Traffic Power Files Suit Against SEO Book - Page 9

tpsucks · #**161** 12-08-2005

I don't know if anybody remembers the fake Traffic Power stories on the Las Vegas Tribune website, but they just put up a forum at http://www.lasvegastribune.com/forum/viewforum.php?id=1, and you don't have to sign up (so far) to comment. I keep putting up a thread called "Traffic Power Stories", but for some strange reason, this post keeps disapearing. Luckily, I made a copy of all of the posts, and I put it back out each day. I could use some help though, if everyone can make a copy and keep it up there, I'd appreciate it.

Oh, if you haven't read the fake stories, they are at http://www.lasvegastribune.com/webexclusives1.html and http://www.lasvegastribune.com/webexclusives2.html. Traffic Power made copies of these stories and emailed them to people who said they had read bad things online about the company.

concernedcitizen · #**162** 12-08-2005

traffic power monitors and has employees posting to this forum. But you all probably already know that......

tpsucks · #**163** 12-08-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by concernedcitizen

traffic power monitors and has employees posting to this forum. But you all probably already know that......

Yep. I just put it back up for the 4th time, I'm sure it will be gone soon.

AussieWebmaster · #**164** 12-08-2005

It's a good read and shows a lot of effort.... keep up the great work!

tpsucks · #**165** 12-08-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AussieWebmaster

It's a good read and shows a lot of effort.... keep up the great work!

lol, it's down again. At least I'm keeping someone busy out there. I'll put it back later tonight, in the meantime, I stuck some comments in other people's posts that will probably disapear soon.

hoyaguru · #**166** 01-30-2006

Updates HERE, and HERE.

PhilC · #**167** 01-30-2006

They are all "Claims that Traffic Power ..." and "Claims that clients of Traffic Power ...". I would think that the first thing to do is check to see if any of the claims have actually been made. The heading "Google bans Traffic Power Customers!" looks like a claim to me, and the proof that is offered isn't any proof at all. I said something similar earlier in this thread, and I'll repeat it - there is some very unwise content in the TPS site. I have a lot of sympathy with TPS, but it's one thing to report something, and another thing to state it as fact.

If the claims really have been made without the proof to back them up, then I can't see the win without Google coming to the rescue. Google does have the answers (one way or the other) to some of the allegations, and it would be very wrong of them to knowingly stay out of it, imo. Hopefully, they will issue a statement, or something like that.

hoyaguru · #**168** 01-31-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilC

They are all "Claims that Traffic Power ..." and "Claims that clients of Traffic Power ...". I would think that the first thing to do is check to see if any of the claims have actually been made. The heading "Google bans Traffic Power Customers!" looks like a claim to me, and the proof that is offered isn't any proof at all. I said something similar earlier in this thread, and I'll repeat it - there is some very unwise content in the TPS site. I have a lot of sympathy with TPS, but it's one thing to report something, and another thing to state it as fact.

If the claims really have been made without the proof to back them up, then I can't see the win without Google coming to the rescue. Google does have the answers (one way or the other) to some of the allegations, and it would be very wrong of them to knowingly stay out of it, imo. Hopefully, they will issue a statement, or something like that.

Guess you missed the disclaimer on just about every page, explaining that the commentary is the author's opinion. Plus, what makes you think that everything that is posted on the site can't be proven?

PhilC · #**169** 01-31-2006

I didn't say that everything can't be proved. I did say that the proof that is offered to back up one particular statement isn't any sort of proof.

At the top of the homepage, there is the statement, "Google Bans Traffic Power Customers!", followed by a Click here link. The disclaimer is below that and refers to everything below itself.

I don't see any disclaimer on the page where I took the heading statement, "Google bans Traffic Power Customers!", from:- http://www.trafficpowersucks.com/news.htm

I just think that, in court, TPS has some very thin ice to negotiate. Earlier in the thread, I mentioned the same thing about some graphics. Without Google stepping in and issuing a statement, I wouldn't put my money on TPS winning. I hope I'm very wrong.

hoyaguru · #**170** 01-31-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilC

I didn't say that everything can't be proved. I did say that the proof that is offered to back up one particular statement isn't any sort of proof.

At the top of the homepage, there is the statement, "Google Bans Traffic Power Customers!", followed by a Click here link. The disclaimer is below that and refers to everything below itself.

I don't see any disclaimer on the page where I took the heading statement, "Google bans Traffic Power Customers!", from:- http://www.trafficpowersucks.com/news.htm

I just think that, in court, TPS has some very thin ice to negotiate. Earlier in the thread, I mentioned the same thing about some graphics. Without Google stepping in and issuing a statement, I wouldn't put my money on TPS winning. I hope I'm very wrong.

OK, the "Google Bans Traffic Power Customers", that is called a "link", because it links to another page. As for proof, just because the proof is not on the website, that doesn't mean there is no proof. I could make a web page that says the earth revolves around the sun, I don't have to show proof of gravity, but I could get proof of gravity very easily.

There is no disclaimer on the "News" page because everything written there is easily proven.

PhilC · #**171** 01-31-2006

Actually, the heading on the homepage isn't a link - it's a heading.

I know that the proof doesn't have to be on the website. I was referring to the what is written under the "Google bans Traffic Power Customers!" heading in news page:-

Quote:

OK people, now we have proof. I've been hearing from a lot of you that have said you were banned by Google because of Traffic Power, yet Traffic Power says that Google is just "re-indexing". Friday, I received an email with a link to the following story, here's our proof:

followed by a link to the proof. But when you get there, there is no proof. To the best of my knowledge, there is no publically available proof that Google banned Traffic Power's customers. Google can prove it one way or the other, but they haven't done so yet, and they may never do it.

That's just one bit that I noticed where TPS appears to be on thin ice, and there may be other such statements on the site without the proof to back them up. The graphics that were mentioned earlier in the thread were decidedly unsafe, and without Google, the statement that "Google bans Traffic Power Customers" is also very unsafe.

hoyaguru · #**172** 01-31-2006

Guess we'll have to see what happens in court. I have a bit of inside information, I'd say TPSucks doesn't have a thing to worry about. Can you say "overwhelming proof"?

PhilC · #**173** 01-31-2006

I sincerely hope that you are right. I would hate TP to get away with it.

mtweed · #**174** 02-03-2006

Are these guys still in business?

concernedcitizen · #**175** 02-04-2006

they are still doing business under a variety of names
toprankconsulting.com
eresultsinc.com
eadvertisingexperts.com
adnetpros.com
webadvertisingpromotion.com
toprankonline.com

and a multitude of others

Alan Perkins · #**176** 02-11-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by seomike

Hell all he really needs is Matt Cutts to write a statement saying Google banned them and their clients for x,y,z. Hell you can go right down the TOS, cold calls, tricky redirects, cloaking etc. Not a hard thing at all to challenge.

Done! Interesting...

PhilC · #**177** 02-11-2006

Fantastic!

My hat's well and truly off to Matt.

Chris_D · #**178** 02-11-2006

Good job Matt!

Nothing like a bit of clarification straight from Google, as reviewed by their lawyers!

No wonder that Wikipedia has a Matt Cutts page! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Cutts

Mikkel deMib Svendsen · #**179** 02-11-2006

Personally I like it too but ...

I am now lawyer but I would assume that this is kind of action from Google is tricky - I mean, they are pointing out one, and one one, company making them look particular bad (well, maybe they are hehe) but what about all the other SEO-firms that have got their own or client sites banned?

Why not just release a full list of all banned sites and IPs - preferably with a small description of the reason? If it's an algoritmic penalty it should be quite easy to do, and if it's done manual I am sure they could spend the extra few minutes it would take to "tick off" the reasons for the ban.

Marcia · #**180** 02-11-2006

The difference between TP and other banned firms is that the others aren't publicly denying it and suing some people for saying that they were.

My guess would be that TP never expected Google to confirm it in any way.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)