Entreprises · Offres de suppression d’avisDes avis suspects, puis une solution payante : la question sans réponse à Que Onda Wey!Rédigé 30 octobre 2026 à 01:51 UTCRegarderTranscription0:07A negative restaurant review recommended a hot pot business next door that didn't0:10exist.0:11The review targeted Keonda Way, where negative Google reviews were followed by0:15offers to seek their removal for payment.0:16Its co-owner challenged the reviews, and Google removed some.0:19What connects the people posting those reviews to the company offering to make them0:23disappear?0:23Denise Rojas, Valdez says the restaurant's Google rating slipped from four point0:27nine to four point eight out of five.0:29She and her husband, David Valdez, own the Mexican restaurant in Adelaide's Goodwood0:33suburb.0:34Her concern was what prospective customers would think about its quality.0:37She worried people would assume the restaurant had changed management or started0:40cutting standards.0:41Dealing with the reviews also meant gathering evidence and working through Google's0:45complaint process.0:46She described that as a lot of work.0:48She says the emails made her believe she was facing extortion.0:51A company approached her a few days after the first negative review appeared in0:55early October.0:56Further contact continued after she blocked it.0:58By late October, Google had removed some reviews.1:01The exact removal date hasn't been disclosed.1:03The company presented itself as a reputation management business.1:07Its first offer said a review might conflict with Google's policies.1:10Rojas Valdez ignored it.1:12More emails referred to a reviewer named Eric and said the review could potentially1:16be taken down.1:17Payment would be success-based.1:19The sender was offering to pursue removal.1:21She blocked the address and reported the messages as phishing.1:24About five days later, more emails arrived about a different review posted under the1:29name Amelia.1:30The sender had added one letter to its address, allowing the messages to get past1:34her block.1:34Amelia's review complained about high prices in small portions, then recommended a1:38hot pot business next door.1:40There wasn't one next door or nearby.1:42That gave Rojas Valdez a concrete reason to question whether the reviewer had1:46visited.1:46The company said this review might breach Google's content rules and offered to1:50handle the entire submission and follow-up process.1:52Earlier in two thousand and twenty-six, the restaurant had received similar offers1:56through WhatsApp numbers associated with Bangladesh and Pakistan.1:59The October company appeared American.2:01Those contact details don't reliably tell her where the senders were.2:04Rochas, Valdez saved evidence and followed Google's reporting instructions.2:08The repeated contact had continued despite her attempt to stop it.2:12Her complaint then put the reviews before the platform that decides whether they can2:16remain on its service.2:22Google told her it had removed reviews that violated its policies while leaving2:26others online.2:27Nobody has shown a link between the company offering paid removal and the people who2:31wrote the reviews.2:32Google's decision leaves that question open.2:34Google allows removal when a review breaks its rules.2:37Disliking or disputing criticism doesn't qualify.2:40The company doesn't settle ordinary customer business disagreements, and negative2:44feedback can be legitimate.2:45Removed reviews disappear from maps and search.2:48Google also uses automated spam detection, which it acknowledges can sometimes2:52remove genuine reviews by mistake.2:55Rogers Valdez says the rating returned to four point nine out of five.2:59After she described the experience on Facebook, she estimates about ten positive3:03customer reviews arrived that day.3:04Regulars and newer visitors who hadn't previously reviewed the restaurant joined in.3:08Both removals and new positive reviews happened, so we can't separate their effects3:12on the recovery.3:13Google's broader warning describes a pattern of sudden one or two star reviews3:18followed by demands for money, goods, or services to remove them.3:20It advises businesses to preserve evidence and avoid negotiating or paying.3:24Google's Merchant extortion form asks for the affected business profile, the3:28sender's details and evidence of direct demands.3:31Screenshots should preserve dates, times, and contact information.3:34Include links to suspicious reviews when they appeared and when the first demand3:38arrived.3:38Google investigates submissions and communicates an outcome, but keeps specific3:42investigative details private for security and privacy reasons.3:45Suspected spam or irrelevant reviews can go through ordinary review reporting.3:49Businesses can flag a review from their profile and choose the reason.3:52Google says general review evaluation typically takes several days.3:56If Google decides a review doesn't qualify for removal, the business can make a one4:00time appeal covering up to ten reviews.4:02Google has also warned of extended processing times amid high appeal volumes.4:06Its general evaluation estimate doesn't promise a turnaround for an extortion4:10investigation.4:11The National Anti-Scam Center says ScamWatch received a very small number of4:15negative review extortion reports during two thousand and twenty-six.4:18It points to a spate in two thousand and nineteen and only a few reported cases4:22since, while warning some may go unreported.4:25South Australia Police says the scale is difficult to quantify and hasn't claimed4:28the activity is increasing.4:30ScamWatch advises checking suspicious reviews against customer records where4:33possible, reporting them to the hosting platform and avoiding payment or removal4:36links.4:37Suspected criminal threats or extortion can go to report cyber.4:40Scams can go to ScamWatch.4:42Anyone who loses money should contact their financial institution immediately and4:46notify police.4:47Rojas Valdez said she intended to report the incident to South Australia Police.4:51Tea here is no reported payment or financial loss in her case.4:55Google removed some reviews, others stayed online, and she says the restaurant's4:58rating recovered to four point nine out of five.Lire l’articleChronologie de l’histoireHeyDex
