Sorry to bother, but due to my permalink changr this track back gives a 404 (-:

Great seeing you if only briefly at Supernova.

I’m working on this very problem to a small degree with a project of mine. The idea is to build a series of guide by business people – for business people. Guides more in the Zagats model than the long form reviews ala nytimes or Yelp.

I’ve also just recently learned about wcities which appear to sell the same set of reviews and listings to a very large swath of the online travel sites (which is why, for example, most of them do not seem to list Sarabeth’s Upper West Side location – though it is one of the best places in NYC for breakfast, nor do they list the also great Fairways on the upper west side whose 2nd floor cafe is fantastic).

So my thesis is that while the single voice guide (usually limited to either a small set of cities or a very specific topic) is great – that a possible alternative is a guide which has a very specific purpose and focus.

Yelp or Tripadvisor are trying to address everyone (as is to a large degree Zagats).

In contrast guides such as Lonely Planet or Rough Guides have a very specific (and in those cases nearly the same) audiance in mind – so can be usually richer and more reliable for that audience (but also not very useful if you are not traveling on a budget).

We should have the guides site up later this summer – I’ll make sure to send you a link. The basic concept is something akin to a wiki – but with some editorial layers and likely easier to use tools than most wikis.

The issue of “friends of the chef/owner” etc is one which plagues nearly all online review and discussion forums. In online food discussion (I was active on Chowhounds for many years, then 3 years ago on http://lthforum.com a site friends in Chicago set up as an alternative to chowhounds). On Chowhounds there was a rule of banning of “shills”. LTHForum took a related approach but also had space for the professionals to contribute – just in spaces that were clearly indicated for that purpose.

I think there is a value and role for engaging with the restaurants (& hotels etc) directly. For one, they are in the best position to verify information such as hours of operations, specials, current menues, capabilities & capacities etc.

But the editorial content – the reviews & discussions should be isolated from that involvement.

I also personally find – for me at least – that 100’s of different reviews (ala Yelp etc) are a bit exhausing and overwhelming to go through – and I find myself tiring of reading about people’s dates (on Yelp in particular). Plus I almost always get the sense that my interests and those of most of the reviewers differ pretty radically.

An important but difficult topic.

Shannon

Indeed, friends in the know should be an option, and if you had a site that showed where your friends had been it would make it that much easier. That is why we started TripConnect.com, which is based on discovering who in your network has been to a location then tapping in to that knowledge to get advice from someone who really understands your tastes. Beyond your immediate circle of friends you can form “invite only” groups or join groups based on activities and interests.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118065569116920710-search.html?KEYWORDS=tripadvisor&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month

It seems like there are three ways to “qualify” ratings and reviews:

1. People I know
2. People like me (as determined by collaborative filtering
3. People like me (as determined by their self description

Each have pros and cons, and each relies on a large underlying corpus of reviews to be able to cull from

If you send me a private e-mail I have an invite for you regarding this subject.