The Accused
Seattle,#2REBUTTAL Owner of company
Mon, October 06, 2008
It is sad to see fake reports like this in RipOffReport. Last year I wrote critically of a lawyer at SEOMOz, an SEO firm in Seattle. Sarah Bird of SEOMoz had (in my opinion) unfairly accused RipOffReport of some hideous behavior CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report. The last thing Rip-off Report wants to do in this case, is to give any space to this website on ROR My comments were unwelcomed in the SEO community, as seen here at marketing web site Sphinn Almost immediately after Sphinn user "seanmag" (who is also an SEOMoz participant) suggested I would not like it if someone filed a fake RipOffReport on me using the title my name + "SEO", this so-called "report" showed up here. It doesn't make any real claims against me... which I suppose was the point for whomever posted it here. I emailed RipOff Report... and communicated back and forth with the "editor" to no avail. They allowed it to remain published, despite the fact that it is empty of content, and here it is. An empty, baseless claim of nothing that trades on my name. In the end, by allowing such "gaming" of RipOff Report, I suppose the editors are proving the SEOMOz lawyer Sarah Bird to be correct. That's not fo rme to say. However, as additional baseless comments are added to this "report", it becomes uglier. If anyone has doubts as to the value of well done SEO, feel free to contact me directly. You can Google my name and find me... just ignore the fake rip off report.
James
Columbia Falls,#3Consumer Comment
Wed, March 05, 2008
Yeah, Ive thought the same thing since first hearing of optimization of sites. I have wasted so much money with these rip off companies, like John's. Stay away folks, these things never generate as much in sales as you spend to get going. I would rather quit and save my cash, wouldn't you? His practices are no different than others', high priced and takes too long to see $$ back.