggregation of reviews for hundreds of other independently registered companies to PB PLC.E.g. review Jo Bloggs Ltd of Anytown but PB PLC is given the review. Jo Bloggs may be great or, they may be awful but no member of the public will any the wiser

        E.g. A review Jo Bloggs Ltd of Anytown is posted but PB PLC is credited with the review. Jo Bloggs Ltd may be great or, they may be awful but no member of the public wanting to know what PB PLC service is actually like in Anytown will receive useful, accurate information. Given this, in simple terms, the public cannot trust, Trustpilot as it is breaching its own rules and common sense.

        Report
      2. PeeBee

        “Correct me if I’m wrong (as if I need to ask) but am I correct in thinking there are two ways of giving reviews…”

        You’re the PurpleBricks customer – why don’t you tell us how they solicit their reviews?

        Report
        1. cyberduck46

          >QED, it follows that there should be a statistically similar number of queries for all reviews whether 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 that are unverified.

           

          No, that’s unlikely. It’s a well known fact that when people aren’t asked to provide a review they are less likely to review if they are happy. If they hold a grudge then they will make the effort but if they are satisfied they can’t be bothered. Trust me. I was in the business of internet marketing when all this was evolving.

           

          I’m getting the feeling the data that PeeBee has is worthless unless he can split it into the two separate groups. You can’t simply assume the two different sets of data will be statistically similar. He needs to ignore all the data coming via the invite links.

           

           

           

           

           

          Report
          1. PeeBee

            “He needs to ignore all the data coming via the invite links.”

            That’s absolute ******** and you know it.

            What about all those who post reviews having been requested to do it – verbally OR by email/whatever, and simply don’t click the link?

            What about companies who ‘Cherry pick’ their reviewers? (WHICH, of course, is totally in contravention of TPs rules… so obviously those looking for straws to clutch will scream that ‘no companies are going to break those – are they?’…)

            What about all those reviews that have been previously deleted – people who have vented their spleens for totally justifiable reasons but cannot be @r$ed to then jump through the hoops placed in front of them by TP to confirm they have a right to do just that?

            Tell you what – let’s just use the ten reviews you would personally pick out of all those on the site and use them as the definitive guide, shall we?

            I’ll bet you this – EVERY ONE will contain the words “…knowledgable”… “…transparent…” and “…honest…”.

            It’s hard to find ten that don’t in the pile of cherries you’d pick.

            Report
            1. cyberduck46

              >That’s absolute ******** and you know it.

               

              Of course it isn’t.

               

              If you are coming to conclusions about some sort of discrepancy between how reviews are treated then you have to appreciate that a review coming via an invite (a customer) will be treated differently to a review just typed into the TrustPilot website.

               

              You can’t just divide up on a star basis and say something like

              5-Star – 32 ‘Verified’; 3 “Reviewer contacted” 4-Star – 64 ‘Verified’; 8 “Reviewer contacted” 3-Star – 118 ‘Verified’; 8 “Reviewer contacted” 2-Star – 111 ‘Verified’; 9 “Reviewer contacted” 1-Star – 55 ‘Verified’; 38 “Reviewer contacted”

               

              It’s entirely possible that a huge percentage of the 5 star reviews came via the invites so not a great surprise that there were only 32 verified as the vast majority will have been verified by the fact they came via an invite.

               

              Chris’ theory “it follows that there should be a statistically similar number of queries for all reviews whether 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5” is completely flawed. The two sets of data 1) from PB customers 2) from anybody who decided to write a review including made up ones from Estate Agents are going to be vastly different in distribution and handled differently by PurpleBricks.

               

              Surely you can see that and your analysis actually means nothing unless you distinguish between the two groups? Ask Robert May, he claims to have a mathematical mind.

               

              PeeBee your lack of objectivity and an analytical mind is a big problem. Chris Wood and yourself are misleading people. I refer you back to your daily Zoopla calculation figure. What happened to that? Did it finally click what your mistake was?

               

              Then there was the portaljuggling allegations which turned out to be another red herring:

              See http://www.propertyindustryeye.com/rayhans-proptech-news-whyy-purplebricks-is-the-story-that-keeps-on-giving/

               

              and your comment “Oh, mon ami…
              …you have NO IDEA how big the can of worms you have just opened is going to get!
              THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
               

              I’m still waiting for the huge ramifications of your investigation into Portal Juggling.

               

               

              Report
              1. PeeBee

                Oh, dear… how many ‘Ratner Moments’ can one duck quack out in one go!

                “…you have to appreciate that a review coming via an invite (a customer) will be treated differently to a review just typed into the TrustPilot website.”

                B0ll0cks.

                Trustpilot have given assurances on many occasions that all reviews are treated equally.

                Unless, that is, you know different…
                “You can’t just divide up on a star basis and say something like
                5-Star – 32 ‘Verified’; 3 “Reviewer contacted” 4-Star – 64 ‘Verified’; 8 “Reviewer contacted” 3-Star – 118 ‘Verified’; 8 “Reviewer contacted” 2-Star – 111 ‘Verified’; 9 “Reviewer contacted” 1-Star – 55 ‘Verified’; 38 “Reviewer contacted”…”

                B0ll0cks.

                I can – and I did.  Chris quoted me; you quoted Chris – that should be a clue.

                “It’s entirely possible that a huge percentage of the 5 star reviews came via the invites so not a great surprise that there were only 32 verified as the vast majority will have been verified by the fact they came via an invite.”

                B0ll0cks.

                Do you have the slightest idea what you actually meant when you typed that?

                Or how bad that comment actually looks for PurpleBricks and Trustpilot?

                Do you actually know what a ‘Verified order’ is?

                Think you’d better have a read of this – https://support.trustpilot.com/hc/en-us/articles/201819697-?utm_campaign=consumer_verified_order&utm_medium=consumer&utm_source=verified_order_learn_more

                “The two sets of data 1) from PB customers 2) from anybody who decided to write a review including made up ones from Estate Agents are going to be vastly different in distribution and handled differently by PurpleBricks.”

                B0ll0cks.

                You’re just digging yourself a deeper, steeper and more dangerous hole for yourself, PurpleBricks and Trustpilot with every sentence in this post, ain’t ya?

                Care to put a figure on what you refer to as “made up ones from Estate Agents”?

                Care to state your source of information as to the validity of that comment?  Or, is it simply wild supposition on your behalf that any of PurpleBricks’ competitors would stoop so low as to do such a thing?

                “I refer you back to your daily Zoopla calculation figure. What happened to that?”

                I still do it every day.  I just got bored of Tweeting it.

                I could always do a “Back… by popular demand…” jobby with it if you’d like.  It actually makes good reading.

                For example – yesterday, PB’s ‘total’ listings (PB.com) amounted to 32369 at 0715.  According to Zoopla at 0800 this morning, they had ‘listed’ 205 properties in the following 24 hours.  Yet the total listings at 0800 this morning showed a figure of 32320.

                Therefore, 254 properties apparently disappeared from their books in the period.

                IN FACT – while on the subject – the figure on the 9th was 32260.  So an increase of only sixty units in seven days.  However – according to my daily Zoopla checks, 1402 ‘listings’ were recorded on a day-on day basis.

                Where do you suggest the other 1342 have gone, ducky?  

                Or are you going to enlighten me as to what “my mistake” is? – ‘cos I ain’t noticed anything click.

                “Then there was the portaljuggling allegations which turned out to be another red herring”

                B0ll0cks.

                Oh – there was plenty fishy business – but couldn’t say for sure as to whether a ruddy-coloured variety of Clupea harengus was present.

                I am afraid, however, that I cannot be drawn into discussion on that subject.  Read from that what you wish.

                “and your comment “Oh, mon ami……you have NO IDEA how big the can of worms you have just opened is going to get!THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!””

                You have NO IDEA as to what “can of worms” my comment referred to.

                And that ain’t gonna change now.

                “I’m still waiting for the huge ramifications of your investigation into Portal Juggling.”

                Patience is a virtue, ducky.  Clearly not one you currently possess, however – as shown by this perfect example of your haste to quack your post out while the red mist still fogged your mind and choked the ability for joined-up thinking.

                Still… I’m sure you got a lovely warm and fuzzy feeling when you hit the ‘Post Comment’ button.

                Report
  13. cyberduck46

    Robert,

     

    The way I look at it is by looking at the number of 1* reviews in comparison to the number of customers. PurpleBricks have had at least 60,000 customers so you would expect a certain percentage of disgruntled customers and people using their service.  It’s worth checking whether negative reviews are reasonable too.

     

    What were your concerns in relation to the numbers of reviews, updating screenshots etc. ? Is there something concrete or is it that you just don’t like the fact that companies who use TrustPilot can pretty much choose to just flag negative reviews for verification?

    Report
    1. Chris Wood

      Trustpilot make it clear that all reviews must be treated equally when it comes to verification. PeeBees own, initial, investigations suggest that this is far from the case with Purplebricks PLC and Trustpilot.

      Report
      1. cyberduck46

        Chris, can you point me to what they actually say. I know how you like to put your own interpretation on their rules and expect them to conform to your interpretation 🙂

        Report
        1. PeeBee

          It’s on here.  Somewhere.

          https://uk.trustpilot.com/

          Go fish.

          Report
          1. cyberduck46

            >Go fish.

             

            No thanks. Did it last time Chris decided to interpret their rules to suit his own agenda.

             

            I’ll just advise anybody reading this to take Chris’ interpretations with a pinch of salt. It’s Trustpilot’s view that’s important.

            Report
  14. PeeBee

    **BREAKING NEWS**

    Purplebricks now have THIRTY SEVEN reviews on their US @Trustpilot site:

    https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.purplebricks.com

    and it’s only 0620 on ‘Launch Day’.

    Funny, that…

    Report
    1. Property Paddy

      it’s yer prisen guards,

      innit !

      Report
  15. GPL

    TrustPilot ?

    I don’t

    PIMPLEFARTS ?

    I can’t even summon up the energy to comment on them……

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.