andy2001
Member of DD Central
Posts: 361 
Likes: 34
|
Post by andy2001 on Apr 8, 2014 22:20:09 GMT
This seems to be a fake misleading P2P comparison site. Designed to promote one new site.
elljay: link removed
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Apr 9, 2014 5:44:06 GMT
Looking at the site it points to its another dodgy one that has ripped it's Ts&Cs from somewhere else. Lots of cross references to clauses that don't exist. From their how we are different page, I can't work out if they are giving a fixed 10% or up to 10% return, whether they are dealing in loans or equities, and whether there are limits or no limits on amounts invested. No mention of the FCA and I can see why.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Apr 9, 2014 6:40:20 GMT
It does look a bit odd that it effectively only links to one site. The Whois record isn't much use. The site it links to does look a bit more sensible, though I haven't got time to look at it in detail now.
Not sure posting the link adds much value for anyone. Hopefully people stumbling across it will realise it looks a little odd linking to one site, so I've removed the link from your post.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Apr 9, 2014 6:53:27 GMT
Not sure about the reasoning behind the removal of the link to the iffy comparison/ad site as it forms part of the DD individuals might want to do for elljay: link removed it being potentially indicative of the attitude of those running the platform. One thing I did note is that the banner at the top of the comparison/ad site is very reminiscent of that used by wiseclerk on p2p-banking.com |
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Apr 9, 2014 8:26:31 GMT
It does look a bit odd that it effectively only links to one site. The Whois record isn't much use. The site it links to does look a bit more sensible, though I haven't got time to look at it in detail now. Not sure posting the link adds much value for anyone. Hopefully people stumbling across it will realise it looks a little odd linking to one site, so I've removed the link from your post. Whilst a Whois look up isn't much help because the domain for the comparison/ad site is hidden behind an anonymising service, a DNS search is more revealing as both the comparision/ad site and the P2P Platform URLs resolve to the same IP address.
|
|
|
|
Post by jackpease on Apr 9, 2014 8:41:37 GMT
>>>Not sure about the reasoning behind the removal of the link to the iffy comparison site
We need to be a little careful with a thread entitled 'dodgy' lest the site not be dodgy. Imagine if we'd stumbled across the Licola Borlicks' site and entitled it as dodgy/iffy/scam - it wasn't and she could have taken a pop at the board and participants
With new p2ps popping up here there and everywhere maybe we could agree a safe wording on this so we can publish the url of the site - eg 'new p2p popped up - needs checking out'
If DD then finds a series of anomalies we could then use the word dodgy to which the defence 'fair comment' could be used
jack
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Apr 9, 2014 12:23:14 GMT
I am aware of the sites and company in question and have spoken to the FCA concerning this.
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Apr 9, 2014 13:22:15 GMT
I am aware of the sites and company in question and have spoken to the FCA concerning this. The FCA are investigating, but I would suggest that - until the FCA responds - the links are removed.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Apr 9, 2014 14:47:12 GMT
Yes, I agree we need to be careful what we post in a thread titled "dodgy". easteregg has done the right thing and reported them. Forums are useful places for sharing info but we need to be careful not to make unsubstantiated allegations. As I posted earlier I think it's pretty obvious that the sites don't look quite right when you first look at them so hopefully people would do some DD before sending any cash. Posting the link here just increases their chances of appearing near the top in Google searches. To be clear, please don't post a link to this company or identity them. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Apr 9, 2014 15:37:03 GMT
Yes, I agree we need to be careful what we post in a thread titled "dodgy". easteregg has done the right thing and reported them. Forums are useful places for sharing info but we need to be careful not to make unsubstantiated allegations. As I posted earlier I think it's pretty obvious that the sites don't look quite right when you first look at them so hopefully people would do some DD before sending any cash. Posting the link here just increases their chances of appearing near the top in Google searches. To be clear, please don't post a link to this company or identity them. Thanks. Many thanks for removing the link for both of the reasons mentioned. I spotted them a week ago and left several messages but they never called me back in relation to my queries if they were registered with the FCA. The FCA could find no record of them either, and they will be investigating.
|
|
|
|
Post by batchoy on Apr 9, 2014 15:49:56 GMT
It still strikes me as odd reasoning for removing the links.
If the use of the terms 'dodgy' and 'iffy' are problematic then edit them rather than removing the links and preventing people from viewing the sites forming their own opinions and discussing them in the forum.
Based on the reasoning that posting the links in the forum just increases their chances of appearing near the top in Google searches similar actions should be/have been taken with the big carrots thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by easteregg on Apr 9, 2014 16:06:21 GMT
It still strikes me as odd reasoning for removing the links. If the use of the terms 'dodgy' and 'iffy' are problematic then edit them rather than removing the links and preventing people from viewing the sites forming their own opinions and discussing them in the forum. Based on the reasoning that posting the links in the forum just increases their chances of appearing near the top in Google searches similar actions should be/have been taken with the big carrots thread. Big Carrots was a real site, and already appears on countless sites, including my own (although marked as no longer trading). The other site does not have links from any other sites (therefore will lack credibility from the SEO point of view), but it has been indexed by Google.
|
|
andy2001
Member of DD Central
Posts: 361
Likes: 34
|
Post by andy2001 on Apr 9, 2014 16:14:49 GMT
It still strikes me as odd reasoning for removing the links. If the use of the terms 'dodgy' and 'iffy' are problematic then edit them rather than removing the links and preventing people from viewing the sites forming their own opinions and discussing them in the forum. Based on the reasoning that posting the links in the forum just increases their chances of appearing near the top in Google searches similar actions should be/have been taken with the big carrots thread. Big Carrots was a real site, and already appears on countless sites, including my own (although marked as no longer trading). The other site does not have links from any other sites (therefore will lack credibility from the SEO point of view), but it has been indexed by Google. I think the first place I saw the site I posted was a banner add on this forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by elljay on Apr 9, 2014 17:23:26 GMT
If the use of the terms 'dodgy' and 'iffy' are problematic then edit them rather than removing the links and preventing people from viewing the sites forming their own opinions and discussing them in the forum. Fair point. The issue for me on this one is that we went from zero to "this site is dodgy" in one post without sufficient evidence to back it up. We either need to, as jackpease says, post along the lines of "I've found this site, I'm not sure about it because of xxx, what do others think?" or post some facts why you think the site rings alarm bells rather than declare it dodgy on a hunch. We can then do what forums are good at and do some crowd due diligence on it, including maybe contacting the site, the regulator, digging into DNS etc.
|
|
andy2001
Member of DD Central
Posts: 361
Likes: 34
|
Post by andy2001 on Apr 9, 2014 18:33:03 GMT
Problems I see with the site.
Only one P2P lender is linked
I think the Thin Cats return is incorrect
All comparisons are for 3 years, and show the site they link offering 10% on a min of £100, but when you click on the link and go past the front page they only offer 10% for 5 years, and then only with 10k min investment.
The site they link to claims that this investment is 100% risk free.
|
|
