Message from discussion SiteMorse - are these results accurate?

Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews2.google.com!not-for-mail
From: sk.wal...@virgin.net (skw)
Newsgroups: uk.net.web.authoring
Subject: Re: SiteMorse - are these results accurate?
Date: 24 Aug 2004 09:56:47 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <ed9cd94f.0408240856.157faf39@posting.google.com>
References: <W5mVc.3561$g_6.43291763@news-text.cableinet.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.252.0.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1093366607 21136 127.0.0.1 (24 Aug 2004 16:56:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:56:47 +0000 (UTC)

Ben 

> OK so I gave up trying to get any sense out of them at this point. It 
> seems that they are unable to give any kind of reference to how their 
> speeds are calculated, and as they obviously are wildly different from 
> real-world tests it would appear that the results are meaningless, and 
> just plain wrong!

As Jim has already pointed out, SiteMorse have no proper measuring
method in place, and as you've found out, they just get aggressive
when asked detail quesions.

In fact, it turns out that the directors of SiteMorse aka
Business2www.com (lawrence shaw and jon ribbens) have been previously
indicted for fraud, by the SEC in the USA, see:
    http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=sitemorse&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=39dd9473.0405111018.23167fe7%40posting.google.com&rnum=3

And more strangely, although their web site claims Trade marks on
various of their brand names, (sitemorse, keymorse etc) none are
listed at the UK patent office, check for yourself at:
   http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/text

So methinks better to steer clear.