I interviewed someone for a position at my bakery and they left a negative review on Google after I didn't hire them.
A bakery owner received a retaliatory negative review from a rejected job applicant. The community overwhelmingly agreed that a public, factual reply combined with a formal Google appeal citing conflict-of-interest policies is the most effective response, with most commenters emphasizing transparency and calm professionalism over passive reporting alone.
Summary
The original post describes a bakery owner who interviewed a candidate, rejected them kindly, and received a hostile response ('good luck keeping your business afloat') followed by a negative Google review. The owner noted they dodged a bullet given the applicant's pettiness.
The community consensus strongly favors a two-pronged approach: (1) Post a public reply identifying the reviewer as a rejected applicant, and (2) File a formal appeal to Google citing conflict-of-interest and lack of genuine customer experience. The top-rated comment by u/Specialist_Ad_6921 demonstrated success with a direct, witty public reply that prompted immediate removal. Multiple commenters, including u/Cygnaeus and u/Strict_Ask_51, emphasized that transparency actually builds credibility with potential customers reading reviews, as it shows the business owner's rationality and integrity.
A significant discussion emerged about the content of public replies. Some commenters (u/girlwhoweighted, u/zzzaz) argued against claiming 'no record of customer' for a retail business, noting this would seem implausible and controlling to readers. Instead, they recommended either acknowledging it was a rejected applicant or providing a helpful, service-oriented response as if educating general customers. However, u/cerealkiler187 suggested avoiding detailed replies and instead relying on the formal appeal process, noting that Google's terms of service explicitly prohibit reviews from job applicants due to conflict of interest.
A notable counterargument from u/SpotLightGuy cautioned that replying might actually make removal harder, suggesting the backend Google process should be prioritized first. One commenter (u/Bulbous-Bouffant) shared personal experience of leaving a retaliatory review themselves, reflecting that doing so damaged their own reputation more than the business's, suggesting the applicant might eventually recognize the same.
Multiple commenters emphasized documentary evidence: u/Strict_Ask_51 and u/Key_Raisin8568 recommended screenshotting the hostile 'good luck keeping your business afloat' text as concrete proof of retaliation and conflict of interest when appealing to Google, as this significantly increases removal likelihood.
About this episode
I've reported the review, and will appeal once I'm able to but I'm not holding my breath in the hopes that they'll remove it, because they rarely do. I had messaged them several days ago telling them they wouldn't be getting the job. I think I did so in a kind way and suggested we might need their help in some capacity in the future. They responded with "good luck keeping your business afloat." I guess the silver lining of this is that we dodged a bullet by not hiring someone so petty.
Key Insights
- u/Specialist_Ad_6921 demonstrated that a direct public reply identifying the reviewer as a rejected applicant can prompt immediate self-removal of the review, making it a powerful deterrent.
- u/Strict_Ask_51 identified that passive in-app flags are auto-triaged and rejected, but escalating through Google Business Profile support with explicit policy citations (conflict of interest, lack of genuine customer experience) and evidence of retaliation significantly improves removal chances.
- u/girlwhoweighted and u/zzzaz argued that claiming 'no record of customer' for a walk-in retail business would seem implausible and surveillance-like to readers, damaging business credibility more than acknowledging the truth.
- u/Bulbous-Bouffant reflected that retaliatory reviews damage the reviewer's own reputation more than the business's, suggesting the rejected applicant may eventually self-delete out of embarrassment or reputational concern.
- Multiple commenters noted that a calm, factual public response actually builds consumer trust by demonstrating the business owner's high standards and professionalism, making removal less necessary for reputation protection.
Topics
Transcript
[Original Post] (score: 134, upvote ratio: 95%, by u/finkalicious) Title: I interviewed someone for a position at my bakery and they left a negative review on Google after I didn't hire them. I've reported the review, and will appeal once I'm able to but I'm not holding my breath in the hopes that they'll remove it, because they rarely do. I had messaged them several days ago telling them they wouldn't be getting the job. I think I did so in a kind way and suggested we might need their help in some capacity in the future. They responded with "good luck keeping your business afloat." I guess the silver lining of this is that we dodged a bullet by…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to Access