Ok, I’m confused. How exactly do they claim they can “remove” stuff? They don’t have the right to hack into someone else’s site to edit things.

Granted, they could send an email request asking that something be changed, but that is NO guarentee that someone’s actually going to do it. (When I ran discussion forums we were always getting emails from people who wanted stuff taken down, unless they provided evidence that it was libel, we always said no.)

For $30, you can send you own email asking for things to be removed/clarified, right? Granted, they are lawyers, so they can craft a better C&D letter than most lay people, but still, they cannot promise removal of something. I guarentee that if it came down to a legal battle, they’re going to charge you more than $30.

to note, their “user agreement” includes the following quotes…

“ReputationDefender, moreover, does not guarantee or warrant that it will be successful in effecting removal or alteration, if such service is to be performed, of any Internet content about the Customer or the Named Party he or she has designated as the subject of the searches to be undertaken by the Company.”

“All sales of MyReputation and MyChild services, and all associated services, are final. No refunds shall be given by ReputationDefender, Inc., or any other party for any amounts paid for MyReputation and MyChild services, including, without limitation, any service charges or fees.”

Uh huh…no thanks. :)

Lynette,

Let me clarify, I’d happily take down something that was plagarized, that could be proven false or that was a privacy breech (and have done so.) What I should have explained was that often times, I’d have people come and want something removed simply because it was unflattering.

Let’s say that someone makes a post asking about a particular company and someone else responds and says that they’ve used them and didn’t like them. The company in question comes in and demands that the post be removed. Nope, not gonna do it.

Let’s say that someone makes a post and later realized that it makes them (the original poster) look…well…less than bright. ;) They come back six months later and demand that it be removed. Nope, not gonna do it.

To put it in current context, let’s say that the good folks over at the company we’re talking about show up here and demand that you remove this post because it doesn’t exactly paint them in glowing terms…you going to do it? ;)

Incidentally, I ended up digging even deeper into their user agreement and found two more items that would not only make me wary of using them, but that would make me run for the hills.

The first essentially says that you are giving them the express permission to act on your behalf, that you realize that people may not respond well to their requests and that you do not hold them liable for any bad outcomes from their work.

Yikes…so for $30, you just might dig me into a deeper hole than I was already in?

The second says that if something happens and they get sued as a result of the work they’re doing for you, you agree to cover ALL of their legal expenses.

Double yikes…so if they’re morons and get themselves in trouble while working on my case, I’M the one that has to pay for it? No thanks.

Lynette,

I’m glad you brought ReputationDefender to light, because what they consider to be a service makes for good conversation and an excellent example of why critical thinking skills are imperative when choosing any type of service, on or off the Web.

How many people would sign on with this or any other company without digging into the terms of service as Jennifer has? How many anti-company sites are on the Web, created because users neglected to read the terms of service before enrolling?

I believe that most older posting on the Web are a microcosm of that time period, making the comments acceptable. It’s okay to change your views. What you believe now will rise to the top of search engine results. At least that’s the way my citings are listed.

Shirley