My First BRITISH Google Business Kit

In this post Dangerous EffectiveCleanse – and Scams Too! two weeks ago, I mentioned how a scumbag webhost called is redirecting a client’s Amazon Shop clicks to that other pustule of conmanship called


MyBookFace Homepage Screendump

MyBookFace Homepage Screendump

Well I’ve just checked and it’s still on. (Someone wants to get that fixed!)  At the bottom of the MyBookFace landing page was an yet another advert for home working.  It’s the red one at the bottom and unusually, it’s BRITISH!

“Aye up!”, I thought.  “What’s going on here?”

Make Money Using Google!

What is going on is exactly the same rubbish that we’ve seen countless times from the rich jokers at Pacific Webworks (PWW).

Internet Success - Emily Rosher

Internet Success – Emily Rosher

This time, you’ll find the nice young family of “Emily Rosher”.  The website is at,  (this company is hidden by a domain privacy outfit in Toronto)

As we know from our Google Treasure Chest, Google Money Kit, Google Revolution and other experiences, this isn’t real.  Check out the screendump.  See the smiling honest faces.  See the cheque with the same fingers as last year.  See the false comments and how they’ve stopped due to “spam” and “distasteful contents”…

Helpfully, if you check out at the very bottom of the screendump they tell it’s all false. (You’ll have to click the little green arrow to expand the picture size once it’s loaded to be able to see this)

But the $1.97 shipping fee is now a £1.23 fee.  Nowhere on “Emily’s” blog does it mention any monthly charges, but, y’know, you can still do all the bollocks of trying to cancel and still watch as requests for refunds are handled with disdain even though you think you’re within the time limit.

Q. How do I know this?

A. Because that’s what they do and that’s what they’ve always done.  A leopard can’t change it’s spots.  We have almost countless complaints against these charlatans.

Emily’s Saviour?

“Emily” bases all her success on one product.  It’s got a new name, and looks slightly different to Google Treasure Chest.  It’s called;

Home Business Kit Using Google

You’ll find it here if you follow “Emily’s” link,[OPTINFO]&session-id=06281e5f7f823c0036c28274637e9abc#

It just trips off the tongue for a catchy web address, doesn’t it?

A leopard, waiting to pounce on the Unwary?

A leopard, waiting to pounce on the Unwary?

A simple WHOIS on shows it all run by Intellipay a.k.a Pacific Webworks in Salt Lake City, Utah  (see my other postings for their details).

Page Details

Make Money Using Google!

Make Money Using Google!

But check out the layout!  Handily it’s got a nice Union Flag in case you’re confused.  It also says

Emily's T&Cs

Emily’s T&Cs

“As seen on BBC, Economist, Guardian” – but then says at the bottom that it has nothing to do with Google?  Curious…

Let’s go back to Emily’s website.  Check out her Terms & Conditions.  She says,  “This website is not associated with ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or USA Today.” Er…where did they come from?

Source of “As Seen On…” Statements

Now despite the Google Kit being bollocks, there’s an interesting link in Emily’s T&C page (check the screen-dump).  In a nutshell, this claims that ALL the references ever made about “Stores Seen on ABC, AOL, Global, CNN and CNBC” emanate from this single New York Times post from 2006!

It’s called, Google’s Shadow Payroll Is Not Such a Secret Anymore.  It’s a reasonable enough piece, but one thing it’s distinctly lacking in, is the phrase “Stores Seen on ABC, AOL, Global, CNN and CNBC” or anything remotely similar to it or the various companies listed!


Conclusion – or should that be Con, Clue? Shun!

One thing lacking from the “British” google thing is any mention of County Durham – in Britain!  The Philippines & Cyprus, Gibraltar & Nevis are also lacking.  Previously, in the Google Treasure Chest scam, these places popped up all the time.  Myself, @Not Kevin and others have spent many an hour chasing these things down.

PWW is certainly responding to the hits it’s getting both legal from the courts and verbal from all the various websites devoted to pulling apart their shady dealings.

The T&Cs make this clear in the “British” Google thing.  Specific mention is made that forces the “customer” not to start any chargeback proceedings no matter what the cause…. (  What about UK distance-selling regulations? Isn’t this a “British” site?  Ha Ha.  Don’t you believe it.)

This PROVES that chargebacks work and is the thing that PWW are most afraid of.  Here’s two bits from the T&Cs that prove this:

1.2 You unconditionally and expressly agree and accept the Conditions set forth herein  as a binding contract (“the Agreement”) enforceable by law.


4.1 You agree that any disputed fee will not be charged back to Your credit card issuer. You expressly agree to submit in writing any objection regarding fees to 230 West 400 South, Suite 100 SLC UT, 84101
4.2 PCO, in its sole discretion, shall determine the validity of Your objection and notify You of its decision. Should You disagree with PCO decision, You agree to mediate the dispute before litigation.
4.3 You agree to indemnify PCO or associated product owners or resellers for any financial harm or any losses caused by Your objections to fees that do not comply with this Agreement. You will be held responsible for the reimbursement of any fees and losses incurred as a result of Your failure to comply with any provision in this Agreement.


They’re just putting the frighteners on.   PCO, by the way, stands for, Profit Center Online.  It’s really PWW and is in Utah at the same PWW address.


  1. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 26, 2009 1:45 pm |

    See this website for a pretty good write-up of all the scammy goings on! Of particular interest, is the HUGE list that's been collated of scam sites, fake blogs, fake news sites etc!

  2. Not Kevin :

    Nov 26, 2009 3:10 am |

    I have not had time to read the (67 page!) pdf file of the lawsuit but has read through it and pointed out some interesting insights into how these scams operate – well worth a read:

  3. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 26, 2009 2:19 am |

    @Not Kevin
    Thanks for that. It’ll have to wait for another time – I’m off to bed! 67 pages! Now that’s one for a REAL insomniac!

  4. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 26, 2009 1:32 pm |

    @Not Kevin

    It's a bit of a marathon, isn't it? these legal ones are always like that.

    It seems to me that Willms signed up for a wodge of toothpaste off his own bat, and then changed the packaging and price to his own – or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

    He then got all the returns to go back to the original toothpaste company who were then inundated with chargebacks!

    If this is so (and it's only their word as far as I can tell), IT DOES PROVE THAT CHARGEBACKS WORK!!!

    (This is in items #134 & #135).

    A really funny part is when the toothpaste maker, a former scammer, then lists all the various ways and methods that the scammers operate, as evidence for the nefarious Willms' acts. This is all the stuff we and others have copiously documented.

    I'm thinking teacher-pupil, pupil-teacher here!!!

    It's also that the toothpaste company now feels that their 'brand' is now besmirched by the scams and has a warehouse of stock they can't flog.

    My opinion on this is the Buddhist one of Cause and Effect. So THEY started the ball rolling on this one with their original scamming activities (i.e. they made the cause). THEY must take the consequences, because that's the effect. It's no good that they've suddenly decided to be legal because the consequences of their earlier actions are now to be played out.

    Hopefully (caution, bad joke alert), they don't move into Colon Cleansing because then the shit will really start to fly!

    Another interesting point is that the toothpaste company says it's been contacted by lawyers from multiple States on this one(item #153). This is good as it means that finally the whole US Gov apparatus will soon be brought to bear on these whole scammy businesses in general.

    I'm not sure of the case against the search engines though. The whole adwords/adsense business model is based upon an auction for word placement in the rankings, so as in any auction, people don't normally ask where you got the cash from, do they?

    The deep, deep irony is that Microsoft have to defend themselves in the same dock as Willms. Willms who had to pay at least $1m to Microsoft for selling forged Microsoft software, has now allegedly acted as he always does, but this time is selling fraudulent toothpaste.

    As I keep saying, crooks tend to operate in a similar manner time after time after time. It's what they do, and is their Achilles Heel!

    This really IS an interesting development. Thanks for spotting it @Not Kevin – and go to bed earlier!!! Ha ha.

  5. Not Kevin :

    Nov 25, 2009 9:04 pm |

    Ex scammer sues current scammer? (plus Yahoo, Microsoft and Yahoo)

    More trouble in store for Jesse Willms and Just Think Media?

  6. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 26, 2009 2:18 am |

    @Not Kevin


    Good find. It's a bit like poacher turned gamekeeper again, isn't it?

    I like the way the former-scammer is saying it's all Google's fault, and the other search engines. This is very much what we were all saying earlier this year as Google were taking the adwords cash and doing very little about allowing people to block them (although this had a lot to do with the cornucopia of websites, shifting and changing like the Utah desert sands).

    Now, it appears that Google are doing something about it, as we noticed earlier.

    What gets me is the whole delicious irony of it all… I mean, the former-toothpaste-scammer suing a new scammer for copyright and trademark infringement.

    And then suing the search engines for doing the ads that he himself invented or used?

    All we need now is for Jesse Willms to sue Microsoft for making software that let him be bad and the wheel will have come full circle!

  7. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 25, 2009 4:15 pm |


    I never trust Barclays!

    When you said they advised you, which part of the bank did this?

    Remember, if at any time the company has broken ANY of their "promises" to you, as listed in THEIR T&Cs, instigate an immediate charge-back from your card company.

    You don't have to be unhappy with the product or anything.

    You don't actually have to agree with much of their T&Cs as they are plainly illegal and wouldn't stand up in court as they are tantamount to either slavery or usuary.

    As I see it, Barclays have told you to do the Returns part of the policy.

    All you need to know, is that the company hasn't obliged you and has failed in honouring it's own terms.

    So chargeback. Don't mess about. Don't give them a second chance.

    Once you've done that, it's the company's job to explain to Barclays why they think you owe them money – and trust me, they won't.

    I'm not sure of the mechanics of getting a class action going across international boundaries.

    Try on the American links in this post and related ones for the current actions going on against these modern-day money-clippers.

    Paul at has a lot of experience in these matters and should be able to give you some pointers at either joining a class action or initiating one for yourself and others. Much better than me!

    So Good Luck.

  8. Ben :

    Nov 25, 2009 6:02 pm |

    Thanks a lot that is really useful. I am not sure which bit of the bank did advised me as it was over the phone. Someone on one of the desks dealt with me also though and she rang someone up and was being told "nothing can be done" as I had paid with my debit card and I was made to feel that it was my fault for having fallen into their scam. I had scrolled down on the log in page to see the small print but that is after the fact on giving card details as you know. I had not heard of chargeback and just Googled it and got the Which site up that gives useful info on it (… ) so I will return to the bank armed with that info. Thanks for your help.

  9. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 25, 2009 6:22 pm |


    People have had varying results because they've used a Debit Card and not a Credit Card. Some have contacted me and said that their bank has been okay and got the cash. But I've also read on other websites that the debit card is treated differently.

    However, and taking in the above, I think a lot of the variability is in the way that you, the conned person, actually approach YOUR bank/finance/card company…

    You must get it into your head that it's YOU that has been conned, that it's the scammer that IS THE CROOK, and that it's not your real problem, it's your CARD company's for allowing the scammer to get money from you.

    If they argue about it (as some have), just remember that the scammer BROKE their own T&Cs. That's all that matters.

    If they ask HOW the scammer broke their terms, well just think….

    Can you contact the scammer by the routes the scammer suggests? If no, that's all the info you need.

    Does the scammer keep changing their phone/email or does the email not work at all? If yes, that's all the info you need!

    Have the goods arrived in a short time or did you get them (if at all) AFTER the so-called 'trial period' had ended? If so, that's all the info you need!

    Were you signed up for and/or billed for un-asked and un-notified 'services' from a party you've never heard of? If so, that's all the info you need.

    You see, any one of these few things is reason enough. There are a host more, but these are the main points I'd use when persuading your card company that you need all money back.

    Watch out for the new really stupid terms that PWW use now. Apparently, if you sign you agree not to argue that the terms are bad, that you agree to have no chargebacks until the 'case' is investigated by… PWW! ..and guess what? PWW are the judge! Oh! And you have to go to Utah as well! Oh! And the terms are huge, unnaturally so, so much so that they're deliberately designed to be unreadable.

    These are wholly unreasonable terms that any court would hoy out with a prison sentence, so mention them as well, if you have to.

  10. Ben :

    Nov 25, 2009 3:50 pm |

    I just lost £49.42 to them + £6 to get an international airsure letter sent to them and would gladly pay more to pool together with other disgruntled folk to pay to see these folks hurt! Best of it is that Barclays initially advised me not to worry and that they would get back money for me and now it has been taken they don't want to know!

  11. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 23, 2009 11:47 pm |

    You can't make the shark thing up, can you? Ha ha.

    As for the spam king…. as it was a lady judge, it's a case of wham, spam, no thank you mam!

    BTW, I got a little mini-flood of Google Money Kit spam just an hour ago. It's like the return of a bad rash.

  12. Not Kevin :

    Nov 23, 2009 11:39 pm |

    Sharkreview!! Brillant. Somebody should tell him/her that sometimes Sharks go to prison for spamming. 😉

    (Just Think Media take note)

  13. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 23, 2009 5:09 pm |

    @Not Kevin

    We want heavyweights! Now this one below will make you chuckle, I'm sure!

    I've just had some weird WordPress comment spam arrive today, all pinging page/posts on my band website like this page here:

    This one arrived from and was called, "Nothing fails like success."

    I don't normally backlink to bad-web sites, but this is different – yes. The commenter's URL was a YouTube video!!!

    Now watch the video because it's obviously been written in either a non-English language or it's using the M$ speech engine.

    It sounds absolutely robotic! Needless to say, it's a money-making opportunity of the highest order (sarcasm detector went right off-scale there!) and a blogger has already taken umbrage in the video comments!.

    If you trace it through it's all whois protected and the URL route I was taken went like so: (yes really!!!)

    Nowhere, in any of this, are there any contact details. It's supposed to be operating under Adams County, Colorado laws, but well, y'know?

    Handily, they give a heap of other scammy URLs you can use if you choose to be an affiliate of this muck.

    Anyway, that's a new one for me!

  14. Not Kevin :

    Nov 23, 2009 3:41 pm |

    The claims made by the fake blogs for Acai and Colon Cleansers are getting more ridiculous too!
    The ads for this flog are all over Yahoo (thanks to ad network) –
    Check out:
    (More like ! 🙂

    And not content with pissing off Oprah enough to make her sue them, the new celebrity face of Acai is: Britney Spears!

    Like the ‘Google Kit’ flogs which don’t just ‘imply’ endorsement with prominent pictures/logos but actually make up fake quotes from Google (“Google says..”) the Acai one makes up quotes from Britney:
    [“This is the only thing that worked for me” Britney told Leno about Extreme Acai Berry.]

    The ‘get ripped’ fake blogs are also using fake celebrity endorsements which this appropriately named website forum has done a good job of investigating:

    Lets hope some heavyweight celebrity lawyers start ‘ripping’ into the people behind this garbage sooner rather than later.

  15. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 23, 2009 10:59 am |

    @Not Kevin

    "For the love of god…" Well spotted.I'll be keeping an eye out for any ad changes. As yet, I haven't spotted anything remarkably different in the ads being fed to this site….

    I STILL get the ad with the flash car and the "CLICK HERE" prominently displayed. So as a comment in one of the Big Money links you provided says, when I'm on other sites that I like, I deliberately click on these ads to force the advertiser to pay up! (Obviously, I don't sign up or buy!). It's a win-win-win now, because the site I like gets money off the scammer's ad, the scammer has to pay up, and Google gets a bit more cash to take down the scammer…from the scammer himself!!


  16. Not Kevin :

    Nov 23, 2009 12:50 am |

    Looks like the Google ban does include teeth whitening scams according to this:

    However as that article points out there are plenty of other ad networks happy to take money from scammers and these ad networks reach a lot of people. When I read the article above there was even a big fat ad in the middle of the article – for a teeth whitening scam!!

    Also worth a read:

    “For the Love of God, I Don’t Want Whiter Teeth or a Flatter Stomach” Who’s to blame for these hideous Internet ads that just won’t go away?

  17. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 21, 2009 11:17 am |

    @Not Kevin

    Class action unlikely. That's a big shame as they've nowt to lose and a 105% chance of winning! Just think of the kudos mileage they could all make from it, especially the BBC who are in long-term battened-down flak-taking mode currently.

    For a good expose of how these conning bastards are not always a little 'game' that smashes, grabs and then runs, but in actual fact are a planned, deliberate and cleverly-concerted operation, visit:

    ….and her follow-ups.

    This is the real nature of the scammer's target – normal people, living their lives who've fell on hard times through some reason. They're not techno-whizzes and are usually not from the professional classes. This lady admits that she was clueless as far as computing is concerned…

    She took everything on trust… a fatal and costly mistake. The scammers took all her trust – and money.



  18. Not Kevin :

    Nov 20, 2009 1:54 am |

    I emailed the Guardian, BBC, Economist, Channel 5, Sky and ITV – so far only Channel 5 ( and ITV have replied. Both just said their lawyers would be sending the offending websites a cease and desist request to take down the logos. A big class action (a la Oprah) would be great but seems unlikely.

    I checked out the NYT article too – I think Paul (workathometruth) did some digging previously and found that the 'testimonials' on a lot of the Google Kit sites were just quotes taken from another old NYT article about Adsense and had nothing to do with the people they were attributed to in the testimonials. Who were probably just stock photos and made up names anyway – sometimes the same testimonial quote was attributed to different people! (These are on the actual sign-up pages not on the fake blogs – obviously everything on those is made up bollochio).

    As you say about Google – Finally (if the report is accurate) however not sure if Googles definition of scam ads just applies to work at home ads using their name. Because if you search for dazzlewhite /premium white etc you still get ads for the teeth whitening scams. Hopefully the big G will get round to those soon?

    Interesting to hear that TrafficVance (some sort of PPV advertising network adware thing):
    has apparently "outlawed Google Cash and Grant offers". So nothing about teeth whitening, colon cleansers or Acai there either – but if some slightly scuzzy (but popular with unethical advertisers) ad network like that is saying no to Google Kit ads then there really is no excuse for MSN, Yahoo, and all the other big players to clean up their acts!

  19. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 26, 2009 12:40 pm |

    It's not just with scams and scammers that people have difficulty with getting any sort of redress….

    In the UK, (as you know), there are a plethora of quango and quango-like bodies all notionally devoted to helping "the consumer" battle against the mainly large large monolithic corporate business, just the same businesses that you've mentioned above who seem so unconcerned about protecting their assets.

    Read this rant that explores the wholly ineffectual worlds of Ofcom & Ofwat, the ICO, the ASA. It makes a good comparison with the (usually derided and toothless) BBB in the United States.

    In fact there is no camparison. They're about the same!!!

    Fewer teeth than Goldfish!!

  20. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 19, 2009 6:27 pm |

    @Not Kevin

    There's some good and bad news in that piece you've just added.

    The bad is the continuing and expanding deluge of these sites, like the fake news one, again. It died off a wee bit but is now just as before.

    I've seen similar sorts of rubbish on Facebook, as you pointed out, and due to it having a lot of trust within it's HUGE user base, this is bad.

    Google though, as you say, has FINALLY, after all this time, decided to react properly, in a manner that we've all been suggesting for some time.

    So they have to employ a roomful of people to mange the data emanating from their "new systems"? No matter, they can well afford it, and anyway, they're actually pocketing the ad money that they would have paid out to the scammers.

    They'll probably break even, but more importantly, with everyone's anti-google comments in all the anti-scam/consumer forums, perhaps they're actually seeing a hit to either their revenue or perceived "goodness".

    I think the point has been reached for them where an economic case has been made for aggressive action. Long may it continue!

    Now, will Facebook act likewise? They've been notably lax and slow on many privacy and security issues historically, but appear a bit better now.

    And also, why don't The Guardian, the BBC, ABC etc all get together and make a huge class action against the scammers' use of their names?

    If you recall, previously, I pointed out how PWW was claiming that there's was a valid use of company trademarks by their pathetic link to something in the New York Times 5 years ago! In the end, when I checked, there was nothing of the sort there!!! Not a jot.

    So the ball is really in the BBC's and other large corporations court – and do you know what? With all the information that people like yourself have gathered, they can't possibly lose!

    So what are they waiting for?

    BTW: I'm still laughing at Payneville…

  21. Not Kevin :

    Nov 19, 2009 4:06 pm |

    Here is another scam work at home ad, targetting the UK:

    Note the prominent use of E4, BBC, ITV and logos

    Clicking on the ad takes you through to this page:

    (Note that the www is part of the domain name – there is another (legitimate site) at

    Here is the San Diego version featuring attractive globetrotter Sarah Wilmington yet again:

    There is also news this week from Adage that Google is getting tougher on scam ads:

    Google Fights to Protect Itself Against Ad Scammers.

    Search Giant Implements a 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' Policy.

    NEW YORK ( — Google has a new, harsh penalty for advertisers placing scam and malware ads: a lifetime ban.

    The drastic move shows how important it is that Google protect its brand of search from what has become an increasing threat: ads that link to sites that download damaging malware on computers, offer sneaky, get-rich-quick schemes or trick users.

    It's also another sign that advertising itself — both search and display — remains an inviting target for online crime.

    Now if all the other ad networks did the same thing that would make a major dent in these scams. The ad at the photobucket link above is being run on the ad network, but I have also seen scam ads on MSN, Yahoo / bluelithium, Facebook, (like Facebook they have their own in house ad network), pulse360, Zango, Quigo and several other ad networks too numerous to list here.

  22. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 18, 2009 10:24 am |


    Ha Ha. I had to laugh at that one @Not Kevin.

    That iFrame malarkey is a new one on me. The whole thing, uncluding destinations is wrapped up. It goes to:

    …with a Prosper202 in view but the web address stays the same.

    Payneville. I'm still chuckling.

  23. Paul Schlegel :

    Nov 18, 2009 4:23 am |

    Nice work, Not Kevin

    One thing about using the WhoIs lookup which I'm sure you realize – you can't always assume the information in there is correct.

    I've seen people put addresses of homes for sale, or just random people's names there.

    However, if you find an INITIAL WhoIs record for a domain followed by the owner putting privacy protection on it soon after, then I think it's reasonable to assume that it's likely that the first WhoIs record contained the actual owner's data.

  24. Not Kevin :

    Nov 18, 2009 3:54 am |

    Here is the 'Singapore' version of Emily Rosher – 'Sharon Tan':

    There is an Australian version too (Grace Martin):

    Funny how they all earned exactly the same amount from Adsense!

    The owner of was even kind enough to provide his details:

    Jason Brown

    2885 Milan RD

    Payneville, Kentucky 40157

    United States

    A reverse ip shows he also owns:




    and 9 more…

    Theres also a New Zealand version [Sophie Frude]

    Some fake blogs are even framing Pacific Webworks sites now – check out – it's another Pacific Webworks Business Kit for Google page in an iframe.

    And here is CPAPark (from your Twitter is Hiring spam email link above) announcing their Twitter Instant Cash nonsense – on Twitter!

  25. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 9, 2009 7:51 pm |

    Hey folks!

    Just as I'm typing, I'm getting my first Twitter Is Hiring spam emails! Woo-Hoo!

    It re-directs to

    I see a certain likeness will many other screendumps I and others have done!

    Unfortunately, I won't be taking it up as I can only get up to $389 per day! I remember that you can get a lot more when Google hires!

    It's from CFN Media (clicks for Numbnuts?) in Texas, apparently.

  26. Not Kevin :

    Nov 9, 2009 6:34 pm |

    It's kind of a reverse Robin Hood with these scams – robbing the poor to make the Scammers rich.

    Target the poor (unemployed, retired, people on low incomes)

    Lie to them by saying things like "Google is hiring" people to work at home

    Trick them into handing over their credit card details for a small 'shipping' fee

    Hide the ongoing charges and sign-ups to other recurring 'services' in the small print

    Charge said credit card large sums of money as soon as (or even before) the 'trial' period is up.

    Make it almost impossible to cancel these charges so you can keep on charging the card until it's cancelled.

    End result – people who can least afford it get ripped off, the scammers (and the other parties: the cpa affiliate networks and the affiliates creating the fake blogs) all make a fortune.

    All of the above aided and abetted by household names we 'trust' and use daily (because they do nothing to stop it): Facebook, Google, the big web properties (news sites etc) allowing these ads to run on their networks.

    As this post shows:… Facebook (300 million users worldwide) decides they need to make a profit – so how they do it? By filling their site with the scammiest ads out there:

  27. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 9, 2009 7:07 pm |

    @Not Kevin

    That Tech Crunch article's a laugh, innit! It's a good idea to show comparative logons to analyse or view the ad filtering by user.

    What you said about the reverse Robin Hood is exactly what I said about the Centennial Credit from First premier Bank of Sioux Falls way back in the summer.

    For me, these really are the lowest of the low because it seems to be a perfectly legal business practice in the USA (not so sure about the UK). It's like Rackmann or something…

    For the privilege of borrowing $72 it costs a person $179 and yet,

    and yet,

    and yet,

    they still claim it's a 9.9% APR!!

    If the user wants more than $250 (which they will as if they wanted to borrow $200 they'll find that nearly all of it is swallowed up by "fees"), they are charged another $25 for this…. on top of the interest – and the fee is added to the balance so that there's interest on the fee!!!

    It really is an essay in pure evil, all to feed Dykehouse's fat belly and family coffers, the local sports team and Republican Party election bills.

  28. Paul Schlegel :

    Nov 6, 2009 5:33 pm |

    Yes, it kind of brings back fond and heartwarming memories to see the good ol' ugly green basic templates.

    It really makes me rethink the whole notion of "progress"…wait, what am I saying???

  29. Paul Schlegel :

    Nov 6, 2009 4:30 pm |

    Have you noticed that the fake news sites promoting Google kits are starting to pop up on Adwords again?

    Granted, it's not as much as before, but given that they are so easy to identify it's a bit odd.

    Also I've seen some of the "As Seen On" images now adding!

    And last but not least some of the fake news sites saying not only that "Google is hiring", but even going so far as to say:

    "Google says that the way to get started is to order the following kits"

    "Google says"! LOL.

  30. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 6, 2009 4:46 pm |

    @Paul Schlegel

    That's exactly what we're seeing. It's as if they think…

    the dust has settled from before,

    we've got rid of the annoying countdown timer,

    we've got rid of the Co. Durham & Cyprus references to make us 'look' kosher,

    we've got clear but extremely stringent T&Cs,

    we've got country-specific sites to make it look better…. lets start up again!

    And what's happening is that the old templates are gradually making a re-appearance. Plus some of the really old and really vicious claiming ones, as you say…."Google is now hiring!"

    Good grief! Whatever next, whatever next?

    Actually, I think we all know what's coming next – same old, same old. And just in time for Xmas!….I can see it now….

    Short of cash for Xmas.

    Don't let the kids suffer.

    Join our amazing "Christmas Cash Converter" where all you have to do is [insert naff stuff here]…

    Or am I being too creative with my cynicism?

  31. Raief :

    Nov 6, 2009 4:39 am |

    Good post. Thank you for pointing out that they (Pacific WebWorks) have reworked their site to target British citizenry. Although, as you pointed out, it was inconsistent. They left a lot of verbiage unchanged from the US site.

    I hope that not many will fall victim to their newest campaign. There is a US law firm looking into their activities. Maybe they will help to bring them down and save all of us from their trashy sites and scam promotions.

  32. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 6, 2009 12:44 pm |

    Thanks Raief. We'll just keep plugging away. Bad things happen when good men do nothing.

  33. Not Kevin :

    Nov 6, 2009 2:45 am |

    By the way, reported this site to Google using their trademark violation form 3 weeks ago – site is still there so I guess Google is not too bothered about fake news sites full of BS lies about their company!?

  34. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 6, 2009 12:26 pm |

    @Not Kevin

    Google proved a long time ago that it's the cash in their back pocket that's important, NOT what people think about them, and NOT the "do no evil" mantra. That last has worn so thin now that it's like cheesecloth jeans – i.e. useless. I don't think it was a co-incidence that despite the volume of complaints, even on their very own forums, about Google Treasure Bollox etc at the height of it's dastardly operations, nothing was done about curbing the adsense/words system until Eborn was hauled in and then later Oprah had a mighty big fit. This really harks back the the blatantly lying days doesn't it? I mean the "Google are now hiring people to fill in stuff" baloney. The site is so crap and misleading that they don't even have working T&C links etc!!! The only link that works is to:

    which then goes to:



    This is a similar US version on a different sub-domain in the PWW deathstar.

    BTW; have you noticed that they seem to have removed the count-down timer from their pages recently? Maybe even THEY have realised the naffness – or is it something else?

    Right. Now I'm going to remove the auto-backlinks from your previous comment (WordPress will auto URL something if it sees http: OR www. at the front of a string). I don't like to give back-linking SEO creedence to scum crap-bags! Plus, the links will show in their logs and I like to keep the info open and accessible before they go and change stuff.

  35. Strangely( author ) :

    Nov 6, 2009 3:06 pm |

    @Not Kevin

    As another dig at the Google empire, how about this…?

    Today I had a hit from someone who uses Not having heard of it before (because there are heaps of ways, [and sites set up for the purpose]), of tracking a site's visitors, I've paid a quick visit. At the bottom left of the main page is a little dynamic list of recently signed-up sites for the service….

    Being a bloke 😉 this web address immediately caught my eye.
    On the page is a direct link to the website. It doesn't take a degree in Rocket Science to spot what it's about!

    My point is that it's a free blogspot (Blogger) address – which is owned by… Google, of course.

    The T&Cs allow porn ( but there's a very airy-fairy exclusion clause which says "Do not use Blogger as a way to make money on adult content. For example, don't create blogs where a significant percentage of the content is ads or links to commercial porn sites." – which this site clearly does.

    Granted that these websites probably pop up like weeds after a rain shower which would seem to be a hard thing to manage? But it's not, is it? Google, when it chooses to, has huge analysis tools. In fact it's prime position in the search engine market is due to it's very efficient data collection and algorithms used in link analysis….

    Surely it's not beyond it's computing power to keep a check on it's own website to ensure that people using it are doing so within the bounds of it's own T&Cs?

    And there's the rub. Just like the Google Treasure Bollox, they'll do nothing unless they have to. For myself, links to cracked copies of my own copyrighted musical works are on several blogspot sites, all pointing to Rapidshare and elsewhere. There's a really tedious DCMA process to try and stop this, but it's like Canute and the waves – it's impossible to stop, so I now do different tactics.

    Signing off. This comment will be in the Google database within the hour – guaranteed. Think about it.

  36. Not Kevin :

    Nov 6, 2009 2:42 am |

    Good find. Hard to believe a publicly traded company behaves like this (even if they are just a crappy 'penny stock') I wonder if the BBC, Economist and/or Guardian will be more pro-active about protecting their brand names/trademarks than Google?

    Did a reverse ip lookup and the server [

    Fremont, California, United States (94539)] of also contains: [search] [search] [search] [search] [search] [search] [search] [search] [search] [search]

    Just another affiliate of one of the cpa networks creating fake blogs for acai, govt grants, colon cleanse and Google kits and hiding behind whois privacy.

    Here is the US version:[SUBID]&id2=[OPTINFO]&session-id=044528b2f1b9d0e7ecbe954ed61f9880

    A search here:… reveals that the CPA affiliate networks running this offer are: in Florida and in New York City / Toronto and California

    By the way speaking of Google Kits have you seen Paul Schlegel's 'posting links on Google' spoof? 🙂