Search Engine Watch
SEO News

Go Back   Search Engine Watch Forums > General Search Issues > Search Industry Growth & Trends > Search & Legal Issues
FAQ Members List Calendar Forum Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-08-2005   #161
tpsucks
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14
tpsucks has a spectacular aura abouttpsucks has a spectacular aura abouttpsucks has a spectacular aura about
Las Vegas Tribune

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.
tpsucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005   #162
concernedcitizen
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
concernedcitizen is on a distinguished road
just for everyone who is legitimate here

traffic power monitors and has employees posting to this forum. But you all probably already know that......
concernedcitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005   #163
tpsucks
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14
tpsucks has a spectacular aura abouttpsucks has a spectacular aura abouttpsucks has a spectacular aura about
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.
tpsucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005   #164
AussieWebmaster
Forums Editor, SearchEngineWatch
 
AussieWebmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 8,154
AussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant futureAussieWebmaster has a brilliant future
It's a good read and shows a lot of effort.... keep up the great work!
AussieWebmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2005   #165
tpsucks
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 14
tpsucks has a spectacular aura abouttpsucks has a spectacular aura abouttpsucks has a spectacular aura about
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.
tpsucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2006   #166
hoyaguru
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18
hoyaguru is on a distinguished road
Traffic Power lawsuit update

Updates HERE, and HERE.
hoyaguru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2006   #167
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
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.

Last edited by PhilC : 01-30-2006 at 12:51 PM.
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2006   #168
hoyaguru
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18
hoyaguru is on a distinguished road
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?
hoyaguru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2006   #169
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
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.

Last edited by PhilC : 01-31-2006 at 11:43 AM.
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2006   #170
hoyaguru
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18
hoyaguru is on a distinguished road
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.
hoyaguru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2006   #171
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
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.
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2006   #172
hoyaguru
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 18
hoyaguru is on a distinguished road
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"?
hoyaguru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2006   #173
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
I sincerely hope that you are right. I would hate TP to get away with it.
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2006   #174
mtweed
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 34
mtweed is on a distinguished road
Are these guys still in business?
mtweed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2006   #175
concernedcitizen
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3
concernedcitizen is on a distinguished road
yest they are

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
concernedcitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006   #176
Alan Perkins
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 155
Alan Perkins will become famous soon enough
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...
Alan Perkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006   #177
PhilC
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,657
PhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud ofPhilC has much to be proud of
Fantastic!

My hat's well and truly off to Matt.
PhilC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006   #178
Chris_D
 
Chris_D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 1,099
Chris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud ofChris_D has much to be proud of
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


Last edited by Chris_D : 02-11-2006 at 07:14 PM. Reason: Clarified
Chris_D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006   #179
Mikkel deMib Svendsen
 
Mikkel deMib Svendsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 1,576
Mikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud ofMikkel deMib Svendsen has much to be proud of
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.
Mikkel deMib Svendsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2006   #180
Marcia
 
Marcia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 5,476
Marcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond reputeMarcia has a reputation beyond repute
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.
Marcia is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off