Reviewing the practice of Reviewing
A Historical Analysis of the Affordances and
Regulatory Paradigm of TripAdvisor
Nadine L
Supervisor: Esther Weltevrede Second Reader: Michael Stevenson
Master of Arts: New Media & Digital Culture Universiteit van Amsterdam
29th June 2018 Abstract
Software studies aim to investigate what software is suggestive of and to identify the sociality of software design. This thesis contributes to this broad methodological approach by combining the methods of technography and historiography to investigate the relationship between platform interface design and sociality. This method is applied to a case study researching the regulatory paradigm of TripAdvisor and how this is afforded within the practice of reviewing. A historical content analysis is made with use of the Internet Archive to draw conclusions about how affordances and the regulatory paradigm have shaped the practice of reviewing over time. Throughout the years TripAdvisor has boiled down the degree of freedom that was once found within reviewing and has strategically developed a ‘funnel’ through which users can place a review and one that TripAdvisor benefits from. The practice of reviewing has evolved into a rating machine contributing to a ranking culture found on TripAdvisor, compares to an open space travel community platform it started out as. This research has helped confirm the theory of platform politics and has shown how TripAdvisor has grown into one of the most important intermediaries in the travel industry.
Key Words
Technography, Historiography, Software-studies, Reviewing, Platform, TripAdvisor, Affordances
Chapter 1: Introduction ………..p.4 Chapter 2: Theoretical
Framework
………..p.7
2.1: Studying the Political ………..p.7
2.2: Investigating the Technical ………..p.10
2.3: Affording a ‘Good’ Review ………..p.13
2.4: A Holistic Approach ………..p.15
2.5: Past Actions Form Current Decisions ………..p.16 2.6: TripAdvisor – Reviewing Machine ………..p.17
Chapter 3: Methodology ………..p.21
3.1: Technography ………..p.21
3.2: Historiography ………..p.21
3.3 Research Design ………..p.22
Chapter 4: Case Study ………..p.27
4.1: Period 1 – In Search of an Identity ………..p.27 4.2: Period 2 – Capitalizing Focus ………..p.33 4.3: Period 3- Reviewing is Everything ………..p.37
4.4: Period 4 – The ‘Sweet’ Spot ………..p.38
4.5: Period 5- Re-Organisation ………..p.42 Chapter 5: Discussion ………..p.49 Chapter 6: Conclusion ………..p.52 Chapter 7: Bibliography ………..p.53 Chapter 8: Appendix ………..p.57 Chapter 1. Introduction
It needs to be said that this is not a thesis about the trustworthiness of reviews on TripAdvisor, nor is it an analysis of the fake review business. It is acknowledged that the influence of TripAdvisor is tremendous and irrevocable on the travel and restaurant industry. This is due to the value that lies in the reviews found on the platform. Reviews are game changers. In today’s online world the quality of the review is almost equal to the success of a restaurant, hotel or anything for that matter. Five star reviews correspond to a five star hotel, so to speak. However, with freedom, opportunity and little consequence comes temptation. ‘Review brushing’ and ‘self-injection’ are methods that surface when delving into the tempting world of fake reviewing. Businesses can promote themselves, by writing positive fake reviews or bring down competitors with the use of negative fake reviews. Good reviews can lead to an increase in ranking on the platform, which attracts more customers. By no means does this suggest that all reviews on TripAdvisor are insincere, it is an issue that the platform is faced with today and due to multiple scandals appearing in the news it is a current topic of discussion. For example: the FIFA World Cup 2018 taking place this summer, Russia is expecting a huge tourism boost with visitors from all over the globe. Russian restaurants and hotels are on their toes preparing to make use and profit from this rare occasion. What has resulted from this is situation is the emergence of fake review services with the promise to boost the TripAdvisor rankings of establishments, making them more attractive for tourists. An example is the Bacon Agency, a Russian marketing company promise they can “circumvent TripAdvisor’s algorithm for detecting fraudulent posts and publish reviews in foreign languages ahead of an influx of fans from abroad” (Ivanova & Shumina). Another recent scandal related to fake reviewing was an experiment by Vice presenter Oobah Butler who in December 2017 revealed he had pretended to be a restaurant owner on TripAdvisor and had added fake establishment ‘The Shed at Dulwich’ to the platform (Vice). In a short period of time his restaurant of make-belief had reached the number one ranking in London. How? With biased reviews praising the (non existent) service, food and ambiance of the restaurant adding up to become the best culinary experience in town. Butler invited friends in on his secret experiment asking them to leave behind a fake review. With reviews being posted by a wide audience the written accounts and ratings of the reviewers seemed real and believable to the outside world, including TripAdvisor itself. Butler proved the value that lies in the practice of reviewing and the effect it can have on a business, even if it does not even exist.
Again, this thesis is not about fake reviewing but this prevailing topic of concern is rooted in the inevitable value of reviews for businesses. TripAdvisor plays an iconic, intermediary role between customers and the travel industry. The platform has given a voice to customers and has created transparency in their experiences for the world to see. TripAdvisor has brought to life the value of travel reviews and vice versa; traveller reviews have shaped the platform of TripAdvisor to what it is today.
The angle of this thesis is directed at an internal perspective on the platform of TripAdvisor and will explore how the practice of reviewing has been shaped throughout the years. This research abides to the principles of ‘software studies’ (Bucher) and poses the question what is software suggestive of and what norms and values does it suggest. In doing so an affordance approach acts as a lens in observing the platform’s development of intended usage since it first appeared online. This gives insight into the ‘edges’ (Gillespie) of the platform and the extent the possibilities available for the user. Understanding affordances helps determine the underlying motivations of its regulatory paradigm and where TripAdvisor places constraints and limits. Therefore, the research question of this thesis is: How have affordances and the regulatory paradigm of TripAdvisor shaped the practice of reviewing over time?
This thesis contributes to current research by using a combination of specific methods to study how the practice of reviewing has been given shape by TripAdvisor throughout the years. The method of research is a technography (Bucher), which provides an in depth comprehension of the practice of reviewing and a historiography to provide past evidence which can contribute to understanding the present format of the practice of reviewing. This technographic approach includes a historiography of TripAdvisor’s policy texts together with an interface analysis of the practice of reviewing and flagging. In approaching this research with the use of different methods it will be aimed to provide a holistic understanding of the practice of reviewing and thus contributing to the field of software studies.
The reason for structuring this research according to this technographic and historic approach is to generate a comprehensive understanding of what makes a good review in the eyes of TripAdvisor and the underlying motivations of the platform. Thus, being able to reach a conclusion that understands how the high value concept of reviewing has been and is shaped by the platform. This research is not limited to the opinion that TripAdvisor has shaped the
practice of reviewing as we know it but that the concept of reviewing has also in some ways shaped the TripAdvisor platform itself.
The theory of this research is grounded within platform studies (Bogost & Montfort), which understands the concept of platforms in relation to cultural and societal aspects. This links to the methodological approach of this research, as platform studies entail the idea that the platform is built upon certain ideologies and that this is found within the technological aspects. Gillespie is also a contributor to the field of platform theory and uses the notion of ‘platform politics’, which discusses the way media platforms negotiate the interests of different stakeholders. In the case of TripAdvisor this would be between the content producers (reviewers), end-users (review readers), businesses (the ones being reviewed) and advertisers (who feed off the interaction on the platform). The way in which TripAdvisor interacts with these different stakeholders can give insight to the norms and values of the platform. In critically analysing different academic angles in relation to platform theory, this thesis will develop a perspective that best supports the research in understanding how the practice of reviewing is shaped.
Chapter 2. Theoretical Framework
This literature review will aim to position the research within the current academic discourse within the field of platforms. In approaching a platform centred research this paper will take into account two strands on understanding platform studies. Following a similar approach to Weltevrede & Borra and Anne Helmond who have highlighted a dual approach in order to divide platform studies into platform politics and the perspective that “regards platforms as architectures to be built upon” (Weltevrede & Borra 1). This paper will once again put these perspectives side by side and will try to seek how the practice of reviewing can be understood from a political perspective as well as an architectural approach which is focussed on “specific uses of their features” (Weltevrede & Borra 1). To arrive at a theoretical conclusion concerning the research question: How have affordances and the regulatory paradigm of TripAdvisor shaped the practice of reviewing over time? It is interesting to see how these two strands within platform studies contribute in understanding how the practice of reviewing on TripAdvisor has been shaped. This can show how this case study can be taken to more depth throughout the rest of the research or in other words where the current theory is lacking to help provide answers. Considering that both approaches recognize the idea that platforms are built for certain practices and that their features are designed to afford these practices (Weltevrede & Borra 1), it can be said that the theory of affordances acts as a lens to define the “relationship between the technical and the social” (Weltevrede & Borra 1). Thus affordance theory points to the technical representation of the practice of reviewing, in relation to its social implications and meaning. Looking at what is afforded within the practice of reviewing can also give insight to what is not afforded or what is prohibited and where freedom of usage is contoured. This idea is also referred to as the ‘edges’ of the platform; a term coined by Gillespie in his work The politics of ‘platforms’. Gaining knowledge about the ‘edges’ of TripAdvisor can be an indication of the regulatory paradigm that TripAdvisor has put in place and how it has shaped the practice of reviewing.
2.1 Studying the Political
In Gillespie’s contribution The politics of ‘platforms’ he aims to define new media platforms in terms of politics and puts into perspective the question of responsibility to the key stakeholders of the platform (348). In other words this can be framed as: how platforms seek to negotiate the value and different interests to the different constituencies involved in the
platform (348). Bratton is a scholar whom also follows idea and perceives platforms as having a “powerful institutional role” (41) focussed on its economic model and governing logics (42). Platform politics tackles discussions of legislation and liability and how platforms “strike a regulatory sweet spot between legislative protections that benefit them and obligations that do not” (Gillespie 348) ultimately feeding the value of the service the platform offers for different stakeholders. Platform politics thus offers the theoretical insight that platforms can be seen as negotiators or mediators of value between the interests of different constituencies. TripAdvisor can be placed within this train of thought and can be seen as having an intermediary position negotiating the interests of the different constituencies of the platform. This research is not aimed at examining the intermediary role of TripAdvisor per se; however understanding what the different constituencies of TripAdvisor are and the value they seek can help determine the underlying motivations of the platform and how this has influenced the practice of reviewing.
As an intermediary, TripAdvisor has different value propositions (Osterwalder) towards different stakeholders. The three main constituencies that TripAdvisor serves are; readers of reviews (e.g. people that are going to travel), writers of reviews (e.g. people that have travelled) and the businesses (hotels, restaurants, attractions, etc.). For travellers or readers of reviews TripAdvisor aims to aid in planning the best possible travel experience by minimizing risk through traveller reviews based on people’s prior experiences (Uenlue, 2018). Travellers are invited to contribute to the platform and to share their experiences in the form of a traveller review. For hotels and other businesses in the travel industry, TripAdvisor offers the opportunity to increase revenue through a wide spread reach to new customers and to potentially receive (good) reviews (Uenlue, 2018). Advertising agencies are also a constituency to which TripAdvisor caters however it does not relate to the practice of reviewing on the platform, to the extent that it is worth analysing within this research. Treading on the grounds of platform capitalism, where a platform can be seen as an economic model seeking a sustainable balance between the social versus the financial side of business (Gillespie 353), it is understandable that the platform behaves as an intermediary to maximize profit. Strowel and Vergote explain how digital platforms actively monetize underexploited resources through matching supply and demand in a highly efficient manner (3). What can be said is that TripAdvisor by nature aims to “speak in different registers to their relevant constituencies, positioning themselves to best suit their interests in each moment” (Gillespie 354) and simultaneously strategically “linking them into a single agenda” (354) which is to
make profit. Using this information it can be concluded that the practice of reviewing is thus shaped to not only cater to the interests the intermediaries but as core element of the platform. This offers a vision that the practice of reviewing is a tool or a means to make profit. Evidence of TripAdvisor’s capitalist intensions are reflected in annual statistics the platform has released: With 570 million reviews, 7.3 million accommodations, airlines, attractions and restaurants and a travel community of 455 million monthly users, the platform generated an total revenue of $1.56 billion in 2017 (Uenlue, 2018). This not only shows the immense scale to which TripAdvisor works but also that they have clearly polished the practice of reviewing to an art form in order for it to be so successful and profitable.
Having examined how a platform juggles the interests and needs of different key stakeholders and how this might affect functions and feature of the platforms itself in terms of their end-goal (to increase profit), it also shows the necessity of regulation. In order to keep this multi-layered business structure and economic model in place there are some confinements and borders to guide users and other stakeholders how to use the platform. Gillespie focuses on regulation found within platforms in terms of lawful responsibility and liability claims “fostering a regulatory paradigm that gives them the most leeway to conduct their business” (356). Gillespie puts the idea of a regulatory paradigm up against issues of platforms which are “rewarded for facilitating expression but not liable for its excesses” (356) such as Google and YouTube for example. Effectively TripAdvisor does the same and aims only to play the role as intermediary however in such a way that value is still brought to the different stakeholders. Platform regulation is thus very narrow and goal oriented, which contrasts the idea of “online content seems an open world, where anyone can post, anything can be said” (Gillespie 353). This portrays a paradoxical idea, where a platform such as TripAdvisor invites anyone to participate in the platform but pours users through a regulatory funnel to maintain the platform’s value of serving the interests of the different stakeholders. Following the ideas of the platform paradox, Joss Hands too argues that platforms only offer freedom and equality “as far as they provide useful resources for generating bigger surpluses and more value” to the platform as a business (Hands 20). In light of politics she argues that corporate platforms do not overcome the fundamental antagonists of communism versus those of capitalism (Hands 21). Thus for a platform to transition to a full communist scheme the creation of platforms should be commonly organised, produced and distributed within a movement towards the common good (Hands 2). However, platforms such as TripAdvisor have shown their capitalist nature and their
intention to capitalize on their intermediary services, making it hard for them to hide behind a veil of ignorance when it comes to liability issues. Strowel and Vergote also mention how “the wrongly baptized sharing economy” (7) conceals the economic effect and position of digital platforms in the market. With regards to this paradoxical view of platforms, promoting free participation however the aim of platforms to control and regulate this participation for their own benefit, can give insight to how the practice of reviewing on TripAdvisor might be exactly this. Reviewing on the platform could act as a regulatory funnel through which users are guided to produce the reviews that are of value to TripAdvisor. Thus, acknowledging this information the question arises what makes a review valuable to TripAdvisor? And how does TripAdvisor regulate and shape the practice of reviewing to create or increase the value of the reviews?
Regarding there is an extent of freedom for the user of a platform or any stakeholder for that matter and understanding there are ‘edges’ to the platform, Gillespie coined this term to describe strategic interventions and that they are “deliberate choices that end up shaping the contours of public discourse online” (358). Bratton elaborates slightly on how platforms work and lists several characteristics; one in relation to the formation of a regulatory paradigm is that “platforms govern both instantaneously and cumulatively” (49). Meaning platforms have the ability to respond to the interactions on their platform, they can regulate in real time. From this it can be said that regulation is embedded in the practices, functions and features of a platform. It can be said that the practice of reviewing is in itself already a regulatory paradigm which is responsive to its users therefore, the ‘edges’ of TripAdvisor are thus evident in such practices.
2.2 Investigating the Technical
Platform politics has given this research the initial insight in the political ideas and issues of platforms. Although, this does not further reveal and in-depth answer to the how the practice of reviewing is shaped by TripAdvisor and only confirms the idea that TripAdvisor has reason for structuring the practice of reviewing in such as way that benefits their business model. In order to truly understand the underlying ways in which the practice of reviewing is shaped it is important see and to be able to identify connections between the technical and the social. In the article The Platformization of the Web by Anne Helmond she counters Gillespie’s viewpoint of platform politics and argues his perspective is more concerned with the
“participatory and economic” (2) aspects of platforms “over their computational dimensions”(2). Helmond’s viewpoint is aimed at the computational aspects of platforms and conducts research from a material-technical perspective. This entails the “importance of analyzing technological platforms in the computational sense” (Helmond 2). Bogost and Montfort are academics who also approach studying platforms “as computational infrastructures” (4) whereby they have introduced ‘platform studies’ which is an approach including a more technically rigorous examination of platforms. Platform studies “allows investigation of how particular aspects of a platform’s design influenced the work done on that platform”(4) and “it looks at how social, economic, cultural, and other factors led platform designers to put together systems in particular ways” (4). Following Helmond and Bogost & Montfort’s idea of platform studies this research will further look at the practice of reviewing in the computational sense, in order to be able to investigate a link between the technical process involved in the practice of reviewing and the regulatory paradigm of TripAdvisor. This also falls into the concept of ‘disaggregation’ mentioned by Elmer & Langlois that can be understood as examining platforms by looking at specific components of the platform separately (Elmer & Langlois 50). The practice of reviewing can be seen as a specific component of the TripAdvisor platform. With this approach research does not only take into account the user side of analysis but also the (platform) creator side, thus investigating the underlying ideologies of the platform. Platform studies aims to reveal the relationships of the hard-and software designs of computing system (platforms) and the work that has gone into producing these systems (Bogost & Montfort 4).
In further academic discourse in the field of investigating the technical, there are other contributors to theory concerning methodological lenses to approach studying software namely; software studies. A topic discussed by Fuller reveals there is “not a shared methodology” (1) to software studies and that scholars have contributed various approached to “creating new ways into software” (1). What must be made clear is that software studies is a critical approach “concerned with the question how software consists of different elements that are embedded in a dynamic web of relations” (Fuller 2) rather than specifying the functionality of software in terms of computer science. In order to give a more tangible meaning to software studies and how it supports my research question this explanation will follow Taina Bucher’s perspective. Bucher has extensively elaborated on software studies in her academic work A Software Studies Perspective on Social Networking Sites although she applies it specifically to social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter etc.) the broad concept is
also applicable to TripAdvisor. Bucher articulates how software plays a major role in shaping sociality and social practices in general on websites (10). This is the where software studies overlaps with platform studies in aiming to research how software is designed and structured to provide certain conditions of use. In the case of this thesis it is aimed to pay attention to how the software of TripAdvisor produces conditions (Bucher 9) for the practice of reviewing. This software sensitive perspective (Bucher 10) comes from the understanding that websites or platforms “are not empty spaces upon which sociality and subjectivation simply occur” (Bucher 12). Software studies aim to understand “how software operates to shape and govern the conduct of subject in the participatory culture” (Bucher 16) of the website or platform. Scholars involved in the field such as Bucher and Elmer & Langlois, highlight the importance of this kind of research as a serious way of understanding societal realities online (Bucher 27), thus the “need to account for the role of software and it’s effects” (Manovich qtd in Bucher 27).
The idea of software itself calls for many technical questions; Bucher is able to explain the four levels of operation, every level builds on the previous one. To say that software is just the coded backend of a website or platform “is not enough” (49) thus explaining software in different levels shows the “multidimensionality” and “variegated nature of software” (49). Firstly software can be seen simply as code or text, this can be referred to as the “backbone” of software (58). If we move to the second layer, we look at what the code does in the form of algorithms, in other words this can be seen as a set of instructions for ordering tasks (58). In understanding that within algorithms lay tasks, it can be said: “software does something. It performs the encoded instructions thereby making things happen” (62). This is what Bucher describes as the execution, thus making up the third level. This attributes certain performative characteristics to software (62). The fourth and final level Bucher refers to software as practice or in other words the actual “production and use of software” (65). This also entails the different actors involved in the creation and usage of software, not only identifying end-users as the only actors but also the programmers involved in the ongoing process code development (65). On this final level software can be seen as “a matter of lived experience” (65) and where analysis of social and cultural effects can take place. Bucher links this performative level of software to the actor-network theory (ANT) coined by Bruno Latour which suggests that all factors involved in a situation shape a network acting as a social force for social phenomena, research based on the ANT aims to determine the social objective of such networks (Bucher 18). What this means for researching the practice of reviewing on
TripAdvisor is that the level of analysis will take place on the fourth level, where usage and production takes place.
2.3 Affording a ‘Good’ Review
In adopting the methodological approaches of software and platform studies, it can be said that an affordance approach will help understand cultural and behavioural practices in more practical terms. Situating this research in an affordance approach it is aimed to take on the understanding that platforms and their interfaces are designed to afford certain behaviour, taking this into account it will offer a lens to understand the tendencies that are held within the practice of reviewing. Seeing as affordances hold a social penchant and reinforce certain behaviour, this can lead to a deeper understanding of how TripAdvisor has set up a regulatory paradigm and particularly focussed on the practice of reviewing.
Gibson coined the term ‘affordance’ in 1977, in an ecological and psychological perspective on perception. In the chapter Theory of Affordances, Gibson illustrates the definition of affordances within the environment: “the affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes” (Gibson 127). Relating this concept back to the current topic; the environment can be referred to as the interface of the platform with its functions and features. These functions and features all have something to offer the user something, whether it is a button to go to another webpage or to scroll down, or if a word or piece of text is highlighted over another, or a certain process of a practice on the platform. These are examples of objects which hold ‘affordances’ that can be found in a virtual environment and can be studied in terms of the social meaning they hold.
Relating this idea to platform interfaces or architecture Stanfill (2015) explains how affordances are part of (web) interfaces and that these both reflect and reinforce social logics (1059). Stanfill reviews the interface as a discourse and aims to understand The production of norms through web design (Stanfill) and takes sites’ affordances as the means to establish what users do and how this produces the normative (1060). In other words Stanfill positions his research on the interface end (and looks at affordances) to understand the norm or intention of the website. This can also be adapted to Gillespie’s idea of the ‘edges’ of a platform, understanding the extent and possibilities of a platform’s affordances can give way to outlining the platform’s regulatory paradigm. Weltevrede and Borra in their work Platform
Affordances and Data Practices: The Value of Dispute on Wikipedia also focus on “the relation between the technical and the social” (1). They also take on a, what they call a ‘device perspective’ and take the architecture of platforms into account to gain an understanding of the “specific uses of their features” (1). The study of affordances of a platform interface suggests an insight into platform regulations and the underlying norms and values within the culture/community of TripAdvisor which have shaped these regulations. Affordances can thus be seen as key in understanding and analysing the relationship between technology and its users (Bucher & Helmond 3). Even though affordances are expressed as technical artefacts they can be seen as ‘communicational actors’ (Langlois qtd in. Bucher & Helmond 2) for the users of the platform. An example of research on affordances is by Crawford and Gillespie titled What is a flag for? Here the affordance on platforms to regulate offensive content is elaborated on. The research aims at understanding what is afforded within the practice of flagging on social media (Crawford & Gillespie). A ‘flag’ or the action of ‘flagging’ by users is a way of informing the platform in question of potential content that are not inline with the established “community standards” (Crawford & Gillespie 412) of that site. Examples of this may be an image on Facebook can be seen as offensive in terms of racism, or a video on YouTube can be seen as too sexually explicit. What can be revealing, looking that ‘flagging’ through an affordance lens is understanding the underlying context and importance of everything involved in the practice of flagging. Usage of language, the interface layout, the different levels involved in the process are examples of points of analysis which all hold meaning in terms of norms and values embedded in the regulatory paradigm of the platform. Besides understanding the process of flagging, the mentioned research by Crawford and Gillespie has also given insight into the ambiguity and opaqueness of the process in which flagging occurs or more generally what is not clear in how platforms try to regulate content which goes against their policy statements. What I can take from this research is the understanding of the way in which platforms interact and regulate practices what the functions and features may afford in terms of norms.
Nagy & Neff approach affordances in a different way in light of the way the term is being more frequently used within new media and communication studies. The scholars propose the idea of an “imagined affordance” and they explain that affordances are “in large part imagined by users” (Nagy & Neff 1). They see affordances stationed in between “technological determinism and social construction” (2) making it a key concept when
studying the relationship between the two. Nagy and Neff describe how “technology studies scholars use affordances to refer to what users can do with technology” (3) and also what they can not do, however the concept can be taken further and affordances can also be studied in terms of how they shape sociality (3). Gibson approaches affordances in the environment as having a meaning according to how it’s user perceive or uses it. However with (new) media we cannot take for granted that these “environments are mediators” (3) and not comparable to, let say a rock which does not deliberately takes on a certain shape or structure to influence what it affords. “With design toolmakers build affordances into their tool” (4) in other words, there is an intended purpose which is embedded within the design of software, it is taken into account how users imagine or what is expected from software tools. Thus, imagined software goes beyond the relationship between the users’ perceptions and the materiality and functionality of technologies but also includes “the intentions and perceptions of designs” (5). Nagy and Neff open up the doorway to understanding that there is more interaction than just between the software design of tools and the way the user uses them. Taking on this idea throughout this research gives us understanding of the influence of TripAdvisor as a ‘toolmakers’ with the ability to design and more specifically, to design the practice of reviewing. Adopting an affordance lens for this research also falls in line with the fundamentals of platform studies (Bogost & Montfort) which also understands that software innately has meaning given to it through design.
2.4 A Holistic Approach
Where software and platform studies offer a wide array of research possibilities it also lacks to point in this research in a specific methodological direction applicable to this case study. Where it helps to understand the research aim and places the methodology within a theoretical framework, it does not clarify all the aspects of the research question. What is known is that we can look at the platform architecture to uncover a relationship between the technical design and the social motivations of the platform. This thesis will thus propose a method a to give a holistic understanding of the internal motivations of TripAdvisor, which link to the affordances that lie within the design of the software and the regulatory paradigm. Which in return have shaped the practice of reviewing. In other words this calls for more specific methodological approaches that can help give a holistic view of the TripAdvisor platform and insight into how we can discover the norms and values that lie within platform architecture. Technography is a method that offers an in-depth attitude towards the sociality behind the
platform architecture. Technography is a form of research that Taina Bucher has developed on. It is a form of ethnography but where the technology is the object of study instead of a person and its human behaviour (69). This includes ethnographic methods focussing on a “descriptive interpretative approach to understanding software” (71). Just like ethnographically coming to understand a culture or specific practices in it, technography fixates on “understanding techno-cultural” practices in the context of everyday life” (71). In order to understand underlying motivations and norms of TripAdvisor this deductive method can be used to sketch a so-called character or personality of the platform. Observing the platform like this builds upon observations, impressions and experiences of the researcher aiming to find a background story or clarification to help explain certain decisions of TripAdvisor. Thus revealing underlying motivations of decisions in how to design the practice of reviewing. However where ethnography studies the human behaviour which occurs all the time and there are countless aspects to study. A platform as object of study is quite different, as its state does not occur nearly as frequent as that of a human. Thus, studying the platform form a current perspective may show no significant changes or actions. In order to study the platform over a longer period of time and it is necessary to use an Internet history method of research.
2.5 Past Actions Form Current Decisions
This research also involves Internet history, as the aim is to generate an understanding of the platform TripAdvisor and ultimately the practice of reviewing over time. Brügger describes the importance of Internet history and the main reason is that viewing research from a chronological perspective highlights forces that have driven change and can potentially explain the present or future situation (754). In developing a chronology of relevant events related to the practice of reviewing one can learn about the development of the way it has been shaped and what may be the motives of TripAdvisor making changes for instance. The methodology of web historiography combined with technography generates an understanding of the character of TripAdvisor and the underlying norms of the platform throughout time. This in return is valuable for the analysis of how the practice of reviewing has been shaped. Historically analysing a platform as part of a technographic method can be a contribution to the field of historiography.
2.6 TripAdvisor: the reviewing machine
In order to attempt to develop a detailed technography it is important to gain some background information and to see what is already known about TripAdvisor and the practice of reviewing. This can reveal significant markers to guide our research and the prevailing points of discussion surrounding the review platform. Within the travel industry consumers are not able to try out products and services before purchasing them like with clothing for example, most of these services tend to lean towards the more expensive purchases on the spectrum (compared to groceries, books etc.) therefore going to a restaurant or booking a hotel can be seen as a high risk purchase (Tan, Lv, Liu & Gursoy). Because these kinds of acquisitions have a certain risk, the decision making process is longer and more in depth (Lu, Gursoy & Lu). However due to the rise of customer review platforms within this industry it has once and for all changed the way consumers make decisions concerning choosing restaurants and hotels, it has made it easier for consumers to gain information to take into account (Tan, Lv, Liu & Gursoy. “A survey conducted by TripAdvisor (2013) shows that 77% of visitors regularly examine online reviews before booking hotels and 53% of visitors read online reviews before making purchase decisions” (Tan, Lv, Liu & Gursoy). These statistics highlight the importance of customer reviews on the purchase decision-making. Having discussed how a customer review can be helpful in reducing risk, it is also of importance that customers find the information from reviewers credible. Next to the content of the review, Filieri, Alguezaui & Mcleay found that “source credibility and trustworthiness was considered to be fundamental predictors of consumers' acceptance of a message”. Different than with traditional word-of-mouth communication, which occurs face to face, consumers do not know the reviewers or have any kind of prior relationship with them (Filieri, Alguezaui & McLeay). This leaves a credibility issue, why trust what they say? Increasingly rating and review platforms require contributors to create a profile, providing some personal information (such as a profile picture, travel interests and places visited) (Filieri, Alguezaui & McLeay). Platforms require this information to enhance source credibility for the consumers, they give the reviewer a personality. This way, readers can find aspects of the reviewer to relate to, for instance perhaps there is a shared interest in eco-friendly travelling or vegetarian diet, this gives them more authenticity. “If travel consumers perceive the reviewers as credible sources they will believe that the website is reliable in that it has effective mechanisms in place to avoid spammers who post deceptive reviews through
fake accounts” (Filieri, Alguezaui & McLeay). Next to some personal information that gives the source a more human touch, platforms have introduced an integrated ranking system of the level of expertise of the reviewers as another form of source credibility controlled by the platform itself. TripAdvisor has implemented a merit system which award badges to reviewers that range from simple ‘reviewer’ to ‘top contributor’ depending on the number of reviews one has written (Filieri, Alguezaui & McLeay). It is a gamified system through which reviewers can earn point and rise up in levels, showing the amount to readers and impact you have on the travel community of TripAdvisor. Gaining ‘badges’ however are not gained in return for anything, like discounts for example, it is just a way to keep track of the contribution level of the reviewer. Booking.com has a similar system where reviewers are ranked according to the amount they contribute to the platform, however unlike TripAdvisor it is not possible to go to a profile of any user, there is no room for ‘a personal touch’ next to name, age and nationality. For both platforms, consumers can contribute to how useful they find the reviewers’ reviews. These are ways in which platforms seek to control and enhance source credibility.
Thus a problem on the TripAdvisor platform is fake reviews, not only are travellers misinformed about a hotel or restaurant for example, but it goes against the current motto of the platform: TripAdvisor: Know better. Book better. Go better. The case of the Shed at Dulwich was a major breach in the trustworthiness of TripAdvisor in several different ways. First and foremost, users can see how easily extensive fake information can be produced on the platform, damaging the trust the user has in the reviews. Secondly for advertisers do not see the value in engaging with users that are not truly part of the travel community thus not part of their target market. Finally for travel businesses, do they want to be associated with a platform which is know for the corruption of information perhaps scaring off potential customers and guests.
This is for the obvious reasons stated above a serious problem for TripAdvisor, since they also clearly state their position as a company “what we stand for, which is the right for genuine consumers to share their experiences” (TripAdvisor Content Integrity) With the rise of issues surrounding fake news and third party meddling in social media content, users today are on edge. For the travel industry there can be serious consequences if this billion-dollar organisation, which plays such a vital role in the travel community today, falls into a negative vortex of fake and untrustworthy content. However TripAdvisor take this very seriously there
are many guidelines and regulations in place to ensure the integrity of reviews and pictures posted. The platform even has a page dedicated to ‘content integrity’ on which they claim: “Once in a while, someone will try to game our system by attempting to post a fake review, so we thought it would be helpful to share our approach, our policies, and the actions we take to identify, block, and remove fraudulent reviews” (TripAdvisor Content Integrity).
Referring again to the short documentary by Vice called “I Made My Shed the Number One Restaurant on TripAdvisor” about a blogger managed to get the highest rating in London on his non-existent restaurant, through manipulating reviews and information on TripAdvisor, it aroused the idea about the bigger picture concerning reviewing platforms. There has been an obvious shift in power since the birth of customer review platforms, suddenly the public had a way to react to their experiences in restaurants and hotels and were given the ability to rate and rank the establishments in a way that was never seen before. The image of the restaurants and hotels no longer lay confined to the establishments themselves but was put in the hands of the critical public. This puts the travel industry in a highly vulnerable position not being able to escape negative reviews and creating a newfound transparency the industry was not used to. The trend seen growing from this is that hotels and restaurants ‘fight back’ they found ways to make use to the reviewing platforms for their own benefit, for example self-injecting positive reviews and ratings or putting their competitors in bad day-light through fake accounts or paid third party reviewers. As can be seen in the mentioned documentary the impact of fake (in this case positive) reviewing is tremendous, it can make or break their position in business. The change that has become evident in daily life, is that the public is becoming sensitive to the fact that reviewers may have a further agenda rather than just to review. For example, is it the establishment itself shining a positive light on their own business? Is it someone paid to write reviews to earn money? Is it a competing business interesting in bringing down others to rise in the rankings? Or is it just a customer who would like to contribute to the traveller community through their own experience? It can be said that readers have the tendency to question the validity and reliability of the reviews as a whole, specifically due to the questions surrounding the authenticity of the reviewer. It can be said that there is a change or erosion in the trustworthiness of reviewers.
Gathering from the information above there are a few topics of interest that can provide as makers or guidelines in understanding TripAdvisor and it’s current issues. These markers can help us understand why the practice of reviewing is shaped the way it is. What is evident is
that trust and credibility are topics of concern when it comes to TripAdvisor, this is important to be found within reviews and the rest of the platform. Seeing, as the aim of reviews is to reduce the risk of a bad purchase for other customers. If trustworthiness and credibility is missing then the function of reviews loses its value and function. What makes a review trustworthy is the feel of a human touch or a way for users to relate to the review they read. The practice of reviewing can be said to stimulate this in order to achieve the credible and thus, valuable reviews.
Chapter 3. Methodology 3.1 Technography
It has been established that this research will be aimed as finding a relation between the social and the technical or in other words how software shapes certain social practices; the social practice in question in this thesis is reviewing. As my research question takes on a grounded approach to develop theoretical reflections (Bucher 70) it is suitable and appropriate to retreat to a qualitative technographic approach. To clarify how ethnographic methods can be translated in to a technographic technique of study follows Bucher’s decision to have “technology as its perspective, specifically, the norms and values that have been delegated to and materialized in technology” (69). Thus, the aim is to analyse the “techno-cultural practices” (71) or the techno-culture of TripAdvisor in general. Having determined that this lies in the software design of the platform this will be the object of analysis, more specifically within the interface design and texts available. Codes or guidelines of conduct are rich pieces of text that can be analysed. News articles and press releases are also valuable to study and can behold techno-cultural norms relevant to TripAdvisor. Bucher also makes use of Internet protocols (73) as object of investigation. Referring to other aspects of the platform such as the design significance can lie in the layout of the interface, the size of images and the colour. Data collection will take the textual and interface analysis into account and commence with observational field notes and building conclusions and summaries as more information is gathered. Researcher must be in search of patterns or significant changes and effects, this can only be done when the observation and analysis is complete. Re-evaluation of gathered data is essential to gaining and in-depth understanding of the information in order to generate a relevant conclusion.
3.2 Historiography
A way of diving into the past of a website or online platform such as TripAdvisor is through the Internet Archive. This can be seen as a library of all webpages of the past, it was created in 1996 and is a free online source of webpages (Howell 4). Websites are archived by the Alexa Crawl, a crawler that traverses the web and takes “snapshots” of it (Howell 4) thus over the years having accumulated a grand amount of data. To be able to take a look in this ever growing data set one can make use of the Wayback Machine. This is a service which can be
used free of costs to dig into the archive and to look at websites and webpages from the past. The Wayback Machine received their information from the Internet Archive, however it does not hold archived versions of every website (5). Due to the rating and prioritizing system of the Alexa Crawler only specific points in time of each website are available to find.
Next to the limitation that there are not snapshots of say, every day since 1996 of every website Howell also describes some other technical limitations that come with using the Wayback Machine. Howell highlights the importance of understanding the underlying technology of the of the archiving process to also understand it’s limitations (3).The Alexa Crawler takes a maximum of two days and a minimum of 24 hours to capture a full website and all it’s page, thus the website shown via the Wayback Machine are not a capture of one moment in time. Secondly not all aspects of the website can be captured and archived, content such as images (if they are deleted from the original website), flash content or password protected pages are not able to be captured by the Alexa Crawler. Links that were perhaps on the website, can also not be captured. Acknowledging this it can be said that the snapshots are not always the complete story (Howell 8).
To be able to use the Wayback machine is simple in the sense that no particular tech skills are needed to obtain archives websites. It works similarly to a regular search engine (such as Google for example). A user must first got to archive.org and make a search query in the search bar with a web address they are aiming to research. Versions available through the Wayback Machine will chronologically pop up and users can adjust the time line to find the webpages they desire at the desired time (Howell 6). Users can save or screenshot the snapshots they want to use and save them electronically. This allows for comparing the website at different stages in time.
3.3 Research Design
In order to build a relevant case study the research design is divided into two parts or stages. Reflecting back on the research question: How have affordances and the regulatory paradigm of TripAdvisor shaped the practice of reviewing over time? It can be said that the question already assumes there is an understanding of the what TripAdvisor affords and its regulatory paradigm. Besides the assumptions we can conclude from the theoretical framework there is no sufficient information to be able to elaborate on these topic. In the first step of this research
the research will this be directed as understanding: What does the TripAdvisor platform afford? And: What does TripAdvisor’s regulatory paradigm entail? In answering these two questions there is substantial knowledge to engage in answering the main research question and relating affordances and the regulatory paradigm in the construction of the practice of reviewing, which is part of the second stage of the case study.
In the first stage of this case study it is of importance to understand techno-cultural norms of TripAdvisor in order to understand the regulatory paradigm of TripAdvisor. This will help knowing how these norms are reinforces and afforded within the software and interface of the platform.
a. External News & Blogs: External online (news) sources are to be consulted to gain an insight in the prevailing issues of TripAdvisor throughout time. A Google News search allows diving into the past up to the year 2000 – the year TripAdvisor was established online – to find articles concerning the platform. Articles are selected according to their content if it discusses issues close to the platform’s core markers (trustworthiness, credibility, stakeholders etc.) or in other words topics that may have had impact on the platform. From this a general timeline of events can be created that were either initiated by TripAdvisor or have lead to a response form the platform.
b. Blogs & Press Releases by TripAdvisor: Gaining a general impression of how TripAdvisor is described by external sources, it is also relevant to take on an introverted perspective and to understand how and what TripAdvisor communicates to the outside world. TripAdvisor frequently posts blogs and press releases, relevant blog-post and press releases are selected according to understand more of how TripAdvisor wants to position itself as a brand allowing for a textual analysis in aiming to understand underlying motivations and values of the platform.
c. Policy Analysis: The Policy analysis can be considered the most extensive part of this case study. This is where the historiographical aspect of the research comes into play and this part of the method requires different levels of investigation. Firstly the policy analysis entails the inquiry of different text published and produced by TripAdvisor, which can give insight to how the platform provides guidelines to its users and other stakeholders. The texts selected for this are the ‘terms of use’, ‘content integrity’ and the ‘guidelines to writing a review’. The
terms of use however, although including some regulatory guidelines for the platform are more concerned with liability laws, privacy and third party engagement. For this research using only the ‘terms of use’ was not enough to gain an insight into the regulatory paradigm concerning fraudulent reviews and other insincere content on the platform, although it is the only set of guidelines present from the beginning of TripAdvisor. Therefore, the ‘guidelines for traveller reviews’ (available since 2014) and ‘content integrity policy’ (available since 2015) will also be taken into account in drawing conclusion about historical developments in the regulatory paradigm of the platform. Even though there were already issues of insincere content in 2011, codes of conduct specific to prevention of misleading content only appeared later on in 2014 and 2015. These texts will be analysed through the Wayback Machine thus studying the textual and lay out changes of the URL’s the policy texts are linked to. The time frame selected will be from the first snapshot available on the Internet Archive all the way to May 2018. This will allow for a full analysis of development of the texts overtime. Changes will be recorded that have to do with the content of the text (regarding the hierarchy of topics for example) and the layout of the text on the page and the page itself. Recording changes or aspects that stay significantly stable can allow for the detections of potential patterns having to do with how the platform positions itself towards reviewing. The analysis of these patterns can highlight the architectural development of the platform’s core norms concerning it’s regulatory paradigm and thus understanding better what the platform seeks to afford its users in terms of reviewing.
The second stage of this research is informed by the findings of the first stage. Understanding how the regulatory paradigm of TripAdvisor is constructed and knowing were the techno-cultural norms lie; we can understand better what is being afforded when looking specifically at the practice of reviewing. This part of the research does not aim to look at the development of the practice of reviewing but rather, how has the development of TripAdvisor’s regulatory paradigm call for the way the practice of reviewing is shaped as it is today. This analysis will be done by doing an interface walkthrough of the practice of reviewing and the process of flagging a review. Doing an interface walkthrough is an interpretative analysis of a function of feature of software. Light, Burgess and Duguay (2016) have proposed a walkthrough method to which this research will abide. They describe this kind of research as “a way of engaging directly with an app’s interface to examine it’s technical mechanisms and embedded cultural references to understand how it guides users and shape their experiences” (Light, Burgess & Duguay 882). Where their example in their work is focused on the interface of an
app it can be applied to other technical mechanisms on different forms of media, in this case on TripAdvisor and the practice of reviewing and flagging. In this research most attention will go to “embedded sociocultural representations” within the “step-by-step observation” (882), more so than the technical functionality and detail. By gaining an overview of the steps of the processes of reviewing and flagging it allows one to “study computational technologies as sociocultural artifacts” and investigation will provide an understanding of what the processes afford and how.
d. Interface Walkthrough – Reviewing: To research the practice of reviewing a walkthrough of the functionalities and steps it takes to write and place a review can be enlightening in linking it to affordances and the regulatory paradigm of TripAdvisor. For this part of the case study one must adopt the position of a platform user and to write an actual review. Walking through each step and providing a description of this can convey the way that the review process is structured. In this part of the case study links can be made to the previous findings concerning the regulatory paradigms and the norms and how they are afforded in the interface of writing a review.
Interfaces of reviewing in the past will also be looked at, starting in 2002 until 2018, however only a walkthrough will be done of the most current version of reviewing this is because it is not possible to place a review in the past and therefore the full walkthrough cannot be analysed. However the layout of the review form still is relevant to analyse even if not all steps of reviewing are completed. It will be referred to as a form as the layout of the page suggests a user to fill out information. There are also not a lot of snapshots found within the Internet Archive that show the webpage of reviewing, thus the very early forms of reviewing can unfortunately not be studied in great detail.
e. Interface Walkthrough – Flagging: Flagging plays an is an essential part of this research an can contribute to understanding the ‘edges’ of the platform, what is the criteria for content to be removed and how can we learn what is a ‘bad’ review in the eyes of TripAdvisor. The practice of flagging can account for the regulatory paradigm in place which affords the opposite of the practice of reviewing.
Chapter 4. Case Study
During analysis of the different aspects of the case study, what was most evident pattern throughout was that the TripAdvisor platform shows five distinct stages of development. These different stages or periods refer to specific characteristics about the general development of TripAdvisor (see Table 1) and specifically, reviewing on the platform. Regarding these periods of time (in years) changes in within the different part of the case study (policy texts, external news sources, review forms etc.) were discovered and bundled together to form a noticeable part of the TripAdvisor history.
Period Time Frame Distinct characteristic
1 2001 – 2004 - TripAdvisor is in search of commodifying role as a platform
2 2005 – 2008 - Establishment as a capitalizing platform & professionalization of brand/focus on reviews 3 2009 – 2013 - Reviewing becomes central to business of the
platform
4 2014 – 2016 - The platform expands and caters to different constituencies
5 2017 – 2018 - TripAdvisor branches its business: information concerning each constituency is decentralized into a separate URL
Table 1. Time Period Characteristics Terms of Use - TripAdvisor 4.1 Period 1 – In Search of an Identity
In the early 2000’s TripAdvisor is still very much in search of its identity and purpose as a platform as business. A strong affiliation with travel and contribution to the travel community is evident from the beginning. A highly profitable approach however, is lacking, apart from centralizing information it has not yet clear where their potential lies. In 2000 TripAdvisor is founded in Massachusetts in the United States the CEO Steven Kaufer mentions that year “we also had a button in the very beginning that said visitors add your own review and boy did that just take off” (Smith) when he describes the development that the platform has been through.
The only evident page with a policy text available is the terms of use. The layout of the interface changes multiple times especially in in October 2001, the layout overtime becomes more professional (see figure 1) Here we also see that the brand styling of TripAdvisor (the owl logo and green colour scheme) is not established yet and it changes very frequently. However the year 2002 can be dubbed the year of layout experimentation. Where the layout in 2001 was very basic we can see that in 2002 the page goes through a series of font changes and entails a more professional design. The website also shows a slogan “Hotels and Vacation Packages” (see figure 2), this slogan is interesting as it does not yet appeal to the reviewing nature of TripAdvisor as it is known today. In 2003 the page layout is changing and is showing a more professional look and feel, including the Owl Logo presented at the top of the page.
Figure 1. Snapshot of Wayback Machine: http://www.tripadvisor.com:80/pages/terms.html October 2001
Figure 2. Snapshot of Wayback Machine: http://tripadvisor.com:80/pages/terms.html December 2002
Analysing the terms of use can be seen as a literal expression of the regulations that TripAdvisor have implemented. Thus, can understood as an instrumentalization of core norms. Looking at the content of the terms of use there are several subsections, namely: Ownership and Copyright, Use of This Web Site WARRANTY DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, Links to Other Site, Use of Chat Rooms, Bulletin Boards and Other Communications Forum, Digital Millennium Copyright Act Compliance, Applicable Law and Jurisdiction & Modifications (in this order, top to bottom). With relevance to the nature of this research it can be seen that there is a section dedicated to user generated content “Use of Chat Rooms, Bulletin Boards and Other Communications Forum”. What is evident that there is no mention of reviews or the practice of reviewing, but that “The TripAdvisor Web site may contain and allow its users to post reviews of their travel experiences” (TripAdvisor, Terms of Use 2001). The usage of the words “may contain” and “allow” do not harbour the idea that user generated content is central to the platform.
Furthermore, this section continues to explain TripAdvisor’s relationship with the content produced by users: “TripAdvisor does not edit or control the information or materials posted to or distributed through any chat rooms, bulletin boards or other communications forums, will not be in any way responsible or liable for such information or materials and claims no proprietary rights of any kind arising from the posting or distribution of information or material in such forums.” (TripAdvisor, Terms of Use 2001). Here TripAdvisor very literally and clearly positions itself at a distance from what occurs on these forums and chats. However “TripAdvisor nevertheless reserves the right for any reason in its sole discretion to remove without notice any contents of any such forum” (TripAdvisor, Terms of Use 2001), thus showing they can actively intervene in the content on their platform without justification. The terms of use remains the same content wise for this first period.
What illustrates this first period is the beginning of the platform and the emerging growing business that TripAdvisor is during the first couple of years. In one of the first press releases in December 2000, the platform composes a list of tips and advice for researching a travel destination online, “Online travel planning can save you time and money, if you know what to look for and how to find it” (TripAdvisor Press Release Top Tips), this shows the focus on creating a travel community on TripAdvisor in the beginning. Also with many lay out changes and updates it can be said that the platform is still discovering its own identity. The most important factor is that travel reviewing is not a central part of the platform yet thus the regulatory system concerning the practice of reviewing is not very elaborate yet. Reflecting on the historical events that have taken place during this time period we can see that TripAdvisor still an independent company up until 2004 when it is acquired by media and Internet brand owner: InterActiveCorp (Hansell). TripAdvisor becomes part of the Expedia brand an online travel agency, giving access to a wide array of new customers. What is also seen that the CEO Steven Kaufer starts to acknowledge the value of reviewing for by travellers: “Pretty soon the number of average consumer reviews far surpassed the number of 'professional reviews'. That is when the site really turned into this collection of what the normal traveler was saying wherever they were going.” (TripAdvisor ETC BBC Radio) Although this trend has been spotted it does not show yet in the platform that reviewing is the core concept of the platform. With regards to the platform theory as suggested by Bratton and Gillespie, we can see that TripAdvisor is still searching and looking for that accommodating role that characterizes platforms, they have found where they can offer value (travel advice) but not yet the platforms position (mediation between establishments and travellers).
Figure 3. Snapshot of Wayback Machine: http://www.tripadvisor.com:80/UserReview August 2002
The practice of reviewing in these early stages is very basic and in some ways very free compared to the forms one has to fill out today (see figure 3). The word ‘free’ is used as a description as the user has ‘freedom’ to choose what they would like to review, it is possible to review anything regardless if it is already on TripAdvisor or not. The user is asked to fill in the blanks to give TripAdvisor an indication of where to post the review, but it seems that reviews are gathered by city and not necessarily by establishment (see figure 4). The language used is very objective and open allowing for a user to be liberal in their choice of words in conveying their opinion. Considering the text box for the user to write the review is centered on the page and is larger than the other blank text boxes suggests or affords the used to be
elaborate in their review the review. This shows that the length of the review is key to TripAdvisor and they motivate user input by presenting the review form this way. What is already integrated in the reviewing process is the ranking system (out of five), although this is not used so prominently compared to today’s value of ranking on TripAdvisor, although the review form does not leave this as an optional criteria (‘Choose one’). What is evident when looking at this review form and placing it next to the other facts that are known form this first identified period we see that reviews do not yet have a very specific end goal and make up a small part of the information on the platform. Although the platform is noticing the accumulation of reviews, the process and output does not yet take order or shape that makes it evident that reviewing is central to the platform.
Figure 4. Snapshot of Wayback Machine: http://www.tripadvisor.com:80/Tourism-g35805-Chicago_Illinois-Vacations.html August 2002
4.2 Period 2 – A Capitalizing Focus
In 2005 first signs of the importance of reviewing can be seen the slogan at the top of the page has been changed to “reviews of hotels and vacations” (TripAdvisor, Terms of Use 2005). In November 2005 the slogan changes to “Get the truth. Then go” (see figure 5) here we see the use of the word “truth” which has proven in previous research on historical events that it is a semantically sensitive word with regards to controversial issues in the past. Although there is a new-found focus on reviews, the section Use of Chat Rooms, Bulletin Boards and Other Communications Forums has not been adapted to reviews specifically yet. There is now a menu on the left hand side of the web page that offers a “write a review” option (see figure 5) that also indicates that the platform is giving in to practice of traveller reviews more as main feature of the site. As far as the layout goes, the page had adopted the green colour as part of their corporate identity.
Figure 5. Snapshot of Wayback Machine: http://www.tripadvisor.com:80/pages/terms.html December 2005
What is also noticeable is the fact that the website is also available in different languages, this indicates TripAdvisor’s global expansion. Also relating to this expansion is covered in
external news sources and blogs within this time period and revolves around the platform’s acquisitions of other online travel companies and even is able to enter the Chinese market by taking over the travel website ‘Kuxun.nc’ in 2008 (Eye for Travel).
A year where significant change has been made to the terms of use page is in the year 2006. We see that several new subsections have been added to the previously existing terms of use
