Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Internet Your Rights Online

Utility Wants $17,500 Refund After Failure To Scrub Negative Search Results 110

Posted by samzenpus
from the if-you-don't-have-abything-good-to-say dept.
mpicpp Points out this story about Seattle City Light's anger over negative search results and its inability to get them removed. Seattle's publicly-owned electrical utility, City Light, is now demanding a refund for the $17,500 that it paid to Brand.com in a botched effort to boost the online reputation of its highly-paid chief executive, Jorge Carrasco. Brand.com "enhances online branding and clears negatives by blanketing search results with positive content" in an attempt to counteract unwanted search engine results. City Light signed a contract with the company in October 2013 and extended it in February 2014. The contracts authorized payments of up to $47,500. Hamilton said that he first raised the issue of the utility's online reputation when he was interviewing for the chief of staff job in early 2013. "All I saw were negative stories about storms, outages and pay increases and I raised it as a concern during that interview," he said. "And then after I started, [CEO Jorge Carrasco] and I discussed what we could do to more accurately represent the utility and what the utility is all about, because we didn't feel it was well represented online." Thus, the Brand.com contract. City Light says that it only ever thought Brand.com would help it place legitimate material in legitimate outlets—talking up some of the positive changes that have taken place at City Light during Carrasco's tenure. Instead, it appears to have received mostly bogus blog posts.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Utility Wants $17,500 Refund After Failure To Scrub Negative Search Results

Comments Filter:
  • by sjames (1099) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @10:38AM (#47442581) Homepage

    The Mythbusters showed us you CAN polish a turd. This suggests you still can't polish a CEO.

    The natural conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

  • hope they win (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdo ... g ['ish' in gap]> on Sunday July 13, 2014 @10:43AM (#47442609)

    On the one hand, it was a dumb purchase on the part of Seattle City Light. But on the other hand, I do think there needs to be some crackdown on bullshit advertising in the SEO/PR sector. Maybe if a few companies get sued for breach of contract, they'll be more careful what services they claim to offer in the future.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "bullshit advertising" ... Using bullshit as an adjective implies there is some advertising which is not bullshit. Just "advertising" works equally well.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        "bullshit advertising" ... Using bullshit as an adjective implies there is some advertising which is not bullshit. Just "advertising" works equally well.

        I disagree. There is plenty of advertising which isn't bullshit. Ads for products most often are full of bullshit (though there are a few from time to time that aren't). On the other hand, ads for local businesses are often (though not always) fairly straightforward, simply indicated the products they sell or services they offer, and where they are located.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by fustakrakich (1673220)

      ...I do think there needs to be some crackdown on bullshit advertising in the SEO/PR sector.

      Oh please! The very premise is based on fraud. People should just learn to ignore it. And we desperately need alternatives to Google. It is so heavily compromised. It's hardly anything more than a barroom trivia and shopping site.

    • Re:hope they win (Score:5, Insightful)

      by theskipper (461997) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @11:38AM (#47442835)

      I think the interesting question is how will Brand.com get this negative story about themselves scrubbed/buried in the indexes.

      (This smells oddly recursive, especially if they wrote a white paper about how successful they were ;)

      • Re:hope they win (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anrego (830717) * on Sunday July 13, 2014 @12:03PM (#47442965)

        It actually feels like they are trying to put a positive "victim" light on themselves.

        "We hired this company because we felt our good side wasn't being shown on the internet and asked them to market all the good stuff we've done, and they turned on us and just started spamming garbage everywhere! That's not what we wanted!"

        Whether there is any truth to that, who knows.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          "We hired a PR firm to make us look better."
          That's not a crime. It's not even morally wrong, unless the means chosen was fraud or the like.

          "The PR firm started acting like complete idiots and is making us look bad."
          Not a crime, either, but probably a contract violation. Seattle Light is right to want their money back, if the firm couldn't deliver.

          • "We hired a PR firm to make us look better."
            That's not a crime. It's not even morally wrong, unless the means chosen was fraud or the like.

            To me this sounds too much like asking police to racially profile someone without racially profiling them for comfort.

            I would love to hear how a PR firm makes companies look better online without lying and misleading.

            Do they make blog posts saying how great the company is and include the fact they are working for a PR firm and being paid by company to produce content on their behalf? Or just leave that part out? Any examples of how it can work in a way that is not "morally wrong"?

      • Re:hope they win (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2014 @07:21PM (#47445253)

        Http://ilccyberreport.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/tiny-iowa-county-takes-on-the-king-of-online-defamation/

        You might find this article interesting..

        Brand.com is a rebrand of a company called reputationchanger.com, which was launched by the convicted felon Adam Zuckerman soon after acquiring a SQL injection technique (in 2011) which was used to add "noindex, nofollow" tags to complaint website pages and comment pages on blogs which effectively removes a page from search engine results.

        It's long but worth the read to download the search warrant linked in the article ( https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6orjid9iahp0568/AABQZSlC2iOzDIRzc7i1SzL3ai ) if you want an early preview of some of the dirt which will likely be getting coverage soon in the news cycle regarding the reputation "wreck and repair" racket which is an ongoing extortion racket in the "online reputation management" and seo world.

        http://www.paladinpi.com/blog/paladin-investigations-2/social-waterboarding-chapter/

        has further commentary to help digest the search warrant document.

        The big dog with millions in investment capital (and looking to IPO soon), Reputation.com, is one of the primary actors in this racket, having been caught buying the company/website "removeyourname.com" of the hacker Matthew Cooke which was peddling the SQL injection code to all of the ORM companies stupid/sleazy enough to take the bait for some quick cash wrecking then repairing middle class business owners and professionals who could afford to pay to stop the pain.

        Complaint sites, mugshot sites and revenge porn sites are the trifecta on the "wrecking" side of this racket, with the "repair" side being offered up by sites such as reputation.com, brand.com and countless multitudes of smaller sites sprinkled around the internet acting as franchised feeders into the main cartel of "repair" reputation companies which are in collusion with the "wrecking" industry by either outright ownership and management of the wrecking sites which they can remove content from or by paying agreed upon fees to "outside the network" sites.

    • Re:hope they win (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mtrachtenberg (67780) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @12:56PM (#47443219) Homepage

      It's beyond just dumb. This is the sort of waste of public money that really should be criminal. At the very least, the CEO and his Chief of Staff should be dismissed. Call it encouragement to resign if that's the way it's done these days, but if someone getting paid $200K plus thought this was worth it, that person is not worth it.

      • Re:hope they win (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rich0 (548339) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @03:00PM (#47443897) Homepage

        Agree. This isn't an SEO issue so much as stewardship issue. Utilities shouldn't be advertising, unless it is part of some kind of public service goal (like informing poor people of benefits programs or something like that).

        Utilities are generally monopolies. If I want electricity for my home, there is exactly one place to get it. If I don't want it, that should be fine. There should be no expenditure of what amounts to a form of tax dollars to advertise services that aren't in competition with anything else.

        Ditto for utilities sponsoring the Olympics and such. If funding the Olympics is a valid political goal then it should just get a spending bill in the legislature like anything else.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Seattle City Light is owned by the city of Seattle.

          As somebody who lives in Seattle, I'm more than happy to pay for the failed contract. It was a large part of why we're not having to give the CEO a $60k a year raise. So, even after paying for the bullshit contract, it's still costing us less money. And thanks to this bullshit getting into the national press, it's unlikely that he's going to be able to get a job at any other utility for a while.

          Overall, the utility customers are coming out ahead on the deal

        • Nothing against a utility promoting itself by pointing out what it has achived, such things do need community support. However promoting the current CEO is clearly a form of political advertising for the benifit of the CEO, not the utlility. The full amount should be recovered from the CEO, after he is sacked for (legalised) embezzlement.
      • What's a publicly-owned utility doing trying to hide the negative reputation of its CEO? Leave aside the question of whether the folks they hired to do it could do the job at the price they were charging, they still should have the guts to admit that the CEO they hired is the CEO they hired, and if they don't have the guts to do that, they should have hired somebody who didn't need reputation-washing.

      • by Ryanrule (1657199)

        of course he was worth it. otherwise he wouldnt be ceo. but he is ceo. so he is worth it.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Jorge Carrasco sounds like a real moron. Maybe he'll try to get this article suppressed.

    • LMGTFY.COM/Anonymous+Coward+says+Jorge+Carrasco+sounds+like+a+real+moron

      Dude! It says "The page you were looking for doesn't exist." Oh, noes, he was successful!

  • I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    That sounds like a legitimate way to attempt to alter search rank results, mentioning the link and name repeatedly. Did they actually speak to and control what was happening? It sounds like they threw money at someone and yelled GO FIX THIS with no direction or oversight and so the company just did the basic job with no instructions. I'm taking a wild guess that the mostly negative online reviews are a result of this type of hands off old boys club 'let the peons work while we master architects go play g

    • by sjames (1099)

      With fake news, fake blogs, and attempting to find an excuse (ANY excuse) to have an article taken down or de-listed?

      You have lowered your expectations WAYYYYYYYyy too much.

  • Don't take a contract you can't handle. If you claim to be able to do something, and you can't, you're in breach of contract. It doesn't matter how retarded the whole situation was - you agreed to do something and took money for it, then failed to follow through.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Have fun with the Streisand Effect.

  • by alen (225700) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @10:51AM (#47442647)

    People have hated utilities for as long as I can remember along with oil companies and starting in the 90's drug companies. And most recently ISP's and tv companies

    • by Known Nutter (988758) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @10:58AM (#47442673)

      And who cares? It's not like you have a choice, particularly with real utilities. You can't just get your power from somewhere else. In the Bay Area, PG&E in constantly running campaigns to improve their reputation, mostly associated with the San Bruno disaster. Why? Shareholder value? If so, I guess I don't quite understand what public reputation of a utility has to do with shareholder value. Perhaps state and municipal permitting related to system construction, rate increases with the PUC to fund said construction... ...thinking outloud here, it seems.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2014 @11:23AM (#47442769)

        See, this is what really pisses us off in Seattle. We don't have a choice. Our utility works relatively well and we have some of the cheapest electricity in the country. So, with that being the case, I don't mind not having a choice. Yet, stuff like this wasting of $17,500 causes our rates to go up. It's stupid. The real reason they did this was to bolster Jorge Carrasco's image so he could demand a bigger salary, which he lobbied our mayor for. He was trying to point to his reputation as a reason that other utilities were interested in him and, you know, if you want to keep him, pay him more... The guy should be fired.

        Plus, he fell for a copper wire theft scheme and gave tens of thousands of dollars of wire to the thieves.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Let's see:
              1. ousted from his last three jobs
              2. trying to scrub his reputation to get a $60k/year raise
              3, just happens to 'fall' for a con that gets $120k worth of materials

          Sounds more like the con is in the hen house if you know what I mean ;)

          • 2. trying to scrub his reputation to get a $60k/year raise
            3. just happens to 'fall' for a con that gets $120k worth of materials

            About point 2: $119,000, not $60,000

            About point 3: The stolen material was recovered.

      • In some areas you can get the whole town behind switching to a new company. Has happened quite a bit to JCP&L after Hurricanes Sandy and Irene
        • SF would have PUDed long ago, but PG&E owns all the transmission into the bay area anyhow.

          So they prefer to continue getting fucked the old fashioned way. Kind of surprising for SF.

          • I don't know if San Francisco itself wants that. The Bay Guardian was agitating for it for years, but that doesn't mean the city as a whole was in favor of it. Besides, they've got the Hetch Hetchy Dam providing much of their power supply, and it's been more reliable than much of the rest of the Bay Area's power.

      • by Immerman (2627577)

        >Why? Shareholder value?
        -
        It seems simple enough to me: increased customer satisfaction (aka reputation in a captive market) means you can inflate your prices and/or reduce the quality of service with less backlash.

        I can't think of any other reason a monopoly would care about it's reputation.

        Electricity providers though, there I could see some motive. They are beginning to lose their monopoly with solar becoming a viable and cost-effective alternative in most places. If you can pay for ten years worth o

        • It seems simple enough to me: increased customer satisfaction (aka reputation in a captive market) means you can inflate your prices and/or reduce the quality of service with less backlash.

          It's not quite that simple. Using PG&E as an example, they cannot just inflate their prices. Rate increases must be approved by the State of California Public Utilities Commission, as must rate increases for every other utility in the state.

          • by Immerman (2627577)

            Indeed. And how much more successful do you suppose their lobbyists will be in facilitating such rate increases if they have a good reputation to bank on? The worse their reputation the more people will protest against rate increases, thus increasing the political capital politicians will have to spend to pass them, which in turn will increase the size of the campaign contributions necessary to get them passed.

            At some point it becomes more cost effective to run PR campaigns in hopes of increasing approval

        • by Imrik (148191)

          A good reputation can result in a pay raise for the executives.

      • by Rich0 (548339)

        Many utilities operated under a cost-plus arrangement. If they waste more money, they make more profits.

        That is why stuff like this has to be prevented.

        This is why Bell Labs back in the day got Nobel Prizes. This wasn't corporate philanthropy - at the time they could consider that R&D expenditure part of providing phone service and charge higher rates to recoup it, plus a profit on top. When the rules were changed, Bell Labs died (at least, in the sense of what it used to be).

      • by Eythian (552130)

        It's quite possible. I have a choice of power companies (and am planning to change some time soon.)

        Here, generation, and retailing are all split up (not sure how lines maintenance works, I think that might be regional, but done though your retailer.)

        This means a) I can pick my retailer, and b) they can compete, along with the generation companies.

        (I'm not really contributing much here, just adding a little bit of possibly interesting information.)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Not mine. Everybody here loves the Power Board. Of course, that's most recently because they started offering high-speed fiber internet and compared to Comcast, anybody would be decent, and they're just plain AWESOME.

      Now true, some people did complain about the TVA flooding their homes, and Ronald Reagan waxed eloquently about how horrible they were, but the reality is...the people in the area LIKE the TVA, and don't want some Southern/Duke/Enron company coming in.

  • That's Fine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @10:53AM (#47442653) Homepage Journal
    If they want to go after a SEO company for not optimizing their search results, I don't see anything wrong with that. But has Seattle City Light considered just NOT SUCKING as a strategy to improve their reputation? Seems to me that analyzing the root cause of the problem ("Man, we REALLY suck!") and fixing it ("Hey, has anyone thought about maybe trying NOT sucking?") would be a good bit less expensive. Seems like only an idiot would say "Hey here's an idea! Let's pay 20 grand to some company and then we can keep sucking!" Of course, as a power company you kind of have a captive audience, so it seems like you could really suck all you want to as long as you don't capture the attention of various regulatory bodies in the process.

    *shrug* I don't live in Seattle, so I don't know anything about it, but the internets say they suck pretty hard. I'm guessing their SEO company kind of sucks, too. Birds of a feather, eh?

    • Re:That's Fine (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Spad (470073) <slashdot@sp[ ]co.uk ['ad.' in gap]> on Sunday July 13, 2014 @11:02AM (#47442683) Homepage

      Utilities can really only have neutral or negative reputations.

      Think about it, how often do you go "Wow, that was some amazing electricity I used this morning! It came right out of the socket when I needed it and didn't electrocute me at all"? You don't, because you expect those things as a basic requirement of the service and there aren't really many added extras they can provide to help you view them in a positive light. On the flip side, if there are outages or faults you almost automatically acquire a negative view of them and again there isn't really a lot they can do to counteract it.

      • Re:That's Fine (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Guppy06 (410832) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @11:25AM (#47442777)

        On the other hand, TFA seems to indicate that this SEO fiasco was less about trying to improve the utility's reputation than about improving the executive's personal reputation.

        $18k of company money to try to justify a personal $60k/a raise really doesn't sound good.

        • by Imrik (148191)

          It gets worse, the contract was $64k of company money, only $17.5k had been paid out so far.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Bull. For me locally (NOT in US) the utilities have received praise from the customers for handling unexpected outages well.

        The best way for an utility company to get a positive imago is to actually stick money to emergency readiness and upkeep of the hardware. Yes, it costs money, but when shit hits the fan and you shrug it off in no time (instead of giving excuses to the media while sucking), it pays off big time.

      • by PPH (736903)

        I'm sure the guys who made off with 20 tons of copper wire [king5.com] could be persuaded to write a positive piece about Carrasco.

      • by volmtech (769154)
        Actually, yes, during the severe electrical storm yesterday my lights only flickered a couple of times. All the tree trimming and lighting arrestors Florida Power and Light has installed since the 05 hurricanes has helped a lot. Even with these cost and the retiring of one of their nuclear plants my cost per kWh has only gone up a few percent to $.10. Improving service without raising cost does generate good will. Next time they need a rate increase they wont have much getting one.
      • by melkhorn (1663445)
        It may come as a shock to some of you that I should resort to this sort of comment at this phase of the discussion, and perhaps your fears are well grounded, but utilities can have either neutral or hot reputations.
      • Well, that's only if you've only ever lived in places with good electricity service that doesn't go out regularly, electrocute you nor set houses on fire on a regular basis. As someone that has lived in places like that as well as places with no electricity, and places where there were actually options for utility companies - I can appreciate good electricity service.
      • by Dutch Gun (899105)

        Oddly enough, I'm pretty impressed with my local waste hauling company. I was getting overcharged for the size of garbage can I had for a number of years without me noticing after containers had been switched out to different types. I placed a single call to my utility company, and they told me they'd have to contact city hall, who manages the city-wide contract and billing. "Great, I'll never see that money", I thought, with quotes about "fighting city hall" coming to mind. A few weeks later, I see a f

      • There are two parts to a review, there's service and there's product.
        Beyond the power itself, there's quality of customer service, wait times for calls or technicians, etc. Up-time is also a consideration

      • On the flip side, if there are outages or faults you almost automatically acquire a negative view of them and again there isn't really a lot they can do to counteract it.

        On the other hand, if you have a swift, efficient, and high quality service for an outage, most people understand that things fail and will forgive. It's only when YOU SUCK, repeatedly and without meeting customer needs in a quick and reliable way, that you get real negatives. And, if you actually work to improve these things (e.g., bury a

    • SEO stands for Sucking Executive Officer
  • I would imagine if Brand.com is actually effective Rick Santorum would already have used it back in 2012.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Seattle CIty and Light has some *new* search engine results that have displaced any previous negative results. All of the controversy about the CEO's conduct regarding this and a few other recent scandals have completely obscured the previous negative stuff they were worried about!

  • Maybe they should have just went with the Repairer of Reputations, as outlined in The King in Yellow...
  • Repairer of Reputations?
  • lol (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @11:20AM (#47442761)

    Interviewer: So what can you do for this company...
    Interviewee: There's this dude down the street with Magic beans!
    Interviewer: You're hired! Now go get them beans!
    Interviewee: You really bought that? er... ok... you realize that was an interview and much like televisions commercials I'm expected to exaggerate right?
    Interviewer: You promised me beans give me some beans!
    Interviewee: ooook... here ya go...
    *2yrs later*
    Interviewer: These beans aren't growing!... lets just sue that bean salesman, clearly these beans were defective..
    Interviewee: I really need to find a new job but I don't want to go through another interview like that last one...

  • by Yew2 (1560829) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @11:43AM (#47442867) Homepage
    Im a little disappointed in these comments! I dont see anyone complaining that a utility is even spending money on this sorta thing, much less a publicly owned utility....did I miss the part where we started enjoying abuses from the mono/duopolies to which we are all conscripted?? From the rich right down to the poorest or poor in our citizenry, we all pay for utilities, one way or another. It could even be argued that the brand of gravy fed the homeless is one slot cheaper because soup kitchens pay these bills too. Has the world gone mad?? Since when can a public resource use funds in this way? Where is the outrage? Where is the inquisition? I would even go so far as to say even were this service offered for free of charge to this utility that they are engaging in a cover-up! Fraud! Deceit! Pitchfork, anyone? Hello? Anyone?
    • Im a little disappointed in these comments! I dont see anyone complaining that a utility is even spending money on this sorta thing, much less a publicly owned utility....did I miss the part where we started enjoying abuses from the mono/duopolies to which we are all conscripted??

      I hear you but I'm still working through my blind hatred of reputation management firms.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        http://ilccyberreport.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/tiny-iowa-county-takes-on-the-king-of-online-defamation/

        You might find this article interesting..

        Brand.com is a rebrand of a company called reputationchanger.com, which was launched by the convicted felon Adam Zuckerman soon after acquiring a SQL injection technique (in 2011) which was used to add "noindex, nofollow" tags to complaint website pages and comment pages on blogs which effectively removes a page from search engine results.

        It's long but worth the rea

  • If I wasn't pissed before, I am now.

  • customers want $175.00 refund for failure to provide good quality power
  • by mtrachtenberg (67780) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @12:53PM (#47443201) Homepage

    $17,500 to polish your CEO's reputation? The CEO and the Chief of Staff should both be fired. Or, in keeping with the CEO's resume, encouraged to "resign." And suing to recover the money is likely to cost the public more than just giving up on the wasted funds. Just cut your losses, Seattle.

  • by McGruber (1417641) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @12:57PM (#47443229)
    I RTFA and learned that this is the article that "Jorge Fiasco" (Jorge Carrasco" wants google and everyone else to forget about:

    Short Fuse: Jorge Carrasco's Polarizing Tenure at the Top of City Light [seattleweekly.com]

    I also see that the deal with brand.com has cost Jorge Fiasco a six figure pay raise: The Seattle Times: No pay raise for City Light CEO Jorge Carrasco [seattletimes.com]

    Seattle Mayor Ed Murray says he will not give City Light CEO Jorge Carrasco a pay raise, citing “judgment” issues, including a contract aimed partly at boosting Carrasco’s online image.

    Murray made the comments at a City Hall news conference Wednesday.

    The Seattle City Council had authorized a pay increase of up to $119,000 for Carrasco, who currently makes $245,000. Murray’s office previously had said he was considering raising Carrasco’s pay by $60,000.

    • by McGruber (1417641) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @01:06PM (#47443261)

      Another article Jorge Carasco would like you to forget: The Seattle Times: City Light leader Jorge Carrasco fell for copper con [seattletimes.com]

      Last year, two men claiming to be members of the Cherokee Nation who had traveled from Oklahoma came to Seattle with a simple goal: score some scrap copper.

      Dressed in beads and fringed suede, with one wearing a cap that said “Native,” they headed to the offices of Seattle City Light, where they chanced upon its superintendent, Jorge Carrasco, in the lobby. They told him they ran a nonprofit that taught disabled children how to make jewelry and needed some copper wire.

      Minutes after meeting them, Carrasco authorized the men to be given some scrap.

      But the two were actually con men. Once inside City Light’s secure facilities, they were able to drive off with 20 tons of copper wire and scrap metal worth $120,000.

  • by WaffleMonster (969671) on Sunday July 13, 2014 @02:30PM (#47443731)

    Everyone who runs sites where users can post comments should add language to terms of service forbidding using your service to spread paid propaganda.

    Adding a dialogue asking if you are operating on behalf of a reputation firm would be even better because then they become guilty of circumventing an access control when they lie to gain access.

    Using insane corporate laws against corporations = priceless.

  • I think this falls under the "gaslighting" utility service.

  • If you are a company who is hired to scrub clean the reputation of Jerks - they will still be Jerks.

    Seriously it's a no-win business model. There was a reason they had bad publicity in the first place. There is a reason they'll turn on you.

  • They should have just hired Barbara Streisand to handle the situation instead. She's have the same results, just at a lower price.
  • the soul crushing experience it must be working there...
  • What I found more interesting was the story mentioned in the SEO story that Carrasco got scammed by a couple of faux "Native Americans," who made off with 41 thousand pounds of the utility's scrap copper after conning Carrasco into donating it to their non-existent children's crafts program. Even though originally it was supposed to be a "small amount", since Seattle City Lights is publicly owned, I would think donations, unless authorized by the city government, would be considered gifts of public funds.
  • The fact that a company blatantly states that they try to "enhance online branding and clear negatives by blanketing search results with positive content" means that are bold-faced EVIL. They are no longer even trying to hide it. That have accepted that society is malleable and that they can make a buck distorting the truth for the highest bidder.

    They are mercenaries. They might not be shooting people in the face for money, but they're destroying the truth for money. They are paid to go censor people in the

Just because he's dead is no reason to lay off work.

Working...