Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

Reply: Corrupt Review Sites


Topic History of : Corrupt Review Sites

Max. showing the last 6 posts - (Last post first)
03 May 2021 18:00 #58


admin's Avatar

Trustpilot is far from trustworthy, and the name questionably fraudulent :kiss:

Quite simply, it's naive to believe that any company would pay to advertise on a website that allowed an excessive number of negative reviews to be posted about their paying customer, which is why so many Optical Express victims have had their honest reviews removed.

2018, BBC 5 live Investigates: 'Fake five-star reviews being bought and sold online.’

Trustpilot responded to the BBC, claiming 'We have specialist software that screens reviews against 100's of data points around the clock to automatically identify and remove fakes.'


The SEVEN reviews shown in this video were ALL bought by the UK clinics reviewed - and ALL reviews posted on 3 March 2012 by ‘Hazel Tyhop’, whose bio shows her resident in the United States!

Yet according to her 7 reviews, she's had surgery at least 5 times in the UK (within the last 12 months according to Trustpilot rules), the other 2 reviews more vague.

Even worse, Laser Vision, London Vision Clinic, and Focus Clinics, have each thanked 'Hazel Tyhop’ for her reviews!

This would be hilarious, if we weren’t discussing fraud by refractive eye surgeons, nine of whom also employed by the NHS!

Google ‘Buy Trustpilot reviews’ and you’ll find plenty of companies ready to help!

'You can offset your unwarranted negative reviews by purchasing positive Trustpilot reviews that match your actual performance level. We at GoldStar Marketing have a network of more than 40,000 testers waiting to help you... You need 10 positive reviews in order to trace a negative rating back to a total average of 4.6 stars.'

'Although businesses owners found guilty of review fraud could face a prison term of up to 10 years or a fine; prosecutions and convictions are rare and seldom policed.

Review Gating is the process of filtering customers before asking them to leave a review for your business. The aim is to encourage reviews from only customers you believe had a positive experience with your company and ask for private feedback (or none at all) from those with a negative experience…

Most of the major review publishing platforms, including Trustpilot and Google, warn against this illegal practice in their guidelines but take little or no action against those companies found to be in breach

These are the companies reviewed and the names of the refractive surgeon owners, but go to the starred websites for details of their colleagues complicit in this outrageous scam!

These are the companies reviewed by 'Hazel Tyhop', and the refractive surgeon owners, but go to the starred websites for details of their colleagues complicit in this outrageous scam, and note that all advertise their fraudulent (bought) Trustpilot reviews!

Laser Vision: Drs Michael Tappin & Rakesh Jayaswal
www.laservision.co.uk/our-consultants *
Eye Correction Centre: Drs Siddartha Goel & Say Aun Quah
eyecorrectioncentre.co.uk *
London Vision Clinic (LVC): Dr Dan Reinstein (spurious use of 'Professor' title)
www.londonvisionclinic.com *
OCL Vision: Drs Ali Mearza, Allon Barsam & Romesh Angunawela.
www.oclvision.com *
Moorfields Private Outpatient Centre: Dr Vincent Maurino
Anderson Eye Care: Dr David Anderson
Focus Clinics: Dr David Allamby
www.focusclinics.com *
30 Jan 2020 20:21 #57


admin's Avatar

Xanthe Gilmore (VERY Creative Content Manager at AxiCom) ignorantly claims, 'In the UK along [sic], the procedure [laser eye surgery] is helping 18 million people a year say goodbye to glasses or contact lenses.'

The refractive eye surgery scandal must be even bigger than I thought, because there are only approx 66 million people in the UK - including children :kiss:

In fact this is total bullsh*t!

And Miss Gilmore shows her level of professionalism having also plagiarised the article on laser eye surgery from Which? magazine's December publication (equally unreliable, as I published at the time) without even acknowledging its source!

And the following paragraph warrants a complaint to the ASA, because its owner (Brian aka Zeus) sold the Lasik-Eyes website in 2013, crowing that I had inadvertently added to its sale value because of my input on the forum which increased views (this was before OERML and the only forum available to us)!

The forum was removed and it became just another corrupt review site for advertisers!
06 Feb 2018 22:58 #56


Gav's Avatar

I have lost count of the number of times I have attempted to post a review of Optimax with Trustpilot. Any time I do, my review is removed the next morning. I have repeatedly reworded them to make them less hard-hitting but that doesn't stop them being taken off the site.

People look to review sites like Trustpilot to draw conclusions and make decisions about these procedures. I find it disgusting that it appears to be virtually impossible to post a review of Optimax that is less than favourable.

Below is the latest response from Trustpilot in e-mail form, followed by my reply. I take it others have had the same issue.

Dear G ******,
As part of Trustpilot’s efforts to ensure that reviews always reflect genuine buying or service experiences, we use advanced, customized software to detect unusual review patterns.

Your review of www.optimax.co.uk has been flagged by our software or our Compliance Team because we’ve been unable to verify the authenticity of it. That means we’ve removed your review from our platform. Note that it’s not deleted, but it’s no longer visible online and won’t count towards the rating of www.optimax.co.uk .

If you believe that there has been a misunderstanding, you’re welcome to contact our Compliance Team by replying to this email. We’re always happy to help.

If you have any questions, please see the information available in our Support Center.

Best regards,

Trustpilot Compliance
Dear Trustpilot Compliance

I can assure you that my review reflected genuine experience. I find it disgraceful the way I have been continually blocked from posting an honest review of Optimax. It appears unless one posts a favourable review of the company, the review is removed. Laser eye surgery, I have found is a dangerous procedure and therefore to not allow bad reviews of a company carrying out such a procedure is in my opinion, reprehensible behaviour.

To say that you have "used advanced customized software" to detect unusual review patterns is obviously to allow you to remove such reviews, and clear recognition on your behalf that your review process is biased. At least you acknowledge it.

You say that my review "has been flagged by our software or our Compliance Team because we've been unable to verify the authenticity of it." I am therefore authentifying it with this e-mail. It is ridiculous that I am expected to jump through hoops, continually rewording my reviews, yet still having them repeatedly removed and then have to e-mail you simply in order to post a bad review about this company. If I had posted a favourable review, would I be required to go to such lengths? I doubt it very much.

You point out that the review is not deleted but is not visible online and won't count towards Optimax's rating. In that case, it might as well have been deleted. The whole point is that it can be visible online and count towards their rating.

And bearing in mind that my life has been ruined by the actions of Optimax, to include an advert for them in your e-mail was a real kick in the teeth and another indication of clear bias.

G ******
15 Nov 2016 14:12 #55


admin's Avatar

It seems that Optical Express are now sending their ‘satisfied’ customers to post on OERML Trustpilot review page!

Earlier this year I signed up OERML with Trustpilot simply to prove a point, and also to get a better understanding of how they allow biased and untrue reviews while deleting negative and honest ones.

Llewelyn1 was kind enough to give OERML a 5 star review this morning - but I didn’t invite him to post, and he’s not a verified reviewer because he has not used OERML services, nor did Trustpilot ask me to verify him!

Marketing info I received from Trustpilot included details about how they can repetitively bombard your customers with emails to post a review - these can be sent hourly until the customer gives in!

And, as Optical Express pay to use Trustpilot's automated invitation system, I find it hard to believe that Llewelyn1 mistakenly posted on OERML.

His post won’t be up for long however, as I have done what OE frequently do when they receive a seriously negative post - claim they have no record of the person (true in this instance)!

I'd love to speak to Llewelyn1 as he says that OE gave him back his eyesite [sic], so he was presumably blind…

OE are missing out on a serious advertising opportunity here - they perform miracles too!

Meanwhile, if you’d like to post a review on OERML Trustpilot page, please do :kiss:

And, if you're unhappy with the results of your treatment at Optical Express, Trustpilot claim they've changed things - so try posting a negative review and see (i) if it stays and (ii) how many positive reviews quickly follow to bury it!

Because this doesn't support Trustpilot's claim :kiss:

05 Jun 2016 12:10 #54


admin's Avatar

Is this woman an OE employee or simply deranged :kiss:

As for it now being 'a frightening experience driving in the dark' - I think it could potentially be a far more frightening experience for pedestrians and other drivers!

28 May 2016 20:58 #53


's Avatar

I may be a bit slow when stats are concerned - after all I only got a B in my maths A level, but I'm puzzled by Trustpilot feedback scores.

How can 100% x 5 star posts = 9.1
78.1% = 9.0

From my calculation100% = 10 (logical assumption)

Therefore 78.1% = 7.8 not 9.0

And 100% = 10 not 9.1

Or am I confused again, after all I tend to get confused a lot - like with the lifetime aftercare promise, eye tests for life, eye plugs etc...