| 7:37 pm on Dec 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Go sip a margarita and forget about it. Nothing to worry about unless your in violation of DMCA.
| 7:52 pm on Dec 9, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I would be keen to hear how you guys would have dealt with this guy? |
I'd add him to my email filter and be done with it... and have a good laugh.
| 12:12 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The guy is a control freak, trying to control what is out of his control. Consider it another anecdote for your collection.
| 12:35 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|He says, the reason he is angry is because my blog is not related |
I would be keen to hear how you guys would have dealt with this guy?
I'd blog about him :)
| 12:49 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Great idea, plasma. Something like that could go viral. But you may want to find out what the legal ramifications are of publishing his email.
| 1:33 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I've ahd the same problem, and the guy actually took my client to court.
Say, the relevant search term was new york first aid(its not - its an example)... then he had registered his business as New York First Aid Pty Ltd, and registered new-york-first-aid.com
My client's site was set up to rank for the term new york first aid, so had that phrase as the site title, keyowrds, description, hs, plus reference on the home page.
He sued, for misuse of his business name, my client won, on the basis he had tried to tie up use of a very generic phrase, with a company name. You might as well try regitering a company
I like big butts pty ltd and then try and stop people using that phrase.
My advice, is to take him seriously, advise him you believe you are doing nothing legally wrong, and nothing against googles TOS, and that he should seek legal advice is he wishes to pursue the matter.
| 1:49 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'd ask him if he wants me to tell my brother at the Googleplex that he is threatening me? Would you like to see where your site ends up then?
Then I'd give anything to see what sort of deranged letters he sends to Google about how a non-existent employee is boosing his brother's sites in the SERPs.
If he thinks complaining to Google will get you kicked out, he is sure to believe that someone's brother can tweak the results.
By the way, does his site have any "problems" that might get him in trouble? I can be a real SOB if someone threatens me.
| 2:05 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If it was that easy to get a site removed from the index, there would only be one site for each search query... fastest, loudest complainer wins.
I would take him seriously, but from the standpoint of, 'He probably can't do anything, no matter how loud he yells…'.
Google ranks the site it sees as matching the criteria best suiting a visitors needs and regularly adjusts it's rules to provide what it determines to be 'more relevant results'.
If no one can guarantee and deliver a number one listing (if you can please, sticky me the secret formula), it seems tough to argue you can somehow be responsible legally for another entities (Google's) interpretation (ranking) of your information.
| 4:53 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Tell him to take a number, get in line, and grow up.
| 5:55 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I'd add him to my email filter and be done with it... and have a good laugh. |
That is what I would do. I find it is best to just ignore people like this and block their emails. They tend to move on to somebody they can get a reaction out of then.
| 5:59 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
| 8:37 am on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
sell him a text link to help boost his own site at a hell of a cost! if hes that concerned
| 2:51 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|But you may want to find out what the legal ramifications are of publishing his email. |
No risk no fun.
And if they don't live in the same country, I wouldn't be afraid at all.
| 3:48 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I see, don't even have a bit of fun with the harassing *wipe.
Jane and bobothecat are probably correct but pay back in kind can be fun.
| 4:27 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I reckon the guy is just a nutter. Report the email to his service provider as "offensive" and they should stop him harassing other legitimate webmasters.
| 7:47 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Payback in kind might be fun, it can also lead to lawsuits which are time consuming and expensive even if you win (even if you get the case dismissed).
I think you can bug overly controlling people like that the most by simply not giving them the attention they crave. Plus you can also save yourself a lot of time.
[edited by: Jane_Doe at 7:52 pm (utc) on Dec. 10, 2006]
| 8:20 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think the guy is simply uninformed. It's clear he has no idea how Google works.
A true control freak would freak about about something that's actually possible!
| 9:01 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No a true control freak, freaks out at anything that isn't to their liking.
Someone forgot several very important lessons while raising junior or missy.
| 9:24 pm on Dec 10, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, I am going to go against the grain here, and ask why your site ranks so highly for keywords unrelated to your site?
Did you do anything proactively to get your site to rank highly for irrelevant keywords?
Do you WANT your site to rank highly for irrelevant keywords? How is this helping your site?
If you really want to rankle the guy, you can respond and tell him that you'd have made a request to Google YOURSELF if he'd have been nicer about it.
If you are sure that your laundry is clean (but I am having my doubts here...) then perhaps you should proactively forward his email to Google, so that they will know that he has made a threat and will treat any correspondence from him accordingly.
| 3:12 am on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Blogs are funny things and the blogosphere even more so.
It is possible to wind up having decent ranks for all sorts of things that a single focus website wouldn't.
Including things just mentioned in passing within a post, this is especially true if the site that isn't ranking that thinks it should is out to lunch on various things SEO in nature.
| 5:04 am on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Offer to sell him your blog. Get as much as you can from this nut case and start another blog...
| 5:30 am on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Like theBear said, you don't have to *try* to rank higher with your blog, but sometimes you do.
I made a blog post about going to check out a new gym in my town, and I wasn't very impressed. It ranks #1 for the name of the gym (above the gym itself) and is now ranking for [city gym] and [city health club].
I'm not trying to rank for those terms. I'm not trying to hurt anyones business, I just blogged about my day. When I realized that I was #1 for those terms, I went back and modified my post so it was much clearer that I was looking for something specific for me, and that my requirements aren't necessarily those of your average suburbanite family.
Now, you might say that I don't deserve the #1 spot because it is just one blog post and my site is not about the subject, but the website for the new gym is only 2 pages and contains less useful information than my one post. They do not even have their hours on their site, but I mention them on mine.
I've also had my blog posts show up at #1 for several local government entities at one point or another. It just happens.
| 5:48 am on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Maybe the poster didn't explain things very well. When he said "my blog is not even related to the search term", I took him at his word.
If there is relevant material on the site - regardless of what it's focus is - then that's a different story. It shouldn't matter what the site is about. What matters is that it contains useful material relevant to the search, and the search engine has landed the user on the relevant material.
If that's not the case, then the search engine hasn't done a good job.
If blogs are ranking highly for subjects that are not their focus when they happen to go outside of their main area, that's actually a bit reassuring. It means the search engines are finding relevant material in dark corners of the web.
So, if somebody who normally blogs, say, about Perl one day signs up for a new gym and has an unhappy-enough experience to blog about it - it's a good bet you are seeing unfiltered honest consumer experience - a very useful thing to find when making a purchasing decision.
Of course, if this is the strategy du jour for the search engines, you can bet that tomorrow it will be abused by hoardes, and they will have to find anyother way to filter out the BS.
| 7:11 am on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Actually, what he said was "He says, the reason he is angry is because my blog is not related to that particular search term, but his site is"
The poster is not saying that it is unrelated, it is the other guy.
I remember a discussion a few years back where someone in the travel industry was upset that "irrelevant" sites such as museums and such were coming up on a search for a city name.
Lots of people think that their version of relevant for a search should be the only version. The way I see it is this guy is upset that ANYONE ranks above him and is trying to blame everyone but himself. Even if the blog is not relevant, he is showing ignorance and bad for by how he handles it.
| 7:37 am on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It doesn't really make any difference if the OP "rightfully" ranks higher or not. He currently ranks higher, if he's normal then he likes it that way, and if a terrible mistake has been made then it's up to Google to fix it.
As for the original question, I'd ignore the email. Of course I'd save it, and maybe even do a casual investigation of the complainer and his website. But I really don't see any percentage in responding to the sorehead in any way.
| 8:14 am on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No matter how ill informed and nonsensical you might consider the complaint, just be careful that your response doesn't provoke a hissy fit.... especially if the person has money.
In my neck of the woods there is a history of a few well heeled neurotics using lawyers as attack dogs and threatening to sic them onto their opposition for all sorts of imagined slights.
The last thing you want is to find yourself in the middle of a lawyers picnic because of some ill chosen words or actions.
| 12:18 pm on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I get this sort of nonsense all the time. I either ignore it or if they are rude I really go after their keywords ;)
| 4:54 pm on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I would be keen to hear how you guys would have dealt with this guy? |
Offer him your SEO services for $100/hour.
| 5:35 pm on Dec 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Take the high road and treat him with respect in any email replies you make (even though you want to choke him!). Nutcases can be scary. I was advised many years ago, "Never put anything in writing that would compromise you if it were printed in the New York Times."
| This 47 message thread spans 2 pages: 47 (  2 ) > > |