No Press Is Bad Press Even Online 139
otter42 writes "The NYTimes has an 8-page exposé on how an online business is thriving because of giant amounts of negative reviews. It seems that if you directly google the company you have no problem discerning the true nature; but if you instead only google the brand names it sells, the company is at the top of the rankings. Turns out that all the negative advertisement he generates from reputable sites gives him countless links that inflate his pagerank."
Hyperlinks and Pagerank 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
The Page rank algorithm determines how useful a site is based on the amount of hyperlinks TO the website. Each count is multiplied by how reputable a website is - so if its a huge website which brings in millions of users - then its more likely to be reputable than a website on a free host which gets 10 hits a year.
Now the problem with hyperlinks is that there is no semantic information attached to them - if you place a link on a page - there is no way to mark it as "This is a dangerous page" for example, or "This guy is an idiot, someone shut him up" or "This is an adverstiment, they have nothing to do with us". So the crawler notices a reputable website is linking on another site - and gives points accordingly.
The best solution is to add semantic information to hyperlinks - but that's not supported yet...
Re: (Score:1)
The best solution is to add semantic information to hyperlinks - but that's not supported yet...
or you could read the entire post that contains the link
Re:Hyperlinks and Pagerank 101 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Er... this is not Redundant.
Its a real thing.
That does exactly what the GP was talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It was marked redundant because it was mentioned further up the page. It's now marked informative now, though, and probably rightfully so, since it's the kind of information that SHOULD be repeated.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the job of the BBcode rendering engine. If they're not adding rel=nofollow universally (or, at minimum, by default), the folks maintaining the relevant libraries need a smack upside the head.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If I found a page of bad reviews that was PR5 and none of them had nofollows - I'd add every website I could fit :)
Re: (Score:1)
This shows the failure of how hyperlinks works and how the page rank algorithm works.
Hardly: a search engine just makes it easy to find popular sites. With popular meaning 'much visited, linked from many other sites', not 'containing useful info from trustworthy source'. A user's mistake starts when he/she loses track of that distinction.
Of course you'd want the 'useful info from trustworthy source', but that's not a search engine's job (to decide what's 'good' or 'bad' info), is it? Google finds it, you decide what it means.
Re: (Score:1)
Except when shopping they do provide extra information. I would simply recommend people using the product search. It conveniently has a seller rating.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course you'd want the 'useful info from trustworthy source', but that's not a search engine's job (to decide what's 'good' or 'bad' info), is it? Google finds it, you decide what it means.
Successful businesses deliver something that people want. Google and others get this, you don't. You're looking at the scenario from the point of view of an employee who does only what he's obligated to do and nothing more.
Incidentally, I personally *DO* occasionally rely on Google to identify a site's legitimacy even now. In situations where a project/organization/company's domain name is not obvious ( e.g. mplayer), googling their name will generally show the top result as the actual, legit site, instead
Re: (Score:2)
How about people do some research first? Caveat Emptor.
I was going to suggest a star system. But any rating system can be gamed, by the web site itself or its competitors.
Also, instead of searching the lowest possible price, find a reasonable one from a known and trustworthy vendor. I have little sympathy for the low dollar hounds that then scream about bad customer service.
OTOH, that's not a criticism of the lady here, she obviously paid money for her glasses and just got stuck with an abusive lying ass
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, how about the regulatory agencies responsible for handling business licensing, fraud, and criminal prosecutions actually get off their ass and do something about this guy?
It should be easy enough to set up a sting on him. Buy a pair of glasses, check if they're fakes, attempt to return them, see what he does in return and record any messages he leaves along with any other interactions with a "honeypot" credit card account.
The problem is that law enforcement agencies in the US aren't interested in doing
Re: (Score:2)
And since according to TFA there's a good chance what he's selling are largely counterfeits, and we just discussed THAT issue ... why isn't he being taken down for selling counterfeit merchandise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True :) But there is a division of the FBI that deals with counterfeit goods, is there not? I know they've busted dealers of fake-label clothing; eyeglasses should be in the same bucket, perhaps moreso considering how much the damned things cost.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This shows the failure of how hyperlinks works and how the page rank algorithm works.
In fact what this shows is the failure of the current idea that people don't need to be educated about computers. In this case, the question the person has asked is "which is the most 'interesting' link related to Lafont eyglasses". And "interesting" is defined as something like "most discussed". The person thinks they have asked "magically tell me where is the most interesting Lafont link for me".
Page rank is doing exactly what it's meant to do. Now people have to understand what that is. Once the
Re: (Score:2)
The example in the article is that a lady searched for some brand of eyeglasses, and the scammer's site was the first result. Call me a populist, but I don't think people should be expected to learn how PageRank works in order to decipher the results of a simple search for some brandname. Google should have a mechanism to handle the bad-reviews-give-good-rank bug.
Educating people is still a good thing, but at first blush I would think teaching people to check the background of the sites they do buisness wit
Re: (Score:2)
Now the problem with hyperlinks is that there is no semantic information attached to them - if you place a link on a page - there is no way to mark it as "This is a dangerous page" for example, or "This guy is an idiot, someone shut him up" or "This is an adverstiment, they have nothing to do with us".
It's called rel=nofollow. HTH, HAND.
Not that simple... (Score:2)
The best solution is to add semantic information to hyperlinks - but that's not supported yet...
From TFA (which CAN be linked without the loginwall [nytimes.com]):
“If you have a lot of people who hate Obama, for instance, and you decided to rank on love or hate, you might not be able to find the White House and that would be terrible,” he says.
Re: (Score:2)
The Page rank algorithm determines how useful a site is based on the amount of hyperlinks TO the website. Each count is multiplied by how reputable a website is - so if its a huge website which brings in millions of users - then its more likely to be reputable than a website on a free host which gets 10 hits a year.
I think it would be more accurate to say that pagerank measures how notable (as opposed to reputable) a site is. Therein, of course, lies the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
> The best solution is to add semantic information to hyperlinks - but that's not supported yet...
It would never work as it relies on the honesty of the web page writer (same as meta-data tags are not useful for determining the contents of a page.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that a person writing a review saying "Company X screwed me!" would intentionally add semantic information to the hyperlink indicating that Company X is trustworthy? Or are you saying that the folks who own review clearinghouse sites (specifically, ones with high Pagerank values) would intentionally provide metadata contrary to the reviews that they host?
The topic for this article is presumptively honest negative reviews on trusted review sites (as other sites -- such as those run directly by
Re: (Score:2)
The necessary semantic information to prevent this already exists: it's called rel="nofollow" [wikipedia.org].
nofollow is a value that can be assigned to the rel attribute of an HTML a element to instruct some search engines that a hyperlink should not influence the link target's ranking in the search engine's index. It is intended to reduce the effectiveness of certain types of search engine spam, thereby improving the quality of search engine results and preventing spamdexing from occurring.
The problem is simply getting people to tag links at all.
Popular != Reputable (Score:2)
You seem to have confused popular with reputable, i.e popular = A Good Thing. Just because a thing has many fans does not mean it is reputable. I give you Justin Bieber.
Re: (Score:2)
Supposedly Google only use PageRank in less than about 0.1% of queries now (from a Google Engineer that presented at a previous employer of mine)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's like The Three Amigos: unable to tell the famous from the infamous.
Re: (Score:1)
So you've reduced the problem to parsing English. That should eliminate the 200 programming languages too.
Nice job.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Google and other search engines understand rel="nofollow" attribute in links
Yeah - but how many authors understand it? How many use it?
Re: (Score:2)
Two problems.
One: many sites don't use nofollow where they should, or use it where it doesn't naturally make sense (in an effort to shape their link weighting for SEO reasons). GetSatisfaction is obviously guilty of this, as the weight of their outbound links is counting towards this scam site. Granted it's not quite as simple as "Store below 75% positive reviews? nofollow everything" since that's almost as easy to game, but that conceivably shifts the intelligent nofollow burden from Google to GS. Google (
Re:Hyperlinks and Pagerank 101 (Score:4, Interesting)
If only Search Engines could actually understand the Natural Language we type our websites in - then we wouldn't even need to research anything, just ask the Search Engine and get the correct answer - already pre-filtered and understood.
Won't be happening very soon - because there are tons of ways of saying the same thing.
"The following website gives irreputable medical advice - which could be dangerous for health. [Link]"
"[Link], [Link2], and [Link3] - one of the three scam sites which were detected by [Reputable site]"
The second one is a very interesting problems, how do you mark it? Without marking reputable site as well?
Re: (Score:2)
"Natural Language processing is one of the hardest problems there are in ICT"
That's because they are looking at strings not intents or emotions. Language is not merely symbols there are whole other layers of information embedded in it. Think about words as human beings use them especially in politics think about this word:
Pedophelia.
That word causes people to feel emotions or think immediately of other things on an unconscious level it activates EVERYTHING associated with the word in their minds.
What reall
Re: (Score:2)
That's because they are looking at strings not intents or emotions. Language is not merely symbols there are whole other layers of information embedded in it.
...which you can only extract after parsing the strings and symbols!
Getting to the emotion and intent behind a sentence isn't a shortcut to having the computer to correctly interpret language, it's the next step that can only be taken after you solve the problem of getting the literal meaning.
What really needs to happen is that they need to stop looking at language and create models for what is the emotional content of each context they are measuring and what it is pointing at.
And how are you going to determine what a context is and what it "points at" without understanding the literal meaning of the sentence first? It's hard to figure out who to attach the negative emotional content of "pe
Re: (Score:2)
"...which you can only extract after parsing the strings and symbols!"
My whole point is they are starting with the wrong idea i.e. trying to parse strings. Strings are merely pointers.
What they should be doing is creating concept networks themselves and building databases that map to these concepts networks of meaning using human input by trying building most common variations of statements that equal the same thing. Then have the interpreter try to guess what the meaning is of all these different stateme
Re: (Score:2)
Getting semantic meaning out of a sentence is far harder for a computer than it is for us humans. Unfortunatly humans are lazy, and its pretty hard to markup everything.
But if only we had a perfect complete Onthology and format, then we could map the universe and have computers do our thinking for us. If only.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What a piece of work, this A.C.? How funny in posting,
How comedic in faculties, in form and typing,
I would express admiration by action to this Anon Cow, sans apprehension,
But I'm not Mod!
Re: (Score:2)
Emotions can be modeled in different ways by rating sentiment of a given word "up or down", i.e positive or negative, you begin with simple emotions that are easily expressed or modeled, you don't try to bite off more then you can chew.
The truth is you don't have any idea and thats why you posted as AC.
Re: (Score:1)
Approximating the overall gist isn't necessarily as hard as parsing the exact meaning, especially if you are averaging a lot of results.
An earlier story [slashdot.org] featured similar data mining on Twitter messages.
No need to RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks to the NYT's valiant efforts, you can be spared from reading TFA: just check out the comic [nytimes.com] instead.
Re: (Score:2)
No, read the article. It's much better (worse.) There's a special place in Hell reserved for this guy.
Nofollow? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps review sites should add nofollow attributes to their external links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow [wikipedia.org]
Maybe just for negative reviews?
Re:Nofollow? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe not use hyperlinks? I mean, if I want to warn people about www.crazyscammer.com, why would I need to make it into a clickable link? I don't. Now he gets linked from NYTimes. Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can do it with all links, but that'll ruin how Page Rank works.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
rel="nofollow" isn't new and it's useful for large websites with user submitted content. Slashdot, for example, adds it to outbound links to remove any incentive to increase page rank by spamming links. All the major search engines respect it AFAIK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure -- but if those forum scripts don't tag such user-submitted links nofollow, they're doing it wrong.
Re:Nofollow? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about combining the worst with the worst? Add "nofollow" to any links in negative reviews, and copy negative reviews to a shadow site that's filled with links to sites known for porn, pedophilia, viruses and malware.
ORLY? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Google: Christian Audigier glasses
DME is #6 on that results page, what's your point?
A smart shopper would click here [google.com], and quickly find that DME is *not* a low price leader for any style of frame from that designer, pictured on the results page.
Not to mention that lower priced vendors on that page are associated with e-tailers that have standards and pull...or is Amazon not "all that" anymore?
Do your homework on the vendor you intend to buy from, don't take links blindly, and you'll be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
In TFA, he mentions that he also sells through Amazon using a business name he won't disclose. To be fair, he says he offers much better service through Amazon because they have a low threshold for dissatisfied customers, but personally I don't want to risk giving him my money, which now rules out Amazon.
The kneejerk reactions (Score:2)
I read the NY Times article last night at work, and did a bit of looking around at metafilter, reditt, and other sites. It was going to show up on slashdot eventually, and thought about the comments to follow. I'd group them as:
1. Google is teh evil for it's algorithms
2. Let's harass this asshat
3. The BBB/police/FBI/NY AG is inept
How about we go in another direction in the comments? (I will admit some amusement at what he will go through now that he's come to wide attention).
What should we do?
Re:The kneejerk reactions (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's not forget CitiBank who apparently didn't give a shit that someone fraudulently closed the woman's disputed charge.
I have an account run by CitiBank, and this has made me decide to close it - before I get subjected to their don't care approach.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The kneejerk reactions (Score:4, Funny)
The funny masks should have tipped her off.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, IMO, everyone should just fire their bank and join a credit union. This shit would never happen with a credit union.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps some education of web users is in order. Looking up the actual comments on Ebay, rather than merely whether there is a negative one, would help reveal the sort of vindictive comment this bully threatens other vendors with. And educating consumers on how to get their complaints actually dealt with by blocking the accounts of abusive vendors, rather than merely refunding a particular purchase, would be invaluable.
I've also read the article. Keep in mind that if Google starts manipulating page ranks ba
Re: (Score:2)
1. Google is teh evil for it's algorithms
2. Let's harass this asshat
3. The BBB/police/FBI/NY AG is inept
So far, not a single comment along those lines. Nor would I expect them. Perhaps your slashdot crystal ball is broken?
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't give it enough time:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1886536&cid=34364802 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1886536&cid=34364792 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1886536&cid=34365434 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1886536&cid=34364720 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1886536&cid=34364794 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1886536&cid=34366990 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1886536&cid=34365822 [slashdot.org]
Of course, Alan Ralsky was
so? (Score:1)
Something has changed (Score:1)
A quick search on LAFONT CIBA VISIONS (they contacts first mentioned in the story) now show 11 results on the first page, of those SIX are either this story or re-posts of the story on other websites.
The other 5 results appear to be for things like BizRate and for legit CIBAVISIONS outlets.
Clicking through page 2, 3 etc there is at least ONE site showing a discussion about the NY Time article but DecorEyes does not show up.
maybe I am not using the corr
Re: (Score:2)
You're doing it wrong, Lafont and Ciba Vision are different brands. She found Lafont frames on DecorMyEyes first, then decided to order the contacts at the same time.
DecorMyEyes is halfway down the list for both "Lafont Eyeglasses" and "Discount Designer Frames".
No longer #1, but still top 10 for both.
Blaming Google? (Score:4, Interesting)
Reading the article I had to shake my head at the complaints that "Google should do something". Do they think the phone book people should boot him out or circle his name in red too?
I've seen people complain in online forums about ads or intrusive product placement in TV shows and movies. And what do they do? They mention the product or company 3-4 times in their rant. On threads where I've commented I've tried to encourage people not to name the specific product or company in their rant, but too many clueless people out there. You hate the placement but remember it well enough to bitch about it online. Advertiser searches for online comments and finds many, so the campaign was successful.
Heck, the Times article just boosted the guy's profile even more! There wasn't just one mention of the company, but many, increasing the rank. Of course the company name is still likely to just show up in a search for the company not the brand names.
So the guy is an ass, but all the clueless people who want to blame someone else ( Google ) and not do research on a company but just buy whatever is claimed to be the cheapest. They may not be getting what they deserve, but they did contribute to their problems by their lack of due diligence. "Too good to be true" is still a true statement. If you find something online where everyone has it for about the same price but someone magically has it much lower you're asking for trouble. That's when you really need to check on the reputation of the seller.
Re: (Score:2)
On threads where I've commented I've tried to encourage people not to name the specific product or company in their rant, but too many clueless people out there.
Heck, the Times article just boosted the guy's profile even more! There wasn't just one mention of the company, but many, increasing the rank.
So the guy is an ass, but all the clueless people who want to blame someone else ( Google ) and not do research on a company but just buy whatever is claimed to be the cheapest
1) How are you going to check the reputation of the seller/product if everyone does what you suggest and not name names?
2) Search engines like Google and Bing don't simply rank by "number of mentions".
You don't seem that clueful yourself.
There will always be clueless people (and he wants to only do business with the weak and/or clueless). The real problem is cops and regulators aren't doing their jobs and stopping him- assuming he really made threatening and fraudulent phone calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving you a clue for free:
You can mention the product or site and still obfuscate the name. You can keep from posting links to the seller's web site if you don't want to add to their business. Also I was referring to product placement comments not seller rating sites. ( You omitted that when quoting me to attempt to make some sort of argument )
"simply rank by number of mentions" is your clueless comment. Adding "simply" to what I wrote changes it to nonsense. More mentions in a page makes that page mor
Re: (Score:2)
You can mention the product or site and still obfuscate the name.
There are so many ways to obfuscate the names. So how are you going to research it? If everyone uses obfuscated names it's going to be much harder when researching.
The same clueless people would have even more difficulty researching obfuscated names than the clueful, so they'll just be as screwed as before, while those with a clue would have to work harder to figure out obfuscated names. So what's the net benefit of your suggestion?
It should be pretty obvious that obfuscation is a stupid idea.
Re: (Score:2)
I was making a comparison to discussions about intrusive advertising both times I suggested obfuscating company product names. The whole purpose behind that suggestion was to limit the ability to search for them, to limit the effectiveness of the annoying advertising or product placement. So you got that part right, you just missed the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Google should do something. Not because of any moral or ethical obligation, but because it is good business. There are numerous examples of internet businesses that have followed the pattern:
1) Attract lots of traffic, become immensely profitable.
2) Attract enough traffic to become appealing to parasites.
3) Become so infested
Re: (Score:2)
Google SHOULD do something. That's what pagerank is all about.
Re: (Score:2)
Except PageRank barely features in Google search results these days. But hey ho!
Re: (Score:2)
Please post a link to the currently-running search engine code.
4Chan assemble (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't wish 4Chan's wrath on my worst enemy but it sounds like this guy needs a taste of his own medicine to me.
Re:4Chan assemble (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then please explain. I know 4chan is at it's core a random collection of people, but it does look like it's active members only care about laughing at "idiots" and on occasion taking up crusades against universally hated things like killing kittens and Scientology. Perhaps 4chan would take actions against this man. But history suggests otherwise.
Douche much? (Score:1)
Mass versus count nouns (Score:1)
No. Choose one:
giant amounts of negative review
giant numbers of negative reviews
Re: (Score:2)
What about "a giant amount of negative reviews"?
Short-sighted? (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be that the guy is raking in cash today, but he's not just being a jackass: he's committing crimes. It's fiendishly difficult to prosecute some kinds of online crimes, especially when routed through overseas sites, but this guy does not seem to be protecting himself.
It's always wise to be suspicious of "trend" stories, since newspapers love to spot a single instance, call it a "trend", and get everybody yapping. But even if there is a "trend" here, it'll get cut right short if this guy gets arrested.
Which may be the real purpose behind the piece: take an injustice that is too small for authorities to take notice, raise its profile, and take some satisfaction when the police step in.
There may well be a marketing tactic to be had in providing rotten customer service and benefiting from the links provided by sites too dumb to use "nofollow". But there's a line between "rotten service" and "outright fraud", and this guy is well over it.
Re: (Score:2)
"But even if there is a 'trend' here, it'll get cut right short if this guy gets arrested."
RTFA: Guy's been arrested twice already.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing that out. I did RTFA, but I musta missed that.
I guess he figures the money must be worth the time, but it seems unlikely.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microformats (Score:2)
I'd really like to see a microformat for reviews take off. It could start in parallel to existing link-counting schemes so we just need a critical mass implementing it. Counting links is easy for search engines but we could get much better information by saying what we mean instead of just a link, possibly with nofollow.
There is hReview [microformats.org] but it's in really bad shape. There isn't any agreement on nomenclature for the reviews -- no scales or weighting schema, or any way to communicate a rating schema. Anyone k
Don't blindly use search engines for shopping. (Score:2)
The solution to this seems pretty obvious to me. Don't blindly use search engines for shopping. Why in the world would anyone sane google for a product, go to that site, and enter a credit card number?
I buy my running shoes online, but I don't just google '"New Balance" 883 9-2E' and then go to the top hit and buy. I buy through Amazon, which shows me retailers that are willing to sell me those shoes and gives me users' ratings for the various retailers.
Granted, it's unfortunate that this has the effect
Or at least be more thorough... (Score:2)
If I'm about to spend enough that I'll care if it goes south and find an apparent bargain, I may give weight to early results, but I'll also search on the companies names, look for reviews, and see if the BBB has any complaints.
Of course, the downside is that reviews are going to have a negative tendency if at all possible. When things go ok, people aren't motivated to say anything. When things go bad, they will step up. This is one reason I look hard for comments associated with bad reviews to see if it
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and although I hate putting money into the pockets of Amazon and E-Bay, this is the reason that they're really useful. They both try pretty hard to get buyers to rate sellers, and therefore you get a relatively unbiased set of ratings compared to what you'd get from the BBB, etc.
More thorough... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why in the world would anyone sane google for a product, go to that site, and enter a credit card number?
Because it's quick and convenient?
Re: (Score:2)
Having been burnt many times by Amazon "stores" I'll quite happily take my chances with stores I find on a search engine that appear reputable to me. And over all those I'll try and source things locally first, even if it costs a bit more.
Case in point - I just bought a new thermostatic mixer shower (and fitted it at yesterday) from a local supplier rather than Amazon or eBay because the local supplier has been here for donkeys years and it is easy to deal with them for returns / warrantee issues. Too many
No Website is an Island (Score:2)
I find that using MyWOT [mywot.com] coupled with Chrome keeps me from stuff like this. Both of those reporting tools are crowd-sourced and goes back to the old word-of-mouth method of advertising. Otherwise, you just stick with the places you know.
"Press" is streaming media... (Score:2)
After the initial hubub dies down in a few hours of days, who'll remember why?
The idiot consumer'll just remember that he'd heard the name somewhere.
That's the fault of the "non retentive nature" of media.
Unless there are "survival reasons" to remember, we forget.
You're countrymen ate children from a certain economic/religious/ethnic group in the previous war?
Get into a media relegated memory economy and you'll be able to generate positive press in no time.
You'd have to really f*ck up badly to become a pari
I do not doubt the ranking (Score:4, Interesting)
But I do doubt that it is good for his business.
He claims that using google maps to stalk angry customers combined with harassing phone calls threatening rape helps his business with Search Engine Optimization from generating negative reviews.
His techniques match those of Brooklyn based discount camera and electronics retailers of a few years ago, with the object of the personal phone calls being to get a few $100 more out of suckers who think they are getting the best price on something. These camera scammers used to have multiple websites, cheap cameras listed and they would call and threaten customers using "Italian" names. Then complaints would mount and they would leave and move on to the next website, but I do not think they earned much money by doing this.
One reason I doubt Borker (hilarious name) is making loads of cash on this is because he handles the phone calls himself, that means there are not many calls (he answers "Eyewear" in the same way the camera guys used to answer the phone "Photography" or "Cameras") but I do believe he is making money off of something. Perhaps it is his other company that is referenced in older whois lookups of his websites called AOSI, which appeared to be a search engine optimization company. I am not sure the company has the same name now, but that might explain why he was happy to be interviewed about his crappy businesses.
Oh, and I really doubt his Wall Street story too. He used to have an office at 305 Madison Avenue which is a temporary office / mobile office rental address. He formed "OpticGenius.com" and ran it from there. I do not know too many "Wall Street" people who give up their jobs and devote themselves to running scams from home or temporary offices as a better source of income.
Russian Mafia, pure and simple (Score:1, Insightful)
This guy's got Russian Mafia written all over him.
If you do decide to fuck with him, I suggest you make VERY sure whatever you do
cannot be traced back to you. I've known a few of these characters, and they
make anything you saw in "The Godfather" look like Sesame Street.
Are People Really Reading the Results? (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, Google DecorM****s.com and the top five hits are all for that company, followed by a link to Resellerratings.com [resellerratings.com] where the company has a stunning 1.39 lifetime rating out of 10.
Googling Lafont (with multiple suffixes), designer glasses or designer frames brings up a number of vendors, DecorMy... not being one of them.
Seems to me people need to hone their search skills and *always* search for ratings on vendors when ever they make a purchase, particularly when using them for the first time.
[Please note, I munged the company name, just to insure he gets no wuffie from this post]
If you don't have NY Times Account (Score:2)
Via Google News:
http://bit.ly/fEKab6 [bit.ly]
Re: (Score:2)
Not in jail??? (Score:2)
The fact that the police id not follow through is appalling
Because that works SO well (Score:2)