Steps to take if you have been ripped-off by a copy-cat government website

wealdroam

Hpuse, time for you to re-read a couple of posts...

wealdroam wrote: »

Hpuse, you are far too easily led astray.

You should be addressing the important stuff, or is there nothing more to be said about that?

As you said yourself:

hpuse wrote: »

Let's not divert...get back to topic of post#1.

Have you seen this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4912557

hpuse

wealdroam wrote: »

Hpuse, time for you to re-read a couple of posts...



Have you seen this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4912557

@wealdroam

would you extend the same same level of 'care' to other post/posters as well... thanks anyways!

wealdroam

hpuse wrote: »

@wealdroam

would you extend the same same level of 'care' to other post/posters as well... thanks anyways!

Of course I would. Why do you feel the need to ask?

Pollycat

House
Most posters address the points you make.
Why do you not extend he same level of 'care' to them?
(personally I would have used the word 'courtesy').

gik

hpuse wrote: »

@wealdroam

would you extend the same same level of 'care' to other post/posters as well... thanks anyways!

He is hoping he is 'special'....I can confirm that indeed he is!

Valli

hpuse wrote: »

Of course - copycat ads are now removed by google. please varify this by yourself.
Without advertisement, they exist purely as URL's on google search results page.

The only place you would find them is search results, but gov.uk websites appear first and top of the ranks.. I am thinking google will forcefully de-rank them, so they will soon move down the list.

You claimed they'd gone. They haven't.
You say they haven't gone yourself.

Which is it?

You are making two conflicting statements. Talk about 'hedging one's bets'!

imoneyop

Valli wrote: »

You claimed they'd gone. They haven't.
You say they haven't gone yourself.

Which is it?

You are making two conflicting statements. Talk about 'hedging one's bets'!

That's because in the usual hpuse style of editing posts to hide the fact he had posted incorrect information, but still ending up talking crap, he changed from saying they don't exist to they only exist in search results.

His original unedited post can be seen as a quote in my post here.

Money-Saving-King

hpuse wrote: »

The only place you would find them is search results, but gov.uk websites appear first and top of the ranks.. I am thinking google will forcefully de-rank them, so they will soon move down the list

Dot.gov site always carry a heavy SEO rank. So they will rank higher. I very much Google will do anything about the other sites as that's their natural rank. They'll take responsibility over the ads but that's where it'll stop as it's impossible to manage the billions of sits that compete for natural SEO ranks & why should they? If they were to manipulate the natural results there'd be no point in using Google as a search engine as it won't display what's relevant only what Google has decided. They will never do that to natural SEO results unless something is illegal.

missprice

keith-66 wrote: »

If copycat ads are not appearinh in google then no one clicks them.
Removing ads is a major blow.
Its almost as good as a google giving a kick on their b@lls.

But they are still appearing.
In fact I just googled it and the top two hits are adverts

Passportapply.co.uk
Specialdeliverycouriers.com

Both have the little ad in yellowy orange colour, although I not clicked on either link
Assume at least one is a copy cat site

So no removing of ads

imoneyop

missprice wrote: »

But they are still appearing.
In fact I just googled it and the top two hits are adverts

Passportapply.co.uk
Specialdeliverycouriers.com

Both have the little ad in yellowy orange colour, although I not clicked on either link
Assume at least one is a copy cat site

So no removing of ads

Looks like Google have taken the decision that there is nothing wrong with them displaying adverts from legitimate companies.

Perhaps the bribe from the Government to remove them wasn't enticing enough.