Skeptive.com has client seeing red

[CraigAllen]

Yesterday one of my clients put his domain name ([Removed By Admin] ) into Google and found that the second listing, directly below his own site, appears to defame his website.

Specifically, the listing displays as follows:

-------------------
[Removed By Admin] - Source Report - Source report for ...
(url here)
How much do you trust [Removed By Admin] as an information source? ... [Removed By Admin] is implicated in the following disputes on Skeptive: ...
-------------------

Naturally concerned, he clicked the listing and on the Skeptive page that opens, other than the Skeptive logo, header and footer navigation there is virtually nothing except his domain name and "This source has not been rated yet. How much do you trust [Removed By Admin] as an information source?"

The text "[Removed By Admin] is implicated in the following disputes on Skeptive:" does not even appear on the page. In code view it shows up in a div with style="display:none"

Quite naturally, he is concerned that in the Google results when he searches for his domain name, the Skeptive.com listing is defaming his website's domain name and therefore himself. He is interested in knowing if this is happening to other people and I can only presume it is, as through whatever methods Skeptive is including random urls in their search engine results.

Just for fun I did a Google search for the following string: "How much do you trust" "as an information source?" skeptive and that returns 4 pages of results from skeptive.com with different domain names "implicated." Expanding that by clicking the show similar results link at the bottom of page 4 returns "About 1,060,000 results" -- 60 pages of domain names that are all "implicated in disputes on Skeptive."

Anyone have any experiences with this and what can be done about it? What's it all about?

[monstercoder]

That's just a bot scraping all the domains it can find to do that so that when people search on a URL their pages will show up at the top of the results. I wouldn't worry about it.

[claybutler]

That's just a bot scraping all the domains it can find to do that so that when people search on a URL their pages will show up at the top of the results. I wouldn't worry about it.

True, but keep a casual eye on it. Could be the beginnings another extortion site like rip off report. Rip off report intentionally posts anonymous and fraudulent reports against other companies. When the companies complain they offer to remove them for perhaps $10,000. Otherwise they stay. Because they are so aggressive with their SEO they often get their fraud reports ranking higher than the company's website or ahead of Yelp or other legitimate sites. This is their leverage in extorting money.

[confettiguru]

Would there perhaps be a benefit in reporting them to Google, Yahoo, Bing?
Seems as though they wouldn't condone this

[NJ]

Rip off report intentionally posts anonymous and fraudulent reports against other companies.

I didn't know that about Rip off Report. I was researching a company that goes around the country doing "internet workshops" where they end up charging folks thousands of $$$ for a template service that should cost about $15.00/mo. The reason I was researching them was that I had received several calls from folks who had been ripped off by them. I also ended up with a couple in my web development class who had been ripped of by them. Riff-off-report accurately reported their tactics. The weird thing was that they also had large banners saying that the company had resolved the problems, even though they are still deceiving senior citizens and low-income people. In the long run, I found the actions against them by various state Attorney Generals, which was a much more credible source. In fact, I was able to direct the NM Attorney General's office to a specific action by the Texas AG to help them combat the problem in NM.

So, I'm wondering if the Rip-Off-Report is really all that bad. They got me started on the right road in my investigation.

https://oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2005/022205imergentpop.pdf

[claybutler]

So, I'm wondering if the Rip-Off-Report is really all that bad. They got me started on the right road in my investigation.

No they really are that bad. It's shocking that they haven't been shut down and thrown in jail. Yes they have legitimate stuff but they also intentionally post fraudulent reports in the hope of extorting money. Search for rip off report fraud and rip off report scam and you'll see how many people have been dealing with their extortion racket. To see how bad it is search for "zigabid review". They come up first and refuse to remove a fraudulent claim although they have offered to remove it for a fee. I was so appalled I wrote my own review of the company in hopes of knocking it down but it's still number one and shouldn't be. But it is because they are SEO pros that use their rankings to extort money.

[NJ]

Wikipedia certainly has some interesting information about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripoff_Report. The information seems to be backed up with references to legal action, etc.

[CraigAllen]

The way I got it figured is they give out just enough info to make you "have" to click and visit their site to find out what the alleged "disputes" are. This gives them good traffic. Some of those site visitors are going to create an account hoping still to find more out about the "dispute." This gets them a great member base as well as a lot of email addresses. Now, armed with their traffic reports and their huge membership, they have become a popular site and have some sway in attracting advertisers to post ads on their site, and a nice fat email address list to sell. Pretty much a win-win situation for them it would seem even if no one ends up really being implicated in any disputes, all because they have baited their hook well.

Seems to me a lot more money is made dishonestly in life than honestly. Nevertheless, I'll stick with my white hat even if I'll never get rich.

[deepsand]

The text "[Removed by admin] is implicated in the following disputes on Skeptive:" does not even appear on the page. In code view it shows up in a div with style="display:none"
Smacks of cloaking of the sort that Google should like to hear about.

[monstercoder]

I've used them frequently. Look at how many complaints University of Phoenix has. I was going to go to that school until I saw all of the hundreds of complaints. That web site saved me a boatload of cash.

[NJ]

Smacks of cloaking of the sort that Google should like to hear about.

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/spamreport?pli=1 I found this link to report this type of thing. It would be interesting to hear what has happened when people have reported a site. I can see sites like StoresOnline, Skeptive and Ripp-off-report actually using this tool against others who point out their problems.

[monstercoder]

https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/spamreport?pli=1 I found this link to report this type of thing. It would be interesting to hear what has happened when people have reported a site. I can see sites like StoresOnline, Skeptive and Ripp-off-report actually using this tool against others who point out their problems.

Handy link. I'm going to bookmark that. Thanks. Any bad web sites I see in the index, now we can all rat them out.

[matgerke]

I'm the CEO of Skeptive, and I just wanted to clear up the confusion. We're not out to scam anybody, and we're not going to ask anyone for money.

Skeptive is an Internet tool that determines the factual accuracy of Internet content. Skeptive's browser plugin does for factual accuracy what spell-check does for spelling -- if any given sentence on the internet is false, the Skeptive plugin underlines it in red. Truth and falsehood are determined in a unique way -- a given sentence is determined to be "false" if it is contradicted by more trustworthy sources. So, if a blog says that, say, Barack Obama is a Muslim, but reputable news agencies agree that he is a Christian, then the Skeptive plugin will flag the sentence "Barack Obama is a Muslim", wherever it occurs on the internet. Skeptive's technology has important implications for the future of the internet -- and particularly journalism -- which will be tremendously impacted by the advent of technology that flags errors and falsehoods. We believe we are on the cusp of a major change in the internet.

So, the "disputes" that you are seeing on the site are factual disputes -- like whether Barack Obama is a Muslim. If there are no disputes listed, then your website hasn't yet been implicated in any factual disputes. This should all be clear if you check out the site.

[deepsand]

Being "authoritative" and "factually correct" are not necessarily well correlated.

Any conclusions that rely on such assumption are no more than an instance of argumentum ad verecundiam, the fallacy of argument from/appeal to authority.

[weegillis]

This is the second case of reverse SEO to appear in these forums in as many weeks. Damage control or just another layer of subterfuge? Notice that last line? ...'check out the site.'

[deepsand]

Perhaps both. Or, the naive belief that a non-sentient entity can well distinguish between fact and fiction.

[NJ]

It's a very interesting concept to have software determine whether something is a "lie." My ex-husband used to say, "You are only doing that to make me mad." Well, it was true that he was mad. This could be verified by tone of voice and body language. I'm sure that blood pressure tests could be done to prove it too. Now, it's a little harder to prove my own motives. His statement was an assumption that my only motive was to make him mad, that I could not possibly have any further thought or reason. OK, take that to reporters and bloggers and ... What is the truth? What if a reporter uses the truth to create a false image - or are reporters machines? What if a reporter is careless - or are reporters machines? What if editors do either of those - or are editors machines? Funny thing, I think that Republicans say that Democrats are liars and Democrats say that Republican are liars. How is software going to deal with that - unless the programmers have a bias :-)

It seems to me that Skeptive is rather a "validated" opinion comparison!

[deepsand]

It seems to me that Skeptive is rather a "validated" opinion comparison!
That's really all it is.

At present, the majority of Clergy concur that the Earth is the center of the Universe about which all else revolves; ergo, it is so. :rolleyes:

[NJ]

That's really all it is.

At present, the majority of Clergy concur that the Earth is the center of the Universe about which all else revolves; ergo, it is so. :rolleyes:

And it would be best to put Galileo Galilei to the inquisition! Ahhh, but which inquisition?

x = x + 1 doesn't work in Algebra, but does work in programming. Bwahahaha, now I have the mathematicians and the programmers deciding what is fact!

[deepsand]

Or, in this case, some fuzzy logicians.

[weegillis]

Never mind the reverse SEO, what about perverse censorship?

[CraigAllen]

Well, as for my client, this discussion is all moot now. Due to so much invasion of his personal privacy as websites that purport to list his phone number, photos of him, and so forth, he has opted to remove his site from the internet.

(This was a rare case where his site was intended to have a limited audience, limited to people he physically gave his business card out to. Had I realized that in the beginning, I could have done things differently in designing his site and would not have done any SEO on the site to begin with. But now that his name has been broadcast throughout the interweb, the damage has been done.)

Unfortunately, as we all know, nothing ever ceases to exist once it has been published on the internet.

I'd still be interested in knowing what "factual dispute" anyone via Skeptive could have with his website, seeing as how the only information that was on the site was his personal bio and the titles and images of his artwork. Was someone perhaps disputing the name he gave one of his paintings? If so, is that something that should necessitate a public alarm on Skeptive?

I have a problem with the whole idea of flagging sites in that manner. Maybe it's just me.

[CraigAllen]

So, the "disputes" that you are seeing on the site are factual disputes -- like whether Barack Obama is a Muslim. If there are no disputes listed, then your website hasn't yet been implicated in any factual disputes. This should all be clear if you check out the site.

That being said, and there are no disputes listed when someone does "check out the site", you have still done a disservice to the integrity of the website by having your site's listings say his site " is implicated in the following disputes on Skeptive: ..." Seeing that come directly below his website listing in Google is, in itself, a disservice to his website, because it leads one to believe that a factual dispute does indeed exist when there isn't such a dispute, and the implication enough is enough to keep some people from checking out either site.

But as I say, he's out of business on the web now anyway, so it's all mute and I've lost a customer.

[deepsand]

No, it's not just you. And, it's not just Skeptive. It's also Web of Trust and others, where anyone with 'net connectivity can smear anyone with no fear of retribution.

Even the brand names, such as McAfee Site Advisor, are shams, as anyone can register to be an "advisor."

Nor a tyrannies of the masses limited to ruination of reputations, as is evidenced by the quality of what now passes for "news reporting" on the web.

It's all free; and, you get what you pay for.

PS: Need a good rating? I'm a McAfee Site Advisor. :lol:

[weegillis]

Tossing in a close relative of all this poppycockery bringing ruination, can you say, 'McCarthyism'?

[deepsand]

Well, the technology does have the advantage of allowing of trial both in absentia and by proxy, which brings the benefit to the condemned - err, I mean the accused - of not having to endure the burden of presenting himself for trial.

[weegillis]

This whole premise of letting the internet think for itself, or even collect and flag 'disputed' information is only a snowflake away from a complete tort against the web community as a whole. We humans were disseminating online information long before any form of censorship appeared on the horizon and managed quite nicely.

That the new and uninformed users need someone to hold their hand for the first while (or forever in many instances, it would appear) is clearly evident goes without saying; that we need some self appointed private internet security service doing it WITH MACHINES, can clearly be disputed. That's what I see here--taking the hand holding just a bit too far into la-la-land, and taking the fabric of the web down with it.

[deepsand]

Sadly, the typical user wants to be spoon-fed; he possesses neither the disposition nor the skills for discerning diamond from quartz, gold from iron pyrite, silver from zinc. He eschews uncertainty. No maybe for him, but only yes or no; no gray, only black and white.

He will gladly suspend all disbelief in exchange for being relieved on the burden of making decisions, accepting that Google knows all, that all that it presents is treasure.

And, this while the Web increasingly becomes dross.

[weegillis]

...

And, this while the Web increasingly becomes dross.

Fortunately there are diamonds amongst the quartz, gold amongst the pyrite, silver amongst the zinc... As dross as it looks, things are never what they appear--unless of course we let censorship prevail.

[deepsand]

So long as the dross prevails, the masses will turn to whoever will make the decisions for them.

[weegillis]

More like whomever would have it appear for them as though no decision was involved.

[deepsand]

Exactly. They just want someone to make the decisions for them, no matter the results.