Shady Methods From Online Reputation Managers 128
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the making-the-internet-forget dept.
from the making-the-internet-forget dept.
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."
fear? (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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? (Score:5, Funny)
Surprise and fear.
Re:fear? (Score:5, Funny)
and ruthless efficiency
Re:fear? (Score:5, Funny)
And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.
Re:fear? (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks!
Re:fear? (Score:5, Funny)
> Thanks!
I didn't expect that!
Re:fear? (Score:5, Informative)
No one ever expects politeness these days.
Re: (Score:2)
He was referring to the poster's handle, rather than his politeness.
Besides, Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect the Pope to be polite.
I would also expect the Pope to expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Re: (Score:2)
But wouldn't that imply that the Pope is Nobody? Because NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia, the inquisition doesn't expect you!
Re:fear? (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody expects the Spanish improvisation.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I certainly didn't - Mr Wentworth just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill, that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
Re:fear? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fear of sex too. Or fear of no sex if that doesn't work. Or fear based sex.
Re: (Score:1)
Or fear based sex.
Terrorgasm?
Wait... this is a real thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
You don't really have to live in fear. (Score:3)
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 a
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very secondary requirement to the ability to do the job. At least, it's considered pretty important in my industry ; I don't know about yours.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get to the point where you can prove your ability to do the job if some HR drone hasn't got the brains to work out that you probably aren't the person with the same name who's a serial killer, on account of him being behind bars?
Re: (Score:2)
The oil exploration and extraction industry. It's practically a requirement for promotion.
Is that you George? I've told you many times : only click the "post anonymously" button when you're using my account, not any of the other 5-DUIs we've got. See you in the canteen shortly. I hear that the rig's brothel has got a new slave for the f
Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Yelp is a website to rate businesses. It's 7 years old, grandpa.
Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
40% of their traffic comes from mobile apps anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh snap! It's Al Gore! Oh wait, you said _helped_.
Al Gore did do a lot to get the Internet off the ground. I just built an ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like ATi hiring people to write opensource drivers just have all the fanbois tell people to "use Nvidia?"
Re: (Score:1)
What about the case where someone else with the same name as you is posting stuff online that tarnishes your name?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like his brother Nöel.
Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wait... this is a real thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:1)
> 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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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? (Score:2)
The whole basic concept of "reputation management" is shady as hell. What did they expect?
suit failureand hoping trolls are ignored is naive (Score:1)
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! (Score:2)
[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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
so this story (Score:1)
Re:so this story (Score:5, Informative)
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. [projectcensored.org]
How does this even work? (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
Duh. Using that illegal hacker code.
Re: (Score:2)
Flood the forum with sock puppets saying how wonderful he is. Create lots of other fake forums that praise him.
Neologasmic (Score:1)
Failure to Process (Score:2)
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.
Rexxfield's Response (Score:1)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
You might be offended by the "censorship" aspect of this, but not everyone posts in good faith, even here on /.
Wow, I'm shocked by this allegation. Maybe I should write to the editors and have your post removed.
Thankfully, Slashdot doesn't take down posts "without any fuss".
In other related news... (Score:2)
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 :-/ (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Moneymaker (Score:1)
A related business idea - unreputation management:
Nice reputation ya got there. Shame if somethin happened to it.
I had my suspicions... (Score:1)
Cricket (Score:2)
I think Cricket does this -- which is a mobile carrier that most normal people all know and realize sucks, moreso than AT&T -- which is hard to do. Primary it caters to (and exploits) people in disadvantaged communities and the working poor. You mainly find Cricket near rent-to-own establishments, et. al. So you may know someone with a Cricket phone yourself because they have no choice - they need a pay as you go phone and have little cash - this is recession after all.
Regardless, everytime I have made
Re: (Score:2)
I have a close relative who works for Cricket on the technical side of things. I don't use their service and his phone is provided to him so I can't comment on the service. But, I am privvy to frequent conversations of just how seriously borked Cricket management is. The policies, rules, and actions defy logic and common sense far more often than not and they treat their hourly employees (who have no union unlike some other carriers) like disposable tools. It's a sad situation and I'm still amazed that
Consumer Advocacy Victims Silenced By Hack (Score:1)
Not to mention... (Score:2)
The Repairer of Reputations may send you the Yellow Sign.
Re: (Score:1)
So?
Re:Fox News (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
...and the obligatory xkcd: http://xkcd.com/810/ [xkcd.com]
A better strategy (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If you're not feeling cynical, you're not paying attention.
Re:GOD LOVES THEM ANYWAY !! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It's easy to spot the paid shills (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, i've seen conclusive examples using 'leet internet' speak.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure some of the humorous reviews for £10,000 cat 5 cables aren't from people who bought the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I believe in it regardless, but how many of those reviews have the amazon verified buyer logo?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 agreemen
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
...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
Re: (Score:2)
You're on the right track, but I learned something watching for these tactics.
The ones that include racial or homophobic sickness are almost never the ones that are organized shills or paid trolls. I think there must be a belief that such comments are so toxic that if it ever was found out that a company was somehow involved, it would so damage the company that it just wouldn't be worth the tiny risk.
Look for posts with sexual or