Chummie:
Grand Deceit -- Part 4. -- Continued
from Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 3 below.
This brings us to Chummie's "oldest" entry in
the blog which was entered on July 24, 2013 or otherwise depending on which of
Chummie's multiple and redundant blogs you look at. This is supposed to be a
warning letter from the FDA to someone who Chummie thinks is DryBuddy
(or its owning company). Now look at this supposed warning letter from the FDA.
1. It is
dated July 18, 2017 .
2. Earlier
versions were addressed to the "President and Owner, Savannah, GA
31406". No person's name, no company's name. Just "President and
Owner, Savannah, GA 31406". We have a copy of this crazy posting.
3. At the
bottom of this letter, there is no signature or even typed name of the
"District Director, New Orleans District".
Does this sound like a very poor hoax or frame-up from
Chummie? Instead of making absurd statements like “Most of us think that this
notice was sent to Enuresis Solutions LLC, manufacturer of the DryBuddy
Bedwetting Alam,” (we simply copied this from Chummie's blog, misspelling and
all), can Chummie not proclaim that this letter is addressed to DryBuddy and
its owning company since they have placed the name there? This appear to be the normal state of mental vacuum with the people at Chummie. Does Chummie
realize that it is a violation of U.S. law to impersonate a U.S. Government
Officer or Governmental Agency? And that
too on a possibly serious matter for which a "warning" is being
given? Perhaps Chummie is truly ignorant about legal or ethical matters since
they do not seem to observe or follow them. Perhaps they can use an insanity
plea, and use their writings and advertising as evidence of that mental state.
To make matters more complete, an inquiry was made at the
FDA office in New Orleans if such a warning letter was ever issued. They were
provided with the WARNING LETTER #, and the person at the FDA office looked
online at Chummie’s blog and viewed the letter. The FDA person said they knew
nothing about such a letter, and said to look at www.fda.gov
in which all warning letters are referenced and published. There is no such
letter. Furthermore, the FDA representative said that DryBuddy, located in Savannah, Georgia
would come under the jurisdiction of the FDA's Atlanta, Georgia office, and not
New Orleans. DryBuddy and its parent company have never been sent any warning
letter from the FDA. The FDA office in New Orleans has complete access to this
false letter posted by Chummie, and has made appropriate copies of it for
further review and action. The FDA is concerned about the possible
impersonation and misrepresentation of a government official and agency, and
will consider possible actions against Chummie.
So this time, in stomping around in the manurebed of
their deceit, Chummie may have stomped on something dangerous that may grab
Chummie and seriously chomp on them. It is also illustrative of how desperate
and shameless Chummie is that they should compose and publish this goofy frame-up.
This "FDA" letter is a fake.
So is this entire blog.
Can the readers conclude whatever they need to about
Chummie? And do the readers really want to do anything further with such a
deceitful party?
We have made a copy of these blogs to date, so that any
changes made by Chummie can be refuted.
Note:
Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.
Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Grand Deceit.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 3.
Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 3. -- Continued from Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 2 below.
We did NOT need to ask DryBuddy about Chummie's blog
entry dated July 24, 2013 and other dates, depending on which of Chummies over-abundent and duplicate blogs of deceit you look at. This entire entry is so wacky and crazy that there
isn't much one can say, except that Chummy was repeating some of our criticisms
of Chummie earlier in our bedwettingalarmsdeceitcatcher.blogspot.com blog. The
big difference is that our claims are confirmable, while Chummie's are poorly
imagined and crudely shouted from a soapbox. Furthermore, Chummie does not even
know its facts, and probably simply ignores them so that it can say whatever
comes into its mind.
This entry is typically Chummie. Once again, as usual, Chummie is given over to saying whatever comes to its mind, and includes some vulgar language. This is all perfectly indicative of Chummie's normal mental state and value system (mores, ethics, etc. or the lack of them).
This entry is typically Chummie. Once again, as usual, Chummie is given over to saying whatever comes to its mind, and includes some vulgar language. This is all perfectly indicative of Chummie's normal mental state and value system (mores, ethics, etc. or the lack of them).
We were informed that for the DryBuddy, which was
introduced into the market five years ago (long before Chummy was selling its
device), there was no contract manufacturer in China. For the DryBuddyEZ, all
specifications and most design features originated with DryBuddy, which was
intimately involved with both the design and development of the DryBuddyEZ. Sources
at DryBuddy could legitimately swear an oath for the U.S. Patent Office as
having been the originators of ideas for and inventors of the DryBuddy and
DryBuddyEZ. It may not be possible to say the same about Chummie and its
device(s).
There are other unethical issues about Chummie and its illicit involvement
with the DryBuddyEZ that we were informed about, but shall not repeat here at
the moment.
At this point we would like to quote from "Anon's" response to the blog entry "Stop Deceit on the Internet" at http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-deceit-on-internet.html .
“Something not addressed in the "stopdeceit"
blog last mentioned, is how furious and vengeful people may get, after they
have been discovered and exposed about indulging in internet deceit. And in
their anger how much additional deceit might they indulge in to create problems
for their presumed exposer. In my opinion, the party that has been exposed
should throw in the towel and try to find opportunities elsewhere, and try very
hard to abstain from deceit. However, the vengeful mentality of people who have
been uncovered can be quite unpredictable.” Chummie (and/or its agents) seem to
be behaving in this predicted manner, and are also strongly demonstrating an
incapacity for shame.
Note:
Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.
Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Chummie: Grand
Deceit.
We shall continue this exposé of this blog in Chummie:
Grand Deceit -- Part 4.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 2.
Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 2. -- Continued from Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 1 below.
Note:
Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.
Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Chummie (we shall start using that name instead of the goofy name adopted by the owner/writer of the blog) also provides copies of two negative reviews from Amazon dated February, 2013. Chummie could only find two negative reviews? They must be utterly desperate to be making such a big fuss about two (2!) bad reviews! Stretching out what little they can find anywhere! Anyway, these are for the DryBuddyEZ, a product very different from the DryBuddy system. The spokesman for DryBuddy admitted that they had introduced it on Amazon in February, 2013, and withdrew it within two weeks when they found that the sensor clip did not grip the briefs tightly enough. They also pointed out that there were positive reviews which, of course, Chummie does not mention. Never-the-less, the DryBuddyEZ was withdrawn promptly. Please note that Amazon was NOT forced to remove the product, as Chummie so blatantly claims, but it was withdrawn by DryBuddy for sensible and ethical reasons. A new clip has been developed which will hold the briefs tightly, about 50% more tightly than Malem's sensor clip (which is the accepted industry standard). And yes, the DryBuddyEZ will be sold for $29.99, including free domestic shipping. We were also told that anyone who had purchased a DryBuddyEZ in February would be given a free new sensor if they wished one.
We understand why Chummie is badly frazzled, when this item is superior to and less than one-third the price that Chummie charges for its device
Also, consider the respective ethics. As soon as DryBuddy became aware of a defect in its product, the product was withdrawn from the market (very shortly after it was introduced). Chummie has been made aware of defects in its device for a long time, but has NOT withdrawn the device to get it corrected, and continues to sell the device with its defects.
What a difference in attitude and action! DryBuddy admits to a flaw in its product, withdraws it, and corrects it. Chummie, on the other hand, is high on perpetual deniability and false bravado!
What a difference in attitude and action! DryBuddy admits to a flaw in its product, withdraws it, and corrects it. Chummie, on the other hand, is high on perpetual deniability and false bravado!
Note:
Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.
Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Chummie: Grand Deceit.
We shall continue this exposé of this blog in Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 3.
Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 1.
Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 1 July 30, 2013
We must admit that we have now seen an unbelievably new and high level of duplicity, deceit, and fraud being perpetuated by Chummie. Several new and repetitive blogs have come to our attention. These blogs are supposedly owned by "DryBuddy Enuresis Solutions", and “DryByddy Enuresis Solutions”, which contain very extensive attacks and lies about DryBuddy and its owning company. They are outstanding examples of the lengths to which Chummie will go in its deceit and vindictiveness.
It did not take much of an effort to conclude that the true owner/author of these blogs is Chummie or some associate of Chummie's. The style, the content, and the unmitigated lies (more on that later) were certainly in line with what we have identified extensively about Chummie. Without doubt, there is no other party in the bedwetting alarm industry who has achieved the ignominy or notoriety that Chummie has achieved with blatantly false statements and accusations. As suggested earlier, the culture of deceit appears to be well entrenched and thriving at Chummie. This example certainly establishes that even further. We shall also point out Chummie's pettiness in attempting to attack DryBuddy possibly because of the facts that we posted about Chummie's deceitfulness.
Let us start with the name of the owner/author of the blog which is blatantly and brazenly anti DryBuddy. Why would DryBuddy, or the company owning it, put their name to a blog which is nothing less than a soap box from which the perpetrator openly hurls lies and absurdly false accusations against DryBuddy? They would not.
Although many of the statements and claims in this blog were obviously ridiculous and false, we wanted to confirm some matters with DryBuddy and contacted them about these matters.
In the opening statement, Chummie claims that "wireless products that radiate dangerous levels of energy near your child's genitals, Drybuddy is a dangerour product." We shall again ignore the typos and misspellings which are typical of Chummie's poor command of the English language, particularly when Chummie is riled. We made inquiries of three persons knowledgeable about the wireless radiation from a DryBuddy sensor-like device, and asked if it would be "dangerous" for a child, or anyone else. In every instance the question was met with laughter, with the suggestion that with all of the car and other remote devices being used, radiation dangers would be very well known and acknowledged by far more believable and credible parties than Chummie. Also, how is it that Chummie is not criticizing the DRI Eclipse, which also transmits radio waves from "near your child's genitals." And this DRI device has been in service much longer than DryBuddy's. More indulgence by Chummie in selective invention that suits Chummie at the moment?
Chummie was also ridiculed for their complete lack of even basic electrical knowledge as it would be impossible from a device using a small 3 volts button battery from even having the capacity to "radiate dangerous levels of energy." Even more so a device that was designed to be using this small battery power source for a long period of time. But then, no-one ever said that Chummie had any technological know-how!
We asked this last question to a spokesperson for the company that owns DryBuddy. Although there was some initial laughter, it was followed by our being informed that an internet posting against DryBuddy in December, 2012 made the very same accusation, and was falsely posted in the name of the owner of the Bedwettingstore. This is a competing party that also sells bedwetting alarms. When the owners of DryBuddy and the Bedwettingstore discussed this, the Bedwettingstore owner not only vowed that he had never posted such a claim, but also pointed out that the email address used was not his email address. The two companies concluded, for a variety of reasons, that this false posting probably came from Chummie, trying to stir up bad feelings among competitors of Chummie. Now when this false issue is raised in this hopelessly bogus blog, the people at DryBuddy conclude that this blog and posting are coming directly or indirectly from Chummie. And we must concur. The repetition is too far out and absurd except to have come from the same party who's thoughts and imagination flow along constant lines of fault and absurdness.
Note:
Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.
Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Grand Deceit.
We shall continue the exposé of this blog in Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 2.
http://drybuddy-enuresis-solutions-bad.blogspot.com
http://drybuddy-enuresis-solutions-review.blogspot.com
http://drybuddy-enuresis-solutions-risk.blogspot.com
http://drybuddy-bedwetting-alarm-terrible.blogspot.com
http://drybuddy-bedwetting-alarm-risk.blogspot.com
Chummie is displaying great enthusiasm in their deceit by having six repetitive blogs.
Another blog of Chummie’s at http://drybuddy-bedwetting-alarm-testimonial.blogspot.com/
is now empty, and may have
been emptied and cancelled by Google for harassment or other punishable acts.
So don’t be surprised if the other sites mentioned above, or parts of them start
getting deleted or altered. However, we have copies of every one of these blogs
posted by Chummie and/or its associates, and can make them available whenever
needed.http://drybuddy-enuresis-solutions-risk.blogspot.com
http://drybuddy-bedwetting-alarm-terrible.blogspot.com
http://drybuddy-bedwetting-alarm-risk.blogspot.com
Chummie is displaying great enthusiasm in their deceit by having six repetitive blogs.
Another blog of Chummie’s at http://drybuddy-bedwetting-alarm-testimonial.blogspot.com/
We must admit that we have now seen an unbelievably new and high level of duplicity, deceit, and fraud being perpetuated by Chummie. Several new and repetitive blogs have come to our attention. These blogs are supposedly owned by "DryBuddy Enuresis Solutions", and “DryByddy Enuresis Solutions”, which contain very extensive attacks and lies about DryBuddy and its owning company. They are outstanding examples of the lengths to which Chummie will go in its deceit and vindictiveness.
It did not take much of an effort to conclude that the true owner/author of these blogs is Chummie or some associate of Chummie's. The style, the content, and the unmitigated lies (more on that later) were certainly in line with what we have identified extensively about Chummie. Without doubt, there is no other party in the bedwetting alarm industry who has achieved the ignominy or notoriety that Chummie has achieved with blatantly false statements and accusations. As suggested earlier, the culture of deceit appears to be well entrenched and thriving at Chummie. This example certainly establishes that even further. We shall also point out Chummie's pettiness in attempting to attack DryBuddy possibly because of the facts that we posted about Chummie's deceitfulness.
Let us start with the name of the owner/author of the blog which is blatantly and brazenly anti DryBuddy. Why would DryBuddy, or the company owning it, put their name to a blog which is nothing less than a soap box from which the perpetrator openly hurls lies and absurdly false accusations against DryBuddy? They would not.
Although many of the statements and claims in this blog were obviously ridiculous and false, we wanted to confirm some matters with DryBuddy and contacted them about these matters.
In the opening statement, Chummie claims that "wireless products that radiate dangerous levels of energy near your child's genitals, Drybuddy is a dangerour product." We shall again ignore the typos and misspellings which are typical of Chummie's poor command of the English language, particularly when Chummie is riled. We made inquiries of three persons knowledgeable about the wireless radiation from a DryBuddy sensor-like device, and asked if it would be "dangerous" for a child, or anyone else. In every instance the question was met with laughter, with the suggestion that with all of the car and other remote devices being used, radiation dangers would be very well known and acknowledged by far more believable and credible parties than Chummie. Also, how is it that Chummie is not criticizing the DRI Eclipse, which also transmits radio waves from "near your child's genitals." And this DRI device has been in service much longer than DryBuddy's. More indulgence by Chummie in selective invention that suits Chummie at the moment?
Chummie was also ridiculed for their complete lack of even basic electrical knowledge as it would be impossible from a device using a small 3 volts button battery from even having the capacity to "radiate dangerous levels of energy." Even more so a device that was designed to be using this small battery power source for a long period of time. But then, no-one ever said that Chummie had any technological know-how!
We asked this last question to a spokesperson for the company that owns DryBuddy. Although there was some initial laughter, it was followed by our being informed that an internet posting against DryBuddy in December, 2012 made the very same accusation, and was falsely posted in the name of the owner of the Bedwettingstore. This is a competing party that also sells bedwetting alarms. When the owners of DryBuddy and the Bedwettingstore discussed this, the Bedwettingstore owner not only vowed that he had never posted such a claim, but also pointed out that the email address used was not his email address. The two companies concluded, for a variety of reasons, that this false posting probably came from Chummie, trying to stir up bad feelings among competitors of Chummie. Now when this false issue is raised in this hopelessly bogus blog, the people at DryBuddy conclude that this blog and posting are coming directly or indirectly from Chummie. And we must concur. The repetition is too far out and absurd except to have come from the same party who's thoughts and imagination flow along constant lines of fault and absurdness.
Note:
Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.
Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Grand Deceit.
We shall continue the exposé of this blog in Chummie: Grand Deceit -- Part 2.
Chummie: Very Strong Deceit on Internet Review Sites and Blogs.
Chummie continues to behave disgracefully. This will provide opportunities for many more blog entries relating to Chummie’s deceit and other malicious practices, all of which have been recorded.
First, it is appropriate to reveal that the Product A mentioned and analyzed in
and
also below in corresponding blogs, is the Chummie bedwetting alarm product.
Starting
with the reviews of Chummie on Amazon, it is our opinion that 34% of the
total reviews for Chummie may have been biased by Chummie. In other words, they
may be fake reviews placed there by Chummie and/or its associates. Of these,
about 94% were very positive reviews, which would be perfectly understandable
if they were biased by Chummy. We also noticed that many negative opinions that
we saw in 2012 and later had been removed. This would also certainly look good
for Chummie, and we cannot imagine it happening without Chummie’s instigation.
Relating
to product blogs, we did a fresh Google search for Chummie blogs, and
looked at the results to identify what we would regard as advertisements for
Chummie on various sites that were displayed. We found 14 of the 30 total sites
on the three pages to be blatant advertisements for Chummie. Almost all
appeared to be sites run by individuals or small groups, who were trying to
make a buck. We did include in the total any sites “owned” by Chummie, and also
any sites that were critical of Chummie on these pages which were not included in the "blogs for Chummie." So to have almost 50% approval from small blogs/sites is a great display of buying positive endorsements.
These confirm our opinion that Chummie is the leader in false advertising, and has no credibility. It also reinforces our opinion that these "reviews" and product "opinions" should be ignored.
Expect more about Chummie's abuse of the internet and continuing deceit.
These confirm our opinion that Chummie is the leader in false advertising, and has no credibility. It also reinforces our opinion that these "reviews" and product "opinions" should be ignored.
Expect more about Chummie's abuse of the internet and continuing deceit.
Note:
Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.
Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Very Strong Deceit.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Deceit on the Internet: Product Blogs --- Strong Deceit.
In our blog entry dated July 20th, we
discussed how Product Blogs provided a strong opportunity for deceit. We decided
to do some basic data analysis to see how strongly product blogs were used to
spread the manufacturers’ message in such a way that the manufacturer affected
the outcome of the “review.”
We did a Google search for the two bedwetting alarms A and B which were candidates for strong deceit. We did not include in our count any sites that were explicitly used for selling the product (like Amazon.com), or sites openly run by the manufacturer (like XXXXX.com or XXXXX.blogspot.com) or a site openly selling the product. We did include in our count blogs and sites being used by the manufacturer and not revealing the manufacturer’s ownership of the site, which either served as a direct display of the manufacturers’ advertising, or did the same indirectly as an “opinion” or “review” by the owner of the site or blog.
Some blog owners were reasonably open about their policies. To quote one site/blog:
“This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation. The compensation received may influence the advertising content, topics or posts made in this blog.”
That’s pretty straight forward. But our experience with the content of every site/blog was that the compensation received did influence the review in a very positive manner.
Searching the first 6 pages of the Google search results, our count for these possibly phony reviews was:
Product A: 29 biased reviews
Product B: 25 biased reviews
These numbers did not surprise us knowing what these products were, and who their owners were.
We do want to point out that these possibly fake reviews account for about one-half (fifty percent) of the first five or six pages of search results under Google search.
This is abominable in our opinion, that these manufacturers should be overwhelming the internet with such deceitful opinions and reviews, reviews that have been paid for or “sponsored” by them. It is also indicative of the lack of care or respect of the public by these manufacturers, who may do anything they can get away with to sell their products, including the excessive deceit that we could count.
We again recommend that persons reading opinions on the internet after an internet search should ignore almost every review or review site. The biases are usually excessive, generally quite substantially in favor of the manufacturer. We again suggest that the reader go to a neutral and very comprehensive data site such as www.urinealarms.com to examine the different products in the market place, and make straight forward comparisons of product qualities and prices.
We did a Google search for the two bedwetting alarms A and B which were candidates for strong deceit. We did not include in our count any sites that were explicitly used for selling the product (like Amazon.com), or sites openly run by the manufacturer (like XXXXX.com or XXXXX.blogspot.com) or a site openly selling the product. We did include in our count blogs and sites being used by the manufacturer and not revealing the manufacturer’s ownership of the site, which either served as a direct display of the manufacturers’ advertising, or did the same indirectly as an “opinion” or “review” by the owner of the site or blog.
Some blog owners were reasonably open about their policies. To quote one site/blog:
“This blog accepts forms of cash advertising, sponsorship, paid insertions or other forms of compensation. The compensation received may influence the advertising content, topics or posts made in this blog.”
That’s pretty straight forward. But our experience with the content of every site/blog was that the compensation received did influence the review in a very positive manner.
Searching the first 6 pages of the Google search results, our count for these possibly phony reviews was:
Product A: 29 biased reviews
Product B: 25 biased reviews
These numbers did not surprise us knowing what these products were, and who their owners were.
We do want to point out that these possibly fake reviews account for about one-half (fifty percent) of the first five or six pages of search results under Google search.
This is abominable in our opinion, that these manufacturers should be overwhelming the internet with such deceitful opinions and reviews, reviews that have been paid for or “sponsored” by them. It is also indicative of the lack of care or respect of the public by these manufacturers, who may do anything they can get away with to sell their products, including the excessive deceit that we could count.
We again recommend that persons reading opinions on the internet after an internet search should ignore almost every review or review site. The biases are usually excessive, generally quite substantially in favor of the manufacturer. We again suggest that the reader go to a neutral and very comprehensive data site such as www.urinealarms.com to examine the different products in the market place, and make straight forward comparisons of product qualities and prices.
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Chummie: Strong Deceit by Perversion
Chummie: Strong Deceit by Perversion http://bg-alarm.blogspot.com/2012/06/bad-chummie-premium-bedwetting-alarm.html (July 21, 2013)
Chummie, whom we have called the fountainhead of deceit
on the internet, has taken deceit to a new level with their false advertising
which has become apparent on Google search. Now that negative results about
Chummie are showing up on Page 1 of a Google search, it appears that Chummie is
trying to get some promotional advantage out of the negative reviews by
inserting their own misleading negative search results, which when clicked on,
leads to a full-fledged Chummie advertisement full of its usual and traditional
deceit.
When doing a Google search, the following Google search
result is shown:
bg-alarm.blogspot.com/.../bad-chummie-premium-bedwetting-alarm.htm...
o Cached
Jun 18, 2012 - Chummie is far and away the worst when it
comes to deceit. This site has numerous pages dedicated to Chummie's deceit.
i agree with them.
Chummie or its shill(s) have taken or invented a negative
search result about Chummie which is dated June 18, 2012. If a reader clicks on
this blog link expecting to find a negative comment about Chummie, they are
instead shown a full advertising blurb in favor of Chummie, with the same old deceitful
claims that Chummie is known for.
The very deceitful Chummie is further demonstrating its
trickery and duplicity by enticing readers to view an advertisement for them by
drawing them with a totally different and negative search result. Furthermore,
Chummie's wording makes the above result sound like it may be coming from this
bedwettingalarmsdeceitcather blog. Sneaky, in a very negative way. Trying to "fool" readers. This confirms very poor ethics.
We should also point out that Chummie, together with
several other manufacturers, has been using this blog site
("bg-alarm") as a "farm" for posting advertisements for
their alarms, hoping that Google search and other search engines will pick them
up. Chummie appears to be the prevalent advertiser in the last few years. We
discuss this form of deceit using product blogs in our post "Deceit on the
Internet: Product Blogs." We would certainly recommend that any search
results coming from bg-alarm.blogspot.com be ignored, as it typically
represents advertising from the manufacturers pitching their products.
Chummie has been singled out for a "Strong
Deceit" rating because they are deceitfully using a false search result to
draw customers to their deceitful advertising.
Note:
Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.
Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.
Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .
Strong Deceit by
Perversion.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Deceit on the Internet: Product Blogs.
Continuing with our discussion of Deceit on the Internet,
as suggested and explained at http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-deceit-on-internet.html
we shall look at how product blogs are used for deceit.
Product Blogs:
This is something that each interested person can do for themselves. We did a Google search by the product names for the four products that we had considered in the earlier post of "Deceit on the Internet: Shopping Reviews." We can only give you a summary and our “feelings” based on our search. We only searched for the four products, A, B, C, and D which were evaluated in our earlier comments about Shopping Reviews.
For both Product A and Product B there were a large number of listings on product blogs. It is difficult to distinguish much difference between the techniques or results for Product A versus Product B. They both seemed to be reading out of the same book, and had rather similar results. So the next few paragraphs summarizes our thoughts for both Product A and Product B.
Both manufacturers were very aggressive in trying to “place” their products with any and all parties that would offer a "good" opinion about these products on their blogs, or help in spreading “the word” in a "good" sense about these products on the internet. Almost without exception, these blogging parties were individuals or small groups of individuals. Some stated that they were writing this blog entry because they had been given this product to review and then keep. We are aware that there are some blogs whose “owners” will write whatever they are told to write and enter that into their blogs for a monetary fee or other compensation. These blogs were also represented.
Both manufacturers also compensated these blogs by offering “discount coupons” through these blogs, which the blog owner would hopefully benefit from by attracting more traffic and consequently more paid advertising of some sort or the other. Many of these blogs were obviously providing statements (or reviews) from the manufacturers, or were copying significant elements of the manufacturers’ advertising in their “reviews.” Even blogs set up with names associated with bedwetting or bedwetting alarms were essentially servicing the manufacturers, and had doubtful or no validity or credibility in our opinion. Furthermore, some blog writers were blindly taking for granted the validity of other reviews on the internet (which we have already demonstrated can be quite fictional) and using them to validate their preferences, if these reviews so suited them. This may sound absurd and is undoubtedly unethical, but there is a lot of selective adoption of possibly unreliable information, if it suits the reviewer’s objectives.
As an illustration of how a manufacturer may actually advertise to entice other bloggers and persons to promote their product, we have copied an actual example from the internet, leaving out the blog and manufacturer’s name:
Bedwetting Alarm Giveaway & Blogger Opp!
This is a FREE blogger opportunity (with paid options)
Open to US Residents Only
Sign up: April 14, 2013 to April 28, 2013
Giveaway Dates: May 1, 2013 to May 15, 2013
Participation Rules:
We did not find such issues for Products C and D to any significant extent.
Product Blogs:
This is something that each interested person can do for themselves. We did a Google search by the product names for the four products that we had considered in the earlier post of "Deceit on the Internet: Shopping Reviews." We can only give you a summary and our “feelings” based on our search. We only searched for the four products, A, B, C, and D which were evaluated in our earlier comments about Shopping Reviews.
For both Product A and Product B there were a large number of listings on product blogs. It is difficult to distinguish much difference between the techniques or results for Product A versus Product B. They both seemed to be reading out of the same book, and had rather similar results. So the next few paragraphs summarizes our thoughts for both Product A and Product B.
Both manufacturers were very aggressive in trying to “place” their products with any and all parties that would offer a "good" opinion about these products on their blogs, or help in spreading “the word” in a "good" sense about these products on the internet. Almost without exception, these blogging parties were individuals or small groups of individuals. Some stated that they were writing this blog entry because they had been given this product to review and then keep. We are aware that there are some blogs whose “owners” will write whatever they are told to write and enter that into their blogs for a monetary fee or other compensation. These blogs were also represented.
Both manufacturers also compensated these blogs by offering “discount coupons” through these blogs, which the blog owner would hopefully benefit from by attracting more traffic and consequently more paid advertising of some sort or the other. Many of these blogs were obviously providing statements (or reviews) from the manufacturers, or were copying significant elements of the manufacturers’ advertising in their “reviews.” Even blogs set up with names associated with bedwetting or bedwetting alarms were essentially servicing the manufacturers, and had doubtful or no validity or credibility in our opinion. Furthermore, some blog writers were blindly taking for granted the validity of other reviews on the internet (which we have already demonstrated can be quite fictional) and using them to validate their preferences, if these reviews so suited them. This may sound absurd and is undoubtedly unethical, but there is a lot of selective adoption of possibly unreliable information, if it suits the reviewer’s objectives.
As an illustration of how a manufacturer may actually advertise to entice other bloggers and persons to promote their product, we have copied an actual example from the internet, leaving out the blog and manufacturer’s name:
Bedwetting Alarm Giveaway & Blogger Opp!
This is a FREE blogger opportunity (with paid options)
Open to US Residents Only
Sign up: April 14, 2013 to April 28, 2013
Giveaway Dates: May 1, 2013 to May 15, 2013
Participation Rules:
·
Participation is FREE
(with paid options).
·
You agree to promote
the giveaway once it goes live at least 3x per week
Pricing:
·
One free link of your
choice - Facebook or Twitter or Pinterest only with announcement post
·
$5.00 fee to waive
announcement post
·
The following additional
links are $1.00 each:
o Facebook
o Twitter
o Pinterest
I will be posting a reminder for this once it
goes live!
We did not find such issues for Products C and D to any significant extent.
Bearing in mind that Products A and B are relatively new
compared to Products C and D, we must assume that the manufacturers of A and B
were trying to make their presence known on the internet. It is unfortunate
that both manufacturers had no qualms about paying (in cash or kind) to having
their products touted on these blogs. These reviews and blogs are bogus and
fake. Any reader of these blogs must remember that they have poor credibility
and are often mouthpieces for whoever may be compensating them in any way. And
more individuals are trying to make an extra buck by starting such “for hire”
blogs. This is not a good trend as two sets of greedy people, the people
setting up and running blogs, and the manufacturers and sellers, are only
increasing deceit on the internet by fake postings on these blogs.
We should also point out that many blogs run by organizations that have developed a reputation in the heath advisory area can also be quite deceitful. The organization running the blog in its name may be unbiased and innocent, but members posting reviews, and moderators responsible for editing these reviews can be quite biased. Moderators have been know to delete entries that may question their biases and opinions, and even make it impossible for opposing views to be registered by "closing" that thread while maintaining on the blog only the opinions that the moderator supports, and get away with it because of inadequate controls on the part of the owner organization.
We should also point out that many blogs run by organizations that have developed a reputation in the heath advisory area can also be quite deceitful. The organization running the blog in its name may be unbiased and innocent, but members posting reviews, and moderators responsible for editing these reviews can be quite biased. Moderators have been know to delete entries that may question their biases and opinions, and even make it impossible for opposing views to be registered by "closing" that thread while maintaining on the blog only the opinions that the moderator supports, and get away with it because of inadequate controls on the part of the owner organization.
In conclusion, we must agree with Stop Deceit, that many
blogs run by private individuals, small groups of persons, and even normally reliable organizations without adequate controls, can have
substantial fake reviews on them. If Consumer Reports reviews bedwetting
alarms, you can expect unbiased reviews. But “Moms-bedwetting-alarms-reviews”
(the name is fictional and not intended to criticize anyone) probably should be
ignored, unless you find its reading entertaining. Caution and prudence are
highly recommended before the reader accepts reviews at their face value from
these blogs.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Deceit on the Internet: Shopping Reviews
Deceit on the
Internet (July
19, 2013)
We were intrigued by an entry (comment) by Anon on our entry for Chummie: Strong Deceit by Perversion on July 15, 2013. Anon referenced a blog http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/ titled Stop Deceit on the Internet. The author(s), using the name “Stop Deceit,” gave a decent description of deceit on the internet. Stop Deceit gave three basic sources of deceit on the internet:
1. Manufacturer’s Web Sites,
2. Product Blogs, and
3. Shopping Reviews.
We would strongly recommend that readers look at http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/ .
We have been systematically addressing deceit on manufacturers’ blog sites for bedwetting alarm manufacturers on this blog. We felt intrigued about how much deceit there may be with respect to bed wetting alarms on shopping blogs and shopping reviews. As we are following the bedwetting alarm industry, we thought we should look at bedwetting alarm related deceit in Product Blogs and Shopping Reviews
Shopping Reviews:
We chose Amazon.com for our basic analysis, as Amazon is undoubtedly the biggest shopping site (even for bedwetting alarms) and we can expect the most buyer reviews. Furthermore, Amazon does provide more information about the reviewer and the reviewer’s history at Amazon, so that we could better analyze the reviewer. To get a sufficiently large sample, we arbitrarily decided to look at “wired” alarms currently being sold on Amazon so that their reviews would be available to us. We also decided to only consider alarms where there were more than fifty reviews, so that we could have a reasonable sample size. Even there, to somewhat limit the time we might have to spend on this task, we selected four alarms which we felt might adequately cover the different styles and prices available.
Our intent was to try and get a plausible idea of the extent to which the reviews were unduly biased, and whether they were biased in favor of or against that particular alarm. In other words, we were attempting to identify the extent to which reviews might have been provided by shills or touts of the manufacturer (which would unduly favor that item) or by competitors (which would unduly bad-mouth the item). We then came up with a set of criteria to apply to each and every revue for that product on Amazon. We do want to point out that the criteria are subjective and are not necessarily perfect in their ability to identify touts or shills. But we feel that the identified reviews are much more likely to be unduly biased, and not be honest reviews by honest and actual buyers.
The following table shows the results for the number of possibly biased reviews out of the total, and further breaks them up into positive bias (perhaps shills for the manufacturer/seller) and negative bias (perhaps shills for competitors). They are expressed as a percentage of the total identified biased reviews (rounded to the nearest whole percent):
Product A: 34% Positive Bias 32% Negative Bias 2%
We were intrigued by an entry (comment) by Anon on our entry for Chummie: Strong Deceit by Perversion on July 15, 2013. Anon referenced a blog http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/ titled Stop Deceit on the Internet. The author(s), using the name “Stop Deceit,” gave a decent description of deceit on the internet. Stop Deceit gave three basic sources of deceit on the internet:
1. Manufacturer’s Web Sites,
2. Product Blogs, and
3. Shopping Reviews.
We would strongly recommend that readers look at http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/ .
We have been systematically addressing deceit on manufacturers’ blog sites for bedwetting alarm manufacturers on this blog. We felt intrigued about how much deceit there may be with respect to bed wetting alarms on shopping blogs and shopping reviews. As we are following the bedwetting alarm industry, we thought we should look at bedwetting alarm related deceit in Product Blogs and Shopping Reviews
Shopping Reviews:
We chose Amazon.com for our basic analysis, as Amazon is undoubtedly the biggest shopping site (even for bedwetting alarms) and we can expect the most buyer reviews. Furthermore, Amazon does provide more information about the reviewer and the reviewer’s history at Amazon, so that we could better analyze the reviewer. To get a sufficiently large sample, we arbitrarily decided to look at “wired” alarms currently being sold on Amazon so that their reviews would be available to us. We also decided to only consider alarms where there were more than fifty reviews, so that we could have a reasonable sample size. Even there, to somewhat limit the time we might have to spend on this task, we selected four alarms which we felt might adequately cover the different styles and prices available.
Our intent was to try and get a plausible idea of the extent to which the reviews were unduly biased, and whether they were biased in favor of or against that particular alarm. In other words, we were attempting to identify the extent to which reviews might have been provided by shills or touts of the manufacturer (which would unduly favor that item) or by competitors (which would unduly bad-mouth the item). We then came up with a set of criteria to apply to each and every revue for that product on Amazon. We do want to point out that the criteria are subjective and are not necessarily perfect in their ability to identify touts or shills. But we feel that the identified reviews are much more likely to be unduly biased, and not be honest reviews by honest and actual buyers.
The following table shows the results for the number of possibly biased reviews out of the total, and further breaks them up into positive bias (perhaps shills for the manufacturer/seller) and negative bias (perhaps shills for competitors). They are expressed as a percentage of the total identified biased reviews (rounded to the nearest whole percent):
Product A: 34% Positive Bias 32% Negative Bias 2%
Product B: 31% Positive Bias 25% Negative Bias 6%
Product C: 11% Positive Bias 9% Negative Bias 2%
Product D: 2% Positive
Bias 2% Negative
Bias 0%
We must confess that the high percentage of bias that we
judged to be present for Product A came as no surprise to us. We also see that
a huge proportion of those are positively biased, perhaps unduly raising the
"ratings" for Product A. We must “assume” that the manufacturer is
quite desperate or non-caring about using deceitful reviews so as to raise the
ratings of their product. So the “ratings” that you see on Amazon for this
product are possibly very biased (skewed) on the high side and wrong.
Product B was the newest of the four products examined,
and we were somewhat surprised that the percentage of possibly fake reviews was
so high. The primary difference between Product B and Product A is that B has
not flooded Amazon with possibly biased positive ratings as much as Product A
might have. So the proportion of positive to negative biased reviews is less
for Product B than for Product A. Never-the-less, Product B also appears to be
overindulging in introducing biased reviews into Amazon.
Product C is an established product. Although the
percentage of possibly fake reviews was lower, we still considered it to be
high. The ratio of positive to negative biased reviews is about the same as for
Product B.
Product D is also an established product. Here, our
surprise was that the bias was so low, as compared to the other products.
Without mentioning names, we must commend the manufacturer of Product D for our
not noticing much presence of shills and touts in the reviews of this product.
In conclusion, we must agree with Stop Deceit, that even
the “best” of shopping sites, using their own criteria for weeding out fake
reviews, was unable to prevent a substantial number of possibly fake reviews
from being presented on Amazon.com . For Product A and Product B, we estimate
that about one-third of the reviews could be fake. This is a huge
fraction of the total reviews. Consequently, do not take these reviews as “the
honest truth.” Take them with a grain of salt, or even a shovelful of salt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)