so ... when might this be available as an \'app\'?

As somone who works in the hotel industry I can tell you with a lot of confidence that the websites such at Trip Advisor are nearly entirley filled with false reviews either from competitors wishing to trash the competition or the operators writing their own more positive reviews. The whole system is a total sham and this piece of software will not come close to fixing it, in my mind there is no doubt that it is time for government to step in and reform the entire sector as it simply a con pure and simple.

This reminds me of spammed youtube channels with guys figuring all sorts of imagined stories just so people go to their .cc sites and \'watch the movies for free\'. And the IMDB movie reviews.. The general rule of thumb is that the first reviews (especially on a small budget) are the fake ones from family, friends, etc. Actually, if this algorithm won\'t work, a great vacancy for people that see through all the bs might open. Come to think about it - not just 1..))

I\'m delighted by this advance in validating reviews and I hope very soon it can be adapted to other industries and products. As a fairly regular on-line buyer I tend to look at reviews and while I try to \'sift\' them to spot the dubious ones, I expect that, like the people mentioned in your article, I\'m probably not good at it.
Phoney reviews whether by customers of biased journalists, on-line and in magazines are a waste of everybody\'s time and a serious disservice to customers, wronged suppliers and ultimately to the credibility of whatever forum is involved. So good luck to the people at Cornell and may they soon, very soon have versions of their system suitable for many more situations.

Seems to me a more scientific way to go about this would be comparing the I.P. address of origin to the author some how and not so much on \"how\" the article is written. Seems as with Cornell\'s system, there is a huge margin for error there but I do not know for sure, obviously. I\'m just skeptical.

This study is badly done. To limit the study to 400 individuals located in Chicago to write about Chicago hotels makes the information specific to Chicago and maybe not even then. If the 400 consist of 180 males and of these 20 are in the 20-30 year age group, and of these 20 you have 10 that graduated from college, then you do not even have a statistically valid sample of possible business marketing types who would be called upon to write a fake review for their hotel employer.
If someone in Chicago writes about going with their husband to a hotel in Chicago on their vacation obviously they are lying. If someone in Chicago writes about a hotel in Cozumel and mentions going with their husband on a vacation they are more likely to be presenting real information.
This study tells me far more about the incompetency of the study designers than it does about false reviews posted on the internet. Even with reviews where people are attempting to be honest their personal bias enters into the information that is provided and that which is omitted. One person may like the fact that room service came in while they were out and turned down the bed and another person may complain that staff comes into their room without permission while they are away. Two people can eat the same food and the person from Connecticut may find it too spicy and the person from California may find it too bland and neither of these negative reviews would be false.

If you believe Shills can be eliminated - you\'re dreaming. Shills have been around since the beginning of time. Nobody has ever alleviated shills. Nobody will.
Shills and Cockroaches are equally indestructible.

At least the ball is rolling. It\'s about time something is done about the B.S. reviews online. I say more power to\'em. If the issue of \"false\" reviews isn\'t addressed it will be even more like the \"wild west\" online then the personal oasis it\'s supposed to be.

@Carlson.
"To limit the study to 400 individuals 'LOCATED IN CHICAGO' to write about Chicago hotels"
This is not what was said. Read it again. Ian Colley.

So then the fakers just have to adjust their writing style. easily defeated!