I'm on the other side of the fence. Walks like a duck and all that.
Without checks and balances and transparency, it's easier to assume the fix is in. The mere appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient to signify a conflict of interest.
"The mere appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient to signify a conflict of interest."
And what gives there a conflict of interest? The algorithm has absolutely nothing to do with what advertising businesses pay for or do not pay for. This much is known.
Yelp, Google, UrbanSpoon, YellowPages all charge for placement. And that's fine. But the veneer of collaborative filtering is a con. It's no different than the industry standard quid pro quo system of reviews for ads in tech / product magazines.
Yelp's claim to some form of algorithm objectivity doesn't change the power dynamic.
In other words, I don't credulously believe there to be a functioning Chinese firewall separating the business functions within Yelp. Because those firewalls rarely work, if ever.
Without checks and balances and transparency, it's easier to assume the fix is in. The mere appearance of a conflict of interest is sufficient to signify a conflict of interest.
Credulous, huh? That's a good one.