Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Ah, yes...Ripoff Report, the bane of my existence. I could tell stories....

But it's not quite true to say the reports are bogus. It would be more accurate to say those who submit reports are the unwitting accomplices of a scheme that falls short of illegality -- or even spam.

The reports are "legit" in the sense that they are the honest expressions of a real person's opinion -- however ill-founded. These reports can be made to disappear (or be downplayed) for a price that masquerades as a "mediation service."

It's actually diabolically clever in a Dr. Evil sort of way.

As to why Google hasn't de-listed Ripoff Report...well, it takes a lot for Google to take such a drastic step: advocating violence or crime for example. But Ripoff Report is doing nothing illegal.

So I'm guessing Google is reluctant to set itself up as an adjudicator of editorial standards. Such a stance runs counter to its corporate DNA. And there may be liability and other legal issues.

Make no mistake: I think what Ripoff Report does is despicable.

And i also  think the Better Business Bureau operates an older and more sophisticated version of the same "pay or be damned" scheme. I expressed my views here

http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/the-best-link-your-clients-may-be-missing-12889of

And I got very little support. Most people disagreed or had no idea what I was talking about.

So don't count on Google to be the standards police. If you get hit with Ripoff Report, you have to take your own countermeasures to push the negative reports down.

If the other kids on the playground are being mean, running to Mommy doesn't always work. Mommy may be busy with other stuff or think it's not her job to get involved.

Are you any good at what you?

How wil the prospective customer benefit form hiring you?

Do you have satisfied customers ?

Who is your target audience?

You need to hit as many of these crucial points as possible. It's hard! Writing meta descriptions is a bit like writing haiku.

Mentioning both the free assessment and free trial may be a mistake. It's a mixed message that is overly complicated.

Maybe something like:

Thousands of satisfied customers love our over- the- top IT support. Find out why during your free trial. May we delight you?

or:

With over 30 years experience, we delight customers with our over-the-top 24/7 IT support. Ask for a free trial today.

I agree with the above: it's almost certainly just a matter of time before the smackdown comes.

The wait can be frustrating, though.

Been there, done that, waited it out -- and it took almost a year.

In the meantime, just focus on the nuts and bolts of on-page, while building quality content and backlinks.

What else can you do?

If it's any consultation, the smackdown can be huge and sudden. When it finally comes.

It's now happened three times in three days: I get unsolicited email (apparently harvested from my Moz profile) that invites me to try a new product or contribute to a new site.

The senders are completely unknown to me. The emails are full of hype,  sketchy on details and poorly written. They have all the hallmarks of phishing scams.

But on further inquiry the emails seem to be legit.

I nonetheless feel entitled to confess my extreme exasperation. When did sending unsolicited mass email of the "Dear Colleague" variety to perfect strangers become acceptable business practice? It's always struck me as being beyond the pale and beneath contempt. Why would anyone try to launch a business which such dubious and unsavoury  tactics?

Am I missing something here? Or becoming a fuddy duddy?

I suppose I could remove my contact info from my MOZ profile, but I have found it useful in the past.

What surprises me is that people would contact me "out of the blue" to ask for free help without making the slightest attempt to cultivate a relationship first.

Am I wrong?

I agree with EGOL. I would decline a "pay for performance" model because too much is out of my control: client cooperation, algo updates, new competitors.

Performance and accountability are important. Who could argue with that?

But just because previous providers  haven't delivered, it doesn't necessarily follow that shifting to a pay for performance model is the way to go. This often degenerates into the futile pursuit of phoney metrics, eg. ranking for non-competitive terms, social media shares, etc...

You need to find a provider you trust with a track record of delivering results. Limiting yourself to those who will accept pay for performance compensation may limit your search -- and your bottom line results.

May I make a shocking and radical suggestion?

Are you sitting down?

Are you ready? Really, really?

If you really want good content, pay cash money.

Agree completely with the above responses.

Bottom line: Google has some of the smartest people in the world working on these issues. In the end, they will prevail.

The idea that can can fool Google or game the system is...well, foolish.

At best, you might be able to score some temporary gains by disregarding the guidelines.

And then the hammer will fall.

I respectfully disagree -- mostly.

And I know all about TV contra deals. I used to produce TV shows and often made such deals: a promotional announcement in return for a prize, wardrobe, etc...

I later became a TV news director. Had I heard of a publicist paying money for exposure on a show, I would have been all over the story: it's unethical, scandalous, and in some cases illegal.

I do agree that providing high value web content in return for exposure can be a great strategy. I often formulate such strategies myself since so many of my clients are authors or subject matter experts.

But it kills me that so many people are so reluctant to take so obvious a step to ensure high quality content: paying professionals writers to write it. And by paying, I mean paying them with money. Why is this possibility so seldom even on the table?

Many people will spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to come up with complex revenue sharing schemes on how to divide the non-eixtsent profits of the mythological product. Cue Mel Brooks and The Producers. What gets lost in all this is the opportunity cost. In some cases it would be cheaper and easier and more productive to pay cash money. Really.

I can't agree that "back links are the currency of the web (even if it annoys Google.)"

Forgive the rant. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. But I feel strongly about it.