×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Shady Methods From Online Reputation Managers

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the making-the-internet-forget dept.

Google 128

Velcroman1 writes "Worried about your online reputation? Let the Online Reputation Management buyer beware: The company that helps protect your reputation may have its own issues. Consider the case of Darren Meade, who in 2010 was working as interim CEO at a California company. In an effort to address a number of negative comments about both himself and his company online, his company hired Rexxfield, an ORM, also based in California. But Meade said he became concerned about the relationship with Rexxfield when he discovered the company wanted to sell illegal hacker code to scrub negative comments from the web — and planned a marketing campaign of fear based on the threat that it can wipe anyone offline. 'They called it Googlecide,' Meade said."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

128 comments

GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766058)

And to show it, he kills us all !!

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766546)

And to show it, he kills us all !!

This is an example of how these online "reputation defenders" and "new media strategy" outfits work.

If there's any news story that reflects badly on any of their clients, or on their own industry, they start with "First Post!" attacks to see if they can't bury the entire discussion. I've found myself on occasion seeing a story and being interested in the opinions of other readers, but when I see the first several threads are some kind of troll crap, like the one above, I'll just move along.

So, there's a good chance that the guy who wrote the above post works for one of these companies. He probably also has at least a dozen Slashdot accounts, all made in the past few months. But there's always the possibility that you're going to burn an account if you come on too strong with your troll, so you toss up a few anonymous posts, maybe containing a reference to some stupid 4chan meme so that people will just think, "Oh, that's just some idiot".

Then, if an engaged discussion still takes place despite the "First Post!" trolls, you can still bring out your sock-puppet Slashdot account and say something that almost looks authentic like, "Just because one of these reputation defender/new media strategy companies is shown to be involved in illegal or unethical behavior, we shouldn't paint the whole industry with a broad brush, because hey, someday there may be some disgruntled ex co-worker who would try to destroy your online image and you'll need to use one of the fine reputation defender/new media strategies companies to help you out".

Then he'll use another one of his sockpuppet accounts to agree and it's off to the races.

  These astroturf/paid trolls/paid shills are as big a danger to the internet as SOPA or ProtectIP is. I could easily seeing them become so prevalent that not a single opinion or review or assertion on the internet has any value at all. And clearly, they're not going to be satisfied with just disrupting online communities like Slashdot or Wikipedia or [name your favorite online community]. They're bringing out the malware, the seriously malicious methods of taking critical web content down. They are every bit as evil and as dangerous to the future of the Internet as repressive government action. Maybe even more because they wrap themselves in "free market", "everyone needs to make a buck" language.

We're going to have to figure out a way to thwart these creeps.

Nobody looks out for the internet, so it's vulnerable to all sorts of scams and malicious operators. Lots of money is involved. As always, it's going to have to be a community-driven solution, the same way the most effective anti-malware efforts have been community-driven.

A better strategy (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767218)

This is an example of how these online "reputation defenders" and "new media strategy" outfits work.

Really? I thought a better strategy would be to tell your client to hire a dodgy competitor, feign surprise when they discover the competitor is dodgy and then tell everyone on the net thus making your client look good and your competitor look bad. Apparently it works really well...either that or I'm just feeling overly cynical today.

Re:A better strategy (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769172)

.either that or I'm just feeling overly cynical today.

If you're not feeling cynical, you're not paying attention.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (3, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767432)

I could easily seeing them become so prevalent that not a single opinion or review or assertion on the internet has any value at all.

You really feel this has not already happened? 95+% of amazon reviews are shills already (including most verified buyers! Those are just folks paid by their company to buy the product and review it.). Same with newegg. Is there some review site you seriously think is still trustworthy? I'd love to know of one.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769202)

You really feel this has not already happened? 95+% of amazon reviews are shills already (including most verified buyers!

Amazon at least made an effort to combat this by verifying whether or not a reviewer has actually bought the product.

So, it's easy to ignore anyone who is posting a review who has not bought the product. It's not perfect, but it's a start.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769812)

I'm pretty sure some of the humorous reviews for £10,000 cat 5 cables aren't from people who bought the product.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769924)

Not that I believe in it regardless, but how many of those reviews have the amazon verified buyer logo?

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769938)

But that's exactly what I worry is misleading. Of course the shills are buying the products in question on websites that require it for authority. They just return/resell/budget for it.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38770522)

Of course the shills are buying the products in question on websites that require it for authority. They just return/resell/budget for it.

I don't think these companies have budgets for that kind of thing. I'm pretty sure the "associates" they have doing the trolling/shilling are making about minimum wage, and I can't imagine that their profit margins allow for the expenses involved in a campaign of buying/returning.

Just the fact that they're here with their "frosty piss" posts would seem to indicate that they're not high-end operations. I'll bet that even their malware is off-the-shelf stuff for the most part, and if they're writing any custom malware, I bet the black hat they hired is the highest paid employee besides the former Republican political consultant who's most likely running the operation.

They're the online equivalent of robocalls pretending to be from the election commission that tell the voters at the senior citizens home to vote on the wrong day.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

CapOblivious2010 (1731402) | more than 2 years ago | (#38770822)

Of course the shills are buying the products in question on websites that require it for authority. They just return/resell/budget for it.

I don't think these companies have budgets for that kind of thing. I'm pretty sure the "associates" they have doing the trolling/shilling are making about minimum wage, and I can't imagine that their profit margins allow for the expenses involved in a campaign of buying/returning

...but if the reviewers are in the employ of the sellers (in any form), they can just return the item (unopened) to the seller "under the table"... the seller then reimburses the buyer and puts the same item back in the pool of stuff to sell on amazon. Net cost to the buyer/reviewer: $0. Net cost to the seller: $2 for 15 mins of the buyer/reviewer's time, plus shipping and handling (if it's sold from amzn's warehouse; if the seller is shipping directly, he just doesn't bother to ship it at all). It doesn't take much of a budget to do this, and it's completely independent of the cost of the item.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38767594)

This is an example of how these online "reputation defenders" and "new media strategy" outfits work.

It's not how all of them work. I work for one, and we take a completely different approach. Whereas some reputation protection companies work on trying to remove damaging reviews/comments from the internet, we try to drown them out in positive reviews and comments. We work with companies to make submitting reviews to many common sites and to social media almost entirely painless to customers.

The idea is that every business will run into a few customers who are unhappy, but reputable companies will also have a ton of satisfied customers. The only reason this doesn't show up in a business's online reputation is that the upset are far more motivated to share their experience than those that are happy. What we do is try to remove the difficulty in submitting a positive review. Users can opt into text messages and emails that allow them to submit reviews and share their experiences on social networks by simply replying. We're finding that we get about 25% response rate.

It only really works for businesses that have customer contact information on file, but in those cases, we find it's a much better way to defend your reputation online. Sure, the information from disgruntled customers is still out there, but the 90+% positive reviews make that information much harder to find. And since all the reviews come from actual customers, perspective customers end up getting a more accurate picture of the business.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769222)

we try to drown them out in positive reviews and comments.

You piece of shit. Why not just let the comments stand for themselves?

If you make a good product or provide a good service, you'll be OK. If you need someone loading the dice for you, your company is probably sucking.

Problem is, "sucking" is par for US corporations.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769736)

The concern about selection bias is legitimate; but if the process of correction leads to overcorrection, that's bad and should be prosecuted under the Lanham Act.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

RajivSLK (398494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38770768)

I'm not sure you read the parent correctly. (Or know how to read)

The don't post fake positive reviews they just make it easier for happy customers to post positive reviews. Seems pretty legit to me. In fact I am wondering what the company is so I can use them on my website?

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38770994)

The don't post fake positive reviews they just make it easier for happy customers to post positive reviews.

Can I interest you in a time share on the Gulf Coast? You can sell it in a year for a 300% profit.

I guarantee it, or my investment fund headquartered in the Cayman Islands will give you a full refund. I've got a former Massachusetts governor on my board of directors, a good Christian (sort of) man, so you know we're on the up and up. I'd tell you his name, but he required a confidentiality agreement when he "invested" in my time share business.

He's a "turnaround" specialist. Which means when he invests in a company, he makes the employees turn around so he can give them a prostate examination with a solid gold walking stick/bishop's staff.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768670)

Just ask Bonch. He has firsthand experience using tons of sockpuppets and shilling for Apple.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

Maow (620678) | more than 2 years ago | (#38770468)

Not sure about Rexxfield, but the Chinese Water Army [duckduckgo.com] is alive & well in the West.

Water army analogy meaning it adds comments (drops) one by one until there's a flood.

Don't know what the answer is to the problem, but I despair that the Internet is past its prime and becoming less useful every week (every day?).

YMMV, etc.

Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (1)

peawormsworth (1575267) | more than 2 years ago | (#38771576)

...they start with "First Post!" attacks to see if they can't bury the entire discussion. I've found myself on occasion seeing a story and being interested in the opinions of other readers, but when I see the first several threads are some kind of troll crap, like the one above, I'll just move along.

That is exactly wat I was thinking when I read the 1st posts to this article [slashdot.org]

Note: that these posts were moded down to -1 so u may need to adjust ur filter to see them... but there is like 4 of them that really turned me off the entire topic

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766062)

Can they Googlecide Google?

fear? (2, Insightful)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766072)

... planned a marketing campaign of fear ...

It's pretty much the only marketing strategy that is used nowadays. It used to be that sex was ubiquitous, now it's fear.

Re:fear? (5, Funny)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766192)

Surprise and fear.

Re:fear? (5, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766224)

and ruthless efficiency

Re:fear? (5, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766252)

And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.

Re:fear? (5, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766280)

Thanks!

Re:fear? (5, Funny)

nigelo (30096) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766434)

> Thanks!

I didn't expect that!

Re:fear? (4, Informative)

Motard (1553251) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766606)

No one ever expects politeness these days.

Re:fear? (1)

pesho (843750) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767040)

He was referring to the poster's handle, rather than his politeness.

Besides, Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

Re:fear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768136)

And nice red uniforms!

Re:fear? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38769494)

Well now it's sounding like sex again.

Re:fear? (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766322)

Remember these companies reported are the ones who do not do a good job. The ones that are truly ruthless are the ones we don't know about... Because we cannot find any negative reference to them online.

Wait... this is a real thing? (1, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766084)

That fills me with sadness. Do people really fret and worry over their online reputation? As if they where somehow unable to control what they type on forums and thus need a third party to fix their own actions? And why cant you just change your online "identity"? Last I checked, very few places require or even encourage the use of your real name.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766164)

If you're a consultant a bad reputation, even if undeserved, can torpedo your ability to make a living at it. Changing an online identity only works if you were smart enough to not use your real identity in the first place.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766850)

Wow, really? Nice to see that shitheads still get mod points around here.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768540)

On the other hand, there happen to be a dozens of people out there with my same name, or very close. Even people in the same city.

So plenty of room for plausible deny-ability, I'm just careful where I send my real email addresses.

You don't really have to live in fear. (2)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769882)

There was a serial killer with the same name as me that was captured and executed decades ago. It used to be the first thing every client would see in a web search... lurid descriptions of a series of horrific murders.

Now they see naked pictures of a woman with the same name as me - which is a bit odd since it's a traditionally male name, but at least it's a step up in reputation.

Seriously, if you can't convince people you aren't a serial killer or porn star you're unlikely to be able to work effectively as a consultant anyway. A minimal set of people skills are pretty much required.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766166)

I'm pretty sure the issue is not what you yourself post, but what all the other internet trolls^H^H^H^H^H^Husers decide to post about you.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38770260)

My motto: People deserve to believe whatever they want, even if it is something nasty about me. If it isn't true, it is none of my business.

Please also note that people who have trouble finding the truth secretly know that they are full of shit, and they believe that everyone else must be full of shit too, and that makes them really bad at relationships. So just forget them and move on.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (3, Insightful)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766168)

When it's a real world business trying to sell a product or attract users, then yes. And for every case i've seen where a company/person has acted badly and gotten rightly flamed for it online, i've seen companies/people that acted fairly reasonably and gotten flamed for it online anyways.

The degree to which such negative publicity matters is probably highly dependent on a lot of factors that vary on a case by case basis, and whether anything can be done to "fix" the negative publicity probably varies a lot too. But the concern that your company/product is getting trashed online is certainly a real one.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766286)

OK, I could kind of see it in the case of a business. But more often then not, that strikes me as people simply being unhappy that they didn't get five stars on yelp etc.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766574)

OK, I could kind of see it in the case of a business. But more often then not, that strikes me as people simply being unhappy that they didn't get five stars on yelp etc.

Not sure what Yelp was, (a cursory glance), Yahoo! ?

Nowadays virtually no one cares if they appear literate. Who wants to hire someone for a responsible position when they can't be bothered to learn how to spell?

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766872)

Yelp is a website to rate businesses. It's 7 years old, grandpa.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (3, Informative)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767328)

Yelp is a website to rate businesses. It's 7 years old, grandpa.

I do have grand children. I helped build the net, when I see a site like that looks like that one I navigate away ASAP.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38770390)

I helped build the net

Oh snap! It's Al Gore! Oh wait, you said _helped_.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766184)

What about the case where someone else with the same name as you is posting stuff online that tarnishes your name?

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767076)

That's a good point. I'm sure you're tired of how those trolls and btards have completely demolished your good name online, Mr. Coward.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38767680)

Anonymous Coward here. I like anonymous gay sex with any man I can find. It's a good way to pass the time when I'm not getting drunk or high off any manner of illegal substances.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (3, Insightful)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766278)

This is not about the reputation that people have because of what they post on forums. It is about the reputation that people have because of what other people post about them. Primarily this is about a business' online reputation. With a large enough company that will be determined by its actions, but for a small to moderate sized company an attempt to smear a company online could be devastating (especially if the company is unaware of the attack and does nothing to mitigate it).

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (4, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766290)

Do people really fret and worry over their online reputation?

Heck yes they do.

For instance, if you were the sort of person who likes to have a few drinks on New Years' Eve, and then one of your friends takes a picture of you and identifies you doing something that would generally be considered not OK in classy society, that could cost you not only your current job, but every job you apply for in the future (This despite the fact that those who are denying you work quite possibly do the same things semi-frequently). It's not about what you posted online, it's about what other people posted about you that can get you into trouble.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38767134)

So you're saying that "the great thing about New Years Eve isn't having sex with loads of women, it's not telling everyone online that you did"?

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (1)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767952)

> if you were the sort of person who likes to have a few drinks on New Years' Eve, and then one of your friends takes a picture of you and identifies you doing something that would generally be considered not OK in classy society

P.S. Don't fret. If you keep making the payments no one will ever see those photos ;)

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38770386)

For instance, if you were the sort of person who likes to have a few drinks on New Years' Eve, and then one of your friends takes a picture of you and identifies you doing something that would generally be considered not OK in classy society, that could cost you not only your current job, but every job you apply for in the future (This despite the fact that those who are denying you work quite possibly do the same things semi-frequently).

You're worrying about trying to maintain a professional relationship with someone else who is full of bullshit? Sorry man, but that won't last anyway. If it wasn't the New Year Eve party photos that did it, there would be something else. Just break it off and let the employer try to make his buck off of the trash he finds to replace you.

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (1)

Zadaz (950521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38771456)

I've heard a number of people say "Oh, well I've got nothing to worry about, there's nothing with my name on it on the 'net!"

That makes you the opposite of safe. In about 2 minutes I can post something anonymously about you that may or may not be true, but would paint you in a bad light. Now, because there's nothing else about you online, that's the first result when anyone searches you.

Take control of your online presence before someone else does. Post good stuff under your real name.* It doesn't have to be a lot, but more than nothing. It doesn't take much to get your own pages listed ahead of those created by someone else.

You can only control what you post about yourself. You have virtually no control over what other's post about you. So take that control.

*Yeah, this is a pseudonym, but Google my real name and you get hundreds of positive hits. Who would even know there's a police report involving underage hamsters on page 15?

Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (2)

Abreu (173023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767970)

There was a time during 2010 when, if you googled my name, the words "scam artist" would appear as autocompletion.

This, because I used to work as spokesperson for a company with several very vocal disgruntled ex-customers who had gripe blogs.

I have changed jobs since, but it took a while for it to go away.

This is news to some people? (1)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766154)

The whole basic concept of "reputation management" is shady as hell. What did they expect?

Re:This is news to some people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766228)

It seems to me such services only make sense to someone trying to hide the unpleasant truth.
If a real live person libels you, sue.
If a random anonymous troll insults you, ignore it--so will your potential customers.

suit failureand hoping trolls are ignored is naive (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766394)

It seems to me such services only make sense to someone trying to hide the unpleasant truth.
If a real live person libels you, sue.

Good luck with that, especially if the person is in another country or has few assets.

If a random anonymous troll insults you, ignore it--so will your potential customers.

Not necessarily, especially if the troll uses a name or names that sound real.

Irony! (1)

CarsonChittom (2025388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766244)

[H]e discovered the company wanted to sell illegal hacker code to scrub negative comments from the web — and planned a marketing campaign of fear based on the threat that it can wipe anyone offline.

Pretty ironic when their own website says:

Rexxfield serves and protects the “victims of others”; our mandate does not allow us to serve “victims of self”. In other words, if you have done wrong and are being treated harshly for it, your remedy will be through a publicist.

Re:Irony! (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766328)

It's not just that it would've been illegal; the plan involved almost cartoonishly evil marketing. Seriously, this reads like a masterplan by the Joker.

“I think there’s a whole other campaign where we can break the parents,” the executive continued. “Send them a picture of their kid with a gun in his mouth -- Google did it. ‘Little Johnny is going to commit Google-cide. Can you stop it?’”

...and then we kill a MAN DRESSED LIKE A BAT.

so this story (0)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766344)

comes from a news agency that hacks into cellphones and bribe police. draw your own conclusions.

How does this even work? (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766400)

If I run a website with a forum and there is a discussion that paints some company or individual in a negative light (and let's assume that it isn't slander for argument's sake), what can one of these reputation management companies possibly do? Wouldn't everyone just tell them to fuck off?

Re:How does this even work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766542)

If I were to address that, I'd fill up the forums with FAKE negative rants... but with some obvious fake info. A couple will figure it out and discredit your post. With enough of these, all rants will be discredited.

I bought the Three Wolf Moon shirt, and it rocks!

That is the best (only?) way to bury information on the web.

Re:How does this even work? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38769874)

Flood the forum with sock puppets saying how wonderful he is. Create lots of other fake forums that praise him.

Failure to Process (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766560)

Did anyone else's brain refuse to continue processing the rest of the summary when the words "illegal hacker code" were used? I mean, my BS detector went crazy.

Glad I read this in time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766572)

...before Rexxfield haxx0rd it!

Darren Meade is a fuckin' fag! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766680)

Scrub that. Wasted my once every 10 minute post on that.

Rexxfield's Response (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38766878)

Read their response to the Fox News article:

http://www.rexxfield.com/blog/2012/01/response-to-foxnews-com%E2%80%99s-article-on-rexxfield%E2%80%99s-online-reputation-management-practices/

Our school (3, Informative)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38766896)

Public organizations, like schools, often wind up upsetting people even when they are doing the right thing and its an easy, cheap shot to make all sorts of unfounded vicious comments about them online. In the case of the nonsense someone posted about our school, one of the other parents contacted greatschools.com and they removed the offending post with out any fuss. So it does not always take much to get these comments removed.

You might be offended by the "censorship" aspect of this, but not everyone posts in good faith, even here on /. And one pissed, motivated, person can make a lot of vitriolic posts in a short amount of time. I wish there were a better way to let justified complaints come to the fore.

Re:Our school (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768430)

>I wish there were a better way to let justified complaints come to the fore.
Decided by whom?

Re:Our school (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768820)

Decided by me of course - I certainly can't trust anyone else's opinion. The website should know that and filter things accordingly.

In other related news... (1)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767294)

...spammers lie, phishers deceive, and malware authors release malicious code.

I thought it was common knowledge among thinking people that all ORM operations are dishonest and sleazy -- that they are not only selling a product they cannot possibly deliver, but that they use unethical and abusive methods in the process.

I blacklist their domains on sight; there is no reason whatsoever to treat them any differently from any of the other filth on the Internet.

Acronym overload :-/ (1)

gwolf (26339) | more than 2 years ago | (#38768384)

I read that "all Object-Relation Mappers are dishonest and sleazy". Gah. Online Reputation Managers; SEO-vs-CEO is another clash that can easily happen in this subject.

Rexxfield's Official Response to FoxNews Story (2)

Rexxfield.com (1840984) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767520)

http://www.rexxfield.com/blog/2012/01/response-to-foxnews-com [rexxfield.com] ’s-article-on-rexxfield’s-online-reputation-management-practices/ Rexxfield was founded on the lessons learnt whilst dealing with the personal and painful attacks against the founder’s reputation by those closest to him. Michael’s antagonist is now serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole behind some very strong prison bars; due in part to Michael’s cooperation and investigations. As Rexxfield moves forward in addressing the injustice experienced by those who suffer from attacks on their reputation, Rexxfield’s clients’ adversaries become Rexxfield’s adversaries. And some of them attempt to attack our reputation. The article on FoxNews.com that attempts to paint a picture of good guys-gone-bad is one such attack. We categorically deny the assertions made by the article’s author regarding the use of illegal and/or unethical means in combating attacks against the reputations of our clients. We will use the same ethical and legal means we champion on behalf of our clients to defend our own reputation against this defamatory and libelous article. One of these means is the truth. Here are a few truths omitted by the article’s author: Perry Chiaramonte was given the contact details of Federal & State law enforcement officers who were immediately notified by Michael Roberts when Matthew Cooke described his technique. He did not take advantage of this information to check his facts, and has breached numerous journalistic ethical rules. Michael Roberts & his team NEVER used the technique. Darren Meade attempted to extort Rexxfield twice. Darren Meade asked Michael Roberts to pay his $5000 p/month mortgage in Dec 2011, 5 days after Michael refused his demands Darren began a systematic smear campaign. Michael Roberts provided the recordings, contracts and MUCH MORE information to Perry Chiaramonte because he claimed to be running a story on a career criminal Adam Zuckerman (see below). The recording provided by Rexxfield to Perry were made by Rexxfield to expose the criminal enterprises of Zuckerman. These same recordings have been provided to the FBI and to State Justice Dept. Staff. Rexxfield’s participation in the discussions were simply to keep them talking. The horrific suggestions in the recordings quoted by the author were by Adam Zuckerman, Ryan Page and their cohorts, not by Rexxfield representatives. The recordings were legal. Links: Adam Zuckerman Video Law suit filed by Adam Zuckerman et al when they realized Rexxfield was exposing them. Decorated Ex-FBI agent’s declaration about the Zuckerman crew as part our private team of Zuckerman watchdogs.

Re:Rexxfield's Official Response to FoxNews Story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768186)

Welcome to Slashdot. You seem to have misunderstood how comments work. I'll assist you. If it wasn't for my workplace's mandated IE7 I'd use my mod points to bring you up higher

This is the link that they've attempted to post. [rexxfield.com]

Re:Rexxfield's Official Response to FoxNews Story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38771554)

Rexxfield was founded on the lessons learnt whilst dealing with the personal and painful attacks against the founder’s reputation by those closest to him. Michael’s antagonist is now serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole behind some very strong prison bars; due in part to Michael’s cooperation and investigations.

Lessons learnt while dealing with... a murderer? Or what type of disturbing-as-fuck-and-intentionally-scary thing are you implying here?

One of these means is the truth. Here are a few truths omitted by the article’s author: Perry Chiaramonte was given the contact details of Federal & State law enforcement officers who were immediately notified by Michael Roberts when Matthew Cooke described his technique.

I'm mildly confused as to how Meade knew that Roberts knew about Cooke's technique. The article says Roberts actually demonstrated it to Cooke. It also suggests a conference call was happening; were all three parties on that call? Is that what you're trying to say? What was the nature of that conference call, exactly, and why were those parties on it?

He did not take advantage of this information to check his facts, and has breached numerous journalistic ethical rules.

Well hell, it's FOX News, what do you expect?

Michael Roberts Victim's Advocate, Forensic Analyst and Litigation Support Consultant www.rexxfield.com Please listen

Three self-awarded titles. I like your style.

Moneymaker (1)

bjs555 (889176) | more than 2 years ago | (#38767542)

A related business idea - unreputation management:
Nice reputation ya got there. Shame if somethin happened to it.

I had my suspicions... (1)

_0x783czar (2516522) | more than 2 years ago | (#38768614)

Every time one of these Reputation Management firms' commercials came on, I felt un-easy about it. I mean SEO is one thing, but these people claimed to basically guarantee Search Result Supremacy, and even silence of negative content, for a fee. I guess what always bothered me was the fact that they're entire purpose in life is to control the content you view on the internet. I'm not surprised that their methods are shady, after all what they claim to provide is no small task. I wouldn't be surprised either if this is common-place among all firms in this business (perhaps not, but I wager it is). Good advertising on the web is important, and along with SEO is effective, but you can't control what the internet will tell.

There is only the truth of the signal. ~Mr. Universe (Serenity)

Re:I had my suspicions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38771566)

Good advertising on the web is important, and along with SEO is effective,

Email spam and 3rd-party advertising via 'adservers' has all but destroyed the internet.

The solution is for THE SITES THEMSELVES to host the (text-based) ads. They can't be blocked at the HOSTS file that way--the content would be blocked as well.

Sites are unwilling to pay for the tiny increase in bandwidth for a single text ad on their page (or have too many pages to make the total cost prohibitive) so the ads are delegated to adservers like doubleclick, adbrite, etc. that are overloaded and unresponsive. The result is LONG page load times and occasional page saving failure inside Internet Explorer.... :P

CAPTCHA: profited [lol! XD ]

Protection racket (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38768828)

Really? A company offering "protection" turns out to be a racket? Whodathunkit.

If ORM Really Worked... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38770760)

You wouldn't see this as the top google result: "Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...