Reputation Armor

Reputation Armor received several calls a week from businesses that are having issues with positive 4+ star Yelp.com reviews being filtered and not viible to visitors of their yelp listing.

The big question is why does Yelp filter reviews and what can trigger a good review to be filtered?

Based off of our (Reputation Armor’s) research it was found that yelp reviews (goos ones and bad ones) can be filtered for many reasons. Some of the reasons are listed below:

-Your company has put “good” reviews on yelp immediately after a bad one was filed on yelp. A good review immediately following a bad one has the characteristics of foul play within yelps eyes.

-A user has flagged your good reviews and yelp looked in to it and feels it may be false review trying to combat a bad review.

-You are getting to many reviews and it does not look natural to Yelp. It you normally get 1-2 reviews a month and then all of a sudden you get 10 in one month, Yelp will filter some of the because it is not natural looking.

- The same IP address (computer) is trying to post multiple reviews. Yelp can tell that your computer has been there before. They will filter duplicate user or IP reviews (Good or Bad).

-The location of your computer might play a role. If you are in Salem VA, and trying to review a restaurant in LA, then a restaurant in NC, yelp may  think they are false reviews since your computer is sitting in VA.

-Too good to be true? Most reviews online are negative in nature. Not many people go out of their way to say good things about a company unless they are pushed to do so. Yelp is not made up of idiots; they are quite smart and have put hundreds of thousands of dollars in coding to ensure real reviews go live. It is apparent that any GOOD review will go through a greater verification process and maybe a live moderator will read it. If your review sounds over zealous it may get filtered.

-Using a proxy (hiding your true IP) might get god reviews filtered. Proxies are shared with others and yelp might stay up to speed with the newest proxies and give them no creditability.

In Yelp’s Own Words:

“Here at Yelp, we’re trying to connect people with great local businesses. Providing consumers with trusted review content is critical to this mission. One question we occasionally get asked on this topic is why reviews sometimes “disappear” from a business page. While the overwhelming majority of reviews aren’t affected, we figured this might be a good time to offer some specifics on why reviews sometimes don’t appear on business pages (and why we think this helps make Yelp the most useful consumer review site around).”

“Yelp has an automated Review Filter that many people are surprised to learn was put in place soon after our big launch in 2005. Of course, it’s evolved over the years; it’s an algorithm our engineers are constantly working on. Its purpose, however, remains the same: to protect consumers and business owners from fake, shill or malicious reviews.”

Conclusion: If you need help managing a yelp review issue please contact us at 1-888-358-2766 x 701

How can a website that claims to help consumers hurt so many families and businesses? The website ripoffreport.com is responsible for several businesses going out of business. The website allows ANYONE to create an anonymous account and post highly visible complaints which they call Rip Off Reports.

The rip off report website DOES NOT verify or validate any of the complaints left on their website. There are several reasons why in my opinion the rip off report website should be shut down or at least regulated in some manner.

A few problems with RipOffReport.com Include:

1. The site will never remove complaints even if it is obviously from a competitor. Even if you can prove it is from a competitor, the complaint will remain.
2. Anyone can say anything they want about how bad a business or an individual is without verifying their identity.
3. If a business makes good on the issue the complaint remains online forever and still looks bad and ranks high.
4. Businesses that pay rip off report their high fees for the “advocacy program” get special treatment.
5. Rip Off Report allegedly makes complaints rank higher for certain businesses that contact them, in an effort to extort money from them. (Per others).
6. There is no physical location to deliver court documents to the owner (Ed Magedson).
7. If the author of the complaint request it be removed, rip off report still won’t remove it.
8. If a business provided 100% proof that the complaint is fake, rip off report won’t remove it.

Anything Good About Rip Off Report?

1. They would be a great website if they had a verification process that verified and displayed the true identity of who filed the complaints. This would allow businesses that are wrongfully attacked to take legal action against the author and not rip off report.
2. The only good thing about rip off report is that they will one day be forced to change their ways or be shut down. There are too many businesses and individuals being damaged for this to continue.
3. NO

Why and How is Rip Off Report (Ed Magedson) Legally Protected:

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was designated as Title V in the larger legislation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The inclusion of the Communications Decency Act in the greater Telecommunications Act was meant to criminalize obscenity online in the face of the rise of Internet pornography. (Remember, this was 1996, when Internet use was first becoming a common part of American life and people were worried that Internet porn was going to permanently damage our children.) Eventually, the scope of the bill was significantly tightened through the landmark case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.

Interestingly, CDA 230 was not an original part of the Communications Decency Act, but was added by the House of Representatives through the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, which was co-sponsored by Republican representative Chris Cox and Democratic representative Ron Wyden. The purpose of the addition was to protect Internet service providers from being held criminally liable for indecent content that its users posted. In legalese, the CDA 230 read, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

  About Filing Rebuttals – Should I file a rebuttal on a rip off report?

This is a highly debated subject among the reputation management industry. From an online reputation management standpoint and because search engines like content and more content, we would say NO, DO NOT file a rebuttal on rip off report. If you file a rebuttal it WILL (Not May) make the rip off report page about you stronger and possibly rank higher or rank longer on the first page of Google.

If you have no intentions of pushing the link down search pages or there is no possibility at all that the link will move ever, then a rebuttal may be ok. When filing a rebuttal (if you must), DO NOT attack the person who filed the complaint. State simple facts about the issue and explain how your company respects clients and maybe talk about your customer service goals.

Here is an example rebuttal.

XYZ Company takes customer service and satisfaction very seriously. In the uncommon event a client is not happy with our products or service; we will take all necessary steps to ensure that the customer is a happy one.  As per the client experience mentioned herein, we have takes steps to refund or satisfy the customer and have reached an agreeable resolution to the matter with the client.

Again, Remember a rebuttal will make the rip off report links rank higher and stronger on Google, so only file on if you have no intentions or hopes of pushing it down with SEO or ORM.

Remove a rip off report link and take it off the top pages of Google search results.

Removing a rip off report from the top of search results is a tough task and can take several weeks to accomplish (If Not Longer). Our reputation management company Reputation Armor realizes it may not be within your budget to hire a reputation management service to help you remove (displace) rip off reports from the search results. We have compiled some tips that may help you bury a rip off report and reclaim your good online reputation.

The tips below apply to Individual names and Business names. When removing a rip off report the main thing is BE PATIENT.

1. Register domain names: Go to Godaddy.com or Moniker.com (Better) and register yourname.com, .net, and .org. If YOURNAME.com is taken already try registering YOUR-NAME.com (With a hyphen). After you register your domain name get a small website up and online. We use wordpress (blog) a lot. Make sure to have your name in the title of the website and mention your name within the website a few times. Then go to Google and submit the website to Google and be patient.

1. Now create social profiles (a lot of them) on websites like Twitter, Linkedin, FaceBook, and several others. We use about 300 social networking sites and many of them rank well. Some of them will let you add a link to your website (YourName.com) do it!

1. Create an account on free article sites and submit a few articles on a topic you like. Use your name as the author and include a link to one of your domain names in the resource box.

1. Use social bookmarking sites like Digg.com to share your articles and website. Digg.com shows up on Google pretty high sometimes.

1. Get Paid blog reviews. Regardless of what any “seo company” says, paid blog posts and paid blog reviews are very effective and useful for SEO and Reputation management. I would personally stay away from blogs that openly advertise they sell paid posts and reviews. Google frowns upon paid blog posts and paid reviews, they consider it selling links and PR. Also try to stay away from blogs that have casinos, adult related, illegal warez, and other objectionable material. Include YOUR NAME in the title of the posts and link to your domains and other sites about you from the blog post (article). Always link from YOUR NAME so when you click on YOUR NAME it takes you to a website about YOU.

Obtain backlinks (other sites linking to yours) from websites with PageRank. Link building is important when trying to push a website above a rip off report. You can find backlinks for sale by searching for them on Google and webmaster forums.

This article is provided by Reputation Armor – Online Reputation Management Services. You can reuse this article as long as you keep this footer intact.

Need Help Removing Rip Off Reports: Call: 1-888-358-2766

Online defamation is any false statement, presented as fact, which is published online and which is injurious to the subject’s reputation, whether through neglect or malice. If you have been the victim you do have legal options, but they are quite limited. Most of the legal issues are covered in the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

The Communications Decency Act (or CDA) of 1996 was the first real endeavor by the U.S. Congress to get involved in the regulation and censoring of pornographic or obscene material. The Act was Title V of an omnibus bill called the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The CDA was first introduced to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation by James Exon, a Democrat from Nebraska, and Slade Gorton, a Republican from Washington.

The law’s purpose was to stop, or inhibit, the profusion of pornography, and other obscene material. The word used in the text is “indecent”, but it remains undefined throughout the bill, with no legislator willing to create a definition which clearly articulates what indecency is without including art or creative writing. Indecent remains a term which is subjective in nature—meaning each person’s idea of what is indecent varies wildly. While some find particular art “indecent”, some would find it perfectly fine. The same goes for humor or writing.

What is clear-cut about the act is that it upholds the illegality of defamation, whether slander or libel, on the Internet. However, Section 230 of the CDA specifically exempts Internet Service Providers from liability for defamatory comments. The courts have defined the term “Internet Service Providers” quite broadly, though. This broad interpretation of Section 230 has served to protect Internet Service Providers and third-parties from litigation concerning libel or slander online.

Bloggers, for example, can be sued depending upon their relation to the defamatory content. If they publish the content personally, then they are liable. However, if their blog’s comment section is host to the defamatory comment, then they are acting as an Internet Service Provider and are not liable for the damage to your reputation. To the extent that they act as a third-party, allowing users to use their blogs as communicative outlets, they are exempt from any responsibility whatsoever.

Even in the event that bloggers edit these comments, guest editorials, or republished material—they cannot be held liable. The sole exception to this is if the editing process itself creates defamatory comments, e.g., changing “Chris is not a murderer” by removing the “not”. Similarly, any forum website, wiki, or chat site cannot be held responsible for the defamatory statements of its users. This is true regardless of whether the website has posting guidelines or not—those guidelines have no bearing on who is liable for which comments. Section 230 of the CDA also makes clear that republishing defamatory content is not illegal, assuming the republisher does not add his or her own two defamatory cents.

Also of interest is that bloggers cannot be legally penalized for deleting any comments left on their blogs (the same goes for owners of other Internet Service Providers). However, as noted above, they are also not legally required to do anything of the sort.

Public persons are unique in online defamatory law because they are not afforded the same protections as private citizens. Any public figure, elected official, celebrity, or person involved in a major event must prove that their defamer knew that their comment was false or acted recklessly, neglecting to ascertain the veracity of the claim. This means that individuals who could reasonably be viewed as “public persons” have an extra high hurdle to jump in order to successfully sue someone for defamatory comments—this was done in an effort to protect the Freedom of Speech, especially in the political arena.

It is important to note that context is important in any of these cases. For example, the well-known satirical news website “The Onion” prints many statements which might be regarded as libelous if they were read individually, but in the context of the website and its purpose—the statements are not meant to be taken seriously and are therefore an example of non-libelous false statements. Many political websites are treated similarly because in context the statements are understood to be hyperbole (for example, if one calls a politician a “crook” or a “thief”).

While the CDA provides some level of protection to those who have been defamed, it largely concerns Internet Service Providers. Section 230 protects ISPs by exempting them from liability for users’ defamatory comments. In an increasingly anarchic environment such as the Internet, it can be difficult to sort out the legal issues regarding defamatory statements. While this Act was instrumental in shaping online defamatory legal policy, it does little to define what a victim of defamation is entitled to in terms of legal protections. What it does clearly define, especially in Section 230, is who is exempt from liability in the case of defamation.

As social networks like twitter, facebook, and thousands of others plus internet blogs continue to increase in both recognition and use, the opportunities for slanderous and libelous actions increase proportionally. Defamation, sometimes called “defamation of character”, is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person’s reputation. Slander is generally spoken defamation, while ‘libel’ is written. Many people confuse written information as slander, which is perfectly normal and ok.

Owners of blogs are usually immune from liability for defamatory statements posted on their websites, as long as they did not have a say in the actual posting. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and operator of a website which allegedly published defamatory statements provided by a third party were eligible for immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). However, if the online service provider plays an active role in soliciting information from users that leads to the defamatory act, the operator may not be protected by the safe harbor provisions of the CDA. In Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., a federal court ruled on the application of the safe harbor of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The defendant in that case operated a matchmaking website known matchmaker.com. While operators of blogs and services are normally immune from such liability, the more active the service is with its member’s, the larger the probability of possible liability as a publisher of defamatory materials.

Another potential source of liability is the person who actually posted the defamatory materials. As with more general defamatory statements or materials, a poster can be held personally liable for anything posted which reflects falsely and negatively on a living person’s reputation. Posting false and explicit claims regarding a person will in general be held as defamatory for purposes of liability. However, other issues come up concerning the anonymity of the individual posting the information, and if known, the jurisdiction in which they are subject.

More often than not, reputation management is the only remedy to “internet slander” or correctly put “libel”. Online reputation management is one of the fastest and most inexpensive ways to deal with negative information that is posted about an individual or business online. Reputation management is not a cheap or low cost solution but, compared to the cost of long drawn out lawsuits that you may loose, it is A LOT cheaper.