Facebook ads / Google cash scam

fake-reviews-suck · #1 03-07-2009, 10:58 PM

Facebook tries to moderate the kinds of ads it lets through, e.g. no dating, no ringtones, etc. etc. but lately the rage on Facebook are "work at home" or "job ads" that advertise programs like Google cash.

These are pretty much scams.

WEBSITE LINK REMOVED>> NO ADVERTISING

justtoomuchtime · #2 03-10-2009, 12:56 AM

Welcome to Scam.com, Glenn - you old one-trick pony, you.

I'm honored that you came to Scam.com to spam the link for your site as you've been doing quite a bit lately it seems.

Will you also be posting about your beloved site that teaches people to create review sites and:

"2) Don’t rate them all 5 stars. Put your best converting offers at the top and make them 5 stars, but the bottom of the review list should only be 3 stars at most. This will make the user feel like these are all more honest reviews and also make them more likely to pick the highest rated offer (which you can put as your best offer with highest payout, etc)."

Let's see ZERO for TWO so far:

1) Spam your site link.
2) Refer people to a site recommending they create fake reviews.

Then ironically post a link that claims to bust fake reviews.

Nice job, Glenn.

fake-reviews-suck · #3 03-17-2009, 12:11 AM

1- That is not my site.
2- The point is that you can get all that information for free.
3- It's a good site because you'll see all the little tricks people are up to... e.g. throw up logos of authoritative newspapers, show that the page was updated "today", etc.

katiescorner · #4 03-17-2009, 07:37 AM

NOT your site? you just love it so much that you choose to make it your username and promote it in your signature?

Quote:

Originally Posted by fake-reviews-suck

1- That is not my site.
2- The point is that you can get all that information for free.
3- It's a good site because you'll see all the little tricks people are up to... e.g. throw up logos of authoritative newspapers, show that the page was updated "today", etc.

fake-reviews-suck · #5 03-17-2009, 11:21 AM

Ack! I thought you (or rather, the other poster) was referring to uber affiliate guide.

Quote:

Will you also be posting about your beloved site that teaches people to create review sites and:

justtoomuchtime · #6 03-17-2009, 05:16 PM

Well, Glenn

Since you list my WorkAtHomeTruth.com site on your FakeReviewsSuck site (under the Rich Jerk section) this is a fantastic opportunity for you to explain why you think my review is fake, since you don't explain your reasoning on your site.

fake-reviews-suck · #7 03-17-2009, 07:23 PM

1- At first glance, your site looks very much like a typical fake review site. It may have been wrong of me to group you into THAT category.

I have updated my page to reflect this.

Quote:

www.workathometruth.com (*This is likely not a fake review site, but it does contain undisclosed affiliate links as of March 17, 2009.)

2- Your site does contain affiliate links which are not disclosed.

You call what you're doing "independent broker review". I see the conflict of interest and lack of transparency/disclosure.

So... that's a no no in my book. We can agree to disagree.

stgga · #8 03-17-2009, 07:47 PM

The presence of an earning disclaimer on a site is a good sign that money making/soliciting content is being presented. If these opportunities are presented up front then that is fine and may be helpful—if hidden or obfuscated then that is a red flag.

justtoomuchtime · #9 03-17-2009, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fake-reviews-suck

1- At first glance, your site looks very much like a typical fake review site. It may have been wrong of me to group you into THAT category.

I have updated my page to reflect this.

2- Your site does contain affiliate links which are not disclosed.

You call what you're doing "independent broker review". I see the conflict of interest and lack of transparency/disclosure.

So... that's a no no in my book. We can agree to disagree.

Glenn, thanks for updating your site. I appreciate that. And I have to admit that you did help me to FINALLY figure out how to accurately describe the reviews and motivate me to at least get up my disclosure policy which is about a year late because I didn't know how to give an ACCURATE description of my reviews as I'll explain below...

I can buy your disclosure issue to some degree. I've struggled with how to do it correctly myself as have most of the big name affiliates and professional bloggers. Some have suggested using the Pay Per Post model of calling them "Advertorials" or "Sponsored Reviews" which is NOT what they are. Other's have suggested calling them "Affiliate Reviews" which means nothing to the average person.

What you don't realize apparently is MOST of us started back in 2000 where it was just assumed we weren't out to screw over people so whether we disclosed an affiliate link or not was a non-issue. Nobody even thought about it. In fact, nobody really thought about it until 2006 and only now is it being rediscussed at any length again, because no perfect solution was reached over the past two years.

It took me a long time to come up with the "Independent Broker Review" title, because many of the other ones that have been discussed in the major affiliate disclosure discussions are NOT accurate for sites like mine who actually DO try to match the products we recommend with our customer base. You may have noticed that I even go so far as to put SPECIFIC refund instructions on the site for as many products as I can. Show me ONE other review site that does that.

Many of the big name bloggers tried putting (aff) by all their links, but it was disruptive to the flow of the copy and even Google stopped requiring that of affiliates (not sure why, but likely for the same reason).

You can read the following to get a bit of the history of affiliate disclosure policies (in fact these would be a very important place to post your opinions if you are sincerely interested in contributing to developing more transparency in the area of affiliate marketing - in other word posting in places like those in ADDITION to what you are doing would have the best chance of being helpful to the consumer):

http://www.seofaststart.com/blog/wha...arch-marketers (You'll see some of my comments made SIX MONTHS before your site even existed).
http://michaelmartine.com/2008/02/25...ure-manifesto/
http://www.shoemoney.com/2007/05/29/...-the-position/
http://www.shoemoney.com/2007/06/05/...on-net-income/ (includes links to 10 other major bloggers opinion on disclosure policies)
http://andybeard.eu/2007/06/blogging...isclosure.html
http://www.shoemoney.com/2007/06/07/...losure-rap-up/
http://andybeard.eu/disclosure-policy
http://www.entrepreneurs-journey.com...iate-marketer/

But to me Independent Broker Review MEANS something to the average person since they have a reference-point (insurance broker, real estate broker, etc.). Now my challenge is how to work it in without disrupting copy which I believe I may have a workable solution for.

I field literally hundreds of questions a week from people on the blog and by email and I have my REAL contact information on the site (although I'm bad about answering the phone in a timely manner, but terrific at answering email and the blog discussions fast).

I'm sure you've seen my blog discussions where I've helped HUNDREDS of people (no exaggeration) recover money and file complaints. I definitely have MUCH more profitable things I could be doing with my time.

Plus I personally COULD sell 50 hidden negative option fake free trial offers EVERY day if I wanted to, but I do NOT. And as you may know many of those offers pay as much as $35.00 per TRIAL (i.e., the problematic $1.00 "trial offers" that are an epedemic right now).

If I was just out to "cash in" on people that's what I would do. But I don't.

I'm starting to believe your intentions a bit more now, but when I first researched you, you had 2 forums that immediately told you not to post your link, one premium member (not my posts) who questioned your motives at WebHostingTalk (you may not have understood his comment) and seemed to be posting like crazy at Yahoo answers (although admittedly with good advice, so that's not a real issue).

justtoomuchtime · #10 03-17-2009, 08:49 PM

I should also comment that the Facebook ads have NOTHING to do with the real Google Cash which WHEN it came out over 4 years ago WAS a breakthrough book for many people, but most of us don't recommend it anymore.

In fact while I think people should learn PPC marketing eventually I tell them NOT to start there and to build up at least $300 of money before even trying to learn PPC marketing.

The Facebook ads are trying to leverage the recognition of the "Google Cash" name by using names like:

MakeGoogleCash
EarnCashFastWithGoogle
GoogleCashMachine

etc.

fake-reviews-suck · #11 03-18-2009, 07:56 AM

Fair enough. I'll take a look at your links.

I'd also point out that:
A- There may be a bit of a self-serving bias as to some people's views, e.g. shoemoney.
A lot of these guys like shoemoney and DaveN have done some shady stuff. (But I still like them.)

B- If you uphold the highest ethical standards as an affiliate marketer, you're like the one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

---
I agree with what Rand has to say:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-vast-...ust-blog-links
But you would've already known that.

justtoomuchtime · #12 03-18-2009, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fake-reviews-suck

Fair enough. I'll take a look at your links.

I'd also point out that:
A- There may be a bit of a self-serving bias as to some people's views, e.g. shoemoney.
A lot of these guys like shoemoney and DaveN have done some shady stuff. (But I still like them.)

B- If you uphold the highest ethical standards as an affiliate marketer, you're like the one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

---
I agree with what Rand has to say:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-vast-...ust-blog-links
But you would've already known that.

Right. I think you're coming along at a good time because this will become a hotter issue again this year.

I know that your FakeReviewsSuck site isn't your main focus, but have you considered setting up a blog there? It's not as crazy as having to answer emails.

fake-reviews-suck · #13 03-18-2009, 08:24 PM

That's a good suggestion. When I have time (codephrase for I will likely procrastinate) I would do it.

fake-reviews-suck · #14 03-18-2009, 11:59 PM

Oh, this is HILARIOUS. I think YOUR ads run on my site.

You got scammed 27 times?

---
This gets better... you have other practices which are not disclosed. Fortunately, I don't feel like I'm in an outing mood today.

justtoomuchtime · #15 03-19-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fake-reviews-suck

Oh, this is HILARIOUS. I think YOUR ads run on my site.

You got scammed 27 times?

---
This gets better... you have other practices which are not disclosed. Fortunately, I don't feel like I'm in an outing mood today.

I don't have any ads about being scammed 27 times. That's definitely NOT my site.

I don't think there's anything wrong with outing anything you feel should be outed. If I really wanted to hide anything I could make them impossible to find.

I spent a year studying the blackhatters because they are nuts about automation and we've been trying to develop white-hat versions of what they're doing (although any SEO person will always admit there are shades of gray in any SEO).

But most of the sites they build are garbage.

I'm also a partner in social networking company that recently got a decent infusion of capital.

And I have a proprietary market research tool under development.

justtoomuchtime · #16 03-19-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fake-reviews-suck

This gets better... you have other practices which are not disclosed. Fortunately, I don't feel like I'm in an outing mood today.

You should out them, whatever they are Glenn. That's what I've been trying to tell you is that you're coming at a good time.

You've already helped me speed up getting my disclosure policy up at the site.

I'm not sure what you're talking about exactly.

The only thing I can think of are the self-growing websites we've been trying to work on that we are trying to get as white-hat as possible, but self-growing websites if done properly aren't an issue if they provide relevant and quality content to the visitors.

In fact ours will easily be better than the Happar Monetization Engine which currently is one of the better examples.

There's nothing wrong with automation if you're automating what you'd already be doing naturally anyhow.

I've actually discussed all this directly on the WorkAtHomeTruth blog in a few places.

Also, you're welcome to post anything about me or my site(s) directly on my blog. I never censor the blog except for asterisking out foul words and in one case where I received a Cease and Desist so that I can get the proper legal up to take advantage of the DMCA Safe Harbor provision - which is something YOU really need to do as well.

You can read about it here if you haven't already:
http://images.chillingeffects.org/512.html

And keep in mind that "online service provider" is MUCH more broadly defined that you're probably thinking.

There's also new legal language that you'll need to get up if you plan to continue to run Adsense on your site.

Anyhow, I can get pretty arrogant and cocky sometimes - like with my "FakeReviewsSuck Gets Owned By WorkAtHomeTruth" post, but I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong and if you watch that post over time you'll see that.

There are still a lot of things you get wrong when it comes to research that don't go deep enough, but based on what you're doing in your main field I have no doubt that you'll learn all that quickly.

I know you like to things free as much as possible as do I, but one tool I'd highly recommend to anyone is the Silver or Gold version of DomainTools as there are a few valuable things you can get there that I haven't seen available anywhere else for free, such as the Whois History function which allows you to search through historical whois records so that if someone didn't put privacy protection on their site right away you can often still find the owner/registrant information.

You can also get server history for sites that move sites from one server to another and set up notifications for when that happens.

Those are just a couple useful pieces. If you get onto it you'll have a great time.

Anyhow, I do recommend you get the legal up to take advantage of the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions as eventually as you get more traffic to your site you'll start getting Cease & Desist letters and probably a lot of server attacks (as long as you're working with a good hosting company that won't be an issue except for maybe the first time - mine come from China usually because I warn people about Money Laundering sites hosted there).

fake-reviews-suck · #17 03-19-2009, 06:27 PM

Well since you asked for it, let's talk about homejob50kmonth.com

Your website workathometruth.com and your hubpages.com (and probably other sites) all pimp this site.

1- Let's start with the content of homejob50kmonth.com :

The site has a number of red flags, e.g. dynamically generated date that says that the site was updated "today".

Also, the guy saying that he got scammed 27 times... that is probably a lie. A lot of affiliate marketers tell that lie.

2- Uncharacteristicly, you have normal non-affiliate links linking to this particular site. And pimping his site, saying (paraphrasing here) "go buy X from this site".

Now why would you do that?

Is it:
A- Because you like not making money.

Oh, and you'd pimp the site and risk your reputation on a stranger hoping that the shill doesn't change his offers to something non-kosher.

Oh, and somehow you miss all the lies on that site.

B- (More likely) it is your friend's site, or your own site. Because you know that if you have an offer site, some people will search to see if the site is legitimate. So a smart person would make multiple webpages shilling the offer site to back it up.

Hmm.....

justtoomuchtime · #18 03-19-2009, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fake-reviews-suck

Well since you asked for it, let's talk about homejob50kmonth.com

Your website workathometruth.com and your hubpages.com (and probably other sites) all pimp this site.

1- The content of that site:

The site has a number of red flags, e.g. dynamically generated date that says that the site was updated "today".

Also, the guy saying that he got scammed 27 times... that is probably a lie. A lot of affiliate marketers tell that lie.

2- Uncharacteristicly, you have normal non-affiliate links linking to this particular site. And pimping his site, saying (paraphrasing here) "go buy X from this site".

Now why would you do that?

Is it:
A- Because you like not making money.

Oh, and you'd pimp the site and risk your reputation on a stranger hoping that the shill doesn't change his offers to something non-kosher.

Oh, and somehow you miss all the lies on that site.

B- (More likely) it is your friend's site, or your own site. Because you know that if you have an offer site, some people will search to see if the site is legitimate. So a smart person would make multiple webpages shilling the offer site to back it up.

Hmm.....

I'm not sure what you mean by "uncharacteristically". I have nearly 2000+ pages on my site and there are several instances where I do things like that.

I don't have a HubPage promoting that site, unless it's an adsense ad or something, which isn't under my control - OK. I think what you might have seen is the RSS feed from my WorkAtHomeTruth blog which I bring into some of the social media sites such as HubPages, Squidoo, Zimbio, etc.

So what you're actually seeing is the SAME page and the feed gets updated regularly - I think I have most of those set to daily updates.

No, it's not my site and it's not a friends' site (well, I suppose theoretically it COULD be since I don't know who registered it yet, which I'm trying to find out in the next post).

Whoever owns the site was bidding on my domain as the keyword, so I did a post about it basically because if the owner's going to use my domain name to get traffic I'm going to use his/hers to get traffic.

One of the companies that site lists has had it's share of problems in the past if you search the FTC site.

The reason I sent the people back to that site if they wanted the Adwords180 book is that on March 3rd the authors of the book sent out this notice:

"I've decided to offer the original Adwords180 report today for the recession busting price of $14.95 with $7 dollar style
resale rights.

This represents massive 73 page value for money.

If you were interested in this report which has developed a cult
like following since its launch but couldn't justify the $97 price
tag well then this is the moment you've been waiting for."

In other words I don't think they have a functioning affiliate program anymore, otherwise I would have sent people to buy the book with my affiliate link - well, maybe. I don't think it's worth $97 anymore. It was when it came out.

I considered referring people to Steve Goltiao's Ad Infiltration course which is more relevant now, but even though I know him from Matt Levenhagen's forum (who I know from AdwordMentor when we were moderators there), I don't own the book and I don't like to recommend products I don't actually own.

I probably should have waited to put up the page, but I've put a lot of the more dicey blog posts on hold until I have the following in place.

1) Proper legal verbiage taking advantage of the Safe Harbor provisions.

2) Clarify how to provide proper means of notification for people claiming infringement.

3) I've had to try to learn enough about a lot of these issues on my own to make sure that any attorney I would hire to give opinions would actually have the right expertise.

Initially I thought I would just need an attorney specializing in Internet Law, but it seems that I would either need an attorney specializing in Internet Law and one in Online Media law or ONE attorney that specializes in both.

And while I do well enough to support my family I'm NOT one of these zillionaire gurus so I make sure if I'm going to spend the money on a legal opinion (very expensive for a good attorney) that I actually have some understanding of what I'm getting.

Believe it or not, most full-time online marketers are flying blind and don't realize they need certain verbiage SPECIFIC to the type of site they run.

4) I need to clarify the legality of a new trend in some of the offers' verbiage in the Terms of Use claiming they can sue for $X for each infringing use of their Trademark or Copyright.

At first glance it seemed ridiculous and a violation of first amendment rights, but there are some recent legal opinions which I'll post in a bit that may prove that to be viable language in some circumstances and I need to make sure that the language wouldn't apply to anything I'm doing.

Right now all of this is out of your realm of experience because you don't get legal threats like I do (although I've never been sued). But it only takes one.

Not too long ago the WorkAtHomeTruth site almost broke the QuantCast 20,000 top sites mark which was a learning experience for me because when a site like yours or mine is effective that's when the companies/lawyers start to pay attention.

At some point you'll have the pleasure of all that.

One thing you'll notice on my site is that I almost never call something a scam or a fraud - because there is a legal definition that has to be met for something to be considered fraud.

However, I've been pretty aggressive about pointing out "issues" with various sites like the HomeJob50KMonth site, but within the week prior to me making that post the following article came out:

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/...aspx?id=120193

I'd recommend you read it because it addresses your transparency concern which keeps getting debated.

BUT my concern when I read the article is actually from a different angle and has more to do with how I've posted about sites like HomeJob50KMonth.

OK. For some reason I'm not seeing it right now, but it's still dead-on for your argument about full affiliate link disclosure (and now the issue needs to be if a disclosure policy is enough or if it needs to be at the head of the review - which is what I think will be the direction the FTC will head towards).

A bigger concern (although probably temporary) is the recent ruling that truth is not an absolute defense to defamation which was written about in Feb 17, 2009:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009...famation-cases

That COULD be an important ruling for a site like yours (or mine) to consider, which is why I was encouraging you to take putting up the proper legal verbiage seriously.

However, Lynn Edgington of Eagle Research Associates who posts here has told me that the 1st Circuit court of appeals has a history of getting their rulings overturned (Lynn, correct me if I'm misquoting you).

I believe this is the last legal piece I need to post for this:

http://www.safeselling.org/terms.shtml

The reason I'm posting it is because if "Truth is not an absolute defense"

AND

the new language that I've recently been seeing in some sites Terms of Service which has language such as:

"Unless expressly authorized by website, no one may hyperlink this site, or portions thereof, (including, but not limited to, logotypes, trademarks, branding or copyrighted material) to theirs for any reason. Further, you are not allowed to reference the url (website address) of this website in any commercial or non-commercial media without express permission, nor are you allowed to 'frame' the site. You specifically agree to cooperate with the Website to remove or de-activate any such activities and be liable for all damages. You hereby agree to liquidated damages of US$100,000.00 plus costs and actual damages for violating this provision."

Is somehow can be used in conjunction with the possible defamation ruling, which traditionally it wouldn't be:
http://www.safeselling.org/brand.shtml

Then there's an issue there that I need to get a legal opinion on regarding exactly WHEN the "Truth is Not an Absolute Defense to Defamation" MIGHT apply and whether it COULD apply in any way to how I do the content on my site.

I seriously doubt it and I find it hard to believe that ruling won't be overturned, but I feel it's significant enough to get an opinion on.

justtoomuchtime · #19 03-19-2009, 10:00 PM

OK. Now I'm going to see if I actually can figure out who DOES own that site.

The person put on privacy protection immediately so whois history is useless and it's also the only domain on it's IP so a basic reverse-ip lookup is no help.

This looks like it may take a while, because so far the best lead I have is a decently small set of domains (128 according to DomainTools) on a shared name server, but I'd still need to find secondary ways to tie them together through something like shared analytics code and hope that one of them didn't put on whois privacy guard immediately so that I could find the registrant information through Whois History.

Looks like I may have got lucky here. I'll finish up tomorrow.

fake-reviews-suck · #20 03-19-2009, 11:27 PM

Why link to them?

And why aren't you pointing out the deception on that site.
A- Updated "today".
B- The author got scammed 27 times? that's probably a lie.
C- Probably a bogus review.
etc.

What you're doing doesn't make a lot of sense.

justtoomuchtime · #21 03-19-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fake-reviews-suck

Why link to them?

And why aren't you pointing out the deception on that site.
A- Updated "today".
B- The author got scammed 27 times? that's probably a lie.
C- Probably a bogus review.
etc.

What you're doing doesn't make a lot of sense.

Glenn, did you even READ what I just wrote?

I don't think you're reading anything I'm posting.

I'm just coming off one of the nastier cease & desists that I've received and I'm rethinking the legal I have up and if it's sufficient

Please actually READ what I post and you'll understand why based on that C&D and some of the recent legal rulings I'm waiting until I put up the proper legal documentation to post the kind of stuff you're talking about.

I guess if the only thing I might do differently is just send the people onto the Adwords180 site itself since it actually doesn't make any sense to send people back to a site like that.

I did notice he or she (pretty sure he now) stopped bidding on my domain name. LOL.

Anyhow, I'll go ahead and post who I THINK it is.

When you click on the privacy policy on HomeJob50KMonth.com it takes you to a cached version of jobsathomereviews.com's privacy policy after a short redirect (depending on the browser you use for some reason...if you're on a PC you may need to use I.E.).

The jobsathomereviews site was running the same ad that the HomeJob50KMonth site is running now.

jobsathomereviews.com has privacy protection on, but it wasn't put on immediately, so whois history can be used.

According to the whois history the jobsathomereviews.com site was registered to:

Domain:	jobsathomereviews.com - Domain History
Cache Date:	2008-09-03
Registrar:	DYNADOT, LLC
Registrant Search:	Click on an email address we found in this whois record to see which other domains the registrant is associated with:
Domain Name: jobsathomereviews.com Registered at http://www.dynadot.com Registrant: joshua keiser

I know it seems overwhelmingly likely that Joshua is the owner of the new site, but I like to have one more piece like a unique analytics code.

It looks like the sites were buying PPC advertising on the Adwords content network, but I'm not sure what the unique identifier is for the ads although there must be one, because the reverse-engineering PPC spy tools figure that out somehow.

I have to go to sleep, but I'll post the code if someone else wants to take a stab at it in the meantime:

Avoid Work At Home Online Scams! I Will Show You The Ones That Work.

JobsAtHomeReviews.com

I Got Scammed 27 Times

Avoid Work At Home Online Scams! I Will Show You The Ones That Work.

HomeJob50kMonth.com

fake-reviews-suck · #22 03-20-2009, 12:05 AM

What I'm saying is that ethically and money-wise... the right thing to do is to point out their lies. homejob50kmonth is a deceptive website.

You shouldn't be linking to them.

Quote:

I guess if the only thing I might do differently is just send the people onto the Adwords180 site itself since it actually doesn't make any sense to send people back to a site like that.

exactly.

justtoomuchtime · #23 03-20-2009, 12:11 AM

Oops. Posting code didn't work. I wasn't expecting that. LOL.

Well, at least the link isn't clickable. I think if it was I'd just shoot myself in the head. LOL.

OK. Two docs as one exceed file size.

Ugh. Still too big. I'll post something tomorrow. Image is no good as the text needs to be searchable.

Or a "view source" on these cached pages would work:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Anyhow, I'm not sending the traffic back to his site which was admittedly pretty dumb.

Actually what I don't understand about that site is - if someone is going to go so far as to make a site like that and use privacy guard, why wouldn't they just go all the way and promote some sort of really devious hidden negative option offer?