Does Responding to a Rip Off Report Actually Work?

[Codliver]

Has anyone responded to a RipOffReport that a consumer made and successfully had it posted under said negative review?

Sorry if this is an obvious question, but the Ron Jeremy dude over at RipOffReport comes across as so disingenuous and slimy, I'm not actually sure if responses are published or it's another pitch to sell you something and deliver nothing.

I have one really bad review against me and since I haven't seemed to outrank it in months, it's likely best to just reply since the ROR reviewer was making false claims.

Surprisingly, I noticed a direct loss in daily sales (about 50-70% less) since the time that complaint was posted, which has persisted to this day.

 

[BHopkins]

You can reply, but if your goal is suppression, I wouldn't reply. The more activity, the more content, the harder it will be to suppress.

If you don't think you can suppress it, I still wouldn't reply. There may be a day that you have the ability and skill or outsource that suppression. Suppression is much more difficult when there are multiple posts.

 

[Codliver]

You can reply, but if your goal is suppression, I wouldn't reply. The more activity, the more content, the harder it will be to suppress.

If you don't think you can suppress it, I still wouldn't reply. There may be a day that you have the ability and skill or outsource that suppression. Suppression is much more difficult when there are multiple posts.

I thought that way for a long while. It's just when someone says "this is a scam, I received nothing, stay away"... and you simply ran out of stock due to high demand, it does look bad.

I figured a brief explanation (out of stock + customer was refunded) would improve the view potential customers have, certainly more than hearing nothing but "its a scam, I received nothing".

The issue with suppression is it's not just about skill but resources. I can certainly out rank it, but I'd have to outrank it 10 times in order to completely bury it. And those f'ing ROR mildly targeted pages rank so well leveraging the overall sites authority.

 

[BHopkins]

I thought that way for a long while. It's just when someone says "this is a scam, I received nothing, stay away"... and you simply ran out of stock due to high demand, it does look bad.

I figured a brief explanation (out of stock + customer was refunded) would improve the view potential customers have, certainly more than hearing nothing but "its a scam, I received nothing".

The issue with suppression is it's not just about skill but resources. I can certainly out rank it, but I'd have to outrank it 10 times in order to completely bury it. And those f'ing ROR mildly targeted pages rank so well leveraging the overall sites authority.

I agree completely. My suggestion was just based on experience. I just had a situation that helps explain it.

A client has a negative newspaper article from 2016, we suppressed it to the bottom of page 2. Today it is in the number 1 position and the date Google shows is from two weeks ago. I looked at the source code, the page, and everything else I could think, nothing mentions 2018 but Google shows it having been published two weeks ago. Here are two screenshots.

Sorry for the heavy redactions.

Nothing else changed in his campaign, but an updated page went from ranking #19 to #1. The only thing that changed was the date (datestamp) on the page. No idea why it changed, but that's the only change.

Google now thinks this page from 2016 is relevant again. More (or new) content, can be detrimental to suppression work.

 

[Codliver]

I agree completely. My suggestion was just based on experience. I just had a situation that helps explain it.

A client has a negative newspaper article from 2016, we suppressed it to the bottom of page 2. Today it is in the number 1 position and the date Google shows is from two weeks ago. I looked at the source code, the page, and everything else I could think, nothing mentions 2018 but Google shows it having been published two weeks ago. Here are two screenshots.

View attachment 107303
View attachment 107304

Sorry for the heavy redactions.

Nothing else changed in his campaign, but an updated page went from ranking #19 to #1. The only thing that changed was the date (datestamp) on the page. No idea why it changed, but that's the only change.

Google now thinks this page from 2016 is relevant again. More (or new) content, can be detrimental to suppression work.

So I noticed around 2017 a lot of SEO's and bloggers started updating content publish date since it apparently became a more important ranking factor.

Although I didn't know the effect was that great. Either that or the properties you're using to outrank aren't that powerful or ROR just is very powerful.

I would have thought any benefit incurred from simply changing the publish date would have been a "trick" Google would have ironed out by now. The only other explanation I could think of is your ROR negative page got searched and clicked on more (CTR serp boost).

This article was helpful: https://moz.com/blog/google-fresh-factor-new

 

[maruan]

It may work actually, if you try hard enough.

 

[BHopkins]

Not to get too far off topic, but to close out my problem...the published date in Google has reverted and the negative is back on the middle of page 2! Still no idea why, but a happy client emailed me this morning.

 

[J0sh]

I had a really bad experience with Rip Off report. Some ass hat contacted me and said they were going to file a rip off report unless I gave them $300. I did not respond to them after numerous extortion attempts, I figured it would not go anywhere because nothing was true. They filed a report on ripoffreport and I found out very quickly how corrupt that company was. They wanted me to pay them money to investigate the claim. I responded to it, but it did no good. I can't tell you HOW many emails I get from people now still telling me they can get rid of the rip off report for $.