Buying Fake Reviews Deserve Negative Trust?

[FruitsBasket]

I saw this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1195412.new#new and I thought this: If you are buying fake reviews on your site, what could be your traget, ofcourse scamming people. "Camelson" is buying fake reviews for his website...? And I think we all know the purpose of this.
Isn't it almost the same as buyimg trust on the forum? It has the same purpose..
So enough said, what is your opinion os this?

[mexxer-2]

IMO it is a shady thing to do but not worth giving negative trust as after recieving the Google page the poster can post any review(probably won't get paid though) . Going according to your argument fake site views, fake reviews should be worth negative trust, which are done by participants, which I don't agree with

[lemipawa]

I think question that needs to be raised to Camelson is if he will still pay the person who reviewed his site even if the review is not on his favor.
If Camelson will still pay, I guess its fine.

[mexxer-2]

I think question that needs to be raised to Camelson is if he will still pay the person who reviewed his site even if the review is not on his favor.
If Camelson will still pay, I guess its fine.

Well according to him

Will Provide you Text Also

So he will only pay if you post exactly the same thing he wants you to post. Only dumb people will fall for the review considering his english.

[FruitsBasket]

The users that review his site are not allowed to put random text, or their own opinion. Camelson says I will provide you text also, so basically he is feviewing hisself with an other person his/her account, is that not very shady? It is the same as a DT member on here giving green trust to his own alts..

[mexxer-2]

The users that review his site are not allowed to put random text, or their own opinion. Camelson says I will provide you text also, so basically he is feviewing hisself with an other person his/her account, is that not very shady? It is the same as a DT member on here giving green trust to his own alts..

Yup but that concerns the forum. And have you seen his english? I doubt anyone will fall for this/get scammed due to this, at any rate this is a old trick in the book many people use, it is like buying fake traffic so that google can accept your site . In a way , say Bit-x scams tomorrow and you too were promoting the site in your signature should you be given a negative trust then?

[FruitsBasket]

The users that review his site are not allowed to put random text, or their own opinion. Camelson says I will provide you text also, so basically he is feviewing hisself with an other person his/her account, is that not very shady? It is the same as a DT member on here giving green trust to his own alts..

Yup but that concerns the forum. And have you seen his english? I doubt anyone will fall for this/get scammed due to this, at any rate this is a old trick in the book many people use, it is like buying fake traffic so that google can accept your site . In a way , say Bit-x scams tomorrow and you too were promoting the site in your signature should you be given a negative trust then?

That is completely different, camelson is the site owner. I do not own bit-x, that is difference 1, difference 2 is that he buys "FAKE" reviews and BIT-X doesn't. If they will go scam, I stop promoting them.

[mexxer-2]

The users that review his site are not allowed to put random text, or their own opinion. Camelson says I will provide you text also, so basically he is feviewing hisself with an other person his/her account, is that not very shady? It is the same as a DT member on here giving green trust to his own alts..

Yup but that concerns the forum. And have you seen his english? I doubt anyone will fall for this/get scammed due to this, at any rate this is a old trick in the book many people use, it is like buying fake traffic so that google can accept your site . In a way , say Bit-x scams tomorrow and you too were promoting the site in your signature should you be given a negative trust then?

That is completely different, camelson is the site owner. I do not own bit-x, that is difference 1, difference 2 is that he buys "FAKE" reviews and BIT-X doesn't. If they will go scam, I stop promoting them.

Nope not that different, you as a participant promoting Bit-x and the participants in camelson's thread , both are doing the same thing promoting the site.
As for the second thing you do not actually have proof that he actually has scammed anyone and lastly I think more accurate question should be "Should participants promoting using fake reviews along with owner be given a negative trust" as this is a controversial topic like : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183602.100 which depends on the opinion of users than a signle opinion you should include a poll as well

[FruitsBasket]

The users that review his site are not allowed to put random text, or their own opinion. Camelson says I will provide you text also, so basically he is feviewing hisself with an other person his/her account, is that not very shady? It is the same as a DT member on here giving green trust to his own alts..

Yup but that concerns the forum. And have you seen his english? I doubt anyone will fall for this/get scammed due to this, at any rate this is a old trick in the book many people use, it is like buying fake traffic so that google can accept your site . In a way , say Bit-x scams tomorrow and you too were promoting the site in your signature should you be given a negative trust then?

That is completely different, camelson is the site owner. I do not own bit-x, that is difference 1, difference 2 is that he buys "FAKE" reviews and BIT-X doesn't. If they will go scam, I stop promoting them.

Nope not that different, you as a participant promoting Bit-x and the participants in camelson's thread , both are doing the same thing promoting the site.
As for the second thing you do not actually have proof that he actually has scammed anyone and lastly I think more accurate question should be "Should participants promoting using fake reviews along with owner be given a negative trust" as this is a controversial topic like : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183602.100 which depends on the opinion of users than a signle opinion you should include a poll as well

No, you understand me wrong. I mean that camelson deseve a negative trust, not the participants that are getting paid. Signature campaigns are paying for advertising. But Camelson is paying for reviews, that is a big difference.

[mexxer-2]

I meant that particiapants(of the fake review service) know that they are misleading the viewers of the site into thinking that the site is actually legit. You should include a poll for community vote

[FruitsBasket]

I meant that particiapants(of the fake review service) know that they are misleading the viewers of the site into thinking that the site is actually legit. You should include a poll for community vote

Thanks for your input, I now have added a poll. I will wait for a while and see the result.
Yes, the participants that make a review are also doing the wrong thing, but the website owner is the most responsible since it is his idea.

[Vod]

Thanks for your input, I now have added a poll. I will wait for a while and see the result.

The thread title and the poll question contradict each other.   

[lemipawa]

I meant that particiapants(of the fake review service) know that they are misleading the viewers of the site into thinking that the site is actually legit. You should include a poll for community vote

Giving a negative trust to the participants is like giving neg trust to those who promotes scam sites. That issue is still being discussed in another thread but granting that giving a neg trust to the participant will be enforced, it will be hard to trace since transaction is done through PM. Some will post on Camelson's thread but it doesn't mean they participated in reviewing the site.

[mexxer-2]

Thanks for your input, I now have added a poll. I will wait for a while and see the result.

The thread title and the poll question contradict each other.   

True, seems OP was in a hurry while making the poll xD

[FruitsBasket]

Thanks for your input, I now have added a poll. I will wait for a while and see the result.

The thread title and the poll question contradict each other.   

Thanks for your input, I now have added a poll. I will wait for a while and see the result.

The thread title and the poll question contradict each other.   

Haha, I see it now. I have changed it to the thread tittle. I hope we get some results on the table!

[shorena]

While I dont like it, its pretty common. Its basic SEO stuff. Do you think the reviews on amazon are made by real people that paid for the product and are genuinely happy with it? Happy enough to write a 3 page paragraph? This is - as sad as it is - just what advertising is nowadays.

[FruitsBasket]

While I dont like it, its pretty common. Its basic SEO stuff. Do you think the reviews on amazon are made by real people that paid for the product and are genuinely happy with it? Happy enough to write a 3 page paragraph? This is - as sad as it is - just what advertising is nowadays.

Yes, I noticed that when buying stuff on ebay, I once bought a camera of 1080p HD camera and I receive a 420p camera which is automatically zoomed in and can not zoom out. That moment I knew the reviews are faked...