Calendar
Network
Feeds
- 51
- Sphinn It!
Went Hot: January 22, 2008 - 6:18 am
Posted By: seanmag 259 days ago
Topic Type: News Story (Jump to http://www.seomoz.org)
Category: Other Search Marketing
"Is it true that RipOff Report has never lost a lawsuit? Is this a failure of the legal system? Are the allegations unfounded? If there is truth in the allegations, then how is the system going wrong? Why can’t RipOff Report be held responsible for its conduct?"
Sarah answers these questions and more in her typical eloquent, engaging and thorough fashion.
16 Comments
Comments
Google Please Listen!
Seconded. The more I read about this madness, the clearer it becomes that Google is out of line in continuing to grant this site authority.
Awesome info! Still reading, but didn't want to forget to Sphinn it in the meantime...
Thanks for Sphinning this article folks. Ripoff Report preys in many cases on both businesses and individuals through its aggressive extortionist tactics; all in the name of consumer advocacy.
It's heartwarming to see how strong authority sites like SPHINN, Marketing Pilgrim, SEOmoz, and others have been able to make a dent in the SERPs by getting the truth about this company on the first page. Kudos to Chris Bennett at 97th floor for bringing this story to light.
I wonder what Matt Cutts' response would be; seeing a company that clearly has a practice of preying on innocent businesses and individuals largely through Google's unwitting enablement in placing Ripoff Report in dominant SERP positions.
While lawyers have not been able to stop Ripoff Report, Google can severly hamper them, simply by taking judicious action against a company that clearly and severely violates its terms.
I've spent about an hour and a half reading great posts from Chris Bennett, Andy Beal and Sarah Bird about the audacity of Ripoff Report. I've been aware of them for quite some time but never really realized how truely "black hat" and pathetic they are. Come on Google - get with the program and do something about the crap!
Wow. Who knew a lawyer could write in English? Awesome blog post - informative, detailed, yet written in layman's terms.
I'd say this is one of the best posts to come from SEOmoz... I know a few people targeted by Ripoff Report and nothing could be done to get that defamatory content removed.
Hmm... I have to ask a few questions.
First, I didn't see any details in the article of how Ripoff Report violates Google. All I saw was an allegation
That's it. I see the "aggressive violations" claim, but the only specifics I saw were on the 97th floor site (and 97th Floor admits it is a target of an existing Rip Off Report). I don't doubt the culpability of RipOff report, I'm just saying this article appears to be closer to the stuff RipOff report writes than I would like to see from a genuine consumer advocate essay.
Also, I have to ask how it comes to be that in the same week, 3 high profile public relations sites (seomoz, andy beal, and the online shakedowns site) are highlighting rip off report for the same search spam that we know The New York Times uses (successfully indexed search results) and FindLaw appears to use (spammy subdomains). Fighting Fire with Fire?
So maybe this attack on Rip Off Report has been orchestrated? No problem, I'm just asking... because it seems like it might be orchestrated to me, and if it is orchestrated, then my initial concern above seems more serious. Having a lawyer out a company on a high-profile site like seoMoz, when in fact there is not yet any legal finding of fault and plenty of active cases, seems wrong. Too much like RipOff report allegedly behaves. I'd rather believe otherwise. I'm all for Sphinning the 97th Floor article, but not this one.
I have no interest in defending RipOff Report nor attacking a lawyer over at seomoz so please keep the focus. I have complained about Google's trust of QuackWatch.com for years...even calling it Google's Most Embarassing Moment. But it's not all Google... people love to watch Cops on TV to see other people get nailed, and people like Rip Off Reports far more than they like Consumer Reports. Ranking is not all about spamming Google with a few keywords in the title elements.
"I have no interest in defending RipOff Report nor attacking a lawyer over at seomoz..."
@ John - Huh? For someone that has no interest, you've sure demonstrated a considerable amount of interest.
Candidly, it seems you're missing the point.
Ms. Bird referenced several sources in her first paragraph. No need to repeat verbatim what has already been stated.
As for an "orchestrated effort" - What's wrong with that? Surely you're familiar with the effectiveness of an orchestrated effort - being a well Sphunn marketer and all. ;)
Let's assume that you Googled the keyword "John Andrews SEO" and the first result was from Ripoff Report with the Meta Title "John Andrews SEO is an @#$%$# because he..."
There need not be a grain of legitimacy to the allegation, yet this site will not only not remove the claim, but will also passively solicit you for $$$ to act as your "advocate" in the event that you desire for them to post a "this story has been found to be untrue" statement.
If that isn't enough for you to support what is clearly a corrupt operation, well, I don't know what to tell you.
John, you appear to be the new Doug lately. Are you off your meds like him too? Seems like you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Sure, that's a tactic, but you're certainly better than that.
Jill, was a personal attack really necessary?
I somewhat agree with John that this is a mixed bag that people are confusing the facts into one big ball of wax regarding questionable ethics combined with solid ranking.
If what they post is truly liable then someone with a lawyer will get it removed and collect a nice check to boot.
FWIW, if John saw them ranking for "John Andrews SEO" and he couldn't get them out of the top 10 then he wouldn't be much of an SEO or competitive webmaster would he?
IMO this case is a prime example where the people being harmed need to get a class action against them and solve it the old fashioned way because I certainly don't want Google to start passing moral judgement over sites and censoring the web.
It's pretty simple, really. What bothers me is hypocrisy and intimidation. Go figure. I thought Sphinn was a community *for* marketers, not a community for influencing marketers with spin. If Sphinn is to be the place where marketers *exercise* spinning stories, I misunderstood.
I prefer honesty of posts. But I see I was "voted down" so I am not in the majority. So when I see someone post "these guys suck because they spin the story to their advantage" and everyone jumps on board, I'll ignore the irony; I won't question the motives, and you all can enjoy you're Sphinn community?
@Jill I'm finding you short of patience lately, and perhaps less diligent than you used to be with details. But I would never allude to a medication issue as that's none of my business. Seriously... I have only posted in response to what appear to me to be disrespectful abuses of the publishing privilege. Perhaps there is more of that lately, or less integrity, or both. I'll try and watch for clues to understand it better. The Doug reference was way beneath you, by the way.
@bill: it ain't always easy to beat but I agree an honest effort is better than an ugly one.
@sean No doubt the Ripoff Report needs addressing.. I thought so last month when I heard wind that they fixed things in exchange for a donation. But I don't believe in bullying back (which is what this looks like to me). I do believe in fighting back, however, and would even have supported a call-to-arms to battle the negativity of ROR. I'm all abut doing good and doing good work.
Sad to see posts become personal so fast. Even rereading what I wrote, I don't see justification for the response I got *except* if I rained on someone's propaganda parade.
So let's not get personal folks. It's fair enough for John to raise the question of why all the focus on that particular site. For me, the answer is easy enough -- no conspiracy, just bandwagon jumping on. You see this all the time. Someone writes something -- someone else is in agreement and jumps in and so on.
"If what they post is truly liable then someone with a lawyer will get it removed and collect a nice check to boot."
@ IncrediBill - I guess that's the biggest problem I have with these guys. They don't remove anything. They just keep the whole ugly mess of a story up there, with the final results usually appearing somewhere way down below the fold. I'm sure there is some good in what they are doing. That's the very thing that masks the very bad that they are doing.
FWIW, if John saw them ranking for "John Andrews SEO" and he couldn't get them out of the top 10 then he wouldn't be much of an SEO or competitive webmaster would he?
I don't questions John's webmastering talents. I was simply illustrating how unfairly this company approaches their business. Sometimes when we put ourselves in the shoes of others (in this case those being victimized), it broadens our perspective.
IMO this case is a prime example where the people being harmed need to get a class action against them and solve it the old fashioned way because I certainly don't want Google to start passing moral judgement over sites and censoring the web."
The part about the class action suit is a great point IncrediBill. I agree wholeheartedly and from the looks of it, this is already underway. With regard to Google, I am certainly not suggesting they pass moral judgement or censor the web - nor does the article suggest this. What I am suggesting is that Google take judicious steps against a company that clearly and consistently violates Google's own terms of service.
Personally, I love a good dissenting argument. I could be wrong here, but I sense that part of the response from John stems from other personal issues that have to do with the source of the post rather than the quality of the article submitted. I truly felt that Ms. Bird presented an excellent and unbiased argument, referencing many relevant and valid sources, which is more than can be said for a great many articles that we've all voted for previously.
@sean: no, not really any relation to seomoz, except coincidental. But I hold lawyers to a higher standard when it comes to public statements. They are granted public authority by a judge (the Bar) and have a sworn duty to help maintain the integrity of the judicial system, including the very important duty of maintaining the public trust in the Bar itself. We (the public) give them significant powers (such as the power of subpoena).
So if a lawyer writes a tarnish piece that doesn't appear to have plenty of merit. I get very concerned, and want to ask tougher questions.
As for fair fights, I know that the way to win in the long run is to keep your side clean. The easiest way to discredit someone is to highlight a past indiscretion. If ROR is extorting or running a racket, the way to address it is with consistent high-profile highlights of one or a few very simple examples of that... over and over again. Even if they eventually have to cop to just one infraction, they lose, as that one admission of guilt gets highlighted over and over again. Likewise the easiest way to lose is to lose your own credibility, but fighting fire with fire.
Reputation management.
@ John - As I've mentioned on your blog, I find you to be a writer that has a tremendous amount of insightful, thought provoking and high quality content - and clearly - when it comes to competitive webmastering - you know your stuff.
My only hope was that your message (the part which I questioned), wasn't biased against the source simply because of recent events.
That said, I take you at your word that it wasn't and I do agree with your philosophy of the need to hold those granted public judicial authority to a higher standard. I still personally feel that Ms. Bird did her homework and presented an unbiased argument, however at the same time I respect the points you've made. Thank you for taking the time.