3 ms·

It was an interesting article until near the end when the author dropped that he was angry because this other company wasn't paying him referral fees they promi

It was an interesting article until near the end when the author dropped that he was angry because this other company wasn't paying him referral fees they promised in exchange for his good reviews of their product, which from some of the discussion here sounds like there is a consensus is bad products. This suggests that the reviewer was writing false reviews because doing so earned him money, and recasts the rest of the article into the category of "two con artists trying to out con each other".

hughw 14y ago
Exactly! I literally stopped reading right there.
Geewhipped 14y ago
See below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3971061 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3971061 As it said in the post, the review existed when there was no referral program in place...I answered questions and helped current customers during this time because I like the product and I genuinely wanted the company to succeed. There was never a "promise in exchange for good reviews."
- droithomme 14y ago
  Here you say "the review existed when there was no referral program in place" In your article you say, "reviews of the LifeShield products and services (March, 2010), they had a referral system in place. If I got 5 referrals, I’d get free security system monitoring for life. They provided a link to give to possible customers. I used it all over my reviews. I personally knew 3 parties that had purchased systems via my referral link, but I figured there were more that I didn’t know about..." The article clearly does not support the new claim that "the review existed when there was no referral program in place".
  - Geewhipped 14y ago
    You clearly have reading comprehension issues. From the blog post: "At that point, the referral system became useless to me so I removed the links and just left the review stand. I updated it from time to time and answered any questions people posted as comments or emailed to me. I was grateful for a product I really like and for the free monitoring."
    - droithomme 14y ago
      Thank you for your reply. Your responses here are consistent with the ethics displayed in your articles. I strongly recommend your article for detailed reading by anyone who feels that anything I have said misrepresents the situation as you are stating.
zachallaun 14y ago
Comments like this are always particularly frustrating to me, as it suggests that you did not actually read the article, and are now trying to prevent others from reading it based on your impression. The company had a referral system in place such that 5 referrals meant the referrer obtained free LifeShield monitoring for life. Why would someone slant a review such that they could get a bad product for free? It was much later that LifeShield announced a new program that gave $150 for each referral; this was a good while after the review of the product.
- droithomme 14y ago
  Your comment is frustrating to me also as it is obvious that I did read the entire article.
- rudiger 14y ago
  It's a conflict of interest since a more favorable review leads to more referrals.

hughw 14y ago

Exactly! I literally stopped reading right there.

Geewhipped 14y ago

See below: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3971061 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3971061 As it said in the post, the review existed when there was no referral program in place...I answered questions and helped current customers during this time because I like the product and I genuinely wanted the company to succeed. There was never a "promise in exchange for good reviews."

droithomme 14y ago
Here you say "the review existed when there was no referral program in place" In your article you say, "reviews of the LifeShield products and services (March, 2010), they had a referral system in place. If I got 5 referrals, I’d get free security system monitoring for life. They provided a link to give to possible customers. I used it all over my reviews. I personally knew 3 parties that had purchased systems via my referral link, but I figured there were more that I didn’t know about..." The article clearly does not support the new claim that "the review existed when there was no referral program in place".
- Geewhipped 14y ago
  You clearly have reading comprehension issues. From the blog post: "At that point, the referral system became useless to me so I removed the links and just left the review stand. I updated it from time to time and answered any questions people posted as comments or emailed to me. I was grateful for a product I really like and for the free monitoring."
  - droithomme 14y ago
    Thank you for your reply. Your responses here are consistent with the ethics displayed in your articles. I strongly recommend your article for detailed reading by anyone who feels that anything I have said misrepresents the situation as you are stating.

zachallaun 14y ago

Comments like this are always particularly frustrating to me, as it suggests that you did not actually read the article, and are now trying to prevent others from reading it based on your impression. The company had a referral system in place such that 5 referrals meant the referrer obtained free LifeShield monitoring for life. Why would someone slant a review such that they could get a bad product for free? It was much later that LifeShield announced a new program that gave $150 for each referral; this was a good while after the review of the product.

droithomme 14y ago
Your comment is frustrating to me also as it is obvious that I did read the entire article.
rudiger 14y ago
It's a conflict of interest since a more favorable review leads to more referrals.