Longevity Website and Other MFG Info

[gaustin]

Simon,

So far your machine you sent me is fine. The missing or cutting out is probably related to the "Jumper Cable" type gound. I notices the copper going into the clamp has been overheated. I will change the clamo to the one from Harbor Freight and see if it makes a difference.

About the website.

Previously a discussion was held regarding the use of another manufacturers information in your website. Others had brought it up. You and I talked about that at length. I explained where I stood. The thread that was on the forum is GONE.
My posting in relation to that thread was true. Yet it was deleted. That does upset me but I know it is a right of the forum moderator.

I recently returned to some of the pages and the html on your pages still refer to or use keywords that are the names or trademarks of other manufacturers.
Here is a screen recording of some of what I speak about . http://weldingdata.com/WelderReviews/longevity/140AmpLongevitywebcontent/140AmpLongevitywebcontent.html
We spoke about this on the phone when you expressed displeasure in my comments, we have corresponded by email. You indicated you wish I had contacted you 1st.

I agreed to review one of your machines which I am in the process of and also agreed to publish my findings. The overall review of the machine and the service will reflect the experiences and communications I have had with your company.

The pages that I went back to look at after you told me this would be corrected are

http://longevity-inc.com/details.php?info=45

If you had obtained permission from this company, then that is fine.

On page http://longevity-inc.com/details.php?info=20 Your information for SMAW contains some exact matches to content already in existence but it appears to be public domain however the statement regarding three types of joints is incorrect and is matching that created by an educational institution. A search on google such as this reveals that text. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+SMAW+welding+process+typically+is+ capable+of+producing%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

It is possible that either BOTH of you are randomly wrong about how many joints can be welded and worded it exactly the same or the university copied your content or you copied theirs. And that may all be fine and good. But give credit where credit is due.

The point is that some of the posts on the forum disappear related to issues that had been brought up.
Some of those posts contained information that I thought was worth people interested in your products, service, and company character would benefit from.

Again, we talked about this over the phone but I am more of a "text" type person in the fact I like to have a record of what I have said and what others have said to me.

Could you shed some light on the fact that your websites HTML tags still refer to other manufacturers and also the questionable content that appears to duplicate content on other sites without giving credit to that site/company?
This content can be seen at http://weldingdata.com/WelderReviews/longevity/wwpost15july08.htm .

[longevity-inc.com]

Simon,

So far your machine you sent me is fine. The missing or cutting out is probably related to the "Jumper Cable" type gound. I notices the copper going into the clamp has been overheated. I will change the clamo to the one from Harbor Freight and see if it makes a difference.

About the website.

Previously a discussion was held regarding the use of another manufacturers information in your website. Others had brought it up. You and I talked about that at length. I explained where I stood. The thread that was on the forum is GONE.
My posting in relation to that thread was true. Yet it was deleted. That does upset me but I know it is a right of the forum moderator.

I recently returned to some of the pages and the html on your pages still refer to or use keywords that are the names or trademarks of other manufacturers.
Here is a screen recording of some of what I speak about . http://weldingdata.com/WelderReviews/longevity/140AmpLongevitywebcontent/140AmpLongevitywebcontent.html
We spoke about this on the phone when you expressed displeasure in my comments, we have corresponded by email. You indicated you wish I had contacted you 1st.

I agreed to review one of your machines which I am in the process of and also agreed to publish my findings. The overall review of the machine and the service will reflect the experiences and communications I have had with your company.

The pages that I went back to look at after you told me this would be corrected are

http://longevity-inc.com/details.php?info=45

If you had obtained permission from this company, then that is fine.

On page http://longevity-inc.com/details.php?info=20 Your information for SMAW contains some exact matches to content already in existence but it appears to be public domain however the statement regarding three types of joints is incorrect and is matching that created by an educational institution. A search on google such as this reveals that text. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+SMAW+welding+process+typically+is+ capable+of+producing%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

It is possible that either BOTH of you are randomly wrong about how many joints can be welded and worded it exactly the same or the university copied your content or you copied theirs. And that may all be fine and good. But give credit where credit is due.

The point is that some of the posts on the forum disappear related to issues that had been brought up.
Some of those posts contained information that I thought was worth people interested in your products, service, and company character would benefit from.

Again, we talked about this over the phone but I am more of a "text" type person in the fact I like to have a record of what I have said and what others have said to me.

Could you shed some light on the fact that your websites HTML tags still refer to other manufacturers and also the questionable content that appears to duplicate content on other sites without giving credit to that site/company?
This content can be seen at http://weldingdata.com/WelderReviews/longevity/wwpost15july08.htm .


We are viewing some of the keywords. However, i must mention that our website will be based on other sites keywords because positioning for search is important I also sent you a PM message.

Thanks Gerald.

[gaustin]

I can definately see other related keywords being used. It was just the ones that were company specific that seemed odd. It may even be legal. It just seems a bit odd.

[gaustin]

What is the status of the web content you have that is matching that found on another companies website?

[longevity-inc.com]

Gaustin,

I am still looking into it. I was unable to reach my programmer the last few days, so i am unsure how he got the mig info.

Will update as soon I he gets back to me.

Simon

[gaustin]

Please let me know the status of the above issues that are still outstanding. If you need to know which ones I speak of, let me know.

[longevity-inc.com]

Please let me know the status of the above issues that are still outstanding. If you need to know which ones I speak of, let me know.

Hi Gerald,

We are working to fix the content tonight. So you should see an update.

Thanks.

[gaustin]

Thanks

[specter]

Hi Gaustin,

I believe I know of the other MFG your talking about. Seems their units and longevity certainly appear similar. However the other mfg/vendor seems to use deceptive ads on a popular auction site. That mfg ad specs were overstated to those of units capable of 3 times the capability.

When I pointed out all the misleading statements in that other mfg/vendors ad all my posts were deleted. I certainly kept them busy deleting my posts from early am to late pm. I finally got a full refund on that unit yet that mfg/vendor still continues their deceptive ads.

I have been reviewing all the posts for Longevity and for the most part I am impressed. Seems Simon really stands behind his companies products so much so that he was even willing to get me a refund on the other mfg's unit when that mfg was still talking around the whole issue I had. That really impressed me so much so that I am now looking at buying on of Longevity's new ForceCut 80amp Plasma Cutters.

[chicksdigwagons]

I didn't look that closely at the material but the line "The SMAW welding process typically is capable of producing" is a PRETTY generic and obvious sentence and does not constitute copyright infringement in the least. I mean, really, WTF is the problem?

Do you site references for every bit of information you pulled from a textbook or mentor? Didn't think so. Doesn't look like credit is due anywhere IMO. Furthermore calling that information "incorrect" is a bit of a stretch don't you think? It's obviously a simplified entry level overview and looks close enough for me.

[gaustin]

I just used that sentence as search criteria. The other content that was contained (graphics etc) was duplicated from another source. You may have seen the video. This video was taken after I had spoken with Longevity regarding proevious content that was nearly 100% duplicated content describing welding process that was located on a major equipment MFG site.

I had spoken with Simon prior to the content that was recorded on the video. Here is the text of that conversation because as indicated, some posts disappear or are altered.

http://weldingdata.com/WelderReviews/longevity/wwpost15july08.htm

The scree recording was made AFTER addressing the previous content that was from Millers site.

http://weldingdata.com/WelderReviews/longevity/140AmpLongevitywebcontent/140AmpLongevitywebcontent.html


I FULLY agree that the information I used to search on is "Entry Level" . In fact one of the very 1st things I teach someone is the 5 types of joints. Butt, Corner, Edge, Lap, and Tee. All of the above joints are welded with SMAW. Always have been and probably always will be as long as SMAW is still being performed. It is so very entry level that it caught my eye because it did not include all of the joints.

So no. I do not think it is a stretch as 2 of the other joints were left out.

Again, I do not know if there are legal issues however it would be extremely odd if Lincoln used Millers information that was not product specific without giving them credit for the content.

The embedded metatags on the longevity site are below. And though that is fully legal in some circles, its still odd.

<meta name="keywords" content="Power of Blue, Miller, Miller Welders, Miller Electric, welding equipment, weld, welding, TIG, MIG, STICK, Plasma, plasma cutting, engine driven, SAW, GTAW, SMAW, GMAW, FCAW, wire, wire feeder, wire welding, arc welding, generator, flux cored, Flux, PAC, resistance welding, resistance spot, pulsed Mig, pulsed TIG, submerged arc, welding guns, power source, automation, multi-process, multi-operator, training, weld training, metal, arc welding, spot welding, spot resistance, premier, quality, professional, occasional, hobby, blue, SAW, squarewave, tungsten, pulsing, power efficiency, sub-arc, automation, accessories, motorsports, welding technology, inverter, service, ITW company, ITW, welding systems, air carbon arc cutting, air carbon arc gouging, air carbon, light industrial, industrial, heavy industrial, duty cycle, single phase, three phase, CC, CV, AC, DC, microprocessor, kW, torch, power factory correction, welding jobs, welding appleton, appleton wisconsin, welding Wisconsin, welding education, GMAW training packages, millerwelds videos, cds, books, MIG calculators, TIG calculators, STICK calculators, metal cutting, welding aluminum">




I do agree that information is pretty much free on the internet however to have content from one manufacturer placed in another website in my opinion is a questionable practice. May not be copyright protected, it may be.

The internet is like the National Enquirer or even the regularf media. Full of opinions, viewpoints, preceptions, lies, misleading information, and last and sometimes least facts. I am not all knowing so I have to take all of the info and compare it to other things I have learned and decide what is OK for me.

Take for instance this statement .

Surface Tension Transfer® - a drop of molten metal touches the molten metal pool and is drawn into it by surface tension.
Spray Arc - the drop is ejected from the molten metal at the electrode tip by an electric pinch propelling it to the molten pool. (great for overhead welding!)

In general those statements in my opinion are misleading since in the 1st one a mode of metal transfer that was patented by Lincoln is used. That mode of transfer "Surface Tension Transfer" is or at least was only advertised by Lincoln. It is a transfer mode used for GMAW. Spray Arc is also a transfer mode for GMAW. And though within an SMAW arc you may very well have these types of metal transfer. The terms used are generally never referred to while using SMAW. In my opinion that could be misleading to someone unlearned

This content is contained on a page by Lincoln at http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/arcweldfund.asp

There is similar content at http://longevity-inc.com/details.php?info=19 .

Though this may be legal, it still bothers me. Again just my opinion.

[gaustin]

The above statements were in no way vulgar, misleading, slanderous etc, The moderator of this forum has the right to modify the statements however he sees fit.

Here is a .pdf of this thread up to the time I write this. You are welcome to review it for any of those threads with "Last Edited by" filled in. http://weldingdata.com/WelderReviews/longevity/140AmpLongevitywebcontent/longevityinfo.pdf

I had kinda forgotten about this issue based on the performance of the machine. Hopefully this will explain my reasons better . May not change your mind, but it may answer some questions.

[gaustin]

When I pasted the metatag info in the above post I didn't remove the < > so the content is embedded and invisible to the user. here is what it says from the Longevity index page

meta name="keywords" content="Power of Blue, Miller, Miller Welders, Miller Electric, welding equipment, weld, welding, TIG, MIG, STICK, Plasma, plasma cutting, engine driven, SAW, GTAW, SMAW, GMAW, FCAW, wire, wire feeder, wire welding, arc welding, generator, flux cored, Flux, PAC, resistance welding, resistance spot, pulsed Mig, pulsed TIG, submerged arc, welding guns, power source, automation, multi-process, multi-operator, training, weld training, metal, arc welding, spot welding, spot resistance, premier, quality, professional, occasional, hobby, blue, SAW, squarewave, tungsten, pulsing, power efficiency, sub-arc, automation, accessories, motorsports, welding technology, inverter, service, ITW company, ITW, welding systems, air carbon arc cutting, air carbon arc gouging, air carbon, light industrial, industrial, heavy industrial, duty cycle, single phase, three phase, CC, CV, AC, DC, microprocessor, kW, torch, power factory correction, welding jobs, welding appleton, appleton wisconsin, welding Wisconsin, welding education, GMAW training packages, millerwelds videos, cds, books, MIG calculators, TIG calculators, STICK calculators, metal cutting, welding aluminum"

I was unable to edit it in my post above since it is locked after 30 minutes.

[gaustin]

Hi Gaustin,

I believe I know of the other MFG your talking about. Seems their units and longevity certainly appear similar. However the other mfg/vendor seems to use deceptive ads on a popular auction site. That mfg ad specs were overstated to those of units capable of 3 times the capability.

When I pointed out all the misleading statements in that other mfg/vendors ad all my posts were deleted. I certainly kept them busy deleting my posts from early am to late pm. I finally got a full refund on that unit yet that mfg/vendor still continues their deceptive ads.
... .

I was actually referriing to the fact that the content on their pages with general welding infomation contained information that was identical to other manufacturers content. At the time of the post, the manufacturer was Mller. Simon corrected that after some time. The embedded HTML also contained keywords that wewre other company names. ITW, Miller, Power of Blue, etc. From what I understand from Simon, this is an acceptable and legal practice.

The other info was similar/identical to information contained on an educational institiution site and the other was same as seen on a fabricators. The latter two may have been copied from the Longevity site.

I just wanted to be clear that I was not referring to one importer vs the other.