I know it’s not a particularly pretty story, and is unsatisfactory to some. UBL may not be popular to some in the industry, and they’re in something of an underdog status for some of their lines of business — but, even so, I don’t think it’s fair to lay this at their feet. I’m pretty well convinced that they did not have plans to create a paid inclusion product guaranteed to rank tops in organic local SERPs. It’s the sort of concept I would have rapidly and immediately called “bullshit” upon.

The question I’d put to you is this: If someone creates a website that makes wild claims, and then subsequently implies your company put them up to it (without publicly citing your company by name), how would you refute it?

It can hardly be your fault if someone in an interview seems to be confirming questions you’re asking of them — that’s entirely their responsibility.

My amusement is aroused by the fact that you found it unnecessary to speak with Miranda, Jonathan or Danny about the basis of the story. Fine… your blog, your rules, right? How terribly convenient for you. Had you done so, I assure you, your opinion would be quite different.

Personally, I don’t care whether Google et al. were cooking up a scheme to sell placements or not. And I don’t particularly care if Bruce gets raked over the coals if he knowingly misrepresented things. What I most emphatically DO care about is ONE individual being thrown under the bus, while others, equally or MORE guilty, sit back and chuckle, suffering no ill effects. Call me idealistic, but that’s unacceptable to me.

Your spin fails to impress, Chris. And guess what? If any of your companions advised you to let it alone, as a post like this might do UBL more harm than good…

they were right.

Your attempt to bring credibility to UBL, as other commentors have suggested, has done the opposite. You are just speculating, which is what most of us are doing. Except you are an UBL insider.

You make UBL look less trustworthy here.

Why wouldn’t they have had someone knowledgeable of the happenings comment on the topic?

I hope this post is a joke. because a) it’s full of swiss-cheese holes in it’s own conclusions and b) because it’s nothing but one misdirection statement after another.

Given UBLs history of making false public claims and statements regarding your own company’s supposed relationships with Search industry companies that end up turning out to be blatantly false you’re treading on dangerous water..

Given your own company’s history of throwing search industry companies into financial tail-spins due to failed action on your company’s part, I think you need to make a major retraction of this nonsense before someone rips your company to shreds in an upcoming blog post.

Of course, I am confident you won’t publish this comment. Just be aware that UBL will not come 9out of this unscathed.

“…perhaps the call quality wasn’t all that great…”

Yep, spot on *sigh*

Actually, what you outlined above were a series of “maybe” and “perhaps” not factual reasons. But now I’m repeating myself, and I have better things to do than spend more time on this hatchet job.