how to remove a bad review which ranks first for keyword=my name?

[oveedee]

Hello,

I have this problem which i hope to solve. its been going on for some time now and i am not sure what to do.

If you google this name in google, the first post is a blog article giving a very bad review for a web development project dissing the company and the owner (i don't want to name names because i don't want to bring more visitors to that page). The article is completely untrue, the story never happened, how ever some replied to that post and described a similar situation with the same company and owner. Now that did happen, but the customer was completely unreasonable, very hard to deal with, the project changed many times and the deadline was not respected indeed.

First i tried to talk with the owner of the blog, explained the situation but she didn't care. I tried in the past to overrank this page, i did create a lot of pages with the name and i managed to have it removed the article to page number 3, but now its number 1 again in SERP. The pages I created were unattended so they lost rank to the blog article. It's affecting my business and i don't know what to do.

Can I report this somewhere or what can I do? Goole investigates such cases? If so, can you please help and give an email address or something. This cannot go on anymore.

Regards

[ncseo]

You will need to hire someone to do Online Reputation Management

Basically, we push down the listings from off of page 1 or page 2 to the lower pages.
Most users do not go to page 2,3 of traffic so it helps to push them down

[Ace]

Originally Posted by oveedee

I tried in the past to overrank this page, i did create a lot of pages with the name and i managed to have it removed the article to page number 3, but now its number 1 again in SERP. The pages I created were unattended so they lost rank to the blog article. It's affecting my business and i don't know what to do.

You yourself has given the solution, the only solution is to put your Good Reputation Post on top and bury the negatives results in deep. If your business is affected then you should keep your post on top.

[ncseo]

here are some examples

1. buy the domain or keyword that is being searched.
you will need to optimize the site so it ranks

2. setup or signup for social media accounts that rank high naturally

3. write press releases and/or articles with the keyword in the title

4. release a video with the keyword in the title

Once you do all 4....you can normally get AT LEAST 10 listings, and you will need to start building backlinks to each Digital Asset so that they rank higher

[innominds]

If you can't beat that negative review blog post from your domain, use the third party services.
Create a good review in Ezine Articles and use web 2.0 techniques to neutral that bad review.

[seopeter]

Not sure where you name is published but if you can contact them and ask to remove if possible, otherwise you have to build positive reputation and outrank that page

[danlefree]

If untrue statements were made about your company and it's worth it to you to get them removed from the internet, you should talk to a lawyer.

[ncseo]

Attorneys charge a lot of money, and it may not be successful.

Just like ripoffreports...if the blog owner is a 3rd party then they're NOT going to get into trouble ...even if the information is false.

[a53mp]

Why not post replies to it.. showing proof that it is not real.. that way if someone shows up to it, they will also see your reply. Or get other people to make fake or real replies, praising your work.

[ncseo]

adding fresh content to the thread will make it stronger...and push it higher in the rankings

even if you could get positive reviews...it's USUALLY better to push it down than to respond and push it up in the rankings

Originally Posted by a53mp

Why not post replies to it.. showing proof that it is not real.. that way if someone shows up to it, they will also see your reply. Or get other people to make fake or real replies, praising your work.

[a53mp]

True.... but 100 good reviews and 2 bad reviews are better than 0 good reviews.

[ncseo]

Working with ORM ....I can tell you that ALL of my clients didnt care to see it on the first 2 pages even if it had 2 bad reviews and 100 good reviews next to it.

Once someone sees the negative review...they may not even continue to read the rest of the thread/post...and the seed is already planted no matter what.

Originally Posted by a53mp

True.... but 100 good reviews and 2 bad reviews are better than 0 good reviews.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

Attorneys charge a lot of money, and it may not be successful.

Just like ripoffreports...if the blog owner is a 3rd party then they're NOT going to get into trouble ...even if the information is false.

Not entirely correct.

A publisher can be held responsible for publishing defamatory information if they are not a common carrier. ISPs, for example, are common carriers; the owner/operator of a blog is not.

[ncseo]

so why hasn't anyone won against the owner of ripoffreports?

Originally Posted by deepsand

Not entirely correct.

A publisher can be held responsible for publishing defamatory information if they are not a common carrier. ISPs, for example, are common carriers; the owner/operator of a blog is not.

[deepsand]

Do we know that anyone has brought legal action against said site and/or those who post there and failed at such?

If so, do we know all of the material particulars of such case(s)?

Bear in mind that the owner/operator of an on-line site is functionally analogous to the publisher of a newspaper, the likes of which have most definitely been held responsible for the content of their publications, regardless of the author of such.

[ncseo]

also...doesn't it vary by state law?

can you please cite your source...thanks

Originally Posted by deepsand

Do we know that anyone has brought legal action against said site and/or those who post there and failed at such?

If so, do we know all of the material particulars of such case(s)?

Bear in mind that the owner/operator of an on-line site is functionally analogous to the publisher of a newspaper, the likes of which have most definitely been held responsible for the content of their publications, regardless of the author of such.

[slimwoman]

This issue of reputation is so important in today's economy. You would think the blog owner would want the truth to be exposed. What goes around comes around. My experience with page rank is that the more I post content on my site and blog, the higher my site comes in on keyword SEO. Negative people will receive what they put out in time. Hope the reputation is restored since good always wins in the end. Just read the book of Revelation in the Bible.

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by ncseo

so why hasn't anyone won against the owner of ripoffreports?

Not really. But here are some tips: Remove Rip off Report - Remove rip off Report

[Veikoh]

That's the best part of Internet that it's still have democracy left
If this guy bothers to use his skills and effort to be mad for your company, you either should pay for it or show better skills.
I wrote also a article about one company with whome I had contact and what I think about them to my blog - Veiko Herne Blog Archive Ballard Chalmers dirty tricks and some time ago the owners wife contacted me that will I be still able to do some SEO work for them as she didn't wanted to have a husband without a ****

[ncseo]

that is a spam page

were they trying to reach a % for keyword density?
remove rip reports was written at least 15 times
It was a SPAM PAGE!
Even the title tags repeated the keyword phrase TWICE!

also, that link didn't show any tips .....I'm assuming that you're affiliated or own that site

Originally Posted by Webnauts

Not really. But here are some tips: Remove Rip off Report - Remove rip off Report

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by Veikoh

That's the best part of Internet that it's still have democracy left

It also serves to highlight the dark side of pure democracies, that which is known as "tryannies of the majority."

It is to guard against such threats that many "democratic" governments, such as those of the US, are structured as being "representative" in nature; i.e., the citizens elect representatives to stand in their stead.

Merely being part of a majority is no guarantee of either correctness of fact or judgment. Were that the case, the Earth would be both flat and the center of the Universe.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

can you please cite your source...thanks

Cite source(s) for what?

It was I who asked for citations to support the claim that ripoffreports had successfully defended against legal actions re. the publishing of defamatory works.

[ncseo]

if you have 'heard' or 'know' of someone defeating ripoffreports in court then I would love to see it.....

Cite the source of the 'law' or your 'interpretation of it'

You say that a blog owner can be sued...if he doesn't take down the content.
I would love to see evidence of that

Originally Posted by deepsand

Cite source(s) for what?

It was I who asked for citations to support the claim that ripoffreports had successfully defended against legal actions re. the publishing of defamatory works.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

also, that link didn't show any tips .....I'm assuming that you're affiliated or own that site

Assumes facts not in evidence.

If you are going to make accusations, you'd best be prepared to support such.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

if you have 'heard' or 'know' of someone defeating ripoffreports in court then I would love to see it.

Nope, not my burden to bear. The claim was yours; therefore, it is yours to prove.

As it stands, said claim is no more than the logical fallacy of holding the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence.

[ncseo]

did you look at the link?

there was no tips in it..and it was a spam page

I guess that posters account was hacked....or please tell me why a well known poster would post a spam link?

Originally Posted by deepsand

Assumes facts not in evidence.

If you are going to make accusations, you'd best be prepared to support such.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

Cite the source of the 'law' or your 'interpretation of it'

Begin here - Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[ncseo]

so then neither one of us are correct since neither bring evidence

Originally Posted by deepsand

Nope, not my burden to bear. The claim was yours; therefore, it is yours to prove.

As it stands, said claim is no more than the logical fallacy of holding the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

did you look at the link?

there was no tips in it..and it was a spam page

I guess that posters account was hacked....or please tell me why a well known poster would post a spam link?

None of which support your allegation re. Webnauts.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

so then neither one of us are correct since neither bring evidence

False; that is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

[ncseo]

lol are you serious?

did you see his response?


He was responding to my post

"so why hasn't anyone won against the owner of ripoffreports?"


"Not really ...but here are some tips "

Originally Posted by deepsand

None of which support your allegation re. Webnauts.

[ncseo]

which one are you arguing

1. that nobody has won in court against ripoffreports?
2. that we cannot take a blog/forum owner to court for someone posting libelous info on their site?

Originally Posted by deepsand

Begin here - Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

lol are you serious?

I would put the same question to you.

Again, if you are going to make claims and/or allegations, be prepared to support such with facts.

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

which one are you arguing

1. that nobody has won in court against ripoffreports?

That was your claim!

Originally Posted by ncseo

2. that we cannot take a blog/forum owner to court for someone posting libelous info on their site?

That was your conclusion!

[ncseo]

so which one are you arguing?

the court case...or nobody winning against ripoffreports?
hmm the owner was on 60mins i believe (1yr ago), and that's one of the things talked about. I remember that he couldn't be held liable cuz he didnt know the reports were libelous.

My point about ppl posting false stuff is that ripoffreports owner doesnt know if it's false unless a court tells him.

here's wiki

Ripoff Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One aspect of Ripoff Report that distinguishes it from similar sites is that in general, Reports are never taken down or removed. (See Criticism and lawsuits section below) The Ripoff Report and Magedson appear to be within their rights on this point since the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA) creates an absolute legal "safe harbor" for websites and blogs where the content is posted by others. See CDA, Section 230 at 47 USC § 230.

Originally Posted by deepsand

That was your claim!


That was your conclusion!

[deepsand]

Originally Posted by ncseo

... he couldn't be held liable cuz he didnt know the reports were libelous.

There is a distinction between being liable before the fact and after.

Originally Posted by ncseo

My point about ppl posting false stuff is that ripoffreports owner doesnt know if it's false unless a court tells him.

The owner/operator may very well be informed of falsehoods by parties other than a Court. And, if he is so informed, and declines to take appropriate steps to determine the factual accuracy of the matter, he can indeed be held liable. That he failed to be so ordered by a Court will not suffice as defense.

Originally Posted by ncseo

... in general, Reports are never taken down or removed.

Which implicitly means that such "take-downs" have happened, albeit infrequently.

Originally Posted by ncseo

... Communications Decency Act [B]creates an absolute legal "safe harbor" for websites and blogs where the content is posted by others.

Such depends on whether or not the owner/operator exercises any control over the content posted there.

If he exercises no control, then he is treated as a "common carrier;" if he exercises any control, as a "publisher." Common carriers have safe harbor; publishers do not.

[DesignsOnline]

Another option is to do what you did in the first place, but on a much bigger scale use a mass link building service to post out thousands of social news links and forum posts. the other blog post will get lost in a sea of posts and eventually pushed so far down the rankings that it wont be found unless you are looking for it.

Pm me if you want details for a company that will do this...

[Web Marketer]

i agree with ncseo,

as i have done exactly the same for one of my client

[left4dead]

Certain contents can be removed from the Google search results by requesting them or else contact the blog owner to remove the content..

[BluePlanet]

So are we done with the stupid back and forth? Get a room.

There are some good suggestions in the thread. Here are some other ones. Depending on how much damage this review is causing and your financial circumstances, some of these might work.
Most of this assumes that this is all taking place in the US or otherwise in the same country. Were it the same state, that would even be better.

1. A blog/site owner that allows people to post things and does NO editing is very difficult to sue. If the owner or staff EDITS the blog, if they exercise any control over the content (like a newspaper) then they can be sued.

2. Have an attorney write a cease and desist letter. Explain to the blog owner that even if they can mount a defense, the owner is going to be spent into bankruptcy. Explain that the failure to remove the untrue information after the previous requests establishes legal malice and opens the way for punitive damages. DMCA is not a free pass for everything.

3. A assume your business name is being used in the blog. Get a TRADEMARK on your name, and then demand the post be removed for trademark infringement. There is nothing that protects the blog or site from a federal civil action for trademark infringement. Of course, it is $300 and takes awhile.

4. Something many people overlook are state trademarks. State trademarks are granted quickly and cost anywhere from $10 to $100 depending upon the state. Get a trademark in the state where the site owner resides and then do the cease and desist order based on state trademark law and the registration there. Also, if you really go to court it will be easier and cheaper in state court.

5. Buy the site or buy off the blog owner. If it is a site, do it thru a third party otherwise the owner will try to bleed you if they know the true motive.

6. There is shortly going to be something new to address problems like this. Not ready to announce it yet but it should be a pretty effective solution in about 30-60 days. Send me a message or check around these parts or my signature line.

7. If you want to go to court for libel, defamation, etc. you will need to learn some law. Check the state law where the owner is. Here in Florida a media defendant has to be served with/sent a 5 day notice before any civil action can commence. If someone sues a media defendant without doing that, it is fatal to the civil action and there is no cure. A legal 5 day notice might scare the site/blog owner enough to get them to take down the bad info.