A Bully Finds a Pulpit on the Web
nytimes.comInteresting story on how search engine "flaws" (or limitations) reward bullying.
From the story, it seems like sites like GetSatisfaction, ComplaintsBoard etc. don't use nofollow on links in user-generated content. 'nofollow' should mitigate the SEO impact and I'm surprised that the sites aren't doing this.
Agreed. That's an easy change that those websites should consider adding.
Has anyone tried to contact these sites to let them know about nofollow? Perhaps they are just ignorant of the technology, since it's not their core competency.
nofollow is a bad idea and I wish Google stopped using, Matt. You can't trust people saying "these are not bad guys".
Anyway, shouldn't getsatisfaction reward good customer service? You're just saying it's their problem to filter what's bad, for their your's users.
"nofollow is a bad idea and I wish Google stopped using, Matt."
Note that rel=nofollow is just a mechanism to indicate to search engines "Please don't give this link weight in computing reputation or search results." If you're talking about a website that is doing shady things, that's a perfect time to use the rel=nofollow attribute if you link to that website.
no why is there no rel=badsite tag to indicate that you dislike a page/website?
Although, if google had an algorithm to account for the quality of reviews, not having a no follow, and having the ranking be a function of total number of reviews, and average feedback score, wouldn't be bad either.
Amusing: "Which gets to the real impediment to capitalism, Borker-style, and the reason it is unlikely to catch on: it is physically exhausting. Mr. Borker typically works from about 10 a.m. until 5 the next morning, spending much of that time feuding with unhappy customers. He describes this grueling regimen of confrontation with a heaviness that is enough to make you want to give him a hug.
“I’m sure this is taking a toll on my health,” he complains. “I probably won’t live as long as you.”"
The biggest mystery to me is how he can threaten people with violence, repeatedly and in a documented fashion, and not be locked up. The system has failed here.
"...He handles those transactions like a Boy Scout because Amazon doesn't mess around, he says - the company just kicks you off its site if you infuriate customers."
more evidence in the 'amazon knows what they are doing' file.
This is also a ringing endorsement to buy things from Amazon over eBay or independent sellers.
The fourth comment on the NY Times article says that Amazon was not helpful in a similar situation. But it's only one comment. Does anybody here have experience with Amazon's response to abusive merchants?
Here's the comment:
I had a similar appearance once when I bought something from an Amazon seller. After receiving a defective product and returning it, the seller threatened to kill me.
What was most shocking was the indifference of Amazon, a company that I admire and respect along with its founder and CEO Jeff Bezos. I wrote repeatedly to the company, even finding email addresses of executives. Indeed, as with the company cited in this story, there were many other complaints on the web to be found about this seller and his threats. Amazon's response was a virtual shrug.
I predict however he finds his business to succeed currently will be utterly destroyed with this article.
You cannot possibly have your name published in association with fraud accusations and not expect knocks from government agencies.
That guy's like the opposite of Zappos' Tony Hsieh and his odds of a big exit for his company (or any long term profit after lawsuits, etc.) are also the opposite.
The reporter doesn't seem to understand that Google search is a search engine not some sort of recommendation engine - the results should only be influenced by relevance imv.
I'm sure the average internet user might not understand the difference either and rely on a site's Google ranking to reflect the credibility and reliability of a website.
But you're both wrong.
In a search for "designer sunglasses", a reputable site is more relevant than a scam site.
It's Google that has to change, not the user.
>In a search for "designer sunglasses", a reputable site is more relevant than a scam site.
No it's not. That search term is very open and does not indicate at all that the searcher is looking for reputable sites. A search for "good designer sunglasses store" then maybe. I think you're mixing up the job of a search engine and a review site.
Google appears to disagree with you, as their recent modifications to address this issue have shown.
I read that with my jaw on the floor ... the whole time.
I really cannot bring myself to believe that this guy operates with such impunity. That being said, people really really need to learn to check out a merchant online before buying from them.
San Francisco meets Brooklyn: "[Get Satisfaction] wrote to me, ‘We’d like to talk to you; we should take a proactive approach.’" Mr. Borker sneers and rolls his eyes. "I sent him a photograph of this," he says, raising his middle finger.
I was Eric Schmidt, I would be delighted by this article because it's evidence that people no longer treat Google as a search engine that finds relevant webpages, but as an oracle that gives you the best advice and recommendations. And that is obviously more monetizable.
Unfortunately for us, the consumers, it can't actually deliver that service yet, anymore than city authorities can ensure the best retailers rent the best locations.
I think the funniest part is how he specializes in eyeglass wear. I don't know if there's anything to the sterotype of eyeglass wearers being more geeky or introverted (I wear glasses but I'm a small test group) - but it goes along perfectly with his role as the bully.
I only see one link per company on Get Satisfaction. You don't get more links per review.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again- Google needs to be laser focused on improving search result quality.
Not preview pages, not restaurant ratings, not autonomous cars.
Search result quality.
Where's Anonoymous when you need them?
The amount of work he put in to the 'transaction' described in the article hardly seems worth it.
Only from a purely financial perspective. He clearly gets off on it.
Why is everyone, including NYT and HN doing exactly what that scumbag wants? This disgusts me.
While I agree that it's clearly what "that scumbag wants" I think this kind of article could be a good thing printed in something like the NYT. It brings more awareness that crooks like this are out there and you need to be careful shopping online. I'm about to send it to my mom, who could easily get caught up in something crazy like this since her internet-sketchy-ness filter is not exactly as sharp as most HNers.