Can Reputation.com Save the Scammers We Post About????

Can Reputation.com help the scammers who get exposed on our pages here? I think not.

Quote:

---

Can you correct ANY content on the Internet?

We are respectful of First Amendment issues in the United States and will not request newspaper or court records to be removed. For international customers, we are also respectful of your country’s privacy and freedom of speech laws and will not remove any content that is protected by those laws......

What about the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech?

Our removal ("Destroy") service is designed to help individuals regain control over unintentionally posted or outdated personal information disclosed to the public Internet, and address potentially libelous, slanderous, defamatory or invasive information about them We do not target news/media articles for removal. Nor do we seek to get government records removed from the Internet. We believe that individuals have the right to express ideas freely, and we support the freedom of the press to inquire fully about issues of legitimate public interest. Given that, we reserve the right to refuse any requests that we believe conflict with these fundamental values. But we also believe that it is the right of individuals to know what others are saying about them, and for private individuals to protect themselves from unintentional, inappropriate, or illegal intrusions of their privacy.

---

All those court records, public records and my opinion in the form of scathing commentary are here to stay. Jack Weinzierl threatened suit and Tim Darnell actually filed against me and tried for an injunction and got no relief. The truth, facts and opinion do not constitute libel, slander or defamation. So, good luck scammers, you are going to need it!!!

Soapboxmom

How can 'personal information' be outdated? It either did happen or is happening and is relevant. Scammer's former addresses and whatnot need to be out in the public so the trail can be followed.
I like their 'out' for not performing the service but keeping the cash by wording it "potentially libelous, slanderous, defamatory or invasive information about them". If they can't do it, then it was only 'potentially' bad, but not necessarily bad.

Quote:

---

What are the prices for the MyReputation Discovery and MyChild Search and Destroy services?

We provide a detailed monthly Search report for $14.95/month. You can pay for a year upfront for a 15% savings! If we find an item of online content you don't like, we'll carry out our proprietary Destroy assistance process for you on that item for $29.95.....

Can Reputation.com guarantee its Destroy assistance results?

We work very hard for our clients, but we cannot guarantee that content can or will be removed. We are the first and only company in the world that performs the Destroy assistance service.

---

That could empty a millionaire account and get the scammer nowhere! We only remove things with court orders here or at the discretion of an administrator. We don't take incentives and do not respond kindly to threats either. This could get quite humorous watching our whining scammers in action!

Soapboxmom

I can guarantee that one way to make absolutely sure your "reputation" is out there in the full view of public opinion is to start with the empty threats and bullyboy tactics on anti scam forums.

There are a squillion 'netizens out there just waiting for the opportunity to face off with one of these blowhards in a real courtroom.

It would probably be a whole lot quicker, cheaper and more effective if some of these fraudsters just apologized for their previous behaviour/s and at least attempted to make restitution.

Fat chance of that happening, though.

LRM,

HAHAHAHA!!!! I think it was quite hilarious how Weinzierl declared he was going to fight to the end to save his reputation. If he had fairly compensated his victim, Rep X who sued him, not declared chapter 7 bankruptcy and given me dozens more fascinating pages to post, not run up tens of thousands in legal fees and truly repented, then he wouldn't be in this mess. Reputation.com has a $10,000 - $100,000 per month solution package and I don't think even that level can bury the truth out there about Weinzierl and his many scamming friends. It is kind of like taking out one's ski boat and trying to raise the Titanic!

Soapboxmom

Take away all the mystique and the froth and bubble with which this new breed of "reputation savers" likes to surround itself and you are still left with the fact their client did what he/she did.

This is especially relevant when there are those around actively working to bring the behaviour/s of the wrongdoer to public attention.

For sure, someone with the time and money can successfully remove at least part of the public record, but ONLY if there's nobody out there making sure what is removed is not only archived and replaced, but, that the act of removal is also brought front and center back into the public eye.

What's better in the long run ??

To spend money trying to fix the unfixable and defend the indefensible, or gracefully accept that AA has it right in their 12 Step Program when it suggests those intent on changing their lives:

Quote:

---

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

---

I would respectefully say that reputation.com works wonders for clients but it seems to be that the reviews and things that they advertise that they do beg to differ for me. They advertise that they handle the predictive searches on google and if this was the case than don't you think they would take the needed measures to get rid of things that say: Reputation.com scam and Reputation.com reviews especially since they seem to pull up not quite the best results. Than to make matters worse for the company I did notice that when you google reputation.com this result is the number 4 result which doesn't really talk so highly about the company either.

So I have to ponder if they can't recover and fix their own issues like a fallen off the wagon AA member (reference to littleroundman lasts post) than what are they doing just spending millions on ads and hoping people don't google them?

Yep. Although I've been seeing that tactic being used less often these days. A few people have apparently figured out that's a bad idea.

Definitely a VERY stupid thing to do, because if a person/community isn't afraid to speak out in the first place, then bullying them or sending them cease and desists is just going to fuel the fire to speak out MORE.

What about the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech?

Our removal ("Destroy") service is designed to help individuals regain control over unintentionally posted or outdated personal information disclosed to the public Internet, and address potentially libelous, slanderous, defamatory or invasive information about them We do not target news/media articles for removal. Nor do we seek to get government records removed from the Internet. We believe that individuals have the right to express ideas freely, and we support the freedom of the press to inquire fully about issues of legitimate public interest. Given that, we reserve the right to refuse any requests that we believe conflict with these fundamental values. But we also believe that it is the right of individuals to know what others are saying about them, and for private individuals to protect themselves from unintentional, inappropriate, or illegal intrusions of their privacy.


This works on the type of media specificaly on the internet, if its a forum .... nope...LOL ..if its blog by one indivdual yes.

I experienced the same exact thing as most of you.. Reputation.com and their scam promised me they would get rid of a negative website about me, using "proprietary technology", which is complete bs because its just free websites they signed up for, and of course got no refund. The websites they signed me up for are all the popular social sites and are easy to sign up for. After researching this giant scam, I found out you can do SEO yourself with easy do it yourself programs such as searchmanipulator.com, which uses pretty much the same websites, same methods, but it only cost $30. Not trying to endorse them, but it seriously makes you realize how much of a scam reputation.com is getting away with. REPUTATION.COM IS A SCAM!


If you want it free, here is the websites reputation.com used for me...just make sure to do the backlinks and that stuff.

Linkedin

About.me

BigSight.com

BigThink.com

BusinessCard2.com

Chi.mp

Connectture.com

CVShare.net

Emurse.com

Entrepreneur

Flavors.Me

Gather

Google

Konnects

LookUpPage

Naymz

Multiply

PeoplePond

Posterous

RealMee

Ryze

Scribd

Spoke

Swimwire

Tumblr

Twitter

Viadeo

Wordpress

Xing

I want my money back Michael Fertik! I am not going to stop posting reviews everywhere until I do!

Reputation.com is a total scam: Reputation.com | Smoke & Mirror Reputation Management -

They cannot even manage their own online reputation, let alone the reputation of many of their clients. What irony!

Here are consumers who weren't very happy with their results from this reputationdotcom.

ReputationDefender.com Scam Beware of ReputationDefender Reputation Defender Ripoff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reputation.com

Reputation.com is a total scam: Reputation.com | Smoke & Mirror Reputation Management -

They cannot even manage their own online reputation, let alone the reputation of many of their clients. What irony!

---

Advertising for Reputation Changers I see. Just because other reputation management companies show up on the first page of the Google search results does not equate to Reputation.com not managing its own reputation. That is a completely spurious argument.

Any reputation management company faces the same difficulties. A few websites will remove anything any time there is a complaint. Many will do nothing because federal law protects the site from being liable for content posted by third parties. The main tactic employed by many of these outfits is to flood the internet with positive posts. Google known scammer Jack Weinzierl for instance. He has up dozens of the same stupid lie-filled blurbs about himself in an effort to fill up Google pages with that pure crap. He is desperately hoping to bury the fact filled post from here and elsewhere that expose him for the scammer and very unChristian man he is. It is not a very viable solution. The identical posts quickly begin falling as no one reads that tripe and anyone who is serious about checking someone out will quickly scan through many search engine result pages looking for something different as he has in fact tipped them off to the fact he has something to hide.

Litigation is a tool to use only when there is provably false information about you that is damaging enough to warrant action. You must be able and willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and be prepared for the reality you may win, but never get a dime.

Many who hire a reputation management company are going to be disappointed. They cannot perform miracles.

I can say the policy here is to review every complaint and to remove provably false information. Unfortunately, for the scammers being exposed, they will have no hope of getting the truthful posts about them removed. We don't cater to scammers!

Soapboxmom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soapboxmom

Advertising for Reputation Changers I see. Just because other reputation management companies show up on the first page of the Google search results does not equate to Reputation.com not managing its own reputation. That is a completely spurious argument.

Any reputation management company faces the same difficulties. A few websites will remove anything any time there is a complaint. Many will do nothing because federal law protects the site from being liable for content posted by third parties. The main tactic employed by many of these outfits is to flood the internet with positive posts. Google known scammer Jack Weinzierl for instance. He has up dozens of the same stupid lie-filled blurbs about himself in an effort to fill up Google pages with that pure crap. He is desperately hoping to bury the fact filled post from here and elsewhere that expose him for the scammer and very unChristian man he is. It is not a very viable solution. The identical posts quickly begin falling as no one reads that tripe and anyone who is serious about checking someone out will quickly scan through many search engine result pages looking for something different as he has in fact tipped them off to the fact he has something to hide.

Litigation is a tool to use only when there is provably false information about you that is damaging enough to warrant action. You must be able and willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars and be prepared for the reality you may win, but never get a dime.

Many who hire a reputation management company are going to be disappointed. They cannot perform miracles.

I can say the policy here is to review every complaint and to remove provably false information. Unfortunately, for the scammers being exposed, they will have no hope of getting the truthful posts about them removed. We don't cater to scammers!

Soapboxmom

---

Wow I love what has transpired here.

Soapboxmom,

With all do respect if somebody hires a good reputation management firm and has the funds to support an all out campaign than they certainly will not be dissapointed. I think the problem that started this thread is there are crappy firms out there like reputation.co,m that don't actually suppress negative information but rather just post new biographical information online for clients and they never see the desired results and assume that the services are a scam when the reality is that they spend $1.2 million dollars a month on marketing and not enough on properly doing a cleanup job for their clients hence why the animosity and high tensions all over the web. The other issues are the reports about Michael Fertik telling his employees to lie to their clients and telling them to go ahead and tell their inquiries that they can suppress negative material and stamp a 90 day guarantee even though they won't refund their clients but rather try to upsell them afterwards. It truly is a sickening and sad practice that is obviously reflecting negatively upon in the industry. Howard Bragman should truly be embarrassed to even be connected with a company that has such practices. That is why there are a lot of complaints out there about reputation.com paired with their size. They may be the biggest but obviously not even close to the best.

There are a lot of companies out there that are actually good. To not discriminate I won't mention them but PM if you really want to know and I can let somebody else give those that are reading this and doing their due diligence know.

A lot of review sites have fake posts about legitimate companies and they don't remove them no matter how obviously fake they are. It's okay it's part of the game. The key is to be proactive about it. The fact that the bloomberg businessweek article stated that reputation.com doesn't care about it's own reputation should be disturbing enough in itself.

p.s. soapbox miracles are performed everyday you just have to hire the right company that will work hard for you, I can show you plenty of examples of miracles.