« Social Networking - Herd Mentality - A Case Study | Main | Sphinn Sock Puppets Given Permission To Remain »
Consumer Rights Violated By SEOs and Marketers
By Kimberly Bock | July 25, 2008
Marketing Campaigns Against The Consumer
“People.. especially people in positions of power.. have invested a tremendous amount of effort and time to get to where they are. They really don’t want to hear that we’re on the wrong path, that we’ve got to shift gears and start thinking differently” ~ David Suzuki
- Environmentalist and Scientist famous for: Being an outspoken environmental activist, for hosting a number of successful television programs that focus on science and nature, and for publishing more than thirty books.
Many consumers do not have a clue about what they are up against when they challenge the internet marketing world.
Consumer rights and consumer voices are irrelevant to many SEOs and marketers.
As can be seen here: (They were so overjoyed with the info, that it went hot in 5 hrs) http://sphinn.com/story/61204
About the submitter of the article:
(copied from SMX -Search Marketing Expo (a product of the operators of Sphinn and Search Engine Land) - http://searchmarketingexpo.com/bio.php?id=181)
“Eric Lander
Associate Editor
Search Engine JournalEric has been working in organic search optimization since 2001, when he got his start while co-founding Top Site Listings (”TSL”). While at TSL, Eric managed the organic search optimization for clients including Automotive.com, Fleishman Hilliard, and various divisions of Johnson and Johnson.
Since leaving TSL in 2004, Eric has gone on to start and sell a small SEM firm and joined a Fortune 500 in ADP. Eric actively works as the Organic Search Manager for ADP’s Dealer Services division which includes web sites for more than 2,000 car dealers in the United States and Canada.
Throughout his career Eric has enjoyed writing articles and how-to pieces to share industry information. Articles first began appearing in 2002 on sites like SEO Today, SitePoint and Search Engine Guide. Today, Eric serves as the Associate Editor for Loren Baker’s Search Engine Journal.”
2,000 Car dealers? Ah, I get it now.
Consumer Rights Violated By Ones Claiming To Care about The Consumer
The article in question, addresses the consumer in the opening of the article, in such a manner that you may actually believe the writer has some sort of care for the consumer voice.
page view from actual article - http://www.searchenginejournal.com/how-to-combat-complaints-sites-in-google-open-discussion/7360/
Why do many SEOs and marketers adopt this type of behavior instead of simply using prevention and or ethics? Read about herd mentality here and here, and you’ll begin to see that some may have begun with good intentions, but popular marketers (frequently seen in Sphinn and announcements of marketing, social media, and SEO conferences) are ruining the minds of otherwise legitimate SEOs and marketers by convincing them to adopt these practices.
Marketers who may have been on the up-and-up, are easily persuaded by popular SEOs and marketers that ‘talk’ about ethics and care. They use smiles when needed and a “Hello, so good to see you. Wow, I love your hair” type of comments to make you think they are trustworthy. They are misled into believing that they are Gods of the industry, so you must be doing something right if you follow them and get a hello. *rolls eyes*
Best manipulation tactic ever, just ask any serial killer.
When SEOs / marketers feel threatened, they band together in hordes to force a consumers voice so far down the search engine results pages that it’s unlikely to see the light of day.
Valuable consumer voices can be easily stifled in a short period of time by SEOs and marketers that are desperate to ’save face’: From article:
How This Also Affects The Consumer
1. As a consumer, looking for a product or service provider, it’s less likely you will see “complaint” pages.
- No visible complaint pages, means more clients for dirty SEOs and marketers. (not just the ‘good guys’)
2. Consumers are being washed away, stifled, ignored, disrespected, and brushed under the carpet by greedy SEOs and marketers.
3. Consumers are locating service providers by way of the search engines moreso everyday.
With consumers complaints out of the way, hungry marketers found in the first few pages of the results pages are getting a large portion of readers/traffic.
Unfortunately, what consumers are finding in those first few pages may be anything but a marketer that cares for the consumer.
Consumer Rights and Recourse
Consumers also have the option to “market” themselves, their voice, their opinions and ideas, concerns and cares.
For example, blogging is an excellent way to be heard.
If financially capable, blogging from your very own domain is inexpensive. You need a domain name, a host provider, maybe a few theme tweeks, plugins, and a voice.
Also available to consumers are free blog spots. Such as:
When you see or experience an injustice of any sort, blog about it.
Don’t like how someone in the SEO or marketing arena behaves? Blog about it.
Have any sort of consumer complaints? Blog about them!
Find others who are also primarily focused upon consumer rights and protection.
Search terms that you may to try would be:
- Consumer rights
- Consumer protection
- Consumer education
- Consumer complaints
- Consumer activism
- Consumer organizations
Consumer Rights in Online Social Networks
In social networking spots such as:
there’s thousands of people who share the consumers interests, and mindset.
Most social networks also offer search boxes that enable the consumer to search for the above mentioned terms. Using this option will direct you to people, and pages concerning the consumer.
These places also offer groups which may address consumer rights and other consumer issues and needs.
If there’s not a pre-created group that addresses your needs and cares, you are at liberty to create a group of your own.
(creating groups: This is typically free of charge, but at-cost ($10) in Stumbleupon)
Consumer Rights and SEO - Marketing
As consumers, we have the same options available to us that SEOs have, if we learn SEO and implement what we learn on our blogs and sites.
SEO enables you to optimize you blogs and sites, so they will be visible in the search engines which means others to find you and what you have to say.
If more consumers take advantage of blogging and blog optimization, the use of social networking services and join forums such as IHelpYou forum (who accepts you for who you are, is helpful and offers skillful mods/admin to assist you) then they too can be heard and maybe, with unity of like minds, can make a difference.
Sites Designed to Empower The Consumer
Take advantage of sites such as:
2. Complaints.com - Consumers In Control
6. Measured Up
7. FCC (federal Communications Commission)
8. FTC (Federal Trade Commission)
9. Consumer Federation of America
and many more..
Don’t believe popular SEOs / marketers blindly, just because they may have a “Code of Ethics” page on their website, such as the supposed “Code of Ethics” found on Bruce Clay, Inc http://www.bruceclay.com/web_ethics.htm - (Lisa Barone, one of Bruce Clays crew, is anything but concerned for the consumer. I ought to know. I am a consumer, and she treated me horribly when I presented concerns about the SEO/marketing industry)
Remember this?
“I am not a crook”
![Richard Nixon - \](http://learningseobasics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/richardnixon.jpg "Richard Nixon - \")
you might also be interested in
Topics: Consumer rights |
July 25th, 2008 at 1:48 am
Wow, Kim comes out swinging…
I may have to sit on the fence this time and say both sides have a point.
Loren did point out in his post that the best defense is to not invite complaints in the first place. Ie; act ethically and no one will want to get negative comments circulated.
“Of course, the best way to battle online complaints is via not making mistakes and through good reputation management, responding to complaints in a personal manner from management, and not from a boilerplate response….
But as search marketers, these complaints sites are a pest to the performance of our clients, and with a good amount of them being either shakedown artists or complaints initiated by competition; we want to annihilate them from the front page of Google results (or from above the fold).”
The issue rests on the assertion that many complaint sites are - as Loren suggests - ’shakedown artists’ offering to remove negative feedback for a fee (tantamount to blackmail) or cynical smear campaigns by the competition. I can see nothing wrong with a marketer wanting to protect his client from this kind of cynical and damaging manipulation.
What this illustrates is that BOTH sides of the seo ranking war are using the consumer as a football. The consumer’s complaint can be smoothed over for a fee or can be fabricated if it’s part of another company’s attempt to take you out.
Personally, I don’t know how prevalent this kind of complaint manipulation is. Certainly there will be genuine customer feedback lost in the shuffle and that is lamentable as you correctly point out, but I think Loren is clear that he is talking about limiting damage from those negative campaigns that are more cynically manufactured.
I guess how do you separate consumer rights from fabricated or manipulated consumer complaints?
Kimotas last blog post..Online Writer Wanted!
July 25th, 2008 at 2:02 am
Wow. This is amazing. I had no idea. Thank you!
July 25th, 2008 at 2:15 am
Kimoto, thanks for commenting.
The fact of the matter is, we all know that a marketer is more likely to use it to manipulate even the honest consumer voices (especially the honest consumer voices)
The consumer may also try to manipulate and/or fabricate (just as the marketers are certain to do and are well known for) but where’s the consumers leverage? They need to be aware of what they are up against.
Search Engine Journal is not a blog for the consumer. It’s a blog for marketers, SEOs and those seeking service providers.
The consumers, as it stands, without education, don’t stand the chance that a marketer who’s protecting his *ss has.
Lisa, thanks also for commenting. Yes, it’s far too certain I’m afraid. As you can see, it hit Sphinn’s hot page in 5 hrs. Many other articles have been known to sit for a day or so before hitting the hot page, unless it’s a ‘buzz’ thing..
I believe a reason for this sort of article being of concern for them at present, is due to the controversial posts I’ve written lately about Sphinns most prominent marketers and the comments I have left on Sphunn posts.
Many of them have terrible issues. If their names are mentioned negatively, and it recirculates, well..they don’t like it much.
So what? I’m not here for them. I’m here for the consumer. Period.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Thanks for the many links to consumer sites. A very valuable resource.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:03 am
“we all know that a marketer is more likely to use it to manipulate even the honest consumer voices ”
Publishing phony baloney consumer complaints, cluttering a site with AdSense or shaking down companies for cash to have those complaints removed, is not in my opinion, a valid site built to share an honest consumer voice.
Search Engine Journal stories tend to go hot on Sphinn. This has a lot to do with our loyal readership, RSS subscribers and the Sphinn button on the post
Thanks and congrats on the engagement, Loren
July 25th, 2008 at 3:06 am
@ Kimota : Thanks for coming to bat for me! You rock!
July 25th, 2008 at 3:12 am
Thanks Evan. AS time goes on, I’ll be adding to that list, but will create a consumer resource page for them.
Loren, the post went hot in 5 hrs. Not because SEJ has such a loyal following, (I’ve seen SEJ posts sit for a day or two as a matter of fact).
And not because so many SEOs have been attacked by valueless or fake consumer reviews (conjured or otherwise), but because of it’s value to any snake-in-the-grass that wants to push down negative reviews.
Thanks for the well wishes.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:47 am
Wow, putting a picture of murder with SEJ really shows class there Kim.
I’m glad we opt to take the high road and keep the industry’s best interests in mind.
Say hi to Bowser for me!
July 25th, 2008 at 4:23 am
This is a pretty black and white view. No shades of gray. This type of “right” and “wrong” ideology has created enough problems already (see fundamentalism)
Though some of your points are valid (like people being able to push down bad reviews) you place no value on the practice of pushing down inflamatory, negative, misleading, or false information that can easily be placed into SERPs.
I work at a company that was attacked but a former employee. Slander filled the blogosphere from said person’s numerous blogs on virtually all free blog platforms. False claims about really, really bad stuff happening at our company was the 2nd the schools would find when searching for us, because the person figured out how to launch dozens of blog with duplicate content pointing to a main blog. It was the worst, and most evil form of online reputation damage.
In this scenario, the person’s motive was blackmail. They said they would stop blogging if we paid them a *lot* of money. And if we didn’t and we fought it, they would make us look like the evil corporation trying to nail the little guy who was abused at work. Imagine being in that position. In that scenario, this article could help some companies experiencing similar problems.
My other problem with the post is that you flame a friend of mine who I *know* is not unethical. Is *not* what you are claiming. It’s flame-bait, and for that, I will not link to or reference this story or blog.
I’m sorry, but this post was unfair, not well thought out, and harmed *your* reputation in at least one person’s mind (me)
Sorry Kimberly, I just don’t agree with this point of view, or really negative post.
Congrats on getting engaged.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:31 am
It’s not just SEOs and Marketers playing this game. I wrote a negative review of a web analytics software program on my blog and their *CEO* came and started harassing us. It all came to a head when he attempted a DOS attack on the blog.
What could he have done instead? I don’t know, why not write to us and offer us another demo, or even state your case intelligently? There are other options.
Lorens last blog post..How Loopfuse Marketing and Sales Automation *Attacked* our Blog for a Bad Review
July 25th, 2008 at 7:29 am
“The consumers, as it stands, without education, don’t stand the chance that a marketer who’s protecting his *ss has.”
I certainly agree with this, but that is true in anything. If I get into a fight with a boxer, I’m going to come off worse, even if I was in the right. The marketers have more expertise because they’ve studied and practiced and spend hours a day on the web.
It’s much the same as politics. The politicians know how to manipulate media information on them and their policies and the voter is virtually powerless to avoid being led to an incorrect and misinformed distorted vision of the candidates. Most voters are aware of this manipulation though and filter some of the rubbish out. As you know, I recently discussed the topic of misinformation on the web. This is yet another example. Online consumers will gradually learn this too.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
What total crap! I totally do not agree with your POV in the least. First off, not all SEOs are out to get the consumer and you should know that by now after being in the industry as long as you have been. Most of us even take time to teach the consumer. I rarely sphinn, but when I do I make sure it’s a worthwhile article. Not because I’m snake!
Taking time to make sure your online reputation is “in the good” does not mean we are murderers by any means. In today’s world it’s necessary for everyone to do it.
You might want to consider checking your online reputation as it appears it’s going down the drain now that you have started attacking everyone in the industry now.
And you know good well sites like theripoffreport.com are only out there to blackmail businesses. That’s why they have been banned by Yahoo and MSN. They get “consumers” to write negative press about companies so that they can call them up and tell them how they can be taken off the website for a $1000 each month. And what happens when that company stops paying? The ad goes right back to the top of the listings. We’ve experienced it firsthand and we have lost clients because of the false ad.
We need to stop attacking each other and instead just work together as an industry as our industry already has a big enough black eye without us attacking each other.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Excuse me, Kimota, but we’re not talking about a violent little sport favored by names like Guido and mobster game fixers (sorry for ragging on your peeps, Kimberly…;)…it’s for a “good cause”)…we’re talking about things which affect our lives -everyone’s lives - from the food we feed our children, to the cars whose safety our family’s well-being relies on (ahem! sorry had to clear my throat), to the medicine our parents are taking…
Kimota is saying “Oh, well, it’s not a level playing field…” I say “It DAMNED well better be” given what’s at stake…i would say that it’s important enough that it lends support to the notion that governments should “regulate” certain aspects of search (no, I don’t want to open that can of worms, but as Search Engines like Google achieve near monopoly status on what information we receive, there will be more and more calls for this sort of thing…we all hate the “R” word, but the Elephant in the Room just keeps getting bigger)…
As for the accusation of “shakedown” being leveled at consumer sites, I think the more respectable consumer sites hold themselves to certain standards, but if you’re in the mood for a libel suit, please go ahead and name a few that you’re accusing of something so nefarious…frankly, I’m more concerned about unscrupulous SEOs who use these sites to damage their clients’ competitors (as Kimota pointed out, who better do just that? and isn’t it interesting the one concrete example Loren ever cited was that of another greedy little bugger, NOT a consumer)…
Perhaps the Holy Grail of the perfect “semantic search” will render all of these arguments moot (and some of us without a job) one day …in the meantime, enjoy this picture of a lemon (don’t worry Loren - it’s not the kind with wheels)…
July 25th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Like most topics this is not as black/white as it would first appear. Sometimes consumers have legitimate complaints, sometimes not. As someone who has dealt with customer service there are definitely occasions where the customer is *not right* but you do your best to settle the situation.
Unfortunately when published on the web these complaints can do real damage to company, especially if they are unaware of SEO or how to protect their brand SERPs. What worries me these days is that people are quicker to publishing a damning post on blogger than pick up the phone/email to the company concerned. That’s pretty irresponsible.
People have already mentioned malicious attacks by disgruntled ex-employees, suppliers or competitors.
Another factor is that companies can change over time. Newspapers are tomorrow’s fish and chip wrappers but search engine results live forever. They can continue to cause damage long after the company concerned has improved their service or changed management. I can fully understand why they may want to address some of these listings and move on.
In some cases though, yes, complaints are valid and when all the normal channels have failed, the web has enabled these people to have a voice. It’s important to realise though that the situation can be more complex than consumer=good company=bad.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Wow. This is one of the worst articles I have ever read. You could have written the same article and made the same points without mentioning the authors of the articles in question. This whole post was just attacking and slandering good people’s names.
While I agree with some of your points (I actually see both sides having valid arguments) the way you made those points was in fact unethical and wrong.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Complaints sites exist to make money for the site owners, not to give consumers a voice. To think that they are providing a viable platform for consumers to air grievances is pretty absurd. These sites are actually excellent examples of how to have the public create user generated content, under the guise of “protest”, that the site owner then monetizes effectively for himself/herself.
Places like “Rip Off Report” are actually very ineffective places to post complaints…if you have a legitimate beef with a business, I’d post it at Google Local, Yahoo Local, MSN Local & City Search.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
how deep is the hole of crap you are trying to dig yourself into?
July 25th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Eric: “really shows class there Kim” - By YOUR definition of class? Laughable. “high road”? Consumer-first. That’s the “high road”. remember that road? You should. You actually ARE one. Funny how you forget.
Chris and Loren: I’m not saying every negative review is warranted. As far as SEJ, I can only say that they are in support of Sphinn, SEL, and online environments that do not uphold integrity within their own open-to-the-public forums, much less integrity behind the scenes in which I have suffered personal attack, as well as many others. It’s part of the ‘weeding’ work that takes place when a difference of opinion regards ones they call ‘friends’.
The site is supportive of ‘herd mentality’ that stifles contrary opinion, they utilize ‘gang Desphinns’, down-votes, unwarranted virtual beatings of those who not deserve such treatment, and so forth. They put money into the pockets of less-than-ethical big-wigs, which means more bad news for the consumers. AS WELL AS THE INDUSTRY you guys claim to want to protect. (uh, Li Evans who most of you guys are so in love with, has sent private emails in mass quantities to people so they gang up on me (and someone I care for). Is that what you guys protect? Smash someone to pieces for divulging sensitive truths, instead of just using prevention of the act that brought the poor review to begin with? Sheesh, I want ‘friends’ like that)
Thank you for the congrats.
Kimota: “Online consumers will gradually learn this too.” This only happens when there is ample information available to them. Tis’ why I’m here.
Casey: “because of it’s value to any snake-in-the-grass that wants to push down negative reviews.” Is not an attack on you, unless you’re a snake. I don’t know enough about you to know if you are or not.
Check my online reputation? Haha, uh..I think there’s many people that are in favor of consumer protection. I’m doing just fine, thanks for the suggestion. By the way, I do this as philanthropy, fyi..I don’t use affiliate links here, no hidden requests for financial assistance, no need to offer services for pay, and all of that blah blah stuff. I do this because I like the underdogs. They need help and sure as h*ll aren’t gonna get it from the majority. (By the way, the SEO services banners in my sidebar are provided by educational sources that I think can be useful for those that cannot otherwise find the tutorials. I do not receive any sort of compensation from them or anyone else. Eventually, this site will become a large resource of free services that address every possible topic I can get my tiny fingers on)
Did I say that places like theripoffreport.com are right? I’m pretty sure all I said was the legit consumers will be hit by the same funk crowd that will push down the blackmail sites. (common sense)
PS: I don’t ‘attack’ marketers. I protect consumers.
LEmonMan: Uh, I don’t really know what to say accept, you must be a consumer? haha..Obviously, you see the bigger picture here and cleared a few things up. Online marketing plays a HUGE HUGE role in every part of our online and offline existence. Our families, our livelihood, our well being is affected by everything they promote. Some are ethical, fair, and support quality ideas, products, services, etc. But the fact of the matter is, many of the largest ‘glam shooter’ SERPs dominators, simply do not abide by any particular standards. They defend the ‘herd’ before they defend what’s right. And it is creating damaged, greedy minds of blackhatters, spammers, and haters. (not all, but too many to number)
Nick: Well said. My concern is that the consumers need more leverage, and I want to help them with that. See me as ethical? Terrific. See me as unethical because I bitch about wrongdoing while exposing bullsh*t? Terrific. I don’t rightly give a ho0T. I care about the consumer crew. And obviously there are many who care for the ‘herd’..Can’t do anything about that.
Matt: Good people don’t support harmful environments, and certainly do not allow goings ons that takes place. If I wanted to add some of the behind the scenes (private) goings ons that have occurred lately, I very well could have. It’s my blog.
You see this as slander? Hmmm, it’s not. They offer services in public, to the public. My writing is truthful and warranted. Do not accuse me of lying. In so many words, you just slandered ME. UNwarranted. If they have you running as part of the blinded joyous herd, then fly be free. More power to you. When you get dogged by them later, don’t say I didn’t tell you so. When you need a shoulder to cry on I’ll still be here.
Thanks for the options Todd. Good to know.
Streko: Uh…Do you see a hole? I see no hole. Maybe you see one because you’re standing in it?
Thanks all for commenting.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
In the end… it is all business. Seo and Marketers does it to get rid of bad press, complaint site are made to make money and to get a consumer voice heard. At least complaint site is helping the consumer a bit
July 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
omg! you actually let one of my comments through…
July 25th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
I’m agreeing with Kimota and Nick.
Of course this issue isn’t black and white, but the prob is that there is NO entity out there who will stand up and say “this” complaint site is bogus and this one is vERY legit. I feel this goes along with part of the SEO/webdesign industry responsibility. Who or what group will stand up and start making things happen?
Anyone?
I didn’t think so.
Kimberly is only voicing her frustration about the state of the industry and what is really going on. I’m frustrated as well. Does that make me bad? I don’t think so. It makes me frustrated that NO one who is some kind of industry leader really does care about things like this issue at all. They would rather turn the other cheek. BUT: if it’s a buddy who got a bad review on one of these complaint sites, you can bet they would be sticking up for them. If not a buddy, they just don’t care.
I see both sides of this clearly. I also know there are BAD complaint sites out there who are extortionists at best. I do know of some that are good as well. The good ones will allow both the complaint and a counter to that complaint. They won’t ask for any damn money either.
It’s about time the industry starts cracking the whip in my opinion. Or, maybe there just isn’t anyone with enough balls to do so? That’s probably it. Most of you are too worried about what your online reputation may be “with your buddies” in the industry, and not worried whatsoever about the actual consumer who is trying to wade through all the bullocks and twaddle in this industry…..oh, and did I mention the ass kissing?…. that too.
Don’t shoot the messengers guys/gals. It’s refreshing to see others like Kim finally taking a hard stand.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Kimberly I read your article and the comments up to this point with a great deal of interest.
Though I agree that consumers need a way to speak out. Everyone does not know how to set up a blog.
Most of the so called consumer review sites that scrape my content are only tying to make a buck from my work, based on my site. Some of them don’t even link back to the site.
I guess in regard to consumer review sites I have negative feelings.
I am a consumer but I’m also a merchant.
I agree that merchants should have ethics. I also agree that few so called SEOs seem to have ethics. At least from what I read in places like Sphinn.
On the other hand consumers should have ethics too. In the 8 years or so that I have had a e-commerce site, I can count on both hands the number of charge backs I’ve had.
Most of them I have won. The ones I lost were the result of a customer (consumer) who was lying. CC companies will favor the consumer most of the time in regard to charges made on-line. At least that is my experience.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Just want to add that I applaud people like you who have the guts to take a stand on issues that involve ethics.
People who are willing to speak out are few and far between in the SEO industry.
Most simply buy into the herd mentality, and bash someone who challenges that thinking.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
MarketingDeviant, thanks for commenting. Yes, both sides have to protect their interests. I won’t be blogging in this manner all the time. I intend to take various approaches to this sort of topic in the future.
Doug and Connie, both of you are providing balanced viewpoints and it’s appreciated. As Doug said, I get frustrated. It’s difficult not to express it.
The last thing I want to do is to make it more difficult for people like you guys who seem to be on the up-and-up. I don’t think there’s anyone on the planet that could convince me that you guys are phonies. I trust your input and am grateful you have taken the time to nurture me a little. Over time, I hope to return the favor.
Connie, about CC companies, I didn’t know that they favored the consumer. Just learned something new. Thanks.
July 25th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Thanks Doug, you summarised my view very well.
LemonMan, I never said I agreed with the internet not being a level playing field. Anyone who reads my blog regularly will know that I am exactly the opposite and Kim’s and my views are usually pretty parrallel. I’m very outspoken on the topic of transparency and the ethical internet and despise the inherent deceit that is creeping into the way we do things.
Here I was pointing out the reality that it’s not necessarily the marketer’s fault that the playing field isn’t level, but the whole basis of our online society. In this particular example, I don’t see how the battle between consumer and marketer - even if all marketers were white hat ethical good guys - could be made level in terms of SEO without consumers suddenly becoming highly trained overnight - hence the boxing analogy. Even the white hats among us are still fighting to put our websites up the top of Google, which by default puts the competition - and other consumer related sites - below us or bump them to the next page. The only difference here is doing it with an awareness that a consumer site loses out to us. Loren’s article - and some of the other commenters - point out that there are times when this is a reasonable thing to do.
The real issue is separating those times from the other times. Who decides which consumer comment is valid and which is nefarious in nature? That’s the sixtyfour thousand dollar question to which ther is no satisfactory answer because the web just ain’t there yet. Maybe the semantic web will have the answers, maybe not.
It was Loren’s original article that framed the discussion within dealing with ’shakedown artists’ and competition manipulation and I repeated that that was the focus of his article here, so ask him to name them if you want to challenge the assertion. If you, on the otherhand, can indicate that there is no problem to worry about from consumer sites chasing fees to remove negative material, then put it up, but don’t shoot the messenger.
Kimotas last blog post..Online Writer Wanted!
July 26th, 2008 at 12:24 am
shouldn’t you market something or be a marketer before getting into marketing discussions? im just saying i would be the last person to try and give advice on how to do plumbing work, even though one of my closest friends is a plumber…
July 26th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Kimota, we do share similar viewpoints the majority of the time. And I have enjoyed your blog for a while now.
The point of this article is to make people aware of the fact that there are ways to shove people so far down in the SERPs that may never be seen.
Yes, this is obviously a plus for those who are undeserving of negativity about them in the SERPs to begin with. Negativity is frequently uncalled for, a facade at times, hyped for no real cause, to flame the SERPs to destroy reputations or, as Lorens article addresses, by money grubbing blackmailers.
But the fact of the matter is, the Sphinn herd has received many poor reviews by various sources lately. (MANY, I am not the only one). Usually, when they see a pattern arising, they begin to blog about the patterned topic on various popular blogs.
Now, given the fact that I’ve been an active participant in Sphinn for quite a while now, and am able to see these patterns, doesn’t mean I am psychic or anything, but it was like clockwork watching Lorens post go hot in a matter of 5 hrs. With all of the negative talk about them lately, they are in fear, so many are acting like animals to save face.
Loren has associated with them long enough to also have noticed this pattern. If not, well, it was perfect timing for the haters to stifle those that won’t keep their mouths shut as to their goings ons. I don’t hold it past the herd to abuse the knowledge, and know darn well they will. I’ve seen the way particular ‘herd sponsors’ treat persons who expose them, and I feel if this is the case, that consumers and every day average Joes also need to be aware of how they work.
Maybe where I went wrong here is that I did not make it more clear that not all marketers and SEOs are the same. Then again, I hope they don’t believe that they are all the same, because then they wouldn’t respond kindly to me either which would defeat the purpose.
Streko, definition of marketing: “The process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational goals.”
That box you think out of is dark isn’t it?
July 26th, 2008 at 1:00 am
Steko, wait..heres a better one: “The process of identifying and communicating with qualified prospects.”
Hmmm, ‘qualified prospects’…could that be consumers? Dunno..I think it cooooould.
PS: in case you don’t know what prospects are, here’s the definition for that as well:
“Potential customers and markets.”
Uh oh, ‘customer’?. Maybe you’d like the definition for that?
“A patron; one who purchases or receives a product or service from a business or merchant, or plans to.”
It’s nice to see that my blog and it’s contents have had you so busy lately. Gives you something to do?
Glad to know that I fill your addiction to flaming. If it keeps you off of other peoples backs then we’ve done well ey?
At least you seem to be handling it with a more mellow approach this evening. Did you get sleepy?
July 26th, 2008 at 1:05 am
im just saying - if i ran a blog called “learningseobasics.com” i would at least do seo. have clients. not just a linked in profile with links to my blog on it.
there is a difference between flaming and just stating facts, sorry if they seem like that, reality can be harsh.
the sad part is that you are not even looking at the big picture of what your manic-like tyrants are doing. remember when 2 become 1 - you end up effecting both parties.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Streko, read my about page. Do you read?
July 26th, 2008 at 1:20 am
nah. no time. i do “seo”
July 26th, 2008 at 2:52 am
Kimberly keep in mind that every credit card company is different in how they deal with customer complaints. I’m sure every company that handles merchant accounts may be different in how they handle complaints from a consumer (customer).
I could give you examples from both ends of the spectrum. However, I think the most powerful tool in the consumer tool bag is a charge back against a merchant.
For all the experts.
X is the unknown quantity of Math.
A spurt is an over exaggerated drip.
Therefore a expert is a unknown over exaggerated drip.
I do not think that Kimberly fits that description, but for some reason, I think some of her critics may.
I only do SEO for myself. And sometimes I do a bad job at that.
I do keep up with the industry. Frankly what I see posted in Sphinn, and most forms, and blogs is a crock of Sh**t.
Kimberly I may not always agree with you, but I find your blog a breath of fresh air.
July 26th, 2008 at 6:19 am
I have to agree with you on the chargeback issue Connie. That is a real problem for people trading online. The main problem being that often there is no physical delivery of goods, so no evidence that you delivered services to the approved address of the cc holder.
That means you are all but certain to loose the chargeback argument, at least under UK law.
I once took away a domain from someone who was using it to carry out a phishing operation for a well known bank. This was clearly illegal and against our TOS but they still won the chargeback. I was incredulous with the bank over thier lack of support for us as a merchant, considering their position on phishing fraud.
I also believe some consumers think that chargebacks are paid for by the credit card company. They should know that as a merchant you pay for these in full. I’m 100% certain in some cases this has been done just to see if they can get the goods “for free”. Some US banks also ring up their clients to ask if they recognise charges, if they say no, then the charges are automatically charged back. I’ve even resorted to ringing up some clients to get this resolved.
When it comes to chargebacks the ball is a little too much in the court of the consumer IMHO. They should take some responsibility for their actions too.
Anyway - good to see you Doug.
One last point though Kim. It doesn’t seem right to bash BruceClay/Lisa Barone in your post. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you were/are not a customer of BruceClay so it’s not fair to presume how they treat people in this circumstance? I’m not attacking you here but maybe it would be more accurate to say this was a disagreement between two marketers?
Nick Wilsdons last blog post..Check Your Feeds: Latest WordPress 2.5x Blanks RSS
July 26th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Connie: I also only do SEO for myself. I am not an expert. All I know is that I have ranked well for the terms I choose, I’ve built a higher percentage of SE traffic with lower bounce rate than when I began, I have stuck to the basics and still have very much to learn.
I intend to dig into IHY’s forum pages for as much info as I can, ask questions, and expand upon what I do know. And of course, Bill has been showing me a thing or two on the weekends, and has cleared up a few misunderstandings I had also.
As I mentioned in one of the IHY threads, I got sidetracked with all of my SM participation. Now I suggest to many to make sure their SEO is in place before embarking upon SM.
Since the beginning, I have said “As I learn, I’ll pass it on”..Some people seem to think that I am trying to speak as an expert or something. No, just an observer and ‘basics’ girl.
Nick: I was not bashing BruceClay. I know nothing about BruceClay’s business dealings. Lisa, who is affiliated with BruceClay, on the other hand, in my opinion, is an unfair and harmful instigator. Would I trust that kind of person in business? Many would see it as a plus and say yes. I say no. But, it’s Lisa I question. Not BruceClay as a whole.
Have a terrific Saturday everyone. Bill is here, so I’m chillin’ today.
Hey Streko, I might even do some of that SEO stuff.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Not to push a point but don’t you see this is exactly the kind of issue I mentioned in my first comment here.
As you say, you haven’t had any business dealings with BruceClay, yep you happily question their ethics as a company in public (”they may have a “Code of Ethics” page on their website, such as the supposed “Code of Ethics” found on Bruce Clay, Inc” and “Lisa Barone, one of Bruce Clays crew, is anything but concerned for the consumer”).
It’s pretty black and white, you’re bashing both Lisa *and* BruceClay here, or you wouldn’t be mentioning BC at all. By saying Lisa is “anything but concerned for the consumer” you are implying she would not treat her clients well.
I know there are issues between you and Lisa but this personal dispute had led you to attack their company. This is exactly the kind of problem that can affect companies in the SERPs. Consumers have rights, but so do companies. For example, it’s not fair to critique a company’s customer service when you have *never* been a customer.
Anyway, like I said before, I’m not attacking - I’m just trying to show that both parties have rights. To focus on consumer rights exclusively is to ignore the rights of the merchant/company. There should be a balance.
I hope you and Bill have a good weekend.
Nick Wilsdons last blog post..Check Your Feeds: Latest WordPress 2.5x Blanks RSS
July 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Yeah, Kimberly, why don’t you get some clients?
I mean even I got clients…hey, I just optimized the website for my Aunt’s manicure business - I just saved her .15 cents per click because I SUCK at organic…
I have to admit, I got into this business because it was an easy RACKET…If I didn’t have that I’d be out trying to corner the lawn mowing business in my neighborhood…
July 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Nick: Professionalism extends beyond the company client relationship. If Lisa exhibits a lack of ethics in the public eye, especially in an atmosphere like Sphinn, this reflects poorly on her own company in my opinion.
Kooshay, “Yeah, Kimberly, why don’t you get some clients?”
As it stands, I’m too busy, not interested, or otherwise just having fun. Why blow it with actual work? haha
Bill said, “Kooshay, I hope your aunt gives you free manicures for all your hard work”
July 26th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Hi Kimberly; Nick is right. What you wrote about BC/Lisa is coming off as bashing Bruce Clay as a whole. I actually applaud his firm for at least trying to establish some kind of ethical best practices. At least he has the balls to give it a shot, very unlike most in this industry. Lisa should be a separate issue between the two of you. I hope you get it resolved with her. Although I don’t always agree with what she writes, she too wants the word ethics in the SEO industry again…. it’s very lacking now. I think it’s the way the wrote it that is making it seem the way it does.
To the commenter above; why should people “have” to have clients? I know many who are either trying to learn about things or who do know about SEO, but they have no clients. Let’s not confuse two parts of marketing; SEO is totally separate stuff from social media marketing. As much as many in this industry want to fuse the two together as one; and it’s obvious why these people want to do so; social media is NOT SEO. Period.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
BTW Kim; Don’t look at my post as defending Lisa as I’m not. Heck; I don’t think the woman likes me at all and never has for some reason. I actually like her though.
I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone wouldn’t like me. LOL
July 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Hi Doug, I understand what you are saying and I would also be the first to stand up for her and her company as well…if I actually saw more than words from Lisa. I have not seen proof of her ethics. In fact, I have seen a complete disregard for ethics from her. Does this affect my initial inclination to believe her company’s ethics are in tact? Of course. I am human.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Haha..yea, how could anyone not like you?!
July 26th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I have no idea how Lisa feels about me, we’ve barely talked and never met in person. I’m just calling this as I see it.
If your issue really is with Lisa and not BC - how about editing out all the references in the post and comments (replace them with MarketingCompany or BC)? That would seem the responsible thing to do. I’m happy for you to edit my comments here and I’m sure Doug feels the same.
This post itself has now turned into exactly the kind of public complaint you originally wrote about. Someone unaware of the background might type in their company name and end up reading all this.
Maybe you feel empowered as a consumer to write this but the fact is you have never been a customer of BC. Ironically this article is exactly the kind of material that BC would be justified in pushing down the listings - using the techniques you have just condemned.
Nick Wilsdons last blog post..Check Your Feeds: Latest WordPress 2.5x Blanks RSS
July 26th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Nick: If Lisa’s behaviors are of concern, and if her behaviors are reflecting poorly on BC, then wouldn’t it be more wise to discuss this with her and/or BC?
I expressed a sincere opinion, based upon behaviors that LISA is responsible for, and she just so happens to represent a company online.
SEJ, wrote their piece in reference to an entirely different beast. But, as you can see, by your own comment, ‘the beast’ is not the only ones that are being hit by it.
THAT was my point. Thanks for clarifying that.
Have a great weekend.
July 27th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Very helpful information in this page and also the comments. I’m from latam (south america) and how the companies violate consumer rights you can see it everyday and everywhere
Have a good weekend
July 27th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Kim,
If you are SO interested in protecting the “consumer” why isn’t this post about creating fair, unbiased review sites, rather than simply bashing Internet marketers who utilize their skills to squelch biased reviews in the SERPs.
Every product or service, no matter how wonderful and beneficial to the consumer, receives negative reviews from a few. The current setup of negative review sites such a RipOffReport.com allow only a voice for those negative reviews.
How is this fair to the consumer?
How is one persons view, biased or un, a fair appraisal of a product or service a consumer may be looking for without the other opinion having a platform?
If these reviews were coming through sites with an unbiased objective I would say your point is valid, but since it is not I scream link bait. It seems since you have discovered this voice as what you perceive to be a consumer rights advocate, and what I perceive to be self promotion.
You are building your personal brand through attacks on very popular members of our industry. Your motives, no matter what you claim them to be, are transparent to everyone.
Full disclosure: Some of the techniques used in Loren’s article came from me.
Am I a “serial killer”?
No.
I am a husband, father of two, and the only income in my household. I use my skills to make money for my family. I use ethics when doing this because at 6′2″ 285 pounds I could also make money for my family robbing people.
I protect the consumer by pushing biased consumer reports out of the SERPs. If you want to call these reports unbiased I challenge you to explain how a site designed to defame companies is not biased.
Sites like Trip Advisor are unbiased, and completely serve the consumer. I do not here anyone trying to knock those results out of the SERPs.
You preach ethics, and yet attack people and organizations that try to fight for our industry to become more ethical. Search & Social, LLC , mine and Jordan Kasteler’s company is being founded on providing quality customer service and high quality services. I love this industry and want us to lose the snake oil salesman look and feel.
I want to build something my kids are proud of.
This becomes harder when we have blogs and social media sites being filled with hate and infighting. Industries will never take us seriously, and we will always be the voodoo of marketing. We think our industry has come so far, but in reality it has gone nowhere, because we are to worried about nonsense and not making the industry better.
We would rather trumpet our personal greatness, and attack our competitors.
We would rather take very myopic views of very general topics.
We would rather not go outside our comfort zone.
I am sick of being called names because I do not agree with certain people.
I am not part of a herd. I am not a serial killer. I am not what ever you want to call me when you respond to this comment.
I am more of an advocate for our industry becoming fair and ethical than you ever will be. Why? Because I spend my time writing posts about ethical tactics rather than simply attacking others. Your blogs name is Learning SEO Basics, but you dont add anything to that conversation. Seems like you’re misleading the consumer, no?
Spend the next week or so blogging about SEO and prove me wrong. Spend so time away from this personal brand of the “muckraker” you are trying to achieve.
You will probably say I am trying to silence you, as though you are some beacon of truth.
To be honest until a week or so ago no one even knew who you were.
Now we all have to watch our backs as you spit out what you perceive to be righteousness, but what is only hate.
Dave Snyders last blog post..Paid Search in Football Terms
July 27th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
For those of you that don;t read this blog, apparently much of the content is scraped ncluding this fun little post http://learningseobasics.com/archives/492 where Kim apparently igves kudos for a post on “Bury Negative Posts About You or Your Company!” .
What changed in the last few months Kim?
July 27th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
And you Sphunn it here sphinn.com/ story.php? id=46222
July 27th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
[...] Consumer Rights Violated By SEOs and Marketers [...]
July 27th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Javier, I’m not aware of consumer rights in other countries, but over time I’d like to change that. I’m sure there’s just as much to worry about in every country. Thank you for commenting.
Dave, there’s much content here that will be revised over the next month or so. I followed the ‘herd’ until I saw the need for consumer awareness. So there are posts I shouldn’t have supported in the not so distant past.
Scraping? They didn’t seem to mind the fact that I pulled a paragraph from them so I could give them a backlink..In fact, there’s a million blog posts about how to give credit to information pulled from sources.
Have an apple. It’s good for your health.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:40 am
No need to be rude Dave. I don’t agree with some of Kim’s points in this article either, but you are wrong about something; I heard of Kim quite a long time ago. You say in the last month. Quite frankly; this is the first time I have seen your name anywhere, but it may be because I just don’t hang out the same places as you do… don’t know. My point is that just because someone is old in the industry, does not make them special, nor does someone brand new make them some kind of stupid. I’m allowed to change my views on things in a short period of time and so are you. Kim can do the same. Maybe she has finally seen the light on many things in this industry?
I think she already stated that the site you mention is bad stuff…ripoffreport or something like that. We all know there are good review sites and bad sites. Why can’t OUR industry fix all of this by forming some best practices and forcing people to abide by them, or get thrown out of the industry? That’s what I am for. That’s how every other industry does things. They don’t stand for cheats and deception in their industries. They don’t mess around with those types of people. They just boot them out.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Doug,
I don’t need to attack people to make a name for myself. I didn’t get into this business to be a famous or infamous, I got into to feed my family.
You say don’t be rude, but I was just labeled as having a “serial killer” mentality and a “herd” mentality by Kim in a 24 hour period.
Seems pretty rude to me.
And negativity begets negativity.
In the last two weeks Kim hast put forth personal assaults on a bevy of industry folk, and as a professional I just do not see the benefit of that.
I am old school (for a 28 y/old) if I have a problem with you, you know it. The only way I have contact with Kim is via these comments so I brought my voice here. I didn’t flame her on my blog, cause that’s not who I am.
When I see these attacks, and then see Kim’s history of supporting the same methodology only two months ago I begin to see posts like this as nothing more than link bait and an attempt at personal rebranding. I mean am I the only person who doesn’t form ardent positions in the course of two months.
I do not have a personal issue with Kim. I can’t. I have never met her. Also some of her beliefs I like, especially her non-seo political beliefs.
But as an industry professional I take issue with these types of attacks because I think to the outsider it makes our industry look like a group of clowns.
Doug, I am quite familiar with your crusade for what you perceive to be ethics. I am an ethical Internet marketer, mostly because I work in-house for a company that could lose millions if banned. Even my newly formed consultancy is based on the concept of ethics.
My one complaint with your quest is your assertion that “other industries” follow those types of ethics. Sure lawyers, doctors, architects have that type of licensing, but what other group of marketers and advertisers has such a set ethical foundation that would give cause for an individuals ousting? I guess we need to classify what we are. Our budgets usually come out of marketing dollars, so that easily answers my question.
I really don’t like the ethics talk because I see both sides of the coin. I would rather focus on kicking out the snake oil salesman selling meta tag optimization rather than the blackhat running affiliate programs. That does not say that I align myself with the black hat, I just see the snake oil salesman as being more of a threat.
I also think you should have read my rebuttal because I did not, and would never call someone “stupid.” My point was that Kim has ascended to a place in the minds of our industry in the past two weeks, that combined with her personal attacks, and change in mindset make me believe this is more about personal branding than a love for the consumer.
I mean if we love the consumer of this blog so much, why are we suppressing our past beliefs and editing URLs to Sphinn to make them not usable? Seems a lot like burying information the consumer might find valuable; a lot like the methods this post flames.
Dave Snyders last blog post..Paid Search in Football Terms
July 28th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Kimberly there is no doubt that you stirred up a hornets next with this particle.
I agree that there should be sites that stand up for the consumer. As both a consumer and merchant, there needs to be a balance. The consumer is not always right.
One problem that I have with a lot of these so called consumer review sites is they simply present a scraped page from the merchant. They exist for adsense or some other form of income.
Those sites do not exist for the consumer IMHO. They simply hope to attract some traffic for their scraped pages.
@ Dave S. I take your word in regard to your ethics.
I think you may be a little unfair in your assessment that Kimberly wrote this article for link bait. I don’t think that at all.
I think Kimberly suddenly saw the light, in regard to “Snake Oil SEOs, and the “Herd Mentality” that exist in this the SEO industry.
Dave think about it. Has there never been a time in your life when you held one opinion, and suddenly changed that opinion based on new information?
Personally I applaud Kimberly on her change, and her willingness to speak out. I also think it is a good thing that she is willing to go back and edit some previous post in regard to this issue.
Just a guess, but It could be possible that her relationship with Bill S had something to do with her quest for more information that led to her change of mind.
I think Kimberly fell into the wrong crowd/s “Herd Mentality”.
When she discovered the light she reacted against that mentality.
I can also understand how she might have negative comments about a company based on her personal experience with an individual who represents the company.
Right or wrong I think that has to do with human nature.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Dave; I partially agree with you about things. I strongly disagree with your stance on blackhat, etc. The biggest problem the industry has is two-fold; the leaders tout the blackhats everywhere you turn…. at conferences, etc. The industry IS full of snake-oil for sure. The industry should be fighting this stuff on BOTH fronts. It doesn’t. Matter of fact; it fights on ZERO fronts. It does nothing and that’s my point.
Kimberly DID see the light. She discovered a few “other” places who do NOT follow the herd whatsoever, nor do those places follow the damn so-called leaders. What’s wrong with that? Not a thing Dave. Some of us actually have our own opinions and really don’t give a shite about what sphinn thinks or the conferences think. That’s a fact.
I just noticed a GREAT article written by Bill of seobythesea. He wrote it HOURS ago. It was submitted to that sphinn site…. you know the site as you contribute there. It had TWO damn spins last I checked. That’s laughable. It was a VERY good article. So you tell me Dave; is the herd in tact?
August 1st, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Doug,
Let me introduce you to social news.
See social news sites are predicated on the concept of not only offering forth quality content ( or in your eyes lack there of) but allowing a social element to it.
This means that social connections fuel the Sphinn site. Thus popular members get there contributions to the FP easier, Digg works the same way. It really isnt hard to figure out. To be successful on their you need to communicate, and reciprocate.
I kind of laugh at the “herd” concept, because if you knew an iota about me you would know I only march to my own drummer. The only people opinions I care about are my wife, kids, and God. Beyond that I don’t care, because none of these industry types (including you) feed my family.
I utilize sphinn to share my friends articles, or put content I have written that I think is quality. I get labeled as a “herd” member because I socialize with industry types you don’t like. I don’t really care what anyone calls me so call me a member of a herd, call me a serial caller, call me whatever. I know what I am, and I doubt someone who doesn’t know me could make a very educated decision on who I am.
I also find the concept laughable because you have your own little herd in this industry Doug, no? Not a bad thing, you are a thought leader. But how is one “herd” bad and one “herd” good? Kim is now a member of your herd, the herd that attacks people with ideologies they disagree with. I have been to your forum, and I see how the community reacts to outsiders, thats a herd if I have ever seen one.
As far as the white hat, black hat thing I am not surprised you disagree with me, because you pretty much view any SEO not done by Doug Heil, or a Doug Heil herd member, as being black hat. I would love to sit down with you and get a better perspective on your beliefs, because I am sure I have some misconceptions. The only person I can monitor for now is me, and the work of my company. We believe in ethics, and will not deliver a sub par product with our name on it. That is my stance, leading by example. I am sure you would take issue with some of my strategies as well, but I know I am not a spammer, I know I work with my clients best long term interests in mind, and that sits well enough with me.
I think just as dangerous as the lack of ethics in our industry is the name calling, no? It makes us look petty to the outsider. But blasting people does bring you a voice in an industry filled with voices, so I understand the tactic.
Dave Snyders last blog post..By the Numbers: Bounce Rate
August 1st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I really like Doug and respect his opinions. We don’t always have to agree with each other, we don’t kiss each others *ss, we’re allowed to be exactly who we are without fear of losing a popularity contest or having to face attacks with down votes, Desphinns, and behind the scenes ‘gang bang’ emails because we say something that’s true, etc..
I use Sphinn too. In fact:
Topics Submitted: 166 Sphinns Cast: 2208
Comments Made: 668 Topics Gone Hot: 83
http://sphinn.com/user/view/profile/login/SpostareDuro
It’s when I decided to expose some things that had a right to be exposed, the ‘herd’ ganged up..not for what’s right, but for injustice and cruelty.
That’s what certain herds do..if you are not part of the ‘herd’ then why is it so important to defend anything?
I am not using any ‘tactic’ for any sort of manipulation. I was done dirty by quite a few popular ones, and it made me dig deeper. If I see something unjust, I write about it. If no one does something snakish, I won’t blog about it.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Hi Dave; yes; you pointed out the differences in a discussion forums, such as mine, and a social site, such as sphinn. A HUGE difference. Mine is not for self-promotion. Sphinn is. Mine is not influenced by who is popular, who is not, who spins who, who does not. Who likes who. Who does not like who. Who voted for your post. Who did not.
The two are as different from each other as night and day. A discussion forums does not care how many stories/posts went hot and who submitted them. It’s strictly for discussion/debate. We welcome ANYONE there and do not care what their opinions are. If I disagree with a post, I post as such. I fight with my moderators almost daily as we certainly don’t agree with all things. That sphinn site is not conducive to having real discussions or even caring about other opinions. It’s strictly for promotion and who votes for who.
Actually; I can’t think of another thing in this industry hurting it more right now than that social site. It’s making the industry look like crap…… as if the industry couldn’t look more crappier than it already does.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
[...] of all, hat tip to Kimberly Bock at Learning SEO Basics for bringing the idea that consumer rights are being violated by marketing companies to our SEO company’s attention. Of course, this issue is not strictly black and white, [...]
August 6th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
I have read your SEO blogs and a couple of those you listed and I am pretty much sure that if you follow them right,There are lots of people who get on the internet hoping that they will be able to learn how to attract new customers (it allows them to directly be in the page they were looking for).fast, but most usually without a clue as to where to start.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
there are 2 categories of consumers - those who believe all said to them, those that believe none of what is said to them, and those who just don’t care. The first category doesn’t want to read, think and analyze info on what they are buying - and need to get their own experience in order to make any conclusions on the product. The second category reads and thinks and analyzes all the available info, read reviews on web forums and ask friends before they buy anything (even a toothbrush). The third category just buys everything needed for the moment without much thinking of consequences. Evil marketers can have an influence only to #1 category… and the #1 category should THINK before buying things… not all complaint sites can be eliminates from the web, there are always some frank unsolicited reliable reviewers - you should just spend some time to find them online. If you are buying something really costly, it is worth to spend some time on finding them…
August 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Reviews about products always help a lot for customers to purchase or not to purchase something but new age internet make is even difficult. I know many sites and people who pay other people to post some good and bad reviews about different products. I think that is a security gap and it should be filled. I am not sure that if internet is helping consumers or not but it is making things even worst.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:45 am
eBay is another good example, People always purchase a lot of stuff without knowing people. I think there is some sort of score or feedback which is some kind of surety for people to purchase or not to purchase stuff.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Unethical approaches in online marleting is not much different to the ones undertaken offline by direct marketing or other such companies. Some work within ethical boundaries and some don’t. With regards to complaint sites I guess the same philosophy exists. The quality of complaints can be questioned as negative campaigns are easy to undertake.