Traffic Power Sues SEOBook.com

[JohnC]

I have been following this on another forum, but I would love to hear this forums comments, especially after today's Wall Street Journal Article (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112541909221726743-mVzkKuCzJYZr6fxe38o5ejK_1jA_20060830,00.html?mod=rss_free) covering the situation.

[Quadrille]

I found it interesting that most of the recent discussion has centered on whether or not SEObook had libelled TP, while all the small print looked as if SEObook was actually accused of divulging trade secrets.

WSJ seems to have put more balance into the discussions, but not really cleared the mud.

Seems to me that TP is fighting to protect the way it seeks to fool Google - so this might be the first case of Google siding with one black hat against another.

I'm assuming it's black hat stuff, by the names involved, but I may be utterly wrong, in which case please accept my abject apologies.

I've never read the SEObook - I don't pay more than single figures for a paperback, I sure as heck won't pay $79.00 for 120 pages of ether - kudos to him for getting away with it!

[JohnC]

I don't know if Mr. Wall is Black or White Hat either, but I do give him credit for publishing the info on TP in the first place.

From the WSJ article, if Mr. Wall gets enough support to get the right lawyers, this case could have ramifications well beyond our little SEO community.

I do find it hard to believe that TP actually thinks this guy hurts its business reputation enough to use libel as a basis for the suit. They did a good job of that on their own.

[Quadrille]

And as for trade secrets ... I never heard anyone credit TP with any ground-breaking initiatives, black, white or pink.

[ihelpyou]

Funny stuff actually.

The courts have long since said that discussion forums cannot be held liable for posts made to it. Those are the facts. The fact this is a "blog" should make no difference. If the poster knowingly knows what he posted is false, then TP has a case. In my mind, all I have read across the internet is very true, so no case at all.

Trade secrets? Now that's just too funny to even make up. LOL

[JohnC]

Originally posted by Quadrille
And as for trade secrets ... I never heard anyone credit TP with any ground-breaking initiatives, black, white or pink. Exactly ... give me a break.

I think the most innovative they have been, is to find ways to mass produce existing bad techniques. Plus, how can something be a trade secret when all you have to do is "view-source" to see what they are doing.

[Quadrille]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
The courts have long since said that discussion forums cannot be held liable for posts made to it. Those are the facts. The fact this is a "blog" should make no difference.One clear exception, hinted at by WSJ, is if a post is wrong or libellous or otherwise bad, and the site has been given due notice and asked to remove it, and failed to do so.

From what I've read in this case, TP has issued various vague cease and desists, but has never actually been specific. If that's so, then Wall has a strong defense. No court would expect him to cease any discussion on a topic (1st ammendment) - and no court would expect him to be a mind reader. If they have a specific grievance with his blog, then they need to communicate that to him, not vaguely blether.

Note to lawyers ;) this post is conjecture based on incomplete information. So there.

[ihelpyou]

That's right. A letter must be sent. That letter "must" be specific so the site knows what the complaint is. Since that was not the case,... no case.

Opinions can be freely given about anyone or anything in forums. The plaintiff has to prove that the post was wrote knowingly false by the poster. Let's face the facts; if a post is "true" and provable that it is true, then the plaintiff loses.

Everything TP did and is wrote about across many forums is in fact true, and certainly can be proved if need be.

[WebSavvy]

That's grabage. Aaron doesn't deserve to be sued over comments on his blog.

He needs to follow up on this: (might help prove his case!)
Internet Libel (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15066)

[bigDugan]

Originally posted by JohnC
I do find it hard to believe that TP actually thinks this guy hurts its business reputation enough to use libel as a basis for the suit. They did a good job of that on their own. I agree and I think any jury would agree when presented with the overwhelming evidence. I'm sure there are plenty that would be more than happy to testify!
:hi:

[g1smd]

Wasn't there a "Traffic Power ripped me off too" thread somewhere on this forum?

[bigDugan]

If anybody should be suing anybody-- it should be us in a class action against them. :thebomb:

[nuthin]

havent bothered to read the story? maybe i should have?
heh.
i wish everyone good luck in court.
come up with the 21st century.
in my dreams.

[nuthin]

hehe

coming soon *NUTHINS SEO BOOK*

i'm gonna hurt out my secrets ?

gonna sell it for $9.95 will you guys buy??????

hehehehehe

[nuthin]

pity.. if i sell for $9.95 i lose on about $5,000

eh.. i rather make $5,000 sorry guys :D:D

:rolleyes: :p ;)

maybe next year.

when i have a /mansian/house that i own.

*laugh*

[Quadrille]

I'm not Aaron Wall's greatest fan (and I suspect he's not mine!).

But this issue rises above petty squabbles.

It's about free speech, and the Big Question of whether the law should be used as a weapon to frighten people. AW has stated that he will fight (unlike some who've been bullied into self censorship).

Please consider supporting the fund to fight this case: HERE (http://www.seobook.com/archives/001140.shtml) .

[Connie]

Thanks for the link Q. If TP really peruses this I doubt has the kind of money they do for lawyers. I have a feeling that once they know he is not going to buckle under the lawsuit will be dropped, but maybe not.

[g1smd]

This just in.... http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/confirming-a-penalty/


Now Doug. Ya can say "I told ya so".

[JohnC]

That is Absolutly Outstanding.

I love to see Google "Doing no Evil". Staying quiet was not the right thing to do here, so three cheers for Matt..

hip hip horray ..

Hip Hip Horray ..

HIP HIP HORRAY !!!

[Quadrille]

Good stuff ... and don't forget others were threatened, too.

[Connie]

Good to hear. :cheers: :cheers:

[Quadrille]

I was just checking the sewers, and I read an interesting note;

G has dropped TP - but the active site these days is 1p.com (First Place). And that's still there!

[ihelpyou]

I believe G should find "all" domains owned by them and ban them all, and then keep on banning any new ones they pick up. In other words, ban the owner of ever getting listed in Google again under any business name.

[ihelpyou]

It should be:

First ban = 30 day jail time, with a 90 probation period to follow, with parole possible after 2 weeks.

Second ban = 2 year jail time with a lifetime probation period to follow, with parole possible after one year.

3rd ban = Lifetime ban. No parole. Probation not necessary.

[WebSavvy]

That's great! So does anyone know if TP has dropped the suit against Aaron Wall or not?

It'd be nice if Google Lawyers offered to help him. :)

The reason I say that is, the poster on Aaron's blog had stated that TrafficPower websites had been banned in Google for spamming.

Aaron left that comment there because it was TRUE. Then TrafficPower decided to sue Aaron over those comments. Google now admits that it's true that TrafficPower has been banned for spamming.

So IMO, Google Lawyers should also help defend Aaron Wall and Edward Lewis (SEOConsultants.com) because the suits are based on Google's actions toward TrafficPower and the comments and reports made by both Aaron and Edward with regard to Google's actions toward TrafficPower.

Edward had a huge section on his website about TrafficPower and some law suits and complaints that had been filed with regard to TPs business practices.

TP also threatened Edward that if he didn't remove the section they'd sue him too. He removed his section.

They told Aaron Wall to remove the blog comments or be sued. Aaron said he wasn't removing them because they were true. He stood up to them, thus the suit began.

I give Aaron a lot of credit for standing up to them. :cheers:

[Jim_Hedger]

OMG! I just got back from a debaucherous day of golf in which the 19th hole was the longest, most challenging part of the course. I've had a great day but this just caps it off. I just can't stop smiling.

Traffic Power got banned for spamming. They got their client list banned too. They *%^@ed up beyond badly and acted as if they didn't care. From where most observers sat, they didn't seem to care at all.

Dozens of writers (myself included (http://www.isedb.com/db/articles/953/)) have said that sort of stuff about them before but now we can scream it without fear the sky will fall in the form of an expensive lawsuit, as it did in Aaron's case.

I have had my differences in public with Aaron in the past but I absolutely agree with Deb, he showed guts and class during the SLAPP suit TP filed against him. He is a genuinely nice character and has proven himself to be one of the most charitable sem bloggers out there.

I don't know if Matt fully understands the importance of his post confirming the ban against TP. For myself and the dozen or so other writers who covered the TP spam shop saga, Matt has opened the gates, lifted the chill and given us undeniable proof of a truth we have known all along. In short, Cutts has declared it to be open season on Traffic Power. Now that raises an interesting question...

Just how far are Cutts and his team of spam fighting Googlites willing to go? Last week it was a short but very noisy riff on BMW.de/. This weekend he absolutely confirms the ban against Traffic Power. What do the two events have in common?

-- Doorway Pages--

There was one other thing that caught Google's attention back in the summer of 2004 (when TP got banned). Matt didn't mention it in his blog posting.

TP used an absurdly large network of doorway pages as an indescribably complex link-farm. The network of doorway pages created an artificial link density for pages or documents within it that worked wonders against the link-dependant algo Google was running at the time.

Though the Google engineers already knew about the exploit, the massive degree to which Traffic Power pulled it was one of the major catalysts in the Jagger/Big Daddy updates playing through today.

Again, how far does this go though? I think Matt and spam-team should take a look at AdWords landing pages that do not use robots.txt to exclude spiders. I have a quiet beef with other SEM firms that create AdWords landing pages (a good thing) without including robots.txt files (a dumb oversight or intentional spam).

[Connie]

I don't think the law suite has been dropped against Aaron. It may well be in a few days after Matt's revelation.

Whether Google actually takes the stand his attorneys should be able to use that post.

Another site that has been sued by TP is www.trafficpower*****.com.

Aaron is asking people to contribute to their legal defense rather than his own at this time. It seems that he has received enough donations for the time being.

[pageoneresults]

TP also threatened Edward that if he didn't remove the section they'd sue him too. He removed his section.We were actually in the process of removing everything before the C&D arrived. When it arrived, we decided we did our part in getting the message out there and opted not to waste our hard earned money on a frivolous lawsuit, we've been there done that. It was a lot easier to just remove what we had publicly and continue to work behind the scenes in an assist mode.

Plus, for some strange reason, Google held our TP/1P pages in their cache (almost a year since being removed) up until about the time Matt made his post about TP/1P being banned. We're those held in cache purposely?

[WebSavvy]

Yep, I can understand that too, Edward.

Now that Google has made a "public announcement" confirming that TrafficPower has indeed been removed from Google's index for utilizing spam techniques, it would seem reasonable that you would be able to republish your TP research section.

It would be a public service, Edward. There are I'm sure, lots of people who might still be unaware of the unsavory business ethics practiced by TP that could possibly be spared, if they were able to find the information.

Your TP research section was probably one of the most extensive ones I've ever seen.

No, I don't think Google held those pages on purpose. There've been lots of issues surrounding old data being cached in their index long after the source page no longer exists on the originating domain.

I have pages from my directory that were removed 2 years ago that Google still has in their index and cached.

Go figure.

[nuthin]

Originally posted by Jim_Hedger
I have a quiet beef with other SEM firms that create AdWords landing pages (a good thing) without including robots.txt files (a dumb oversight or intentional spam).

reminds me of Inktomi's PFI program.
that's why Inktomi ended up with alot of spam.
they couldn't or wouldn't control this sort of thing.
although Ink was much more easy manipulated in the rankings, I would assume an SEO/SEM firm may have alot more trouble getting those actual pages placed, unless there working from an authority domain.

[LikeMike]

I hope this turns into a great First Amendment case protecting blogs and forums from lawsuits on the basis of free speech!

I have my doubts it will go that far, but we can only hope. Sorry it's such a pain for the kid.

[ihelpyou]

There is already precedence set in the courts for free speech in forums, etc. As has always been the case, if something is "true", then you can write about it all you wish.

[Connie]

My take is Traffic Power is claiming the claims against them are false. Since Matt publicly stated that Traffic Power and all their clients were banned. That takes the wind out of Traffic Powers claim and legal argument.

[g1smd]

Yep. That's it.

TP and their sites were banned.

When customers complained, TP said there was no ban, and nothing to worry about. TP changed their spam method and Google took much heavier action as soon as they caught it.

When people wrote blogs exposing TP as a scam, the bloggers were threatened with a lawsuit.

Google has now confirmed that the bloggers were right. TP was banned for breaking the Google webmaster guidelines.

[LikeMike]

Gee Doug I realize posts are covered by the courts, but I really wish it was as clear cut as you might think. As we all know the courts in this country are in constant confusion regarding liability and 1st Amendment issues.

My only hope is that there will be a clear cut case soon. So that the right of free speech in this country is really "protected" on the net.

Unfortunately, I think along with a alot of other folks that it will take hell to freeze before the high court takes it on. I hope not! The net is growing too fast for the courts to sit on the sidelines for too much longer.

[Connie]

I'm not a lawyer, but I do not see the law suites as a free speech situation.

Free Speech does not include libel. As a non attorney I see libel as the heart of TP's claims against against SEOBook and Trafficpower*****.com.

When Matt posted that TP had been banned by Google that cut to the heart of their law suite.

TP no longer has a case IMHO which is not worth much.

[ihelpyou]

It's clear cut stuff if what anyone writes is "true" and can be proven to be true.

Putting it this way; "Anyone" or company can sue anyone else or company anytime they wish for defamation or libel, etc. TP can sue anyone they wish for the same thing. Just because someone sues someone else means nothing. They have to have a case and prove that case in court.

Everything I've read about TP is very true, and can be proven as Google says themselves it's all true. TP can still sue, but it does not mean they would win that suit. If something wrote is "true", you can bet money the courts would allow it to be wrote if it went to trial.

[ihelpyou]

http://www.seobook.com/buy-now.shtml

It's all fine and dandy that Matt Cutts has clearly stated that TP was banned, etc, but I find that silly "sales guru" page nauseating at best.

I'd never be associated with that type of page like those testimonials are.

"Triple your Traffic in 90 days"

LOL You gotta be kidding me?

But oh yes; Our industry is promoting this kind of stuff. What does this say about the state of our industry? You too can be great at SEO if you simply read this few dollar ebook.

Please give me a break already.

[pageoneresults]

Our industry is promoting this kind of stuff. What does this say about the state of our industry? You too can be great at SEO if you simply read this few dollar ebook.Douglas, have you read the book? I did. I liked it enough where we opened up our directory to promoting it in certain places. It is an excellent culmination of basic and advanced information that any beginner, novice and even expert might find handy. Heck, the resouces section alone is worth the price of the book. Come on Doug, give it a break. I'll agree, the one page long scrolling sales copy doesn't do much for either of us, but, it works.

[ihelpyou]

That is BS Edward.

You have a change of heart? That's not what you wrote when it came out and you read it, right? All the sudden the book is great?

LOL

No, you can give me a break.

NO DAMN EBOOK is worth squat............. even if I personally wrote the darn thing. :)

And Next; I read where he claims our industry has "nothing" to do with ethics? Ya gotta pulling my chain. It's EVERYTHING to do with ethics. That book claims is only about the "techniques" being used. I guess search engine spam is fine and dandy with most other places, but it sure ain't fine and dandy for this place. :)

[g1smd]

>> ""No ebook is worth squat"" <<

That is a very broad sweeping statement, that by its very nature has to be untrue.

You are saying that not a single thing ever published is remotely useful. Nothing at all?

You can't be serious.


What if I got together with Irony, Copywriter, and a few others, and put together a list of all the stuff that was useful and then published it in an e-book? You saying that would be rubbish too? I think you are.


And, pageone is entitled to change his opinion. The book may have been less than useful when it was first published. But having been refined over several years, how do you know that there is still nothing of use in there? Have you actually read it recently?

[Connie]

I won't comment on the value of Aaron's book because I haven't read it. Probably never will. I don't like electronic books.

If I were to come across that book from the result of a search I would not order it because of the order page. It turns me off. Especially this.Webmasters: I Guarantee YOU Can
Triple Your Traffic - in 90 Days -
or You Don't Pay A Single Penny!

That page looks like it was written by Cory Rudl or Ken Envoy.

I don't think you can say the book has no value or useful information based on the sales page.

To say that one would have to actually read the book.

[g1smd]

Look. Most people who own a website are totally clueless on even the basics of setting it up, and optimising it, right?

We see the same questions about redirects, titles, descriptions, links, all the time here in this forum, right?

Answering those questions is easy, and if the people asking them put the work in, then they see an improvement in their results, right?

We have already seen plenty enough people here that have taken the advice from here and seen their positions and their traffic grow, right?

So, if that ebook contains the same sort of advice that is dished out daily in these forums (and from everything I have seen written about it, that is indeed what it does contain), when then wouldn't the people reading that book, and following its advice, not get the same sort of results as the people who follow the advice given out here in this forum get?

They wouldn't would they? So, although you might see it as a crap marketing line, I actually think it is quite a good one. If taking the advice of the book, doesn't increase your traffic we will give you your money back. Great.

If you are claiming your money back on it, then either you are already an expert and didn't need any of the advice, or else you were too stupid to understand a word of it, or just too lazy to put it into action.

I'll bet that he hardly ever gets a refund request. How many people have taken the advice in this forum, and not seen an improvement? Almost none.

[ihelpyou]

So, if that ebook contains the same sort of advice that is dished out daily in these forums (and from everything I have seen written about it, that is indeed what it does contain),
Funny that you can read what some say is the same thing in here, and do it "free", and not for 79 bucks.

Second; That ebook "cannot" give personal advice to the "owner" who is reading that ebook, right? We do indeed do that in here......... for free.

3rd; Not you g1 "AT ALL", but many out there who praise this ebook are in that little "circle" of friends who scratch each other's back. I want no part of that circle.

And fourth; I mis-wrote. Should have said this:

"No SEO ebook is worth squat, unless it's free"

That's better.

Considering free info can be read and discussed in here, "and" personal site critiques can be given in "real" time, an owner who spends 79 bucks for this... well, more power to him.

And further:

That guarantee thingie if your traffic doesn't triple is the kind of thing this industry is known for. Cheap ebooks and cheap spammers and scammers and those who promote them at other places are what is hurting this industry.

Giving "new" people or new websites a sales spiel that misleads them into believing this stuff can be bought for 79 bucks is nuts.

I guess we all have to close up shop, right? :)

And no; I don't have to read the book. There is plenty of stuff to read about it already. I only had to read "one" statement out there to know all I needed to know.

paraphrasing:

no such thing as spam and ethics in this industry. It's all about doing the best for the client, "no matter" what it takes.



that's all I need to know about that book.

[ihelpyou]

Oh, I also heard it really does not address the site architectural and overall structure, and also of the shopping cart or CMS sytem, etc.

This place teaches that SEO = Website Design

I think we all agree in here that if a site is built properly, no need to hire a "SEO" later, and no need to buy a book later either. :)

[Jim_Hedger]

Thank goodness most don't design their sites correctly in the first place eh?

Doug is correct, to a point. I think the SEO industry is evolving quickly and in the coming years, SEO will be an ongoing part of a much larger marketing plan, worked in cooperation and conjunction with marketing expertise in other media.

A well designed website might wish to hire an SEO firm to act as long-term site managers. For instance, some of our clients run their new content past us before posting it to the web. In all instances, we communicate on behalf of our clients if our research or general travels bring us across sites relevant to theirs.

We conduct market research for clients and can usually explain why the search engines act the way they do.

There are any number of reasons for well designed sites to hire SEOs on an ongoing basis.

[ihelpyou]

Yes.

and you can't spend 79 bucks for general information if you want consulting on a specific page of content you want to add to your website. No book can help you with that. :)

If people want to learn the "basics", there are plenty of resources to do just that, and for free.

Let's face facts:

There are a great many "tools" out there of many different types and colors that claim this and that, and are very cheap if not free to use. If a new site owner wants to be real serious about his internet business, does he really think he can simply read a book, or buy the next best and greatest tool to all the sudden start gaining good positions in se's, and making lots of sales? I really don't think that's possible. We all were new at one time, and I can remember distinctly how difficult it was back then. Back then we did not have much of anything or anyone to even scam us as there is today. I can't imagine what things would be like today and being brand new to the internet. :rolleyes:

The questions and comments I get over the phone and thru email about what this person told them, or that person wrote them, is totally astounding. The huge amounts of BS and total crap that is out there is astounding and very overwhelming.

[Quadrille]

I've split the rest of this thread off into a new one: Watching Search Engine Watch (http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21473), as the subject matter had become rather different to this discussion ...