Shakedowns To Fix Negative Online Reviews

It was only a matter of time by FirephoxRising · 2012-10-03 21:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

People and businesses value their online reputations, so these protection rackets were always going to come.

We have a word for this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 21:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

Seems like a fairly textbook case of libel.

Re:We have a word for this... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 22:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not merely libel, it's fraud, possibly extortion, and of course, ridiculously stupid.
One day, shortly after moving into an apartment complex, this guy I've never met knocks on my door and tells me my van has a flat tire, and that, oh, BTW, he works at a nearby tire repair place, and would be happy to fix it for me, all I have to do is bring it to the shop...
Oddly enough, I had driven it the day before, and the tire was fine when I left it. I happened to have an air-pump, so I inflated it, and it seemed to hold air, it hadn't been stabbed or anything, (happily) but someone let the air out, and this guy I'd never met just happened to know that the van was associated with the resident of my apartment... and he just happened to work at a place that fixes tires... anyway, I guess he was fucking retarded, or thought I was. Needless to say, I wouldn't have dreamed of taking the tire to this guy or his shop, because this ploy was really fucking obvious.
Similarly, this ploy is pathetic, and it's shocking anyone could be dumb enough to think that it would work. Sad.

The best way to deal with this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 21:47 · Score: 5, Funny

This post was removed due to Dice content standards violations.

Re:The best way to deal with this by beelsebob · 2012-10-03 22:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because if a spammer wanted to make dice look bad, clearly they would only post one such message... Wait... no.
Re:The best way to deal with this by BasilBrush · 2012-10-03 23:05 · Score: 5, Funny

This post was added due to Gullibility standards violations.

Trip Advisor? by Zemran · 2012-10-03 21:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you use Trip Advisor you will find that most of the reviews are generic as they are written by professionals. Good reviews are paid for and while the hotel etc. is at it they pay for negative reviews to be written about all their competitors. This is not something new.

I know of one guest house here that had a bad report on trip advisor about staff stealing from the guests before the guest house had even received any guests. They had just opened and had not done any business at all and there first review was fake.

--
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.

Aha! by dimeglio · 2012-10-03 21:52 · Score: 3, Funny

That might explain all the negative comments we see about Microsoft.

--
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.

Re:Aha! by Chrisq · 2012-10-03 22:59 · Score: 3, Funny

That might explain all the negative comments we see about Microsoft.
I'm still waiting for them to send me $500

Best Countermeasures by some+old+guy · 2012-10-03 21:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

1. Register your business withe the Better Business Bureau, the Jaycees, Consumer Reports, and Dun & Bradstreet. Prominently link to your ratings. People will take the aforementioned organization's word before some troll's on a crappy "review" site.

2. Report all such solicitations to your local prosecutor as an extortion attempt.

3. Order the crap sites like White Pages, Yellow Pages, etc. to un-list your business and state why (they suck).

4. Have a cold beer and relax.

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.

Re:Best Countermeasures by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-03 23:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

You do realize that the BBB is a protection racket too, don't you? People who pay the BBB can make their complaints go away. People who don't will have a page @ the BBB's website prominently featuring complaint after complaint.
Re:Best Countermeasures by tompaulco · 2012-10-04 07:38 · Score: 3

the Better Business Bureau
If I see that a site has purposely and prominently advertised affiliation with the BBB, that usually leads me to suspect that they have something to hide. You almost NEVER see BBB links on most of the big name sites, like Amazon, Google, etc. I was about to put NewEgg, but they DO have a BBB link. But, I can almost guarantee that you will see a BBB link on every single "Only Available on TV" product. Why? Because they are cheap junk that is not worth the money, but they BBB link might make a few more people buy their cheap junk.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

Wiring the money unsafe? by ArsenneLupin · 2012-10-03 21:58 · Score: 4, Informative

When it comes to payment, a sure sign that it is a scam is when the business demands that you pay by wiring the money. If you wire money, it is not traceable or refundable, and it vanishes into the anonymous thief's pocket. So, always use credit cards or Pay-Pal, or something that offers protection. Only wire money if you absolutely, positively know the person to whom you are sending it.

Huh? Is that really how wire transfers are perceived in the United States?

In most of the civilized world, you can reverse a wire transfer if it turns out to be fraudulent (and if the fraudster hasn't withdrawn the money by then). And if he has the money withdrawn, you (or the police) now have at least his identity... Banks have an obligation to be positively sure about their customer's real-world identity before they open an account for them (the "know your customer" rule), as part of the regulations against money laundering.

There is a reason why most phishers use unwitting intermediaries ("money mules"): bank transfers are not anonymous for the receiver, and the receiver will be found out.

With Pay-Pal, on the other hand, you are at the whim of a company who isn't accountable to any banking rules (because it is not a bank), and who doesn't hesitate to confiscate or freeze account's contents if they believe you associated with somebody who associated with somebody who they believe defrauded them.

Re:Wiring the money unsafe? by ledow · 2012-10-03 22:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

PayPal is a bank, in some countries (i.e. the EU), and regulated by appropriate financial services watchdogs. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be allowed to trade in those countries for very long as it would be nothing but an unregulated money laundering outfit.
That said, wire transfers are traceable, but that doesn't mean you get your money back. Credit cards, etc. have automatic, legally-backed payout when you mark a transaction as fraud, even if the fraudster has already withdrawn that money.
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? by danb35 · 2012-10-03 22:11 · Score: 3, Informative

I suspect the poster you're replying to is actually talking about the money transfer services like Western Union, not true bank wire transfers. Wire transfers have to go into a bank account, and the ownership of that bank account is known (by the receiving bank, at least, if not by the sender). They're not used very often in the U.S., though, because they tend to be expensive--$25 to send, and $15 to receive, seem to be common fees, though they can vary.
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? by arth1 · 2012-10-03 22:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

They're not used very often in the U.S., though, because they tend to be expensive--$25 to send, and $15 to receive, seem to be common fees, though they can vary.
I just paid $35 for receiving a wire transfer to my BOFA account. The bank's web page says they charge $16 for incoming wire transfers from abroad, and it really should be $0, because it was sent as a SWIFT transfer in USD, marked with "sending bank pays all charges".
Why the extra? There's apparently a "telex fee", even though no telex was in use.
Oh, and I don't even get a copy of the SWIFT with the payment details.
Thank goodness the money was sent in USD, because the rates that US banks give their customers on exchange are ridiculous.
Here in USA, we have the most antiquated bank system in the world; worse, even, than the UK one.
Heck, people here still use cheques, for cripes sake. And the cards banks issue can't be used in large parts of Europe, because they still rely on a magnetic strip, not a chip.
And we have the most clueless bankers too. They don't even understand terms like giro and loro.
But to compensate, it's seriously overpriced.
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? by arth1 · 2012-10-04 00:05 · Score: 3, Informative

nostro = "our", meaning transfers or accounts (usu. in foreign currency) to accounts held elsewhere (usu. in foreign banks).
vostro = "their", meaning the same account seen from the opposite side of the fence.
loro = "their", meaning transfers or accounts (usu. in own currency) through a third party (intermediary) bank.
A loro transfer is the most common account/transfer method unless your bank actually has mutual accounts with the foreign bank.
A typical transfer from the US goes[*]:
sender
-> request to your bank's central office for a FX
-> debit of your account by main office
-> loro some big foreign bank here
-> nostro some big bank there
-> giro to account holder
and within a day, batched saldo (balance) adjustments between the banks
In contrast, a typical international transfer from pretty much anywhere else in the world is two or three steps.
[*]: Or rather, it doesn't unless you insist, because US banks tend to cut bank cheques so they can sit on the float for a week and take extra charges.
You can save a step and charges by picking a loro that can do direct deposit to the foreign account, or if you use a big bank, a nostro that doesn't require a third bank on the remote end. Of course, that means that your bank must be able to list what loro/nostro connections they have. And the bank employee either understand how transfers work, or be able to direct you to someone who does.
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? by arth1 · 2012-10-04 00:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

You're lucky the US bank even knew what SWIFT was. A couple years ago I needed to transfer funds to my mom in the US. She lives in a small town but uses one of the major US banks. It took me over a week of emails and multiple calls to the bank to get the necessary information to make the transfer from a major European bank.
Hints for the next time:
Get your mother's account number and wire transfer routing number. The latter is usually not the same as the regular routing number.
Get the SWIFT address of your mother's bank's head office, unless they have a SWIFT address for transfers in USD.
When sending the money, insist on sending in USD, nostro your mother's banks head office, with both the routing number and account number specified.
Do not choose to pay the recipient's charges, because US banks will not honour that and will charge the recipient full charges regardless of whether they also get the mutually agreed-upon transfer fee from your bank. That's just free money for them.
IME, the transfer will only take minutes if done this way. Of course, the bank will likely sit on it until the next day before "clearing" it, despite it already being cleared by SWIFT. US banks are the worst float crooks in the world.
If sending in your own currency and without a routing number, even if through SWIFT, expect 3-4 days, and even more if they cut a cheque (no, I'm not kidding, alas).
Re:Wiring the money unsafe? by Inda · 2012-10-04 01:45 · Score: 3, Informative

OK, I'll bite.

Worse than the UK one?

If I want to send anyone money in the UK here's what I do:

1. Login to my bank's website

2a. If I've sent money to this person before: type in their sort code, account number and value.

2b. If I've not sent money to this person before: two factor authorisation, type in their sort code, account number and value.

3. Click the Go button

This is called BACS and is instant for the vast majority of transactions and basically free. We also have the faster but more expensive CHAPS.

Of course, give me an International Bank Account Number (IBAN) and I can send money to anyone anywhere.

We freely give out bank account numbers too. There's not a lot you can do with them except pay money in.

--
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.

Who uses Review sites? by hairyfish · 2012-10-03 22:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

I gave up on these sites years ago as soon as it became apparent they were all unreliable. Reviews are either gamed or posted by someone with completely different standards to me so carried no value. Just go check reviews of hotels you've been and compare with your own experience. None of them have any consistency.

Re:Who uses Review sites? by hcs_$reboot · 2012-10-03 23:02 · Score: 4, Informative

This is why I appreciate sites like imdb.com (films reviews), where you have to provide your cell phone number to which IMDB sends a SMS containing a code that you use to activate your reviewer and rater status.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...

Travel by ledow · 2012-10-03 22:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

So there are honestly people out there who read reviews from people who may not have even bought the product and consider them true?

Personally, if I were TripAdvisor, Amazon, or whatever equivalent, it would be a requirement to have actually purchased the goods you're reviewing before being allowed to post a review.

One of the websites I use for hotels does just that - unless you've booked the hotel through them and stayed there you can't post a review. I don't think a reputation-destroying service would be a viable business model (even excluding legal complications) if you had to pay your competitors in order to post a bad review on them.

And, I pay no attention to the reviews. I pay attention to the responses, if any. If a site lists your hotel (presumably WITH your permission, or you'd ask for it to be removed) and you get a bad response, you should reply to it. Like on eBay, or in real life shops, it's not what the negative comments say, it's how you deal with those complaints that matters.

Nobody runs a hotel that has never received a complaint in its entire history. But there are lots of places that receive complaints and ignore them because they just don't care.

Slashdot Smells by telchine · 2012-10-03 22:05 · Score: 5, Funny

I went to Slashdot and the service was terrible. They treated me badly and I think they cloned my credit card.

Right, anyone know CmdrTaco's number?

Data storage, data mining. by Half-pint+HAL · 2012-10-03 22:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

The big problem with cyber crime is the lack of long-term storage of complaints. I got a scam email from Spain, claiming to be from a friend stranded in Madrid without a passport. I sent it on to the Guardia Civil. They sent me back a bunch of guidelines on not being scammed online.

Now, I didn't expect my single little failed fraud attempt to merit individual investigation. I had hoped that they would put it on file, and use it as supporting evidence for conspiracy in a larger case later on, but no-one tracks these things.

A group I frequent on Facebook was getting spammed for weeks by the same person advertising loans (in USD, in a group about a Scottish pub meetup). Every day, they'd get reported, and the message deleted. But even Facebook didn't seem to bother to track the individual complaints and spot the pattern.

So yes, review sites should be able to spot the pattern, but they won't. Because that costs money, and the internet is for cheapskates.

--
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'

Re:Data storage, data mining. by KiloByte · 2012-10-03 23:33 · Score: 5, Funny

They have absolutely zero credibility.
Fixed it for you.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Data storage, data mining. by rwise2112 · 2012-10-04 00:56 · Score: 4, Informative

There used to be abuse@fbi.gov - but that's been ignored for almost a decade now.
Abuse email addresses are normally used to report spam or such coming from the domain. For instance if you were receiving spam from xxxx@fbi.gov, then that is the place to report it.

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Data storage, data mining. by cawpin · 2012-10-04 01:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

Now, I didn't expect my single little failed fraud attempt to merit individual investigation. I had hoped that they would put it on file, and use it as supporting evidence for conspiracy in a larger case later on, but no-one tracks these things.
Oh, but they do. I did a similar thing, regarding about a scam letter, physical mail, I received several years ago. I got the normal "Thanks for reporting" response and thought nothing of it, as you did. About 6 months later I get an email from the US Federal Crime Victim Notification Service telling me that an investigation had been opened into the company I reported.

I've been getting regular updates through this system for about 3 years now up to and including verdict & sentencing. There were 6 or 8 people who were charged, a couple plead guilty to lesser charges, one was found guilty of some fairly serious charges and the ring leader was found guilty of many counts of fraud and related charges and sentenced to, if I remember correctly, 17 years in federal prison.

I was completely surprised by it because, like you, I had never seen anything come of the various things I have reported over the years. But, apparently, they do pay attention if they get enough complaints.

Not new by CdBee · 2012-10-03 22:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

It';s been proven that both Yelp and TripAdvisor will phone businesses moments after bad reviews are posted and offer to have them hidden for a large sum of money - Yelp in particular strongly denied this then were caught at it again a few weeks later

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU

what if the review site is the one cashing in? by CdBee · 2012-10-03 22:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yelp and the Business of Extortion 2.0

--
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU

Your perp did it wrong, there's a safer way by tlambert · 2012-10-03 23:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

The difficulty with the site is that the owner offered to delete the comments upon payment of £299 (around $500). If the purpose of the site was genuine (to allow complaints to be 'heard') why was it possible to take comments down? And what is to stop fake comments from being posted to attract further payment?

Fortunately for the solicitors in England and Wales, action was taken by the Law Society and the owner of the site was forced to take the site down and suffer the consequences of poorly defended legal action.

That action was taken by the Law Society as the only option available to the libeled solicitors was to launch an individual libel claim. The owner of the site had to respond to such claims and didn't fair particularly well in these either, particularly when it was clear that he had offered to take the comments down for a payment (see paragraph 23).

The correct way to legally extort money is to call it an investigation and processing fee, rather than an offer to take the review down. The investigation will inevitably turn up the fact that the review was not submitted in good faith and/or by a nut job, and it will be taken down, which is what the lawyer wanted, but the investigation and processing fee in that case would be legitimate, even if the whole thing was automated or partially automated - there's no reason you wouldn't pay some broke college student 1-2% of the processing fee to actually perform an investigation process on a contract rather than a permanent employment basis, as piecework, in order to avoid actually becoming an employer, and as long as you paid your taxes, there's pretty much nothing to be done about it.

To avoid any appearance of impropriety whatsoever, you could also post positive reviews, and justify listing all negative reviews before positive ones on the basis that people in need of a lawyer would be best served by the review site by knowing as quickly as possible if the lawyer failed in a case similar to theirs -- so a lawyer with 100 reviews and a 96% positive rating would still have the 4 bad reviews listed before everything else that said good things, and that is what people would see first.

Taking this approach, $5 worth of investigation might not be enough, and even if it were, factually bad reviews would stick to a lawyer on the review site, which is maybe not a bad thing... it pretty much puts them in the same boat as trademark registration, where you have to zealously defend your trademark by spending money, only in this case, you pay the review site, rather than paying lawyers (perhaps adding some much needed symmetry to the universe in the process, but I digress...).

Note that I'm not recommending this as an honorable business model, but it's one that works pretty well for a couple of "review sites" here in the US, and in that case, even a libel case would have to name the original reviewer, rather than the site, as long as the site doesn't have employees posting the negative reviews in the first place (libel laws differ in the US, and astroturfing bad reviews in order to get people to pay for advertising is one of the techniques used by one of the putative review sites).

Slashdot Mirror

Shakedowns To Fix Negative Online Reviews

30 of 179 comments (clear)