I am a super host with over 146 - 5 star reviews and I cannot understand how a guest who breaks the rules, disrespects your home, sneaks in extra guests and leaves past check out time, is allowed to leave a review. If a guest breaks the rules they should not be able to leave a review.
Some justifiable evidence of the rule breaking would need to be provided and this should go hand-in-hand with the hosts controlling the security deposit too if they specified one.
I'm sure that unscrupulous hosts exist but this 'Hosting' forum where many guests contribute too don't indicate that there are anything like as many guests disgruntled by the review process or even mentioning bad hosts.
It would be a rarity to obtain a review stating "The host found out we snook 2 more people in and charged us... hey, but that was fine, the home was fantastic, it had great amenities, was really close to all tourist sites so the added cost was well worth it for our benefit " Instead, add the actual reviews received replacing the italic text as the reality.
@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 If a consumer is putting enough thought into their decisions to actually read reviews, chances are they can also take the disingenuous outlier reviews with a grain of salt.
What's the benefit in pre-emptively censoring people just because you anticipate a negative comment? A system in which this was normal would be one in which reviews were altogether worthless, as a sea of uniform positivity gives the consumer no useful means to make a decision. If it weren't for Airbnb constantly besieging hosts with anxiety-inducing threats over their banal numeric scores, I don't think we'd see so many people freaking out over reviews here. If anything, the presence of a bad comment casts all the good ones into sharper relief, and makes the enterprise feel more genuine.
A civilised society is based on rules. Where you might not agree to them as your opinion might be based, that doesn't make your opinion acceptable in the wider society.
There is no pre-emptive case. Where rules exist and agreements are made there can be only one acceptable outcome. Normally, this is supervised by an impartial party who evaluates the evidence and then forms a judgement. It is then that the issue is solved and ended. This is not then needing to be re-evaluated by multiple individuals based on review information that cannot even factually mention some transgressions, the likes of drugs, smoking, sex and bodily functions immediately come to mind - you mentioned - from a recent thread, even where some of these were confirmed occurring by a third party.
Judgements based on evidence result in consequences.
Asking for a change to an existing skewed review process as here as @Raquel24 suggests would be a great start to fix the system.
Review problems here are not based on rules and agreements and "Content Policy" like they should be, instead they're based on "Help articles" which are skewed watered down versions of Terms which are ACTUALLY the terms which all members agreed to adhere to as well as a restriction on not ACTUALLY mentioning any transgression! Skewing the terms and oppressing hosts in this way only provides an environment in which undesirables can exist and thrive without those consequences a civilised society would normally impose.
1 in 146 retaliatory reviews is still one too many (if that was to be the case) as in @Raquel24 case, but that 1 retaliatory review in 2 would be catastrophic. Neither are would justify the review in the first place. Sucking it up is just not good enough.
I agree the broken rules need to be proven, in my case they were. Messages clearly indicate the guest brought in extra guests unpaid, and even gave them my address to arrive when she was out for the day. And she left leaving these unpaid guests behind and they were in fact the ones to check out late and didn't clean up after themselves as the rules state.
But the main issue is and this appears to be missed by some of the comments, if a guest breaks a significant rule or is dishonest and evidence proves this, Airbnb should forfeit their right to a review because it has been established that they are not trustworthy. That is the key point here.
I have been extremely lucky to have great guests 99% of the time but the very few that are dishonest and try to cheat hosts are in my opinion not worthy of the responsibility of leaving honest reviews.
@Raquel24I am going through a similar situation right now, and also agree,-- once it has been established that guests are not trustworthy, (breaking rules and lying seem to be key here), they should not be allowed to leave a review. In my case, after calling my guest out on 2 sneak-ins, she has accused me of numerous things. Prior to this, she was all sunshine and roses! https://community.withairbnb.com/t5/Hosting/Is-It-Time-to-Boycott-Airbnb-s-Anti-Host-Stance/m-p/1106...
I keep wondering if Airbnb CS people actually READ all messages between host and guest when a problem arises...
To be fair,--I also feel it should work the same way for hosts,--if it can be established that a host is dishonest, they too should not be able to leave a review. Funny part is, if a host was dishonest, my guess is they would be banned immediately from the platform. Not so with guests.
You original posting was more global about break the rules lose the ability to review.. That is what some of us are reacting to. I certainly agree with your current elaboration on the point of provable rule breaking and losing the review option. I think the whole right to review process needs to be looked at, actually.
@Linda108 I don't think your post was to me, however I believe that @Raquel24 's intent was more that how would you ever possibly confront a guest about breaking any rules and not have that influence the host/guest relationship and sour the review?
Real grown up people could cope with this scenario, but in the rule breaking fraternity we do need to remember who is being dealt with.
Et encore tu a de la chance avoir une belle propriete avec un prix eleve.
Moi vue que je loue a petit prix dans un cartier sordide .se que je precise dans annonce .je aurez jamais plus de 3 ou 4 etoiles de moyenne meme me je suce et que j'avale .car sa attirre que des clients a probleme .car sait des petit prix
@Ian-And-Anne-Marie0 There are a lot of changes I would make in the review process, if Airbnb were actually taking suggestions on that (it's not). First and foremost, I would eliminate the star ratings altogether. There are plenty of ways to derive calculable data from qualitative assessments without using clunky, arbitrary numbers and pixels (Yes/No questions are quite a bit more effective at getting to the points that the itemized star ratings address).
I would also add in a mechanism to flag reviews left in the context of a payment dispute, cancellation, or eviction, in the same way that Host Cancellations are automatically flagged on a listing.
What I would not do is categorically remove the right for any party to review the other. Sorry @Raquel24 , I can see where you're coming from and how this feels unfair, but one individual's belief that another is untrustworthy does not strike me as an ethical justification for censorship. Bearing in mind that disputes over these matters often result in both parties' reviews being removed, implementing your suggestion could ultimately result in depriving you as the host of the opportunity to warn other hosts about these guests' behavior.
@Branka-and-Silvia0 is right - when it's clear that a guest is violating your rules to this degree during their stay, the consequence should be immediate removal from the property. The review is the least of your worries.
It is not just a belief when rules are broken and where there is evidential proof of a discretion. It is then fact.
I wouldn't suggest an arbitrary review block but I would one which could be substantiated by being backed up by evidence.
Having a review blocked in this way would need assurances that the host would not then be retaliatory themselves with a free rein so a default review would be provided for the guest of little detail like:
1. Review suspended due to guest breaking rental agreement or house rules
2. Review suspended due to guest breaking rental agreement/rules having paid appropriate charges
3. Review suspended due to guest breaking rental agreement/rules not paying appropriate charges
You are trying to defend yourself on making a questionable point earlier. I have had guest who used drugs on premises, smoking. Made lot of noise in quiet hours, fight, broken fixtures. Checking out very late causing other guest to wait on the street side, leaving water hose running at full blast for the entire night, maliciously destroy my property to make evidence and worst of all refused to pay Airbnb for the entire reservation. Even refused to communicate with Airbnb CS. The law in every country is different, once a guest spend a month in my premises they cannot be evicted without the host going to court, worst if they have children. I am speaking about guest who washed cars using my neighbors pipe and hose. Ignoring my house manual plus other stuff. i even watched one of my guest smoked beside the gas cylinder at the back of the premises. Honestly speaking i do respect your point of view but based on my experience you are talking nonsense.
@Ricardo741 Are you sure this post is in the right place? Your situation does sound troubling but it's not clear what point you're trying to make in relation to this topic.
For what it's worth, though - when tenancy rights kick in after 30 days in your jurisidiction, your "guest" is legally a tenant, and you are effectively a landlord. Why would you choose to take a long-term booking through Airbnb under these circumstances?
This prove to me that many people are not intune with the macro levels of things in hosting here on Airbnb. I would advise people to research the topics so that they will open their eyes why we will always believed that dishonest guest should be penalized in some way and bared from installing doutb in potential guest. And aslo to damaged the image of a persons property or business. The host have way more to loose. They are suffering most of the times