| LED Digest 1521: The Rise of Internet Fraud |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest ................................................. February 19, 2003 Issue #1521 ................................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ===== NEW ====================== --== International Fraud Protection ==-- ~ Ron Coble "In these past 2.5 years, we have experienced well over US $41,000 in 'attempted' fraudulent orders..." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Optimizing for Search Engines ==-- ~ Mike Jacobs "...user-friendly does *not* automatically make it Engine-friendly." --== Copyright Notices ==-- ~ Vicki Lambert "...wouldn't it be easier to put a last updated date on the page...?" ~ Kurt T. Francis "...it is essential to make a back-up copy of the site on a regular...schedule." ===== GEEK TIPS ================== --== Space Around Forms ==-- ~ Phil Chave ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== Site Search ==-- ~ Niki Mcelroy ====== NEW ====================================== From: Ronald L Coble Subject: International Fraud Protection Hello, > It is a first world country but yet Godaddy.com chooses > to treat the credit card from Singapore like some third > rate centre. Godaddy.com needs to review its policy > and not show itself to be ignorant. - Vincent Tan, LED 1517 My comments are about Mr. Vincent Tan's disparaging remarks (shown above) about GoDaddy.com. First, we are not associated with GoDaddy other than as a very satisfied user of their services. We have used their services for about 2 years now and recently registered another 20 domains with them. GoDaddy.com has a very user friendly system and in the few instances where I have needed their customer service they were very responsive. The main purpose for my de-lurking is to address what appears to be a total misunderstanding by many people, especially those located outside the USA of just how bad the level of fraudulent charges are with regards to Internet transactions. Up to 75% of our international B2B business is from outside the USA and Canada. About 2 1/2 years ago we began experiencing a 'tremendous' amount of "attempted" fraudulent orders with almost 100% of those fraudulent orders originating from outside the USA and Canada. In these past 2 1/2 years, we have experienced well over US $41,000 in "attempted" fraudulent orders which represents nearly 20% of our total sales. If we accepted credit cards through an automated approval system like GoDaddy appears to use, we would probably have lost our merchant account due to chargebacks and would have had to declare bankruptcy due to the loss of the $41,000 plus all the chargeback fees and inventory costs associated with these fraudulent orders. We accept orders via a secure ordering system like most websites and the orders are then manually processed by us each. Because Visa and MasterCard have little or no regard for assisting merchants in verifying addresses outside the USA and Canada, we have actually turned many small orders away because it just isn't worth the time or trouble to ask them to provide the necessary verification information we normally request. Our verification process has cost us sales, this I know. However, the loss of those sales is insignificant compared to the $41,000+ we would be out had we used an automated order processing system. Our verification process requires a customer residing outside the USA or Canada to use a separate order form that they complete, print out and fax to us along with a copy of the front and back of their credit card AND the top portion of one of their credit card billing statements. Yes, a lot of hoops. But, I can honestly say that most people "appreciate" the fact that we require these additional measures of security and in most instances do not understand how incredibly bad the level of international credit card fraud has become until we explain it to them. Yesterday, I had a gentleman from Switzerland ask me why we ask for the top portion of the credit card billing statement. I explained to him that most credit card fraudsters have their goods shipped to an empty apartment or different address which is "other" than the one registered to the card. I further explained that even if a person sends a copy of the front and back of their credit card, it could still be a stolen card but they are very "unlikely" to have stolen a credit card billing statement for that person at the same time as they had stolen the card. He said that he had learned an important lesson for his own business and would be ordering with us next week. Sorry my comments have gone so lengthy, but I felt it is necessary to explain why the world of International Internet Commerce is not a friendly one for merchants. And, in the case of GoDaddy's policy being disparaged as it was I wish to express my feelings that it is "NOT" ignorant to be prudent. Their services are provided at a very low cost and this low cost and possibly their very business would be in jeopardy if they openly accepted credit cards based in countries where address verification is not available through their merchant services. I hope my rant has provided everyone with some insight into why international credit card transactions "cannot" be as readily accepted as domestic ones. I also hope it helps everyone also understand that due to the uncaring attitude taken by Visa and MasterCard towards merchants and the actions of the bad boys and bad girls of this world, merchants must sometimes take actions that may seem ignorant but in reality are very smart and self preserving. Kindest regards, Ron Coble Coble International http://www.importexporthelp.com ===== CONTINUING ================================= From: Mike Jacobs Subject: SEO > What's left is Google, and what's on the page > isn't nearly as important as what points at the > page. So, in the end, pages that are "user-friendly" > and little else don't win in the engines. - Mike Jacobs, LED 1506 > ... that just doesn't make sense to me. Why do > people link to other pages from their own? Because > those pages have good, useful, and user-friendly > content on them. - Veronica Yuill, LED 1507 But *not* if no one gets to those pages in the first place. Someone can't link to your page if they never find it. Which reinforces the first statement again, assuming the end goal is customers. In the end, you need to have *both* factors covered. A great page with no traffic won't make anyone money, and neither will a blank page with a million hits. Also, to clarify, my post was in response to a claim by Shari Thurow that confused the two. She claimed that > The definition of a search-engine friendly web site > is 'a user-friendly web site that can be easily found > in the search engines. It was wrong by most professional accounts, and wrong by standard English usage. Just as a user-friendly site is friendly to *users*, a search engine-friendly site is friendly to *search engines*, meaning well suited to better rankings (or at least a complete and accurate index) compared to peer sites. The point was that making something user-friendly does *not* automatically make it Engine-friendly. There are many examples where those two things absolutely contradict, with several examples given on this list in the last week alone. Furthermore, assuming that because one factor is covered (in this case user-friendliness), that the engines will magically fix things for you with the other is naiive and a bad marketing move. You need to cover *all* bases. Ignore making your pages engine-friendly at your own peril. Mike Jacobs www.webmogul.com ------- new post - new topic ------- From: Vicki Lambert Subject: Copyright Just a thought, but wouldn't it be easier to put a last updated date on the page if you are worried that the visitor viewing the page might think that the page is from 2001? I see this quite often on pages and I find it very helpful when I am looking for current information. Vicki M. Lambert, CPP Lambert and Associates vickimlambert.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Kurt T. Francis Subject: copyright Hi, All -- In LED 1519, Thomas Yoon asked about copyright notices' actual meanings. This is something I have discussed at length with an attorney friend whose actual specialty is trademarking but whose overall expertise covers any sort of intellectual property rights. Thomas is correct that a notice indicating a single year means everything connected to the notice is covered for the life of a copyright. However, that means if one adds new material to the covered item -- be at a web site, book, whatever -- 20 years later, then anyone wishing to use it can do so once the item enters the public domain -- which will happen at the end of the copyright based on the year indicated. By placing a notice such as "Copyright 1996-2003" one eliminates this. That is, if one adds new material to, say, a web site in 2003, then 2003 will be the beginning of the life of the copyright for that new material -- not 1996. If this is really a concern, in the case of a web site it is essential to make a back-up copy of the site on a regular (and not too infrequent) schedule. That way a court can see the exact date and time the file containing information was created. Copyrights and copyright notices are extremely problematic, in no small part due to conflicting interpretations, especially by courts. Questions such as "How much, if any, is the true holder of the copyright being damaged (particularly financially) by the use by someone else of the material in question?" loom large -- and critically. It's entirely possible a court may well agree Party A is the actual copyright holder but also hold that Party B's use of that material has in no way hurt the interests of Party A. Let me add I am *not* an attorney, so cannot officially give legal advice, but am merely repeating information I have gleaned over 30 years of fretting about the matter. If anyone out there has more accurate information, particularly any IPO attorneys amongst LED'ers, I hope they will clarify the situation for Thomas better than I can. Sincerely, Kurt T. Francis, Web Master Bangkok's Voice On The Web http://bangkokatoz.com ===== GEEK TIPS =================================== From: Phil Chave Subject: Space around forms Hi Adam, Have you ever found the solution to a problem online and thought, "I won't save it anywhere because I found it easily and therefore can find it again?" Well I've done that very thing and am beginning to regret it. When you make a form, it seems to force some space around itself on the page. Normally this is fine around text fields etc. But when your form is an image or button, any surrounding text is forced away and its difficult to associate the text with the button. I've tried using tables, tr and td variables, including restricted height and width, to force text to sit on the button, but it won't have it. I know the article was out there, but I'm at a loss to find it again. Any ideas anyone? Thanks, Phil Chave ==== BILLBOARD ==================================== From: Niki Mcelroy Subject: Site search I love all the coments and suggestions on web site search engines, and the fact that they are free is great! What I don't like is the fact that they all have forced advertisements. I should have been more specific in relaying what I was looking for. What I need is a site search script that runs from the servers on the Free And Frugal web site. I have tried out a few, paid and free versions, but they don't quite hold up. Sincerly, Niki Mcelroy, Editor / Web Master freeandfrugal.com ------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 1995-2003 Adam Audette. All Rights Reserved. ----------------------------------------------------------------- |
