90 replies to this topic

[bobmutch]

Jill:

>>>Bob, now you've really pi--ed me off.

Sorry didn't mean to do that.

[arlen]

I wouldn't normally post in a thread like this, as I have no first hand experience with the company in question .. but I've dealt w/ companies who use tactics like this in other areas of life. If they are as I suspect they are considering all the evidence across the web, then 'Dennis' will be "fired" and rehired as "Jack" or "Joseph" and the tactics will continue. I suspect it is in the culture of the business, though I have no proof of such. Perhaps not as this individual has used the same name for a several years apparently, but still, this stuff happens all the time.

An acquaintance of mine who shall go unnamed worked for a few years straight out of high school for a company as a phone collector. This company would sell 5 year magazine subscriptions to a fixed income blind elderly person, and then threaten and extort money out of them. The stories I heard were atrocious, though the acquaintance in question found it to be an absolute riot. Famously, he'd return from a day at 'work' where someone targeted that day would have broken down crying that they can't even feed their dog, and his response would be "shoot the damn dog and pay your f'n bills". He'd be "fired" on an every week or two week basis, retiring one pseudonym and taking up another the next day.

[Jill]

Yep, that doesn't surprise me in the least, Arlen.

[Leann_Pass]

I have not defended any thing but due process.  When I posted on your site I felt more than likely Denis had done what you said he had done.  But still that doesn't set aside due process. Due process makes sure that people don't get falsely accused.

I posted on your blog that you should remove the reference to Denis and the company because you had not done due process and there was remote possibility of you being wrong in your charges.

YOU THINK/CLAIM I "had not done due process"? And who exactly are you to decide this? ARE YOU an expert on this? The truth is, BOB, I did more research and had more info than you had when you originally posted, and more than you have now that you 'claim' to have spoken with 'someone' from that outfit.

I do not go around outing people or outfits (I refuse to call this a company), SEO or not, as that would be a complete waste of my time and effort - and just plain wrong. I posted this info first HERE in HR because it made me very angry that my client went through this CRAP and I wanted to warn good SEO's (and anyone interested) about what was going on.

NOTICE that I paid careful attention TO REMOVE any mention of the company name, full names, or urls - before I posted (because this Jill's forum - not mine - I appreciate being able to post here and I always respect her policies!).

In fact, it was only after receiving the to-and-from emails from my client, checking out phone numbers PLUS checking out the WhoIs info PLUS verifying that others had also dealt with this same outfit in a similar manner that I decided to post their company name, url and Denis's full name in my blog.


Please note - even though they are prominent in each email, I never posted the phone numbers (or even the email addy!), not here and not on my blog. Also note that David and Chip (who have all those phone numbers and email addy - as I gave them to them privately) DID NOT post that info in their blogs.

It is just funny to me that YOU, 'BOB - protector of scamming blackmailers', DID post their phone number on this forum (against [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?act=boardrules]Forum Rules[/url]) and in my blog (removing now - cuz it's just dumb!).

Seems to me that YOU BOB, are the only one Not following "due process"...

Leann_Pass:
>>>Now, I don't think that company can give you permission to post their name here - I believe that right is reserved for the owner/admin of this forum.

Bob: Jill can make the call on that one.

And She Did. Bob, you need to learn to have respect (other than for scammers!!) UGH!

Thread:

Steven the owner of the company called me and inferred that his office would be calling Leann with an apology, having a staff meeting to go over employee conduct, and posting a statement on this thread.

I do not want (and will not accept) an apology - ICK - I have no reason to believe anything they say - WHAT I WANT is to see the scamming blackmailers SHUT DOWN...PERIOD.

Overall, even though due process was not used to start with, it appears that the end results of the posts may have worked out well.  Denis has, or is going to be, dismissed (according to Paul his manager), and the staff at the company are all going to get a pep talk on employee conduct standards. This thread can stand as a warning for employees of SEO firm that cross the line and misuse clients.

Yeah right! Get a grip Bob!

I have a pile of clients on my plate and am really to busy to be doing this but I just went though a false accusion and had to deal with a false post by some one that didn't even puchase my service and having people believeing it.  So I guess being on the wrong end of the stick I was quick to stand up for due process.

'Oh there you are Peter"! <I am certain only Mike will understand what I mean by that!>

WELL there you have it folks! It isn't about due process - at all. Look Bob, if one false post/accusation is gonna kill you and your business- then you need to re-evaluate who you are and what you are doing.

[Jill]

Seems to me that YOU BOB, are the only one Not following "due process"...

That's one thing that's very clear from this whole thing.

We were supposed to believe Bob's post, but not Leann's without checking it out?

Bob, you're either very naive to think that the company didn't know about those blackmail practices, or there's a lot more to the story that we don't know. I suggest you perhaps keep out of this one at this point now, because it's certainly not doing anything to help your own reputation at the moment.

[mantawebsolutions]

Wow, I have read through this entire thread and must admit that I am shocked by two things.

First, the unbelievable gall this guy has to openly perform his blackhat SEO tricks and secondly, (to a lesser degree), how great the response has been.

In response to this blackhat SEO tactics - it is damaging our industry and makes it increasingly difficult to do what we do well. Our little anthill becomes a giant mountain everytime tactics like this is perfomed and we have to rectify and patch our "image" image. Let's face it, our current and prospective clients are not stupid, they too read about blackhat SEO and knows what too well what's going on. We need to stand together and "root out the evil" from among us.

I think by starting posts on respective blogs is a good start. keep it up.

In response to the response in this thread - people react to different things in different ways and read the same piece of text differently than the next person.

Generally speaking, in a thread like this it can be expected that you'll get posts by blackhat SEO's just to heat up the conversation and throw in controversy.

In closing, i think most people who post in a forum like this are "legit" SEO's and cannot stand bad SEO tactics.

Enough said...

[sweepthelegnate]

welcome manta

[ewc21]

Let's face it, our current and prospective clients are not stupid, they too read about blackhat SEO and knows what too well what's going on. We need to stand together and "root out the evil" from among us.

Welcome mantawebsolutions

While we can presume that current and prospective clients are not stupid and read about black hat SEO, not all are too aware of the consequences of doing such dogdy techniques. Simply because certain black hat SEO approach works (albeit for a short while).

I reported one site using hidden text and ranking high on certain keywords sitting on first position for quite some time. After a week the site disappeared from Google results. If this company would be preaching to its clients with "this thing works, see my ranking" approach, clients would be tempted to use it because they see the results.

They are gonna be there on top until they are shot down by some tools like Google Spam Report or some algorithm change.

[Jill]

Welcome mantawebsolutions!

Generally speaking, in a thread like this it can be expected that you'll get posts by blackhat SEO's just to heat up the conversation and throw in controversy.

I don't think we actually got any of those, however.

[SearchRank]

First, the unbelievable gall this guy has to openly perform his blackhat    SEO tricks and secondly, (to a lesser degree), how great the response has been.

In response to this blackhat SEO tactics - it is damaging our industry and makes it increasingly difficult to do what we do well.

Actually his cold calling techniques have nothing to do with any type of SEO technique, whether that be black hat, white hat or everything in between. Rather it is simply unethical sales and business tactics.

Just wanted to clarify that because there are plenty of black hat SEOs that would never think about trying to sell their services in this manner.

[qwerty]

I suppose you could call this black hat marketing, no matter what their SEO methods are. It's certainly a lousy, dishonest way to do business.

[Jill]

I'd call it black HEART marketing...

Only one with a black heart would stoop so low.

[bobmutch]

Leann:

>>>It is just funny to me that YOU, 'BOB - protector of scamming blackmailers',

As I noted before and I'll do it one more time. I am not protecting scamming blackmailers and you charging me of doing that is unfair. I am standing up for due process.

>>>DID post their phone number on this forum (against [url=http://www.highrankings.com/forum/index.php?act=boardrules]Forum Rules[/url] and in my blog (removing now - cuz it's just dumb!).

I think your partly right this one. I shouldn't have posted the numbers here on the forum - my mistake.

>>>Seems to me that YOU BOB, are the only one Not following "due process"...

Not the only one. But I agree I should not have posted the number and domain.

>>>And She Did. Bob, you need to learn to have respect (other than for scammers!!) UGH!

I am not offering respect to scammers, just noting that due process is the professional way to do thing. Also I have not disrespected Jill (not sure if that was who you are charging me of having disrespect for). I told her I was sorry and I didn't know the forum policy on that issue.

Some day you may get outed wrongly and then you will understand the importance of due process.

>>>I do not want (and will not accept) an apology - ICK - I have no reason to believe anything they say - WHAT I WANT is to see the scamming blackmailers SHUT DOWN...PERIOD.

This doesn't supprise me.

>>>Yeah right! Get a grip Bob!

I have a pretty good grip thanks : )

>>>It isn't about due process - at all. Look Bob, if one false post/accusation is gonna kill you and your business- then you need to re-evaluate who you are and what you are doing.

One false post/accusation has not effected my overall business as far as I know. I would suspect that I have lost some business over it but that is just part of life. My bottom line is doing though thanks anyway : )

I just point to my BBB record which says I have had no complains and that pretty will takes care of false charges. No re-evaluation needed, thanks any way.

By the way Leann, with people you disagree with, do you conduct yourself toward them in person on way you have conducted yourself toward me in this thread or do you only do it this way on the forums.

Edited by bobmutch, 23 March 2006 - 01:04 PM.

[bobmutch]

Jill:

>>>We were supposed to believe Bob's post, but not Leann's without checking it out?

Na, thats why I put the name and phone number on there. So you could follow due process. Just I didn't think, or didn't remember, that you don't allow the posting of names, companies, or number even if they are not posted in a negtive light.

>>>Bob, you're either very naive to think that the company didn't know about those blackmail practices, or there's a lot more to the story that we don't know.

I think it might be a bit of both. I am known to be a bit naive. And I have to admit I have some what wondered if they were telling me the truth.

>>>I suggest you perhaps keep out of this one at this point now, because it's certainly not doing anything to help your own reputation at the moment.

Thanks for the tip I will certianly consider that.

[Leann_Pass]

Leann:
As I noted before and I'll do it one more time. I am not protecting scamming blackmailers and you charging me of doing that is unfair. I am standing up for due process.

By the way Leann, with people you disagree with, do you conduct yourself toward them in person on way you have conducted yourself toward me in this thread or do you only do it on the forums.

Bob, YOU have said time and time again in this forum that I did not follow "due process". That is YOU accusing me - of something that simply isn't true. You also insisted on at least 2 occasions that I had posted their info in my 1st post here - which is YOU accusing me once again, Bob, of something that simply isn't true. Where is the due process there?? Is due process only good for some - but not all?

<added>
So my question is : Is this the way you normally conduct yourself, Bob? Do you normally accuse people of things that are clearly not true - with absolutely nothing to back up what you are saying - all the while screaming about DUE PROCESS?

You also came to my blog and posted that you were going to inform that spammy company of my "nasty post". Which was not nasty at all, by the way - it was a plain out account - MY ACCOUNT - of the nasty conduct of that scammy person/company.

Seriously, do you really think after you post out here about me (over and over) and then dare to post nasty messages in my personal blog, that I should be anything but disgusted by your behavior? I think you are the one here having conduct problems. </added>

And I will add that you decided that you talking with "someone" from that outfit meant that you HAD followed due process, with that I completely disagree.

<edited to add>

Edited by Leann_Pass, 23 March 2006 - 01:59 PM.