• 收集来源中已收集 0 份文字实录，新增 1 条资料
  • 播报已发布Springfield Pomona Street fire leaves 11 displaced; one dog dies
  • 持续更新Colorado prosecutors raise concerns over State Patrol investigation delays — 2 个来源
  • 新报道Colorado prosecutors raise concerns over State Patrol investigation delays
  • 播报已发布Gloversville Spring Street fire: Dog killed, home destroyed in accidental blaze
  • 持续更新DOJ asks 57 California counties to help identify suspected noncitizen voters — 63 个来源
  • 新报道CPJ says 43 reporters detained in India over two days amid protests
  • 持续更新Seattle police arrest man after SUV theft, patrol-car ramming and Lake Washington standoff — 2 个来源
  • 收集来源中已收集 3 份文字实录，新增 0 条资料
  • 收集来源中已收集 0 份文字实录，新增 3 条资料

商业 · 删评服务推销

先有可疑评论，后有付费解决方案：Que Onda Wey! 留下的未解问题

阿德莱德一名餐厅经营者借助一个并不存在的火锅店邻居，对可疑的 Google 评论提出异议。部分评论被删除，但与兜售删评服务的公司之间的联系仍未得到证实。

播出 文字 阅读需 6 分钟20 个来源HeyDay News Desk · About usWatch report
与 HeyDex 一起探索

通过 RSS 关注

原语言视频

文字实录 · 正在加载

译自英文原文。

新闻追踪第 3 天

1 篇报道14 家媒体20 个来源

  • 暂无标注日期的事件
  1. 第 1 次更新先有可疑评论，后有付费解决方案：Que Onda Wey! 留下的未解问题当前位置

发布可疑餐厅评论的人，与声称可以收费让这些评论消失的公司之间有什么联系？

这是阿德莱德古德伍德区墨西哥餐厅 Que Onda Wey! 留下的核心未解问题。共同所有人 Denisse Rojas-Valdez 提出质疑后，Google 删除了部分评论；她说，餐厅评分已恢复至 4.9 分（满分 5 分）。但 Google 的决定只能证明评论违反了其评论政策，并不能证明这家提供付费删评服务的公司撰写了这些评论，或控制了发布评论的账号。1

这种区分很重要。有一些具体理由令人起疑：一条评论推荐了旁边一家并不存在的餐厅；Rojas-Valdez 屏蔽发件人后，删评服务的推销仍在继续。这些细节解释了她为何认为自己遭遇了敲诈，但单凭这些细节并不能证明是谁所为。1

一个并不存在的邻居

Rojas-Valdez 与丈夫 David Valdez 共同经营这家餐厅。她告诉 ABC，事件始于 2026 年 10 月初的一条负面评论。几天后，一家自称声誉管理公司的企业给她发邮件，表示可以协助申请删除该评论，因为它可能“与 Google 的评论政策相冲突”。1

她没有理会。随后又有更多邮件发来，提及一条以 Eric 之名发布的评论。发件人说，这条评论“有可能被删除”，并称费用将“在成功后收取”。费用金额尚未披露。这只是提出协助申请删除的服务，并未证明对方掌握了可以直接删除评论的权限。1

Rojas-Valdez 屏蔽了该邮箱地址，并将邮件举报为网络钓鱼。约五天后，又有更多邮件发来，涉及另一条以 Amelia 之名发布的评论。她说，发件人只在自己的邮箱地址中加了一个字母，便绕过了她的屏蔽。1

Amelia 的评论抱怨价格和分量，随后称隔壁的火锅店性价比更高。事实上，隔壁或附近都没有这样的店。与餐点是否物有所值这类意见分歧不同，这是一个可以核实的不符之处，也因此让人有理由怀疑评论者是否到过餐厅。该公司表示，如果这条评论违反 Google 规定，它可以“全程处理提交和后续跟进”。1

在对方试图阻止后，联系仍反复发生，显示发件人并未停止。虚构的邻居也削弱了评论的可信度。然而，这些事实都无法确认评论者的身份；公开描述的邮件也没有证明对方威胁称，若 Rojas-Valdez 不付款，就会继续发布负面评论。评论者与删评服务提供方之间缺失的联系，依然没有得到证实。1

这家公司看起来来自美国，但其实际所在地尚未确认。2026 年早些时候，餐厅曾通过与孟加拉国和巴基斯坦相关联的 WhatsApp 号码收到类似推销。电话号码关联信息无法证明发件人的实际所在地，也没有证据证明那些早前的接触与 10 月的邮件有关。1

Google 的决定实际上能证明什么

Rojas-Valdez 收集证据并按照 Google 的举报指引操作，她形容这一过程“工作量很大”。ABC 在 10 月 30 日报道中转载的回复称，Google 已“删除违反 Google 政策的评论”。回复还明确表示，这并非一概删除批评性评论。1

有几条评论并未违反我们的政策。这些评论仍然保留。

Google 在发给 ABC News 的邮件中如是说 1

这封邮件没有说明删除了多少条评论、它们违反了哪些规定，也没有说明 Eric 和 Amelia 名下的评论是否在其中。邮件没有宣布已认定存在串通或敲诈。Google 采取行动的确切日期并未披露；10 月 30 日是这一结果在澳大利亚被报道的日期，并非已确认的删除日期。1

Google 公布的规则解释了为何必须作出这种区分。评论是否符合删除条件，取决于它是否违反政策，而不只是商家对其提出异议或不喜欢它。Google 表示，不会裁决一般的顾客与商家纠纷，负面反馈也可能是正当的。被删除的评论会从 Maps 和 Search 上消失。其自动垃圾信息检测系统也可能误删真实评论，因此不能把评论被删除解读为对作者身份或动机的完整说明。12

对 Rojas-Valdez 来说，担忧的不只是十分之一个百分点。她说，餐厅评分从 4.9 降至 4.8，她担心潜在顾客会以为餐厅换了管理团队，或在品质上打了折扣。目前没有报道称有人付款、已确认发生经济损失，或计算过生意损失。她所描述的负担，是顾客信心受到威胁，以及为申诉这些评论付出的努力。1

随后，顾客以另一种方式作出了回应。Rojas-Valdez 在 Facebook 上讲述这段经历后，据她估计，当天新增了约 10 条好评，来自常客和此前未曾评论过餐厅的新顾客。她说，评分恢复到了 4.9。由于评论被删除和新的好评都发生了，现有证据无法区分二者对评分回升各自产生的影响。1

有警示，但没有经过衡量的激增

Google 承认存在一种负面评论敲诈模式：一两星评论突然增加，随后有人要求支付金钱、提供商品或服务，作为删除评论的交换条件。这一警示提醒商家保存可疑信息。但它并不能证明每一项主动提出的付费删评服务，都与其针对的评论由同一方制作有关。11

这个案例也不能证明澳大利亚此类事件正在增多。国家反诈骗中心告诉 ABC，Scamwatch 在 2026 年收到的负面评论敲诈报告数量极少；此前一次集中发生是在 2019 年，此后仅有少数报告。该中心警告称，事件可能未被报告。南澳大利亚警方表示，这类活动难以量化，并拒绝推测违法行为是否正在增加，或违法者身处何处。报告稀少且可能存在漏报，因此事件规模仍不确定。1

实用建议比有关事件普遍程度的数据更明确：不要向疑似敲诈者付款或与其谈判，并保存证据。Google 表示，付款可能招致进一步尝试，也不能保证评论会被删除。其商家敲诈举报表要求提供受影响的商家资料、发件人及其直接索要内容的详情、可疑评论链接，以及事件时间线。截图应保留日期、时间和联系信息。Google 表示会进行调查并告知结果，但出于安全和隐私原因，不会公开具体调查细节。11

疑似垃圾信息或无关评论则可通过常规评论举报渠道提交。商家可以在自己的商家资料页面标记评论并选择理由。Google 表示，审核通常需要数天，并允许提交一次申诉，最多涵盖 10 条评论。这一时间估计并非对敲诈调查处理时间的承诺；ABC 还报道，Google 曾警告称，申诉量很大，处理时间可能延长。12 1

Scamwatch 建议尽可能将可疑评论与顾客记录核对，向托管平台举报，并避免付款或点击删评链接。疑似犯罪威胁或敲诈行为可通过 ReportCyber 举报；诈骗则可向 Scamwatch 举报。任何人若遭受金钱损失，应立即联系其金融机构并通知警方。1

Rojas-Valdez 说，她打算向南澳大利亚警方报告此事。现有报道并未确认她是否已提交报告，也未确认是否已展开调查。目前结果切实可见，但范围有限：她对这些评论提出异议，Google 删除了其中一些、保留了另一些，而她说餐厅评分已恢复。是谁撰写了这些有争议的评论，以及兜售解决方案的公司是否与制造问题有关，仍未有定论。1

播出原貌 21 行
  1. A negative restaurant review recommended a hot-pot business next door that didn't exist.
  2. The review targeted Que Onda Wey!, where negative Google reviews were followed by offers to seek their removal for payment. Its co-owner challenged the reviews, and Google removed some.
  3. What connects the people posting those reviews to the company offering to make them disappear?
  4. Denisse Rojas-Valdez says the restaurant's Google rating slipped from 4.9 to 4.8 out of five. She and her husband, David Valdez, own the Mexican restaurant in Adelaide's Goodwood suburb. Her concern was what prospective customers would think about its quality.
  5. She worried people would assume the restaurant had changed management or started cutting standards. Dealing with the reviews also meant gathering evidence and working through Google's complaint process. She described that as “a lot of work.” She says the emails made her believe she was facing extortion.
  6. A company approached her a few days after the first negative review appeared in early October. Further contact continued after she blocked it. By late October, Google had removed some reviews. The exact removal date hasn't been disclosed.
  7. The company presented itself as a reputation-management business. Its first offer said a review might conflict with Google's policies. Rojas-Valdez ignored it. More emails referred to a reviewer named Eric and said the review could “potentially be taken down.” Payment would be “success based.” The sender was offering to pursue removal.
  8. She blocked the address and reported the messages as phishing. About five days later, more emails arrived about a different review, posted under the name Amelia. The sender had added one letter to its address, allowing the messages to get past her block.
  9. Amelia's review complained about high prices and small portions, then recommended a hot-pot business next door. There wasn't one next door or nearby. That gave Rojas-Valdez a concrete reason to question whether the reviewer had visited.
  10. The company said this review might breach Google's content rules and offered to “handle the entire submission and follow-up process.” Earlier in 2026, the restaurant had received similar offers through WhatsApp numbers associated with Bangladesh and Pakistan. The October company appeared American. Those contact details don't reliably tell her where the senders were.
  11. Rojas-Valdez saved evidence and followed Google's reporting instructions. The repeated contact had continued despite her attempt to stop it. Her complaint then put the reviews before the platform that decides whether they can remain on its service.
  12. Google told her it had removed reviews that violated its policies, while leaving others online. Nobody has shown a link between the company offering paid removal and the people who wrote the reviews. Google's decision leaves that question open.
  13. Google allows removal when a review breaks its rules. Disliking or disputing criticism doesn't qualify. The company doesn't settle ordinary customer-business disagreements, and negative feedback can be legitimate. Removed reviews disappear from Maps and Search. Google also uses automated spam detection, which it acknowledges can sometimes remove genuine reviews by mistake.
  14. Rojas-Valdez says the rating returned to 4.9 out of five. After she described the experience on Facebook, she estimates about 10 positive customer reviews arrived that day. Regulars and newer visitors who hadn't previously reviewed the restaurant joined in.
  15. Both removals and new positive reviews happened, so we can't separate their effects on the recovery. Google's broader warning describes a pattern of sudden one- or two-star reviews followed by demands for money, goods or services to remove them. It advises businesses to preserve evidence and avoid negotiating or paying.
  16. Google's merchant-extortion form asks for the affected business profile, the sender's details and evidence of direct demands. Screenshots should preserve dates, times and contact information. Include links to suspicious reviews, when they appeared, and when the first demand arrived.
  17. Google investigates submissions and communicates an outcome, but keeps specific investigative details private for security and privacy reasons. Suspected spam or irrelevant reviews can go through ordinary review reporting. Businesses can flag a review from their profile and choose the reason. Google says general review evaluation typically takes several days.
  18. If Google decides a review doesn't qualify for removal, the business can make a one-time appeal covering up to 10 reviews. Google has also warned of extended processing times amid high appeal volumes. Its general evaluation estimate doesn't promise a turnaround for an extortion investigation.
  19. The National Anti-Scam Centre says Scamwatch received a very small number of negative-review extortion reports during 2026. It points to a spate in 2019 and only a few reported cases since, while warning some may go unreported. South Australia Police says the scale is difficult to quantify and hasn't claimed the activity is increasing.
  20. Scamwatch advises checking suspicious reviews against customer records where possible, reporting them to the hosting platform, and avoiding payment or removal links. Suspected criminal threats or extortion can go to ReportCyber. Scams can go to Scamwatch. Anyone who loses money should contact their financial institution immediately and notify police.
  21. Rojas-Valdez said she intended to report the incident to South Australia Police. There's no reported payment or financial loss in her case. Google removed some reviews, others stayed online, and she says the restaurant's rating recovered to 4.9 out of five.

来源

20 个来源14 家媒体1 篇通稿

来源地图

追溯本篇报道的依据。图谱展示其关联；下方链接可打开本文引用的来源。

来源图谱将在您阅读时加载。

探索完整的新闻编辑室图谱 ↗

译文更新于

修订记录

  1. r1首次发布。