Category Uncategorized

Yelp is one of the most important destinations on the Web. Its database of user-generated reviews can offer potential shoppers a quality source to vet a business before they shop. But faked reviews are threatening to dilute that landscape, eating away at the purity that a service like Yelp needs in order to be successful. In response, the company has announced new and aggressive steps to remove these false reviews.

The CEO of Yelp, Jeremy Stoppleman, is creating something of a firestorm with the announcement. Companies caught “soliciting” reviews by paying their reviewers will now get a kind of badge that designates their business as one that paid for reviews. This messages comes as a popup that the user cannot avoid clicking on. With Yelp reputation already being such a hot commodity, businesses will need to exercise even more caution when asking for reviews.

Our CEO, Pierre Zarokian, wrote about this change in policy. You can read the entire article at Search Engine Watch.

Pierre Zarokian, CEO of Reputation Stars

Our CEO “Pierre Zarokian” will be speaking about Reputation Management on Feb 19, 2014 in Orange County, CA at an event organized by TechBiz Connection.

Jack Bicer the president of TechBiz Connection stated: “If you are a professional intrigued by today’s evolving world of social media, personal online identities, and online business branding, you need to learn what it means to have an online presence and what this says about you (or your business, brand).  After all, your online reputation IS your reputation.”

For more info, see the official press release here.

A ruling from a Virginia Court of Appeals has rendered anonymous reviews unprotected, at least in Virginia. The popular online review website Yelp is at the center of litigation regarding the legitimacy of anonymous reviews. On one side is Yelp, whose terms of service explicitly ban users from posting faked reviews that are negative or positive. On the other side are the businesses hurt by these reviews.

This landmark case will shape the landscape of online reviews for some time to come. The plaintiff’s case seems to mirror the plight of so many businesses with reputation and image problems. Yelp uses an automated system to deal with spoofed reviews, which it claims is capable of dealing with these fakes. Yet the fact remains that fake reviews have become an industry in and of themselves. While this court ruling does little to improve these conditions, it does set the precedent for future cases.

In a new article for Search Engine Journal, Our CEO Pierre Zarokian explores the ruling and asks the question: will online reviews ever be safe again? Or have the courts made a terrible mistake, relying on outdated case law to render a verdict with far-reaching consequences?

A class action lawsuit filed in California seeks to get Yelpers paid for reviews. The lawsuit claims that Yelp runs a cult like environment and instead of paying the reviewers, it offers them badges,  titles such as “Elite”, praise,  free liquor and food, and free promotional Yelp attire, such as red panties with ‘Make Me Yelp!’

We spoke to one of the plaintiffs, Lilly Jueng, who is an Elite reviewer. She claimed that Yelp was very restrictive of what she was able to post and cancelled her account when they were not happy with a review that she left.  “Reviewers should be able to post any review they want on any public company without restrictions,” said Jueng.

The plaintiffs also claim that yelp often hosted parties for Elite reviewers and the Yelpers were expected to leave positive reviews for the restaurant hosting the event.

We also spoke to Daniel Bernath, one of the lead attorneys on the case. He stated: “A worker is not permitted to waive their rights to wages under the federal Fair Standards Labor Act.” Mr. Bernath feels that they have real good chance of winning the case based on current labor laws. He stated that it does not matter that some people may think this lawsuit is ridiculous, because the laws are build in a way that supports their claims. “The trial court judge will read the complaint and will apply the law. It is a settled law and we are confident that our clients will get paid for their labors.”

Our CEO, Pierre Zarokian, has written a more detailed article for  Search Engine Watch .

McMillan Law Group in San Diego has been sued for posting fake reviews on Yelp. McMillan apparently posted several reviews from the same IP address in their office. To their defense they claim that they had invited their clients to a party at their office and asked them to leave reviews from their computers. One of their clients has publicly confirmed this.

McMillan also claims that the lawsuit has no merit and it was done as a retaliation because Yelp lost a small claims case against them over an advertising dispute.

This is not the first time Yelp is suing over fake reviews. Several months ago a company called “Buy Yelp Reviews” was sued as well, which seems to have shut down now.

Read the full story by our CEO Pierre Zarokian on Search Engine Watch.

Our CEO Pierre Zarokian has written a new article about Bing’s alleged change of heart on removing court-ordered defamatory content from its search engine. Has Bing truly changed its policy?

If your online reputation has been tainted, you know how devastating it can be to have defamatory content about you or your company featured on the web for everyone to see. Major search engines such as Google and Yahoo are usually fair about the issue. If they receive an order from the court to remove defamatory content, they usually comply by removing it from their search indexes. And up until recently that was also the case with Bing. However, leading attorney who specialize in internet defamation law are claiming that Bing has changed its policy and no longer honors court orders.

Published in SearchEngineWatch.com, the article features interviews with leading reputation management attorneys, a spokesperson from Bing, and final words on the matter by reputation management guru Pierre Zarokian. Read the full article here.

Recently Yelp held a town hall meeting and invited a few business owners to attend so they can discuss their programs and answer any questions about Yelp Advertising services. However, the meeting backfired and turned out to be a complaint forum from pissed up businesses.  The audience got aggressive with their questions and complaints on how their legit reviews get filtered. However, Yelp only wanted to discuss the benefits of their advertising services.

LA Times was there to cover the story. Read more details here.

TheDirty has lost a lawsuit against Sarah Jones who claimed damaging posts were posted on thedirty.com about her that destroyed her reputation. This is a major victory for the reputation management industry as the judge has allowed the case to go through, while thedirty had claimed immunity due to the Communication Decency Act (CDA) which protects public forums from any liability when 3rd party content is posted.  Due to the owner Nik Richie making edits to posts, the judge did not accept the CDA as a defense.  Sarah Jones had previously admitted to having sex with a minor and got 5 years probation. However, the specific damaging post on The  Dirty was prior to that incident and stated that Sarah Jones as a cheerleader for the Bangles had sex with every member of a football team. The jury awarded $388K to Sarah Jones, but collection might be a problem as Nik has stated that he is $1 million in debt and that he would never pay a penny to Jones.  The Dirty plans to appeal the case.

Our CEO Pierre Zarokian has published two articles on Search Engine Watch and Examiner about this subject:

If you are looking to completely remove posts from Pissed Consumer, this may not be easy. PissedConsumer will not remove any negative reviews unless they get a court order to do so. This means that first you need to figure out who posted the review, then sue them and if you actually win, you can request the court to order a removal. This could be a very costly method, specially if you do not know who the posted is. In which case, you would need to file a “John Doe” lawsuit and then subpena the Pissed Consumer records to get the name, IP address and email address of the poster.  If they posted from an anonymous name and email, then you need to subpena the ISP provider to get the identification of the person owning the IP address at the time of the post.

The problem is that the ISP may not have any records and even then if the person posted the review from an anonymous IP, such as from a coffee shop then you are out of luck. By the time you are done, even if successful, this could cost you upwards of $20K to $30K.

So what other options do you have? 
There are 2 remaining options:
1) Try to find the original poster and try to resolve the situation or pay them to remove the listing. Although, we are not sure if Pissed Consumer would agree, as some sites such as Ripoff Report and TheDirty will not even remove reviews even if the original poster requests it.

2) You can hire a reputation management firm like us to help you remove them. We might be able to remove the listing from Google completely or push it down to second or third page of Google so it is not visible, but we would not be able to remove it from PissedConsumer. We have some unique ways of removing things quickly and we offer 100% money back guarantee with most our services. For details, contact us by calling the number on right or filling our contact form.

Read more about our PissedConsumer Post Removal Services.

RipOff Report is now offering for $89 per month a ongoing service of giving businesses 14 days to resolve complaints before a negative review is posted. Experts say that it may help boost rankings in Google and Bing.

Ripoff Report creates millions of dollars every year by charging implicated companies a flat cost based upon the number of problems have actually been made against them. Business are charged anywhere from $5,500 to even more than $100,000 to have their reports removed, however they only receive inspections rather than removal as advertised to them. If grievances have been dealt with according to the inspection, the website will permit a brand-new heading to be published above the initial post. However the initial complaint will never be eliminated touts owner Ed Magedson, proudly.

The questionable aspect of Ripoff report is that it does not right incorrect details without charge. Some implicate this to be extortion, however after numerous legal procedures, judicial bodies have stated that although they disapprove of the company practices that Magedson uses, because the postings are made by third parties, it can’t be labeled extortion.