14 replies to this topic

[Black_Knight]

Jill, Scottie and a couple of others here may have a special interest in this one:
http://www.stigmergi...ms.com/seoexpo/

(found out about this through a thread at Cre8asite)

Thought you should be aware of this one.

[Grumpus]

There's a thread here, too.
http://www.highranki...wtopic=3034&hl=

G.

[Scottie]

Yes, we've seen that. Very interesting... Thanks for pointing it out, Ammon.

[McFox]

Geeze, what a complete rip off of the hard work of others!

All the branding and artwork of some great resources is being ripped off, scammed, and an attempt made at legitimicy.

Presumably, the general idea is that people think this site is a type of umbrella organisation to which the great sites on the web defer to. BAH!

McFox

[Scottie]

Hey McFox-

Read the thread that Grumpus posted a link to for more info. I'll be honest, I don't entirely "get" the concept but I don't think Peter's trying to scam...

[McFox]

Read the thread that Grumpus posted a link to for more info. I'll be honest, I don't entirely "get" the concept but I don't think Peter's trying to scam...

I did read the thread Grumpus posted. I also read the thread Black Knight, from Cre8asite posted too, where he says:

You've used my site, my images, and my brand without permission. You've used it to point to lots of other places, potentially to the detriment of my own business

This tells me that at least one of the sites he has used is completely without permission.

A lot is said on this forum about producing your own material for websites and much is made about websites that don't. This explains why it takes me a whole day to write and produce one original page of work.

If I use the method employed on the site in question, I could knock out whole sites in a day. Just gets under my skin.

McFox

[Grumpus]

I agree - this isn't an attempt to scam anything. It's an experiment in indexing and showing relationships between web documents. Rather than using the technologies we are discussing regarding Google or the other engines, this calculates relationships (somehow - I don't get the whole thing, either) in a sort of "hive" mentality - similar to the way Ants (I believe that was the example he used) or bees go about their daily business.

Ammon's point though - the method chosen to allow us to see all of this in action, is a bit sketchy. I don't believe the intention was to do this at all, but the end result is the same.

G.

[McFox]

Maybe it is an experiment in indexing. To be honest, I don't care. It's a scam, otherwise why set it up like each site listed is a conference stand and not show text links or produce self-generated images? Simple. Drum up some interest and then start charging a fee for it.

In the meantime, it is using all your artworks, site work, and just to add insult to injury, using your bandwidth to do it!

The absolute worst part of it as far as I am concerned is how it presents one of the links. Unless you know you are not on the site clicked, you will think you have been redirected there. This one is for Macanerin. The rest are the same.





The top half of the picture is all on the bandwidth of macanerin.com, yet all the information presented in the bottom section is courtesy of stig{whatever}.

[Jill]

I haven't looked at it in awhile, but isn't it just using the our pages in a frame? Kinda like when there's a link to your site in About.com?

Obviously, Peter isn't trying to scam anyone or he certainly wouldn't be posting in here telling us about his "scam."

That said, I have never been very interested in the concept, as I don't get it either. Plus, I don't like my site being listed with other people's who I really don't feel deserve the same "status" as SEOs.

(I just got home from traveling and haven't checked the latest incarnation...it may be better, or different than the last time I checked, but I'm in no hurry to check it since I've never been very excited by the concept to begin with.)

Jill

[Grumpus]

I haven't looked at it in awhile, but isn't it just using the our pages in a frame? Kinda like when there's a link to your site in About.com?

No, your page is the "about.com" frame and the content is a set of links to other pages within the system. It appears as if "your site" is endorsing the sites/links in the bottom frame. A quick check shows that, in fact, there is usually a link from (the proverbial) your site to the "recomendations", but in the case of the forums here, links can be posted by someone else, and I'm sure there are links here that (the Jill Whalen) you wouldn't specifically endorse nor want your name attached to. It also looks like links from sites you link to (i.e. second level links) may also be treated as an endoresement by you, but I didn't look through it all in that much depth.

As I say, I don't think Peter intended to cause a problem or issue, but a stranger walking in there that didn't know what was going on may wonder, become confused, and it definitely takes the control of your brand out of your own hands.

G.

[Jill]

Just took a quick look.

I definitely DON'T like it. And in fact, I will ask Peter to remove my site asap. I most definitely don't like the fact that it appears as if that's actually MY info showing up, when it's pretty much the opposite of what I would put on my site (and the opposite of what I DO put on my site).

Jill

[domokun]

it seems to me that perter needs to explain this concept more before people can accept it. i, for one dont get it. others posters clearly also dont get it. peter, if your listening, help us out, otherwise you may get an awful lot of removal requests.

[DianeV]

Although I (hopefully) have not been included in this thing, I'd be uncomfortable with the idea that someone took what essentially looks like my site and posted in the content area something other than what I said.

I don't think it's so much the concept he's trying to illustrate, but the fact that he's made it look like your site with data that you endorse ... and all without permission.

I could be wrong, but I don't particularly get the idea that Peter is trying to pull a fast one but, while he may pooh-pooh the disagreements with his system (I get the idea that he thinks some of us are not "advanced" or clever enough to see the "brilliance" of his system), he completely disregards the legalities of how he's implemented it even when these have been explained to him directly.

Aside from some comments that mainly go to usability issues, no one has argued against his system; the only real arguments have been against the usage of others' trademarks, copyrights, names, etc. without permission -- along with the inclusion of what appear to be his opinions stated as if they were the others', which is clearly misrepresentation. Peter argued at cre8 that he had mentioned the system and gotten no disagreement, and somehow has equated *that* to specific permission from specific people. I suspect he needs to get a grasp of the legal definitions of "permission". As far as I can see, he risks damaging the reputations and business prospects of others without any legal ground to stand on himself. Worse, he's been notified of this, but apparently has failed to take action; instead he argues that we just don't understand the system.

Therefore, whether he intended to misrepresent others, or intended to do harm, the ball is in his court as to taking steps to fix what he's done. That would demonstrate honesty, integrity and good faith intention.

Edited by DianeV, 16 January 2004 - 10:05 PM.

[McFox]

The strategy of his 'new organisational technique' is straightforward enough. On the stigmergic website, someone's is given a 'page', or a 'stand' as he likes to call it. They are then expected to sift through, edit and ammend the link information that is superimposed on their brand. He uses the analogy of ants or bees but the basic principle is just that.

Quite why anyone would wish to direct people away from their website to what is, to all intents and purposes, a competitor, is a concept which is self defeating.

When I visited the stigmergic website and clicked on one of the names, such as our good patron, Jill's, HighRankings.com, or Ian's, Mcanerin Network, I was horrified and I do not use the term lightly. Stigmergic has simply used the headers of the sites in question and superimposed stigmergic rubbish underneath using frames.

Total brand dilution and very damaging to a hard-earned public reputation!

McFox

[Jill]

I agree, McFox. Not only was the English on the site terrible, and made it appear as if I it was ME saying that stuff, it was supposedly me throwing out links to sites and people to which I not only don't endorse, but highly recommend AVOIDING!

I immediately emailed Peter to remove me from his test site after seeing it.

Jill