Don't stay quiet!

[LS-Stomper]

Yeah, I'm pissed.

Besides emailing every LS addy I can obtain,
I'm sending off the following email/letter via snail mail
with the following C/O's:

Mr.Evan Thornley CEO
Mr.Jason Kellerman COO
Ms. Martha Clark CFO

Perhaps if we all band together and spread the word to
send these types of responses, we at the very least
can shake up LS a tad. bastards.


LookSmart, Ltd.
625 2nd Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
US

Dear Looksmart (Act Dumb) Assholes<----(Insert True Names Here)

Thank you for your "We're excited to offer you this new product." Email this morning.

I have some news for you in response.

You really should rethink your "Small Business Listings" scam.

I have over a dozen clients that I only recently submitted to Looksmart basic submit after charging them your standard submit fees. NOW I have to tell them that they have to pay a monthly fee?

What the hell kind of business practice is that?

Plus, you the audacity to insult my intelligence and claim: "Based on feedback from customers like you"??

You must be joking, right???

I can tell you, I participate in several online Webmaster forums and EVERYONE is up in arms about this. I'm talking thousands of webmasters!

There is talk of lawsuits, petitions to MSN to cease using Looksmart, boycott campaigns etc etc etc...

Looksmart is making a huge mistake by telling everyone that's "paid" for inclusion now MUST do this pay per click bullshit.

This is outright fraud! And the only people that suffer are the surfing public. I can assure you protest press releases are also imminent.

Perhaps when MSN gets wind of your impending doom, they'll consider utilizing a "true peoples" search engine such as goggle. The only comfort I have is that MSN Webmasters that frequents one of the forums says that rumors abound within MSN That they are considering doing just that. I wonder how your stockholders will react should you lose MSN as a partner?

Since I have recently spent thousands of my clients dollars for the Looksmart basic submit, and now have to inform them that as July 22, they will not be included unless They "PAY" again, after sending this letter, I am heading right to my attorneys office to seek options in pursuing litigation against Looksmart.

I'm then going to work on press releases to send to every
major online media outlet, newspapers etc.

And guess what? I'm not alone.

What you are doing is wrong, and will not be without consequences.

Sincerely,

Bla Bla

-----------

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums LS-Stumper! :hi:

Very good letter.

I find it very ironic that the stockholders of LS feel exactly the opposite of us??

Do these people even own a web site? Did they pay $300 to be in Looksmart and then were screwed??

Take a look:
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=22689351&tid=look&sid=22689351&mid=27832

I tried to sign up but Yahoo would not take my zip code.. duh.

Who the heck has built up this Looksmart directory over the last 3 years? WHo the heck has praised LS to MANY web sites over the last years?? Who has promoted them time after time?

WHO HAS BEEN ROYALLY SCREWED? We have.

Hey stockholders, have you been screwed by this? Do you have clients you have to answer to now?

Did you pay $300 to these bozos thinking it was a one-time fee??

Please answer me stockholders. I am all ears.

[Advisor]

Nice letter, Stomper. But are you really going to your attorney's office, or is it simply a lot of talk. Unless some actually DO something like that, everything will go along smoothly for LS. So who's gonna really do something?

Jill

[LS-Stomper]

Oh yessssss..

I really am. I just got off the phone with him, and
have an appointment on Tue morning. He's going to help
"revise" the letter before I send it.

I face serious backlash from my customers because of this.

It only takes a couple minutes to send write and send a letter.

I suggest everyone give it a shot.

At the very least, it makes me feel a little better
getting my anger out on paper, and getting it
known to the cause.

Cheers

[ihelpyou]

What is this I hear about a monthly minimum of $30 to boot? I hear that you are given your so-called free clicks of 100 a month, but you also have to give another $15 a month to them as well??

[ihelpyou]

I fear we don't know the whole scoop yet on just how bad existing customers have bee screwed.

Has anyone logged in and updated their existing listing or any of their clients?

I strongly suggest you do NOT do so and wait until the very end.

I hear you HAVE to start paying the $15 per month right away on top of the free clicks that you do get.

Not only that, but in order to activate, you give LS your credit card info ahead of time even if you choose the minimum of 100 clicks a month. Don't know about you all, but I don't trust these people anymore to give them free reign over my card information.

[Advisor]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
What is this I hear about a monthly minimum of $30 to boot? I hear that you are given your so-called free clicks of 100 a month, but you also have to give another $15 a month to them as well?? Ok, now we're just getting crazy. There was no reason in anything I read to think that. No reason at all. Don't spread rumors unless you can point to where it says that in LS's TOS.

As to you, Stomper, you go! Be sure to print off their Terms of Service. I hope you have a copy of their old ones also. Your attorney will need to see all that, I suspect, since that's what you supposedly agreed to when you originally submit to them. Let us know how it goes!

Jill

[ihelpyou]

That is why I am asking??

Again, has anyone updated their existing listing yet?

[Advisor]

Doug, I activated my account last night at 1 am when I got their email. You get 100 free clicks for each listing. Yes, you do have to give them your credit card, but no charges should appear. You DO have to set ALL of your URLs for the 100 click max., however. If you don't, and you go over, you'd have to pay. The way I set mine, I am assuming that I will be free of any charges until 20 months from now when I will promptly delete all my listings (if LS is even still an entity in 20 months). I did not (and will not, upgrade any listings). I do have a client, however, who was thinking about updating his listing anyway, so I may look into it for him. I'll let you know if I do anything.

Jill

[Kal]

Jill - are you sure you have to set the 100 click minimum? Because when I logged in there was a message in tiny writing advising existing customers against setting a click limit in order to get the best value. Are you also saying that if we don't set a limit LS will automatically debit our card to the value of the extra clicks received? I didn't see that anywhere...

[Advisor]

Originally posted by Kal
Jill - are you sure you have to set the 100 click minimum? Because when I logged in there was a message in tiny writing advising existing customers against setting a click limit in order to get the best value. Are you also saying that if we don't set a limit LS will automatically debit our card to the value of the extra clicks received? I didn't see that anywhere... Yes, that's exactly what the whole program is about. You HAVE to pay $15 minimum a month if you're in the program. However, they have been "genererous" enough to give existing customers 100 free clicks for 20 months (or $15 a month). But they certainly don't mind if you want or need more than 100 clicks. You just have to pay them .15 a click. So if you don't set your amount to 100 clicks, of course you will be charged for anything over that, which is why they make you activate your credit card. You can also set your amount for higher, like 200 clicks a month, but then of course, you will have to pay for them.

Kal, did you activate your accounts? It seemed pretty clear to me, from what I read.

Jill

[angelina]

Hey everyone - I agree with Jill about making sure you have the proper documents on hand before meeting with your attorneys. I don't have a copy right now, but I am positive that their previous TOS did clearly state that the $299 submission fee was payment solely for an expedited review of the site by LS editors. If sites were rejected (and a couple of mine were), customers were not eligible for refunds, as the editors had already evaluated the sites (which is what you were actually paying for). Obviously, we all submitted because we wanted our sites to be listed, but this was never promised in their Terms of Service. Also, I don't think keywords were ever a part of their old system - just wishful thinking on our parts. I remember asking about these, and being told that LS didn't recognize or use keywords.

Anyway, just be sure to have those documents on hand, that's all. Lawyers need that stuff, or there will be no case.

[Kal]

Originally posted by Advisor
So if you don't set your amount to 100 clicks, of course you will be charged for anything over that, which is why they make you activate your credit card. You can also set your amount for higher, like 200 clicks a month, but then of course, you will have to pay for them.

Kal, did you activate your accounts? It seemed pretty clear to me, from what I read.

Jill
Actually for current customers with accounts for 1 URL, you don't need to set your click minimum. If you are a previous Express customer and you "activate" your account, L$ assume you want to keep your monthly budget at the minimum $15 per URL per month (which consists of 100 free clicks). If you don't set your click minimum, they give you clicks up to the value of whatever monthly budget you set (initially set at the $15 worth of "free" clicks). Taken from the account section of L$:

"Listings without click limits will continue receiving clicks until the monthly budget for the account has been reached. To drive the most amount of traffic to your site, do not set a click limit for your listing".

The benefit of NOT setting a click limit comes into play for accounts where you have multiple URL's listed. Say you have 6 URL's listed in one account, each assigned $15 worth of "free" clicks per month, bringing your monthly budget up to $90 per month. If 2 of those URL's are no longer as important (say ex-clients or outdated product sites), you can set their click limit to 100 per month and that still leaves $60 worth of "free" monthly account credit to be distributed amongst the remaining 4 more important sites.

Not setting a click limit on those remaining sites means that the clicks can be distributed according to the popularity of those sites - some might receive more than the 100 per month others fewer. Not setting a limit ensures you don't waste any of the "free" clicks available to you per month. This is even more important for previous Site Promote customers to ensure they make the most of the extra "paid" clicks allocated per month (with the added advantage - or disadvantage - of having those additional paid clicks shared across all URL's without set click limits in the account).

L$ will not automatically debit the credit cards of existing clients UNLESS you set your monthly budget at higher than your free monthly credit budget OR you are an existing Site Promote customer. If you no longer want to pay your $29.95 per month for what was previously called Site Promote and what is now called "relevancy keywords", you can reduce your monthly budget by $29.95 and just keep your "free" credit per month. But it seems to make more sense to keep paying because you are now getting $49 worth of "value" for $29.95.

To answer your question Jill - I have activated 2 of my 6 accounts so far.

[dvduval]

I gave em heck, Doug. I hope you will give it a read.

[Kal]

Just found this on their "Assistance" page:

----------------
Each of your listings has been upgraded to a Small Business Listing. In addition, your account will receive a free monthly credit of $15 worth of clicks for each of your listings. Once you activate your account, the monthly account credits of $15 per listing will continue for a total of 20 months.

Please note that in the past, customers were allowed to submit up to five URLs per domain with the Express Submit product. Small Business Listings are now restricted to listing one URL per business. However, all of your past listings have been "grand-fathered" into Small Business Listings. Please do not submit additional URLs from the same business to this product, as new listings will be subject to the LookSmart Listing guidelines.
----------------

This throws doubt on my above theory about being able to allocate clicks across various sites up to the monthly free total, but I will ask them as it's still not crystal clear. :confused: The grandfathering of multiple existing listings is good news though...

[ihelpyou]

hey Kal, I believe you need to read all the stuff a couple times more. I think LS has snowballed you with all of the spin. :) You seem to be reading more into it than what there is. I could be wrong but if you do Not set your monthly limit to the 100 free clicks, LS is going to automatically charge your credit card for anything over that. You cannot just let them do as they please without setting a limit on your clicks. They are not going to set this limit for you.

[Kal]

No, that's not what it says Doug. They will only charge you up to your set monthly budget - which is automatically set at your free click credit unless you increase it.

[Advisor]

Yep, I don't know what you're reading, Kal, but I think you're misunderstanding. What Doug said above is what I believe to be true also.

On a similar note, I discussed this whole thing briefly with my husband and he thinks (without reading their contract) that a contract that is so one sided is not enforceable and a class action suit could easily be started. This is only his thoughts from the little bit I told him, and not a true legal opinion, mind you. But it was interesting, nonetheless!

Jill

[ihelpyou]

a contract that is so one sided is not enforceable and a class action suit could easily be started.
yes, the end result is very one sided as well. :)

Tell him to get this going and we will go for it!

[Kal]

Originally posted by Advisor
Yep, I don't know what you're reading, Kal, but I think you're misunderstanding. What Doug said above is what I believe to be true also.
Let me try this again. This is taken direct from L$ on my account page after I logged in:

-----------
* A click limit equals the maximum amount of traffic you'd like delivered to your listing during your billing period. Listings without click limits will continue receiving clicks until the monthly budget for the account has been reached. To drive the most amount of traffic to your site, do not set a click limit for your listing.
-----------

Unless you change it, the monthly budget is set at your free entitlement.

<edit>great news about the class action suit - can overseas clients qualify?</edit>

[ihelpyou]

That is spin Kal. Please read it again and in a different way. You are looking at it very wrong. :)

[Kal]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
That is spin Kal.
How is that spin? You've got total control over the monthly budget max. Unless you are saying you think they will increase your monthly budget without your knowledge?

[ihelpyou]

Oh yes. You have to set your limit. You have to set your limit at the 100 free clicks, otherwise, if you go over, you are charged for the clicks.

[ihelpyou]

That is why I ain't bothering to log in until July 10th and I suggest others do the same. That way you continue to receive as many clicks as you can get until then.

[ihelpyou]

:green:
To drive the most amount of traffic to your site, do not set a click limit for your listing.
:green:

Oh they spin is killing me. :green: Well gee, I wonder why? Could it be that you wish me to not set a limit because you wish to separate more money from me?

[Kal]

No - that's not right. I have logged in and activated 2 of my 6 accounts and my monthly budget was already set at the "free" click credit amount. I haven't set click limits for 75% of my URL's in those accounts. Unless you've logged in Doug, you are speculating.

If you choose to edit your monthly budget, you get taken to a page where it says:
--------------
Set Your Monthly Budget
Set your monthly budget and click limits using the appropriate drop-down menus below. If there is a charge associated with your budget adjustment, you will be taken to the checkout page to complete your order.
--------------

[ihelpyou]

Kal, if you don't set a monthly budget, how will LS know when to stop sending you visitors? They won't know and will keep sending them.

But you are right, I have no clue and do not wish to know until July 10th. :)

[Kal]

But Doug I HAVE set a monthly budget - by accepting the default monthly budget they allocated me (my FREE credit budget of $15 per month). Setting a click limit doesn't control the TOTAL amount spent, setting the monthly budget does that. Setting a click limit controls the number of clicks you're willing to buy per listing.

Look, here is a further explanation taken from their FAQ's:

---------------------

How does the automatic monthly account refill work?

If, at the end of a billing period, your account balance is below your monthly budget, we will refill your account up to your budget level. Your credit card will then be charged that amount. For example, if your monthly budget is $40 and at the end of the month your account balance is $7, we will add $33 to 'refill' your account and your credit card will be charged $33.

Do I have to pay upfront for my traffic?

Yes. New customers must make an initial account deposit of at least $150. Click charges are debited from this deposit. When your account balance falls below your monthly budget, your account balance will be refilled up to your monthly budget level and your credit card will be charged accordingly.

How can I ensure that I don't spend more than I can afford?

When you set your monthly account budget, you are indicating the maximum amount you are willing to spend for traffic each month. LookSmart will keep track of your clicks and your spending through each monthly billing period to ensure that your budget is not exceeded.

----------------------

[ihelpyou]

hey Jill, why did you set your limit to 100 clicks a month if you did not have to? According to what Kal is saying, you do not have to tell them 100 clicks.

[angelina]

Doug,

No offense, but you really do need to read first, then make comments. Otherwise, you are misleading all who visit your forums in search of honest help.

Once your monthly budget is set, LS will only charge you up to that limit. If you log in now and don't change anything, you will only be "charged" for your free clicks (thus, you won't be charged). For 20 months, then if you don't go back into your account and make changes, they will then start charging your credit card $15/month for each listing in your account. If you cancel all of your listings before the 20 months is up, your credit card will never be charged.

If you want more than your free clicks, you have to set your budget accordingly. For instance, if you set your budget to $500/month, then LS will only give you $500/month worth of clicks. After you've used up the $500, they will not charge anything more to your card during that billing cycle. However, if your budget remains set to $500, LS will charge your card again at the beginning of the following billing cycle. You are in control of these charges. If you use up your $500 before the end of the first billing cycle, then reset your budget to 0, LS will charge $0 to your card the next month. Meaning, no charge, but also no clicks, because these are what you're paying for.

If you set your monthly budget to $500, but only use $400 worth of clicks that month, then you will still have $100 in your account at the beginning of the next billing cycle. In this case, LS will charge your CC $400, so that you have enough $ in your account to cover the $500 worth of clicks you said you wanted (this is what the budget is about).

This is just my understanding of all this, but I think it's fairly sound. Again, I really feel you're doing visitors to this board a disservice if you continue to give false information.

I may not be happy about all the changes, but at least I've taken the time to try & understand the facts here.

[ihelpyou]

How is Jill and I giving false info when what you just said is how I understand it as well?
Once your monthly budget is set, LS will only charge you up to that limit.
Exactly. That's what I said. You have to set your limit. Again, what I said.

[Kal]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Exactly. That's what I said.
No Doug, it's not :rolleyes: But never mind. The whole thing is very confusing and L$ really should've made it clearer. It all s-u-c-k-s.

[ihelpyou]

Again, I really feel you're doing visitors to this board a disservice if you continue to give false information.
Thanks for your words of wisdom angelina. I appreciate your help. Reading back thru all 5 prior posts you have made, it seems you always wish to confront me in one way or another. Thank you.

[dvduval]

Have you guys checked the Yahoo discussion lately. It's pretty funny how the shareholders thing that Q2 and Q3 is going to be good for LookSmart. What do you think? Can they pull this off without a revenue loss ?

[angelina]

sorry Doug, I didn't realize that agreeing with you was a requirement for posting here. I have tried to present the situation as I see it, because it appears to me that you haven't been clear about what is really happening. If you can't take the heat, maybe you should think twice about jumping into the fire?

Anyway, it wasn't clear to me in your previous posts that you understood that LS absolutely could not charge you for anything without your consent. Again, if you have an account now, and DON"T set a limit, it will remain set at $15/month per listing, depending on however many listings you have. If you use up this $15/month that they've given you, then they will not be able to charge your card without consent. When your $15/month X however many listings you have is used up for that billing cycle, NOTHING HAPPENS, even if you haven't set a budget or limit or done anything. When the next billing cycle begins, you have $15/month for each listing in your account, once again. Only if you set your limit higher will they charge you anything.

Again, I"m sorry if I offended you in any way, but I have the right to state my opinions here, right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

When it comes to $, I don't feel it's a good idea to lead your visitor s astray. All I'm saying is that LS absolutely CANNOT charge anyone's credit card for more than they're agreed to be charged. If you don't want to be charged anything, you can activate your account & do nothing, or not activate the account & do nothing. Still no charge either way.

[angelina]

In one of your earlier posts, doug, you said:

"Oh yes. You have to set your limit. You have to set your limit at the 100 free clicks, otherwise, if you go over, you are charged for the clicks."

If you go over the 100 free clicks, you are NOT charged unless you have set a higher limit, YOURSELF. If you have gone in & set your limit to 500 clicks, then you will be charged for the additional 400 clicks, yes. Because you have set your own budget, based on their posted fees.

Also, if you don't set your budget, your site will not just receive unlimited clicks. You will receive only the free clicks they gave you (based on the number of listings in your account), then you will not be charged, nor will your listing be allowed to get any more clicks. So it doesn't harm you, nor does it benefit you, to choose not to activate your account. You get the same amount of clicks either way.

[dvduval]

Angelina,

Do you understand that you are mostly paying for the clicks that result from the Category listings that we had all been getting for free until now? e.g. in the MSN main search results

[Kal]

Originally posted by dvduval
Have you guys checked the Yahoo discussion lately. It's pretty funny how the shareholders thing that Q2 and Q3 is going to be good for LookSmart. What do you think? Can they pull this off without a revenue loss ?

Where's that thread dvd?

[ihelpyou]

If you go over the 100 free clicks, you are NOT charged unless you have set a higher limit, YOURSELF.

Yes.

Nevertheless, LS *****.

[ihelpyou]

wow dvd, I am shocked at that Yahoo message board thread.

I am done posting in there. I was very nice in there and tried to get them to see both sides. They refused and got very nasty and still continue to be nasty.

Now we understand why Looksmart is the way they are. They have investors that are totally buying the 'spin' and running blind. They have investors that have NO clue about internet marketing, SEO, or the search engine world in general. They basically must be blind to Google, Overture, and everyone else.

Why they feel that users, webmasters, seo's or anyone would continue to use Looksmart OR their partners now is beyond me. You can get much better bite for your dollars with OVerture and Google. MUCH BETTER.

[ihelpyou]

http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=22689351&tid=look&sid=22689351&mid=27939

They are now getting personal. Very sad.

I think I am reading lots of jealousy involved with some investors knowing ALL they know is investing. They have never had a site and would not have a clue as to how to have an online business. They have bucks and sit there and invest. They have no knowledge about building a site with content to present online.

I am thinkin they see all forums out there that are upset with Looksmart and are worried about it.

This is not good publicity for Looksmart and investors know it. In spite of the utter lack of understanding, the customers should be a business' most important asset. Looksmart treated us like ****. LS will pay for that in the long run.

[smurffeedback]

Maybe some of us investors are happy with the change. I know that I am incredibly happy with it now that I don't have to rely on a SEO for my information.

[smurffeedback]

Obviously LOOK has cut out the middleman (You), and that is why you are trying to skew opinions of your customers toward your level.

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forums Smurf! :hi:

Yes. I can see and appreciate your side of the fence. All I wish you all would do is see the "customers" side of the fence as well. Don't you think Looksmart was built by us, the "customers"?

[ihelpyou]

Obviously LOOK has cut out the middleman (You), and that is why you are trying to skew opinions of your customers toward your level.
The customers of Looksmart who paid already and are listed don't need to be "skewed" by me. They already know they have been screwed.

Oh, btw, how do you believe an SEO is cut out by this? SEO's are needed by Looksmart and YOU, the webmaster who knows nothing about the search engines. We are needed now, more than ever before. The problem LS has created, is they have betrayed the very people they need.

[ihelpyou]

LOL. Looksmart investors are sitting on the edge of their seats and are EXTRemely worried right now. LOL

The amount of bad PR LOOK is getting is astounding. ALL major newsletters out there are having something to say. ALL major forums out there have something to say. LOL

NOT GOOD FOR LOOK.

[ihelpyou]

http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=22689351&tid=look&sid=22689351&mid=27960

hey markco, thanks a bunch for giving me and my forums soooo much publicity. I appeciate all the clicks we are receiving right now from Yahoo.

I noticed you simply posted my post in there. That was great as it was a very good post. You could not really make a comment about it, could you? I see you did not know what to say so you basically said nothing.

Again, thank you and thanks to all of your LOOK investor friends for giving the forums a lot of good PR.

As you might not know, having links on other sites helps a bunch. Of course you would not know that as you need forums like mine to show you the way of the world. If it was not for good, free content out there, people like you and your bud friends would be teetotally lost. It's people like me and the members in here who HELP people like you daily. That is why we are needed. We are needed by search directories like LOOK as well. Eventually you will see why.

Gee, did I just call Looksmart a directory? Silly me as we know the Yellow Pages when we see them. LOL

BTW markco and buds, take a good look at the other up and coming directories out there like:

www.goguides.org and
www.joeant.com

Watch out for them. They see an opening right now. ;)

[ihelpyou]

Now the LOOK buds think I receive "kickbacks" from Overture and Google for laying it on the line about the Looksmart ways. LOL

:green:

Gee, I have NEVER given Overture a dime for any of my sites OR my clients sites. LOL

:green:

I think these people need to read up in here about member stances on many things. That is, if they can truly understand our industry.

Hey Smurf; where have I attacked you in any of my posts in here? You said this:
http://messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=22689351&tid=look&sid=22689351&mid=27945

??

Please explain yourself to me and the members in here. Thanks.

[MakeMeTop]

>Maybe some of us investors are happy with the change...

Quite understandable - but investors don't make a company in the long-term, customers do. Probably the combined ongoing purchases from LookSmart ran at several $K per week from the people on this board, if you couple that with the sentiments at the other major SE discussions groups such as seen at http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum6/872.htm then you are looking at big money at risk! Not a good idea to alienate ongoing customers when the only thing currently going for L$ is their MSN listings and the fact that many SE professionals are acting as unpaid sales agents to promote L$. If anything happened to them - L$ are pretty much history. Remember, 95% of webmasters have never even heard of LookSmart, let alone are going to line up to spend dough with them. L$ (like Overture) exists because of the results it provides to its partners.

I am unlikely to put new customers into L$ as they won't wear it. Overture is cheaper and ranks higher on MSN currently, doesn't charge for keywords, title or description changes, will accept multiple pages and doesn't pretend to be anything but what it is - an advertising vehicle - not an impartial directory. Why on earth would a client want to go on L$ now? It makes no sense apart for key words where the bid is higher on Overture - but then you have no guarantee of appearing with L$ - it is down to their algo or MSNs.

Why didn't L$ just go to an annual fee? There would have been some howls but most people would have gone with it and I would have kept submitting my site or two every week (as would most others). Just doesn't make sense to me.

[Advisor]

All I can say is that LookSmart must have changed the way they're doing it since I activated 5 minutes after reading my email from them at 1 AM the other night. At that time, the clicks were NOT set for anything, and in their rules it said what Kal previously stated...if your clicks are set for no amount you'll get the maximum benefit and clicks. (And be charged after $15). Now, I'm guessing they went in and changed the default the very next day or something because people were pissed. But I can tell you for SURE that mine were NOT set at 100, they were set for NO AMOUNT, which to me meant the maximum.

And as to the lawsuit, sorry, but we'll need to find another attorney to do it. My husband has enough on his plate as he is an attorney at a construction firm. He can't take on outside lawsuits, unfortunately. But I imagine there are some Internet attorneys out there somewhere who'd LOVE to take this one.

Jill

[Advisor]

Hey guys, here's the federal court precendent showing how Campbell Soup was "unconscionable" with their contract. It's seems to be very similar to what LookSmart has done. My husband had read about this case in law school and remembered it and thought it might apply here. Again, he hasn't read LookSmart's contract, so this could be totally off base, but to me, an uneducated consumer, it sounds eerily similar.

Here's the info (not the whole case): http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:f5Q64-zHzLQC:www.itmootcourt.com/2001/briefs/fsu4.doc+campbell+soup+unconscionable&hl=en

Scroll down to the highlighted terms.

If a case were to be made, people could possibly win their $299 back, or it's possible that triple damages could even be awarded.

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Very good find!

Precedence has already been set then. Yes, it is very much like what has happened.

[Advisor]

Overture is cheaper and ranks
higher on MSN currently, doesn't charge for keywords, title or description changes, will accept multiple pages and doesn't pretend to be anything but what it is - an advertising vehicle - not an impartial directory. Why on earth would a client want to go on L$ now? It makes no sense apart for key words where the bid is higher on Overture - but then you have no guarantee of appearing with L$ - it is down to their algo or MSNs.You are absolutely correct! Thanks for giving me good reason to never use LookSmart again! Guess I better start learning how to use Overture, because if I have any clients who want top listings in MSN (that can't be gotten through Inktomi), that's exactly what I'll do.

Thanks for the the insights, MMT, you always know what you're talking about!

Jill

[ihelpyou]

wow, thinkin some more. :)

How is it possible that a company could come up with all of this, even in there wildest dreams?

How could anyone so alienate everyone so completely like what has happened? What was LOOK thinking?

Oh, very good points Barry! Investors/stockholders seem to think the old customers of Looksmart who are mad are few and far between. If they simply viewed EVERY forum out there, they would quickly see it is very wide-spread and not just in here like they seem to think. :)

[Advisor]

How could anyone so alienate everyone so completely like what has happened? What was LOOK
thinking? Seems like they were unconsionable to me...

Jill

[Advisor]

A bargain is not unconscionable merely because the parties to it are unequal in bargaining position, nor even because the inequality results in an allocation of risks to the weaker party. But gross inequality of bargaining power, together with terms unreasonably favorable to the stronger party, may confirm indications that the transaction involved elements of deception or compulsion, or may show that the weaker party had no meaningful choice, no real alternative, or did not in fact assent or appear to assent to the unfair terms. Factors which may contribute to a finding of unconscionability in the bargaining process include the following: belief by the stronger party that there is no reasonable probability that the weaker party will fully perform the contract; knowledge of the stronger party that the weaker party will be unable to receive substantial benefits from the contract; knowledge of the stronger party that the weaker party is unable reasonably to protect his interests by reason of physical or mental infirmities, ignorance, illiteracy or inability to understand the language of the agreement, or similar factors.

[Advisor]

Further...If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.

[Advisor]

Look at this chart (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=c&c=YHOO&k=c1&t=1y&s=look&a=v&p=s&l=on&z=m&q=l) comparing LookSmart and Yahoo's stock performance. Interesting how they were going along about the same, and then in December 2001, LookSmart diverged, and went way up. Seems that was right around the time Yahoo instituted their annual fee and got a lot of bad press for it.

LookSmart's new program has far more implications than Yahoo's. It will be interesting to see if their stock takes a big nosedive soon because of this. Wish I knew how to short a stock!

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Yes, interesting indeed. Ain't it funny how LOOK has been doing fairly well and then this?

What boneheads.

Short a stock? That's easy but I would not play with any dot.com's in that way. Waaaay too risky. Call your friendly broker and he/she would be happy to do it for you. LOL

For a hefty fee, that is.

[Advisor]

Yeah, I just checked my Datek account to see if there was an easy way to do it, but I don't see it. Only regular trades. I don't have any extra money in my account anyway. It's all wasted on things like Inktomi bought at the 205 range! hehehe

Interestingly enough, one of the few stocks I have that did well over the past few years is just a retail store stock. That and the company that owns Monster.com, TMP. They were very good to us, indeed. Even during the bust.

But betting on LookSmart to go down over the next few weeks and month's is a no-brainer it seems! Would be worth risking a few thousand to gamble on it! Doesn't seem like it would be much of a gamble at this time.

J

[Kal]

Originally posted by Advisor
Now, I'm guessing they went in and changed the default the very next day or something because people were pissed. But I can tell you for SURE that mine were NOT set at 100, they were set for NO AMOUNT, which to me meant the maximum.

Hey Jill - I activated an account within 15 mins of receiving the email and the default monthly $ was set at the free credit amount, but the click options were not set. But I think you're right about them changing things. I noticed that their FAQ's and their "Important Information About Your Listing" pages changed a LOT between when I first logged in and when I next logged in 10 hours later. They are copping lots of email enquiries that's for sure. I've sent them 3 and I'm supposedly a search engine expert! How the hell the average Joe is supposed to understand these changes is beyond me.

[angelina]

Before anyone goes looking for a lawyer, does anyone here actually have a copy of their old Terms of Service? As professional SEOs, I would assume someone here did. Anyway, anyone who is serious about getting a lawyer will have to have these in hand before showing up at his/her office, right? And won't the lawyer's fees cost more than $299?

[Advisor]

It's easy enough to aquire the old TOS if no one does have them. I believe LS would have to provide them as part of the "Discovery" phase. (But I could be wrong about that.) I'm also sure there are plenty of people who know plenty of lawyers who will be more than happy to do a suit like this for no money up front, since it looks so very easy to win.

Jill

[Kal]

We could probably find the TOS via one of the archive sites like the Way Back Machine right? I think I may even have a copy for a previous client somewhere...

[angelina]

Hey Jill - wouldn't any lawyer in his/her right mind want a true copy of the old TOS BEFORE even agreeing to take on the case? The discovery phase would be down the road.

Again, if I had used an SEO to submit my sites, I would expect him/her to quickly provide me a real copy of the previous agreement made. You can easily print out or save a copy of the TOS as you're placing an order. What will you do if one of your clients asks for this tomorrow?

[Advisor]

I'm sure there are plenty of people who have copies, and I'm sure they'll be posting them to the various forums also.

Kal, the Wayback doesn't have it. LS is not as dumb as we thought...robots exclusion!

I did find some interesting stuff there, however. Just not the actual terms. For instance, I found the old submit page that says, "ONE-TIME PAYMENT."

Sad to say, Angelina, I read LS's terms of service and was dumb enough to trust them not to change them on me, so I didn't think I needed to print them. What a dope I am...go figure. Sure teaches me a good lesson though, huh? You can't trust anyone these days. Think I'd know that, having been screwed before.

Jill

[nuzelonde]

Angelina or is it bettyblue ?

Actually, I think the L$ change is great. It exposes, once again, the charming business practices of SEs. I wasn't fooled before. I'm not fooled now.

What's next? Watch Yahoo.

[Chris_D]

Aust (.com.au) is still $A440 per year (went up recently & became annual - EXCEPT if you had already paid under the one time fee basis!) - still no mention of PPC (yet!!) at http://www.looksmart.com.au/express/about.html

Love some of the new coy name suggestions - looki'mnotsosmart lookdumb chookfart ......

nuzelonde - check your Private Mail

Chris

[ihelpyou]

The key so far with Yahoo is 'change only for new listings'. They have Not screwed their current customers.

[JuniorHarris]

>Maybe some of us investors are happy with the change.

Yes, always nice to have high hopes and aspirations that impending changes will miraculously generate profitability for the company.

>Now the LOOK buds think I receive "kickbacks" from Overture

I believe they have you confused with that other site...

>investors don't make a company in the long-term, customers do...Overture is cheaper and ranks higher on MSN currently

Very good post MMT!~

Amazing that more investors don't try to take the time to fully understand a business model prior to investing in it...I suppose it's easy to be swayed by forecasting numbers and pretty charts with Graphs!~

(As BigDugan posted) In the words of the late Sam Walton (founder of WalMart) on money: "There is only one boss, the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company, from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else. "Looks like I just fired Looksmart!~;)

[ihelpyou]

Yes, and a damn good quote indeed.

[dvduval]

I have the terms of service for the LookListings Small Business (the previous agreement).

I also question the use of the word "upgrade" in there recent advertising campaign.

If I give you a Nissan Sentra with a Sunroof and take away your Porche with no Sunroof, would you call it an upgrade because I'm giving you a sunroof?

If I automatically upgrade your cable TV service to 15 cents per minute and give you a free remote control, would you be happy with your upgrade?

[Alan Perkins]

Regarding the use of the word "upgrade"...

I posted this in another thread somewhere, but for completeness here is a cost-based like-for-like comparison of past, present and future offerings:

Was: unlimited clicks per month
Now and for 20 months: 100 clicks per month maximum
After 20 months: zero clicks per month maximum

This represents what you had, now have and will have for free. Note also the word "clicks", not "visitors" or "unique visitors".

[kalew]

OK, I just gotta get my two cents in regarding this whole LS issue. I, as a new, struggling webmaster of my own personal tiny site, do not have the big-budget of my competitors. Even if I did, I doubt I would spend it on LS.

As a former accountant of a company that went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then was acquired by another company, and is now going through another bout of financial difficulties, the "band-aids" applied to the company were hasty, short-term remedies designed to keep the company going just a bit longer. The band-aids stuck just long enough to stop the bleeding. Once the band-aid fell off, the bleeding started again.

I am NOT saying LS is going through a similiar situartion - how would I know? - I am simply saying that with the current actions of LS, a lot of things are being said without actually being spoken. Just my gut feeling of the entire situation.

One strange thing I have noticed ...I seem to be getting twice the number of visits to my site through LS then I was last week. Could be the particular seas (everyone's gardening now), but my skeptical mind is always at work...

By the way Doug: I admire your your principles.

[ihelpyou]

Was: unlimited clicks per month
Now and for 20 months: 100 clicks per month maximum
After 20 months: zero clicks per month maximum

This represents what you had, now have and will have for free. Note also the word "clicks", not "visitors" or "unique visitors".
Okay Tex. Please look at that very carefully. Now, have your stockholders friends take a good look as well. Now, you tell yourselves what you would think in a similar situation where you had paid hundreds of dollars to a company to be listed, and end up Not having anything to show for it?

Read that carefully.

Was: .... unlimited clicks per month for a one-time fee.

Now and for 20 months ........ maximum is 100 clicks per month.

After 20 months ...... maximum is ZERO clicks per month.

And this:

Note also the word "clicks", and not "visitors" or "unique visitors" is used.

That last sentence is very important also.

Sites will get CLICKS only. One will Never know just how many Fraudulant clicks there will be, now will they? Nope. They sure won't. It's a well-known fact that the PPC model is scarred badly with fraud. It is a cost of doing business for the big companies. Just another thing to think about when you and others are trying to figure out why the thousands of us are sooooo upset.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Was: .... unlimited clicks per month for a one-time fee.
Just to be clear, it was unlimited clicks per month for free. The one-time fee was for reviewing the site. The clicks were free. This is why it is a cost-based like-for-like comparison.

[dvduval]

...And for a site that gets 1000 clicks per month.
Prevous cost $000.00 per month (after one-time review)
New Program $150.00 per month

...And for 3000 clicks per month
Previous Cost $000.00 per month (after one-time review)
New Program $450.00 per month

For people who just purchased a Category Listing (or many catalog listings), they are now being asked to pay these monthly fees if they want to get more than 100 clicks.

How is this an "upgrade"? One time set-up fee vs monthly fee.
Very misleading...

[Advisor]

And now that the clicks are starting to show up in the looksmart accounting, I can see that my sites will go over their so called "free" amount within a week, for the most part. You are unbelievable looksmart. I'm going to request my money back on the listing I gave them 2 hours before their first stupid letter. This is f-ing ridiculous.

Jill

[Chris_D]

Oops - Sorry Jill - I'll stop clicking on your chookfart PPC listing immediately :) :)

Sorry - I couldn't resist that....

<Joke - it's just a joke!>

[Advisor]

LOL Chris! At least you don't actually know what listings they are. You can bet I never paid L$ to list any of my own sites. At the time, I thought my clients might benefit, however. Silly me.

J

[Chris_D]

Jill, I posted this before - and no one commented... but if you go to http://www.looksmart.com.au/ and click on "list your site" in top RH corner - they are still saying $A440/ year for inclusion in the .au domain.... no PPC, no changing what was previously agreed...

Looks like thay don't want to mess in their own chookpen..... or maybe Australian contract law is different to the USA?

[Advisor]

Interesting...the AU terms don't say that they can change their terms any [bleeping] time they feel like it. Must be against the law there...what a concept!

Do you have to be an australian site though? I still wouldn't trust L$ to simply change the terms anyway and force people to sue them if they care.
I'm personally through with them. I never liked them to begin with, and it looks like my first instincts were on the money. I won't be recommending them to clients nor giving them any money unless a client insists. This is the only way to make a real statement once and for all...simply stop using them. Everyone *should* have stopped using them once they affiliated themselves with scumware, unfortunately, everyone kept using them, including me. Live and learn...

J

[Kal]

Oh Yes. They have lost me as a customer and that means an average of 3 paying clients per month as well. Once my clicks run out, so long ChookFart! Also:

1) I have emailed them about their so called "upgrade" and asked them why they think I should pay them more when they have reduced the value of my investment by 1000%.

2) I have put information about their deception on my site and will no longer be recommending them to any clients.

3) I will be writing an article about this move in my next newsletter - no punches will be pulled!

4) I will not use or recommend their AU service either, even if it is still an Express Submission model - why line the pockets of a company who has deceived me and my clients?

In short, I am withdrawing all support for ChookFart and will be spreading the word of this outrageous stunt as far as possible.

[windybanks]

Well, my clicks have run out. With 18 clients on my account, they got anywhere from 10 clicks to 270, reaching the total limit with no warning, and traffic has been "temporarily interrupted" for ALL of them. Yeah, temporarily until May 22, when new billing period begins. That's more than six weeks from inception!!!

In order to continue receiving clicks to the Small Business Listing(s) in your account, you will need to raise your monthly budget. To avoid traffic interruptions like this in the future, LookSmart recommends you set your monthly budget to $2,700 based on the current traffic performance of your account.

Unfreakinbelievable. And since LookSmart doesn't send this many in a month to my clients, must include MSN and partners.

[Advisor]

Well, look at the brightside...all the LS listings will soon be gone from MSN (as their clicks run out) and Inktomi listings will take precedent! :cheers:

Jill

P.S. You go, Kal!

[ihelpyou]

Like windy said, even sites that only have received a few clicks so far are screwed out of there 100 free clicks a month since a third party submitted their site.

Not right. Not right at all. Immoral, unethical, astounding, shocking for a business to do something like this.

How the heck can you separate your one big account into many small accounts per site? If you can't, why is Looksmart not only screwing the 3rd party who has promoted them over the years, but also screwing the actual site who is listed with them?

[windybanks]

Yeah, they give you credit of 100 clicks per listing per month, but do not set the limits at 100 for each so it's all combined. Unfortunately I didn't take the time to figure that out before, and like Doug, was going to wait to register until I had to. Registered now! Although it doesn't really change anything.

Jill, yes hopefully that happens. Inktomi is a much better deal. :cool:

[nuzelonde]

Well, look at the brightside...all the LS listings will soon be gone from MSN (as their clicks run out) and Inktomi listings will take precedent

Good point.

[tlacaelel]

I love Google and its handy cache. :thebomb:

After everybody keeps asking about LookSmart's original terms and conditions associated with their "Submit" product offering, I thought: "Google will have that". Then I had doubts ... Google pagerank gives LookSmart a 0 so maybe they don't crawl LookSmart at all and won't have the page. But Google didn't fail me. Pagerank exclusion notwithstanding Google does index www.looksmart.com, at least the corporate content anyway.


The original "Submit Terms of Service" *were* at this page:

LookListings Small Business
http://listings.looksmart.com/info/terms.jhtml - 44k

But, of course, LookSmart has erased them :mad: and replaced them with the new terms at:

LookListings Small Business Agreement
on Terms of Service (as of April 9, 2002)
http://listings.looksmart.com/help/terms.jhtml

So I grabbed a copy from the Google cache :D and put them here:

Submit Terms of Service
www.aztecbrands.com/looksmartterms.htm

If you prefer to get them from the Google cache yourself :hi:

http://www.google.com/

Search for

[ looksmart "basic submit" terms conditions ]

Choose *Cached* the *indented* fourth listing

LookListings Small Business
listings.looksmart.com/info/terms.jhtml - 44k - Cached

Share and enjoy. :cheers:

PDP-11 RSTS/E
VAX/VMS 3.1

[Advisor]

LOL tlacaelel! I searched all through the WayBackMachine the other day, and didn't even *think* about Google's cache...duh. Luckily, plenty of others had it anyway, but it's nice to have lots of copies!

Jill

[logoin]

When a company does business with another company, it is done under the concept of "good faith." When one company is notice of another companies "bad faith" action that company becomes liable if it does not move to severe the ties with the company operating under "bad faith."

MS will drop Looksmart as soon as they become a liability, it's time they are made as such.

My last court case 5 top judges in the "state" where I once "lived" retired as soon as I went after them, this was just part of the S.O.B's that left office after I attacked. I grow tired of these SOB's. It's now time to attack the criminals in private enterprise, expose them, and then destroy them.

I worked for months on a good listing only to have these SOB's come back and say that I should "set my budget for $1,200: a month. I GET ABOUT 10 CLICK THROUGH'S A DAY, AND MAYBE 1 SALE BASED UPON THAT, FOR $1,200? Time to bankrupt the criminals.

I told them I did not authorize the charge, next thing I know I disappear from the engine I was on top of. I am going to fry you SOB's.

What I need from you all is the following;

1) any and all copy terms, the date they were down loaded and siginature of the one providing such (they have already taken down them foreign ones, thanks for the evidence you are trying to cover up your criminal activity, you understand what tampering with evidence is you jerks?). After all, if everything was above board, why would you hide it?

2) The names of the owners and there addresses where they can be served. (hopefully they will refuse service (obstruction of justice), or better yet they will attampt to have a "lawyer" represent them (U.S.v Franks D.C.N.J. 53F.2d 128))

rarearts@penn.com

[ihelpyou]

Welcome to the forum logoin! :hi:

Very good. Go for it. I think the owners are listed on their site. Stockholders are owners as well.

The above posters have copies of all the old terms.