-
Sign in with:
- Sign in
- Register
- Are you a Lawyer?
Avvo Answhores - Part 2.
Asked over 2 years ago - Chicago, IL
Mr. King, I suggest you look at the postings of the "Top Contributors" and then get back to me on whether or not you find those answers anything more than naked self-promotion.
Also, I see that AVVO pulled down an answer that linked to a blog that was critical of your website. This type of censorship would be unecessary if AVVO actually took the time to screen the answers of its contributors. Instead, AVVO rewards attorneys for providing useless answers that in turn provide more screen views for those attorneys, thus allowing them to increase their AVVO rating. I really don't see the value in a service that rewards attorneys who are obviously more concerned with their AVVO rating than actually helping people.
You have an obvious conflict because your business model thrives on this.
Additional information
Mr. King,
Here's my question, again and a few more. What is your screening process for the indivduals you turn loose on the public? You say that answering questions does not benefit or improve the rating, then why does your website say the following?:
Question -
How is my contribution score calculated?
Answer -
Contribution score is based on number of answers, helpful answer ratings, articles, and staff pick designators....
Certain attorneys are answering questions outside of their jurisdiction 95% of the time. Most of those answers are nonsense, e.g., "...this requires more information, you should contact an attorney in your state."
What incentive do you have to pull down bad content when it increases your visibility on Google even if it's nonsense?
Mr. King,
Here's my question, again and a few more. What is your screening process for the indivduals you turn loose on the public? You say that answering questions does not benefit or improve the rating, then why does your website say the following?:
Question -
How is my contribution score calculated?
Answer -
Contribution score is based on number of answers, helpful answer ratings, articles, and staff pick designators....
Certain attorneys are answering questions outside of their jurisdiction 95% of the time. Most of those answers are nonsense, e.g., "...this requires more information, you should contact an attorney in your state."
What incentive do you have to pull down bad content when it increases your visibility on Google even if it's nonsense?
Attorney answers (5)
Dear Mr. King:
I'll weigh in publicly because I am very concerned about some of the reckless answers that are tossed out on Avvo to inflate leader board rankings.
These vary from harmless "I agree with the prior answer" responses, to the generic cut & paste spam spewed by Alan Brinkmeier.to secure his perennial top spot, to some answers that are downright dangerous.
One of the worst offenders is Theodore W. Robinson, a New York attorney who has continuously posted incorrect answers about California law, despite regular corrections posted by California attorneys. One of my colleagues recently became so frustrated with Mr. Robinson's reckless use of Avvo that he said, "Mr. Robinson is DEAD WRONG again; it is time he take his BS elsewhere."
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/will-this-be-...
Frankly, I'm so frustrated with Avvo's continued acceptance of this kind of conduct that I'm canceling my "Pro" status and seriously reconsidering my continued participation on your site. I try to be thoughtful and accurate with my Avvo answers, and don't want to be associated with those who post answers simply for the sake of driving their Avvo ranking.
I'll weigh in publicly because I am very concerned about some of the reckless answers that are tossed out on Avvo to inflate leader board rankings.
These vary from harmless "I agree with the prior answer" responses, to the generic cut & paste spam spewed by Alan Brinkmeier.to secure his perennial top spot, to some answers that are downright dangerous.
One of the worst offenders is Theodore W. Robinson, a New York attorney who has continuously posted incorrect answers about California law, despite regular corrections posted by California attorneys. One of my colleagues recently became so frustrated with Mr. Robinson's reckless use of Avvo that he said, "Mr. Robinson is DEAD WRONG again; it is time he take his BS elsewhere."
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/will-this-be-...
Frankly, I'm so frustrated with Avvo's continued acceptance of this kind of conduct that I'm canceling my "Pro" status and seriously reconsidering my continued participation on your site. I try to be thoughtful and accurate with my Avvo answers, and don't want to be associated with those who post answers simply for the sake of driving their Avvo ranking.
Is there a question here? As I'm sure you know, answering questions does not improve an attorney's Avvo Rating, and overtly promotional answers do not benefit Avvo.
Obviously you are an attorney who doesn't like the answers some other attorneys have provided. We've always valued constructive feedback from attorneys and consumers, and have made a number of changes to Avvo Answers as a result over the last year. If you'd like to emerge from your shell of anonymity and talk to me about this directly, I'd be happy to discuss.
Obviously you are an attorney who doesn't like the answers some other attorneys have provided. We've always valued constructive feedback from attorneys and consumers, and have made a number of changes to Avvo Answers as a result over the last year. If you'd like to emerge from your shell of anonymity and talk to me about this directly, I'd be happy to discuss.
Dear Mr. King:
I'll weigh in publicly because I am very concerned about some of the reckless answers that are tossed out on Avvo to inflate leader board rankings.
These vary from harmless "I agree with the prior answer" responses, to the generic cut & paste spam spewed by Alan Brinkmeier.to secure his perennial top spot, to some answers that are downright dangerous.
One of the worst offenders is Theodore W. Robinson, a New York attorney who has continuously posted incorrect answers about California law, despite regular corrections posted by California attorneys. One of my colleagues recently became so frustrated with Mr. Robinson's reckless use of Avvo that he said, "Mr. Robinson is DEAD WRONG again; it is time he take his BS elsewhere."
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/will-this-be-...
Frankly, I'm so frustrated with Avvo's continued acceptance of this kind of conduct that I'm canceling my "Pro" status and seriously reconsidering my continued participation on your site. I try to be thoughtful and accurate with my Avvo answers, and don't want to be associated with those who post answers simply for the sake of driving their Avvo ranking.
I'll weigh in publicly because I am very concerned about some of the reckless answers that are tossed out on Avvo to inflate leader board rankings.
These vary from harmless "I agree with the prior answer" responses, to the generic cut & paste spam spewed by Alan Brinkmeier.to secure his perennial top spot, to some answers that are downright dangerous.
One of the worst offenders is Theodore W. Robinson, a New York attorney who has continuously posted incorrect answers about California law, despite regular corrections posted by California attorneys. One of my colleagues recently became so frustrated with Mr. Robinson's reckless use of Avvo that he said, "Mr. Robinson is DEAD WRONG again; it is time he take his BS elsewhere."
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/will-this-be-...
Frankly, I'm so frustrated with Avvo's continued acceptance of this kind of conduct that I'm canceling my "Pro" status and seriously reconsidering my continued participation on your site. I try to be thoughtful and accurate with my Avvo answers, and don't want to be associated with those who post answers simply for the sake of driving their Avvo ranking.
There is no screening process - anyone can answer questions. However, the vast majority who do so are attorneys, and consumers can link through and see their profile information, including license status, years of experience and disciplinary history.
Answering questions does not improve the Avvo Rating, the 1-10 score featured prominently on an attorney's profile and the basis of organic search results on Avvo. What it drives is the contribution score, which powers the "contributor level" associated with an attorney's profile.
Your anecdotal experience aside, our data doesn't show that most answers are nonsense, and keep in mind that guidance to contact an attorney is, in many instances, what the questioner is asking for: Is this a serious enough legal problem that I need to contact an attorney? Again, I'd encourage you to flag answers you deem overtly promotional as "objectionable." We will review them, and often delete such answers.
Finally, we have plenty of incentive to do what we can to make Avvo Answers useful. "Nonsense" content does us no good with Google or other search engines long-term, and is self-defeating as users will abandon the feature if they don't perceive a benefit in it. However, providing that benefit to users requires a mix of openness, community policing and review. Given the continued growth of questions coming into Avvo Answers, the consumer vote so far is that the service is providing a phenomenal amount of value.
Answering questions does not improve the Avvo Rating, the 1-10 score featured prominently on an attorney's profile and the basis of organic search results on Avvo. What it drives is the contribution score, which powers the "contributor level" associated with an attorney's profile.
Your anecdotal experience aside, our data doesn't show that most answers are nonsense, and keep in mind that guidance to contact an attorney is, in many instances, what the questioner is asking for: Is this a serious enough legal problem that I need to contact an attorney? Again, I'd encourage you to flag answers you deem overtly promotional as "objectionable." We will review them, and often delete such answers.
Finally, we have plenty of incentive to do what we can to make Avvo Answers useful. "Nonsense" content does us no good with Google or other search engines long-term, and is self-defeating as users will abandon the feature if they don't perceive a benefit in it. However, providing that benefit to users requires a mix of openness, community policing and review. Given the continued growth of questions coming into Avvo Answers, the consumer vote so far is that the service is providing a phenomenal amount of value.
You can keep your link here. Posting it on other questions isn't helpful; far better that you simply flag those answers that you deem promotional as "objectionable" so that we can review them.
Other answers (2)
Lawyer agrees
Best Answer
chosen by asker
chosen by asker
From the Avvo website:
"The Avvo Rating is our effort to evaluate a lawyer's background, based on the information we know about the lawyer. The rating is calculated using a mathematical model that considers the information shown in a lawyer's profile, including a lawyer's years in practice, disciplinary history, professional achievements and industry recognition - all factors that, in our opinion, are relevant to assessing a lawyer's qualifications."
I'm curious to know how Avvo can verfiy the information regarding information in a lawyer's profile when it is being submitted by these very same shameless self-promoters. We already know that moving to the "Top Contributor" level is based primarily upon how many times one hits the "Submit" button and Avvo seems to concede that.
On the other hand, Avvo states that attaining an "Avvo 10 Rating" is based upon "a mathematical model" and other information (again submitted by the attorney) that Avvo clearly does not and probably cannot verify. And attorneys that have a pattern of submitting nonsense answers continue to submit these answers with impunity knowing that they really have no chance of being reined in by Avvo.
The reality is that Avvo is providing a forum for unqualified attorneys to engage in what is analagous to stuffing a ballot box. Notably, its VP is an attorney and has an obligation to protect the profession from the very people now running amok on their website.
Unfortunately, Avvo continues to allow these nonsense answers to be submitted by unqualified attorneys in order to establish content and build its ranking on Google. The result is that 95% of what the public is getting is junk. The only censorship I have witnessed thus far are postings that are critical of Avvo.
I encourage attorneys to boycott Avvo and send your concerns to the ABA and your respective state bar until/unless they begin policing their website.
"The Avvo Rating is our effort to evaluate a lawyer's background, based on the information we know about the lawyer. The rating is calculated using a mathematical model that considers the information shown in a lawyer's profile, including a lawyer's years in practice, disciplinary history, professional achievements and industry recognition - all factors that, in our opinion, are relevant to assessing a lawyer's qualifications."
I'm curious to know how Avvo can verfiy the information regarding information in a lawyer's profile when it is being submitted by these very same shameless self-promoters. We already know that moving to the "Top Contributor" level is based primarily upon how many times one hits the "Submit" button and Avvo seems to concede that.
On the other hand, Avvo states that attaining an "Avvo 10 Rating" is based upon "a mathematical model" and other information (again submitted by the attorney) that Avvo clearly does not and probably cannot verify. And attorneys that have a pattern of submitting nonsense answers continue to submit these answers with impunity knowing that they really have no chance of being reined in by Avvo.
The reality is that Avvo is providing a forum for unqualified attorneys to engage in what is analagous to stuffing a ballot box. Notably, its VP is an attorney and has an obligation to protect the profession from the very people now running amok on their website.
Unfortunately, Avvo continues to allow these nonsense answers to be submitted by unqualified attorneys in order to establish content and build its ranking on Google. The result is that 95% of what the public is getting is junk. The only censorship I have witnessed thus far are postings that are critical of Avvo.
I encourage attorneys to boycott Avvo and send your concerns to the ABA and your respective state bar until/unless they begin policing their website.
Yo - Mr. Josh King - You didn't answer the man's question bout pullin down my answers.
I ain't did nothin outside of the "community guidelines".
I had a link to my blog, but yo know, so do all these other Mack's.
Even da Mack's with "Generic and/or duplicate content that doesn't specifically address the question" get to keep they answers up.
Why you try to keep a brother down?
I ain't did nothin outside of the "community guidelines".
I had a link to my blog, but yo know, so do all these other Mack's.
Even da Mack's with "Generic and/or duplicate content that doesn't specifically address the question" get to keep they answers up.
Why you try to keep a brother down?
