The following are articles documenting the tactics of RipOff Report and it's use of negative information to gain leverage and promote traffic to its website to gain Google and other advertising dollars.
It all begs the question: Why would a company continue to allow people to post unverified information and complaints without the option for repair or retraction? Answer, to allow someone to destroy a company's reputation and name, (right, wrong, or indifferent)
Business owners are united in their frustration that RipOff report allows for instant and unmoderated posting with high google ranking without any of the checks and balances of the BBB that provide for proper investigation and mitigation of the claimant's remarks.
For example, if someone were to accuse another of a heinous crime against children on RipOff report or accuse them of rape, and it were totally false, the victim of the lie has no recourse other than "rebuttal". These "rebuttals" are buried way at the bottom of every page and are off the first screen with no internal anchor link for access. In short, most rebuttals are never read. Even if the liar was sued in court for defamation and the allegations were deemed defamatory, RipOff report claims that it is not obligated to remove any false claims because of the acceptance of the Terms of Use by its users.
According to the owner of RipOff Report, Ed Magedson "We will never remove a claim"
However, when a rebutting company defends itself and cites the original claimaint as false and provides the same personal information about the defaming client, RipOff Report does in fact moderate posts and remove names and photos/links to protect its posters.
RipOff Report needs to protect people from the power of a lie. Not profit from it.
One company, for example, was the victim of two false stories:
1. an outright lie to try and extort money, and
2. a client who saw the post, freaked out because of it, and then retracted it - only to find he could not get it deleted even though AS THE ORIGINAL POSTER he wanted to remove it.!The only thing he couild do was to update his complaint with a letter of recommendation. He was so apologetic and felt embarassed and ashamed he could not make it right with the company. It still is a problem since the false posts register for the principle's name as a sole proprietor and it is unfairly hurting its business.
In an at-length telephone conversation for over an hour with Ed Magedson, the owner of ROR, this problem and others were discussed. Instead of being adversarial (something he is used to), Magdeson was presented with creative ways, to make his process more ethical, honest, and equitable to all involved. Even small things like hot-linking rebuttals in the header. Or retracting a statement when the original poster wants to retract it. Or not moderating the comments to protect the identities of the claimants when he allows his claimants free rein to post as they like without moderation. Or not allowing the names of individual people vs corporations in a claimant's posting.
On gleaning the internet, an enlightening dialogue regarding Rip Off Report surfaces quickly, and one can easily find a spreadshot of a mild uprising from not only injured parties, but attornies, web industry professionals, SEO and SEM professionals, web developers, trade professionals, online journalists, and of course bloggers.
Here is a consolidated look at the various postings detailing the strong grass roots coup d'etat effort to upend Google's love affair with a website that many feel trafficks in lies, libel, and defamation. One attorney writes that other of her peers are investigating using the Federal RICO act to bring this company to its knees. Many feel RipOff Report should take note from the BBB who operates with standards, review processes, and equity to all parties:
Andy Beal Writes:
"Ripoff Report: Ripping off those Reported?"
http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/
Sarah Bird, Esq of SeoMoz Writes:
"The Anatomy of a RipOff Report Lawsuit"
http://www.seomoz.org/
Reputation Hawk Writes:
"The Ripoff Report Rebuttal Process?"
http://www.reputationhawk.com/
Chris Bennett of 97th Floor Writes:
"Public Spam Report: Google Your Honeymoon with Rip Off Report has to Stop"
http://www.97thfloor.com/
Will Critchlow of Distilled Writes:
"Online shake-downs:
http://www.distilled.co.uk/
Rand Fishkin CEO of SEOmoz Writes:
"Accusations that Rip-Off Report just an Extortion Business"
http://www.seomoz.org/
Bob Kirchman of The Kirchman Studio had this to say on a discussion thread at
http://www.distilled.co.uk/
"It’s ironic, really, how my company Kirchman Associates ended up getting slammed on this website.
Four years ago we were facing extortion attempts by those phoney phone directories who would call and tell you that you already were signed up for a recurring charge of always just under $400, but if you payed them once they were back like a bad penny wanting their next installment. I fought back, and as a result some of them put up some pretty outrageous charges about me.
My existing clients know how ridiculous the claims are. The same poster seems to have posed as two “victims” and carries on a rather lame comment lovefest session. My regular clients know that “only telemarketers call me Robert” but it is a bit of a pain to explain this nonsense to new clients or prospects who may have Googled me. How did they get a picture of me? They downloaded it from my own website! Pretty dangerous looking fellow, huh?
Having been in business for 23 years helps, but it would be really nice to see this whole affair put to rest. I contacted the ROR and explained that this was not only false, but malicious information. I was told that I could write a rebuttal! I appreciate what you are doing to help small companies like mine. Many Thanks!"
He goes on to say in a later thread...
"Get this, Now the founder of ROR claims he is being Defamed by ‘Internet Terrorists’ in the SEO community! While it is laughable, it raises a few questions about Ed and his ‘practices.’
If Ed is so concerned about HIS good name, why is he so quick to assume that the small businessperson protecting her good name is suspect? There are principles at work here that are older than the internet… 'As you sow, so shall you reap!' "
The article referenced above was written by Betsy Schiffman of blog.wired.com
http://blog.wired.com/
A very empassioned writer from goodbusinessbureau.com had this to say:
A google cached version http://74.125.95.132/
One website www.ezripofflawsuit.com even goes so far as to say that Ed Magedson is wanted, marked by the FTC, etc. It contains his photograph, his criminal background, court dockets against him, and myriad links to court cases against him.
Another press release documents a clone site of ROR, badbusinessbureau.com was found in contempt of court.
http://www.prnewswire.com/
Another website: www.bad-business-
After much review, it seems that the only ones having success bringing ROR to light are the ones who know best how the internet works. Internet Industry Professionals.
