Hawaii Visitors Ripped Off By Reviews: Why Nothing Changed

Hawaii visitors have been trusting online reviews to pick hotels, choose restaurants, and book activities for years. Many of those reviews were fake, pressured, or paid for. Beat of Hawaii first exposed that problem 16 years ago. It never got fixed, and today it is worse than ever.

BOH saw the review cracks early.

Back in January 2009, Beat of Hawaii began documenting something most travelers had not yet considered. TripAdvisor, which at the time dominated Hawaii trip planning, was already struggling with manipulated reviews tied to properties here. Visitors chose where to stay, where to eat, and what to book largely based on those rankings. A small movement in stars or placement could directly translate into revenue, creating huge incentives.

What we found was not minor. Public relations firms described posting fake reviews as “the most basic of tactics in the PR 2.0 world.” Employees were encouraged to write glowing feedback about their own hotels. Competitors planted negative reviews about rivals. The system was already being engineered in ways that were obvious once you dug further.

That reporting was picked up internationally, including by The London Times. TripAdvisor responded by placing fraud warnings on certain Hawaii listings while maintaining that overall, only 9% of reviews were fraudulent. Other reporting suggested the percentage was significantly higher.

Years later, Fakespot analysis estimated that roughly 30% of reviews for Grand Wailea, for example, were unreliable. For a property that most Hawaii visitors recognize instantly, and that we later reviewed personally, that number alone should have prompted deeper skepticism. Other properties showed even higher percentages, but even one marquee resort with that level of questionable feedback tells you the issue was in no way isolated.

The point is not that we were right. The point is that the review problem in Hawaii was identified early, documented clearly, yet never fully resolved to this day.

TripAdvisor faded, but the incentives remained.

TripAdvisor no longer defines Hawaii trip planning the way it once did. The company built its entire brand on the authority of its reviews, and that authority sat at the center of its identity. Once travelers began questioning whether those reviews were real, the entire value proposition shifted. As credibility weakened, so did influence. Revenue and hotel booking growth slowed. The stock price lost most of its former strength. Google’s dominance, OTA competition, mobile and app shifts, and strategic pivots all played roles in the company’s decline. But the credibility of the review was the foundational crack. When trust eroded, the business model suffered.

What stands out is that TripAdvisor’s decline did not clean up the review ecosystem. It merely redistributed the same incentives across more places.

Google reviews do not require a verified stay. Anyone can rate a Hawaii hotel they may never never have entered. Yelp requires no proof you ever visited the business you are reviewing. Facebook too circulates recommendations that are difficult to verify. Influencers blend personal enthusiasm with hosted stays in ways that are not always obvious to readers. The problem did not disappear. It simply diversified.

Technology made this easier than ever. Five-star Hawaii reviews can now be generated in seconds, complete with sunset details, room numbers, and even staff names that sound pulled from real life. If you’re scanning fast before spending $6,000 or $8,000, it’s almost impossible to know what’s genuine and what’s manufactured.

Pressure is now part of the experience.

This kind of pressure is not an isolated incident. Over the past year, readers have described similar moments across the islands. One was asked to leave a review during a scuba activity before even getting back to shore. Others have shared that relying on ratings that turned out to be fake eroded their willingness to experiment.

As a reminder how global this problem is, this recently happened to us while traveling outside of Hawaii. A laminated card with a QR code arrived with the check, followed by requests for a five-star review. We declined, but were asked again gently and then finally as we prepared to leave. The review had become core to the service exchange itself, while bringing the whole subject home once again.

When a rating is solicited in the moment, it gets mixed up with the service itself. It is no longer an evaluation after you have processed what happened. It becomes another layer of the interaction, and that emotional aspect nudges scores upward in ways that may not necessarily reflect the full experience.

The financial stakes in Hawaii make this more consequential than in many destinations. Flights, hotels, rental cars, activities, and dining add up quickly, and visitors’ expectations rise with the cost. One longtime reader told us that after several highly rated experiences failed to live up to reality, it started to “kill the desire to explore.”

What Hawaii visitors can realistically do.

No review platform is immune. Booking.com ties reviews to completed stays. Airbnb has its own verification program connected to reservations. These systems reduce certain forms of fabrication, but they do not eliminate inflated praise, pressured feedback, or strategic rating behavior at all. So while verification lowers risk, clearly it does not remove it.

Instead of focusing on star averages alone, look for patterns. Consider reading lower-rated reviews first and paying attention to recurring themes that resonate with you on both ends of the review spectrum. Specific complaints about cleanliness, service consistency, or maintenance tend to carry more weight than does blind enthusiasm. A long list of flawless five-star ratings with little criticism deserves close scrutiny.

Cross-reference multiple review platforms, but still do not assume consistency equals authenticity. Review marketing initiatives travel quickly, and similar language may appear in many places.

There is also value in ground truth. Those who live in Hawaii revisit places over time and document changes as they happen, bringing more context than anonymous reviewers can. Sixteen years of tracking review manipulation in this state have shown us that while tools evolve, incentives remain consistent. The platforms and the tactics have changed and become more sophisticated. The underlying motivation to influence critically important ratings does not change.

As for that dinner we were asked to review on the spot, it was just okay. It did not warrant automatic perfection. It deserved time to settle before being judged. In the end, we were inclined to leave a less-than-favorable review because that experience tainted the entire evening.

When you are planning your next Hawaii trip, do you still trust the reviews you read, or have you too already started adjusting how much weight you give them?