Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


What is your opinion of FraudRecord.com? (specify if customer or provider)
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

What is your opinion of FraudRecord.com? (specify if customer or provider)

What do you think of the service FraudRecord.com provides for the "quality assurance" on the provider side when deciding whether to initiate a business relationship with a customer?

My opinion is that FR is a good service -- especially since its mostly internal, limited to providers themselves, and then the provider can make a judgement on their own based on the information provided.
Not enough info for the providers liking? Sign the client up.
Don't like what you are seeing? Decline to begin the business relationship.

I think it's about time that us providers have a way to share potential problem clients in a respectable manner.

Don't forget -- Just how clients can pick and choose their host, us hosts also have the right to refuse service to clients.
The bad thing is that while our reviews of clients are internal, anything clients usually post (whether true, false, mis-information, misleading, etc) is normally on a public forum -- and you know other potential customers will get the wrong idea (if its not the truth...).

So... your thoughts on FraudRecord?
What inspired this convo is a currently active thread on WHT. Here it is for reference:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?p=9257600

I think this customer definitely deserves the listing based on just his behavior in the thread.

FraudRecord Feasibility (Please explain votes in a comment)
  1. Do you like FR?69 votes
    1. Yes
      62.32%
    2. No
      37.68%
«13

Comments

  • SplitIceSplitIce Member, Host Rep

    I don't use it (as a provider) but I like it in theory. I don't use it due to lack of time to integrate etc, not because of any reasons relating to the service itself.

    As a consumer I have no problem with it, I have a good relation with 99.9% of all providers I have services with.

  • its dubious at best, and am not sure of the legality of it in the EU (data protection laws)

  • emgemg Veteran
    edited October 2014

    I am a consumer. In practice, FraudRecord feels like what I have read about how the US Government's Do Not Fly List allegedly works. Another way to look at it is that it does not have the protections of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (USA) where consumers can obtain copies of their credit reports, correct errors, and where consumer behavior improvements will upgrade their credit scores over time (aging data).

    In my opinion, the overall idea for FraudRecord is good, but they have done it on the cheap. They have not invested in developing the tools and infrastructure to do it properly. Here are some of my concerns with how it is implemented:

    • There is no easy way for a consumer to check that their name is clear or see whatever fraud reports have been filed against them, even if they are erroneous or unjustified. It appears that the first step is to sign up as a company, which puts a high burden on an ordinary user.

    • There is no review or appeal process. As best I can understand it, the customer must ask the original reporter to take down a fraud notice. If the fraud notice is unjustified or vindictive, what incentive is there for the reporting business to take it down? What if the reporting business no longer exists?

    • Threatening a FraudRecord report becomes a tool that bad businesses can use as a threat to impose prior restraint on their customers to discourage them from posting honest reviews.

    • There is no aging process. People grow up and mature. In this case, the follies of youth that justifiably resulted in a FraudRecord report may plague a good person forever.

    Please correct me if I am wrong or do not fully understand.

  • ItsChrisGItsChrisG Member
    edited October 2014

    Nicely written explanation of your opinion @emg. You do bring up some key issues with regards to consumer fairness with the way FR currently operates.

  • @emg, Provider here. I look at Fraudrecord on all new signups. Your absolutely correct on many points you mentioned.

    I like to look at FR as a resource, not a definitive guide. If a client has one or two 1+ year old reports, I'll most likely ignore the issues, however, if there is report after report from provider after provider about customer spamming or other nefarious activities, I'll most likely not approve the order. It's a decent resource, and useful only if providers are accurate and honest in their information.

    I'd like to see FR have a public portal so users can check themselves, but I also see it from the other side. If someone can see what FR reports on them easier, its more likely that the user will change all their information used to signup for service.

    As far as a review or appeal process, it is on the host to provide the means to contest the information. Until FR is more regulated like credit agencies, consumers don't have the means to contest the information, and then rely on FR to verify accuracy as is done today with credit agencies.

    With out of business hosts, maybe FR should be grabbing their homepages, and when down, or 404'd for a pre-determined amount of time, mark all their listings to reflect the business being closed.

  • LeeLee Veteran

    The poll is ineffective.

    It does not distinguish between whether the answer is from a provider or client, that is important.

  • ricardoricardo Member
    edited October 2014

    Consumer, opinion is that it's a nice idea, its weakness is that it relies on providers being honest (albeit other providers can make their own decision on the data). For it to work it needs to deal with that angle effectively.

  • MonsteRMonsteR Member
    edited October 2014

    Type: Provider
    Comments:
    It's reasonable but this is only if your manually checking orders. I think if they made it more automated where they implement it such as alone side maxmind to add up the score or even a completely separate check on the order form it would be much better. Although we do manually check some orders with this module it makes it hard to catch them before they have offended. Another note is false reporting can occur which then makes the whole system unreliable but you can normally see the spammer due to multiple reports.

  • vpsGODvpsGOD Member, Host Rep
    edited October 2014

    Type : Provider

    To avoid unwanted abuse/chargeback fraudrecord offer a point about client.

  • No chargebacks, no fraud, its simple. PP and others only grown fraud.

  • Provider - I haven't used the system but I know that many of our brands take data from FraudRecord as part of their fraud screening process. FR should be seen as an opinion rather than gospel truth, but if review the company making the FR complaint then you can easily sift between fact and fiction.

    Maxmind does give some basic fraud scoring too with MaxFraud (or whatever its called). There are a few of these industry blacklists, FR is most common and open for almost any to get data from.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider
    edited October 2014

    Love it, cut all the shit and the bedroom lawyer crap and you are left with this:

    99% of the time it is very effective, adds a layer of protection for both Hosts and clients of said hosts against abusers.

    1% of the time idiot hosts report clients they don't like for spam.

    Your basic data is sent as a hash only, if you behave you have nothing to worry about, simple, if you don't behave or live in the grey area you probably should have asked first.

    Thanked by 1ItsChrisG
  • emgemg Veteran

    AnthonySmith said: [...] 1% of the time idiot hosts report clients they don't like for spam. [...]

    Based on personal observation, there does not appear to be a shortage of "idiot hosts" here on LET.

    Bedroom lawyer or not (I am not), the reason I learned what I know about FraudRecord is because I posted a detailed, scathing review of a poor VPS provider. The review was as factual and objective as I could make it. I never missed a payment, filed a chargeback, or abused their support system. Still, I wonder to this day whether they filed a FraudRecord report on me because of that review. There is no easy way to know on my own.

  • The last two posts pretty much sum it up for me. Two sides to a coin.

  • LeeLee Veteran
    edited October 2014

    The single biggest element of fraud record that makes it wrong is the lack of checking of providers.

    AnthonySmith said: 1% of the time idiot hosts report clients they don't like for spam.

    emg said: Based on personal observation, there does not appear to be a shortage of "idiot hosts" here on LET.

    1%? Yeah if only and I don't believe you believe that @AnthonySmith

    AnthonySmith said: cut all the shit and the bedroom lawyer crap and you are left with this:

    It may be shit to you but to the decent people that use the services of the hosting industry it is important that whatever is used does it the right way. FR does not.

    Thanked by 1Mark_R
  • emgemg Veteran

    @ricardo said:
    The last two posts pretty much sum it up for me. Two sides to a coin.

    Not exactly. Coins are fair and even.

    FraudRecord is asymmetric - the business members wield all the power and information. The customer may never learn about an unfair report that is filed by a VPS provider in vengeance for a poor review. Whether or not the customer knows about it, the customer is helpless to do anything about it without the original provider's cooperation.

    A customer may be turned down by a future provider for services, and the future provider may not explain that the true reason is a FraudRecord report. The customer cannot defend himself/herself, because they never learn the true reason behind the denial.

    Have you ever read "The Trial" by Franz Kafka?

  • Not to mention that FR isn't registered legal entity but hobby project of faceless semi anonymous guy from internet. But it's hashed and this make entering and pulling out someone's private data right?

  • @emg, two sides to a coin means there's always a different point of view which in this case means provider and client. The drawbacks of the system itself IMO I'd already mentioned.

  • emgemg Veteran

    @ricardo, True, you are right. I get that there may be differing and opposite opinions between customers and providers (two sides to a coin).

    Forgive me for (ab)using your post to point out the asymmetry between customers and provider. FraudRecord and your VPS provider freely ignore your side of the coin and do what they want anyway.

    Thanked by 1ricardo
  • They need to improve and have a system for rating customers based on what happened and the seriousness of it. Right now it just gives a rating based on how much of their information matches their database. They should also take into consideration proof on what happened from the customer and provider. So no, I don't agree with it.

  • @emg, yes it's a very important point you make. I don't see the privacy aspect of encrypted details as an issue, but due to the unbounded nature of the reports, there would be legal scope for loss of earnings in the event a client is refused service. It's a subtle point, each provider can refuse business at their discretion, but FR itself is on shakier ground.

  • LeeLee Veteran

    Fraud Record could also flip this to aid the clients too. An opportunity for the client to report a host who could equally have done something which should be logged and thus allow people to search for hosts that may not be as good as they first thought.

    Thanked by 1Mark_R
  • @AnthonySmith wasn't there a thread about FileMedia around here unfairly putting a report up for someone, we made that public then FR stepped in and updated it? [FOUND - http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/32089/complaint-against-filemedia-for-defamation ]

    @emg if you want your FraudRecord report then ask a reasonable host that you know to give you a copy. Its not top secret.

    Honestly I take fraud record with a pinch of salt depending what the hashes match and/or how many reports have been filed for someone. It should be part of a bigger picture (more than one anti-fraud/abuse system) in my opinion.

  • LeeLee Veteran

    I have no doubt Harzem had top intentions when he came up with the idea and he has implemented it well for what it is.

    But when it's a service that is so easy for any host to use with no background checking that can ultimately cause harm to someone's reputation for the wrong reasons then it has to raise questions.

    Sure it prevents a lot of fraud however sending only 1 innocent man out of 100 to death row does not vindicate the process.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    W1V_Lee said: 1%? Yeah if only and I don't believe you believe that @AnthonySmith

    Well I check every new order on FR without fail, the stupid records to exist but I can count the ones I have seen on 1 hand so in reality it may be less than 1%, I really do believe that.

    W1V_Lee said: Sure it prevents a lot of fraud however sending only 1 innocent man out of 100 to death row does not vindicate the process.

    Life or death... sure I agree, but this is not even close and I do not believe in tearing something down because of what the 1% might do, if people lived like that we would never leave the house.

    I do agree that it has room for improvement but right now... frankly it is better than maxmind in terms of accuracy, which by the way you can also report "fraud" orders to with the click of a button which results in a mail shot being issued to every host that has had an order from the same email address/ IP suggesting that service is not delivered.

    I dont know, honestly I acknowledge it has potential for miss use but that does not make it a bad thing.

    wych said: @AnthonySmith wasn't there a thread about FileMedia around here unfairly putting a report up for someone, we made that public then FR stepped in and updated it? [FOUND - http://lowendtalk.com/discussion/32089/complaint-against-filemedia-for-defamation ]

    I consider that in the 1% :)

  • Consumers have nothing to worry about really.

    No legit host will refuse you because you have a single fraud record saying "staff abuse", or "too many tickets" filled by a kiddy provider. And you won't probably want to be a customer of providers who would refuse you because of that record in the first place. Win-win.

    If you have more than one fraud record from legit providers on the same or similar subjects, that's another story.

    There was a self query form on the site when it started IIRC. End users would have been able to look up for themselves. Not really sure why Harzem removed it.

    A good addition to the site may be this:

    A form where you input your email address and get added to the database. And once you get a fraud record, you get emailed with the record. I'll talk to Harzem about it.

    Thanked by 2Pwner vRozenSch00n
  • ryanarpryanarp Member, Patron Provider
    edited October 2014

    I always find regret when I neglect trusting the findings from fraud record. Had a case of that just this morning. I agree with @serverian on the above points. Honestly the only records I look at involve either SPAM or DDOS/Malicious Activity. Staff abuse and too many tickets don't even hit my radar.

    Thanked by 2jar vRozenSch00n
  • jarjar Patron Provider, Top Host, Veteran

    In the low end market where margins are low, you have to look out for people who try to hurt you. FraudRecord has proven time and time again to be a very effective means of doing that, but you absolutely HAVE to know how to read it. Take it with a grain of salt. You have to trust the people reporting, and if you do then you should take their reports seriously. If you don't, you shouldn't.

    As for me? I report on chargeback if I have been attempting to contact you to resolve it for 14 days and you either ignore me or refuse to agree on an alternate method of payment. I think that's fair, and you have to actively seek out to screw me over to be reported.

    Thanked by 1vRozenSch00n
  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider

    ryanarp said: Honestly the only records I look at involve either SPAM or DDOS/Malicious Activity. Staff abuse and too many tickets don't even hit my radar.

    Yep, this pretty much sums it up, the only other thing I pay attention to is reports of people using multiple names and addresses to try any bypass checking.

  • I'm a customer and never had a problem with it.

Sign In or Register to comment.