I was going to wait until tommorow to address this, but I am getting a lot of referrals today so I am going to do it now. A prominent blogger, Shoemoney, has called out Markus Frind over his $10,000 a day claim with PlentyofFish.com. Shoemoney called me, Rob Scoble, and anyone else who believed Markus’s story stupid.

Here are the facts:

  • #1 I tracked down Markus myself and requested an interview with him. He never solicited the interview from me nor paid me for it, as Shoemoney implied Markus was doing.
  • #2 PlentyofFish.com Alexa ranking is 837, Websearch is 374, and ranks #5 for dating sites according to Hitwise. Yes, these statistics can be faked. However, as Shoemoney claims in his post “..bullsh*t statistics like 5th largest dating site.” is false and makes me look like I did not do my homework.
  • #3 I can not prove that Markus makes $10,000 a day from Adsense. No one can other than Google, so unless they choose to do so I don’t think anything can be concluded. Robert tells me — “No one ever questioned his numbers and I have a lot of readers over at Google.”

Those were the facts, now here are my opinions:

When I read Shoemoney’s post and comments it sounded to me like he was saying Markus was just making these numbers up to get backlinks from bloggers like me. Shoemoney said “I have to give it up to him. He now has a successful site that people go to. Its possible he makes 1k/ a day NOW from AdSense.” If my translation is correct, he is implying that because of these backlinks PlentyofFish.com got great search engine rankings and enough traffic to make $1,000 a day? Look at the traffic rankings, it went up a little bit in March, but not much.

If you choose not to believe Markus, fair enough. What I want you to understand is that I don’t buy into every random persons bullshit. I know very much about how creating fake news stories for backlinks work. Markus had the traffic rankings according to Alexa, online dating industry blogs were talking about him, people had talked to him at conventions, he had a very good reputation on multiple forums, and the numbers made sense.

I like Shoemoney, I read his blog every day, and I have followed his advice and made some good money from it. When I read his post this morning I thought “Oh shit I screwed up.” I have spent half the day e-mailing people, including Markus, and re-examining the data. I can not find any evidence that casts doubt on Markus or points him out as a liar. If I find it, I will post it here along with an apology.

14 thoughts on “About Markus Frind and Shoemoney

  1. Why are Alexa rankings mentioned so much? From what I’ve read on SEO forums, Alexa rankings are not a good indicator of popularity because people can set up the Alexa toolbar and vist their own site a lot to build their number.

    Please set me straight, thanks.

  2. Pingback: Sekoyen’s » Blog Archive » PlentyOfFish.com is making 10k a day

  3. I still don’t know why shoemoney is lieing.

    Andrew would you get this supposed email of his that i supposidly sent complete with message headers? Compare it against my message headers that i have sent you previously. That should prove beyond a doubt this stuff is BS. This is just one big link bait scam.

  4. Pingback: » $10,000 Daily via Adsense.. Perhaps not? The Blog Herald: more blog news more often

  5. Chris: it would be difficult to fake an alexa rating under 1000.

    Andrew: Why the hell would you offer to apologize or jump when Shoe says boo. Normally I like Shoes posts too but he’s just being a twat at the moment.

  6. I have read a number of Markus’ post on webmasterworld.com. I am usually doubtful of people who make such huge claims yet reading his advice and attitude towards things I believe him.

  7. Probably the same reason Shoemoney brags about how much money he makes. It makes for good PR and maybe builds his ego up.

  8. funny thing is shoemoney doesn’t lie when he posts about earnings. he only does it to help other people realize potential, and he actually tells what he does…unlike other people who just brag about how much they make but keep their mouth’s shut when it comes to someone asking them how they do it.

  9. Really Andrea ? Your over at his house verifying all that stuff ? And do you beleive that people are obligated to tell you that information ?

    Stop acting like a twit and think for yourself.

  10. Pingback: » Markus Frind on Shoemoney’s radio show Tuesday - Web Publishing Blog

  11. Update: I’m still blacklisted as of 5-29-07

    Markus Frind of Canada, owner of Plentyoffish.com:

    Re: your unfair termination of my membership and your anti-male,
    discriminatory, fraudulent and unlawful business model.

    Why did you delete my profile and terminate my membership on July 3, 2006 at
    8:57 PM?

    You did so without any notice or explanation. In fact, you deceived me as to
    the reason, resulting in my wasting a lot of my time. Consequently, the next
    day, I spent six hours attempting to log on. At first, I assumed your site
    was down. Then, I adjusted my browser privacy setting as your automated
    notice suggested (this was your deception). When that didn’t work, I
    e-mailed my buddy to see whether he could log on. He was able to do so.
    Then, I got suspicious, so I searched for my own profile and found that you
    had deleted it. Such a delayed search was the only way I could find out!

    The next day, I attempted to register another profile, several times, using
    three new usernames. Each of them worked for less than an hour, but I did
    not get the administrative deletion message when I searched for each of
    those names after they had been deleted. All I got was a deadend, without
    any explanation. The first thing I did with the first two new profiles was
    to contact all the people I had been commmunicating with, to explaine what
    had happened, so I wouldn’t leave them hanging. But, obviously, none of them
    got my note because my e-mail was automatically deleted with my profile,
    immediately after I sent it.

    Consequently, you left about a dozen of my friends hanging, in addition to
    many more whom I had contacted for the first time. You therefore damaged
    many relationships, frustrated many people, and destroyed the investment we
    had made in our relationships, and destroyed the investment of my time I had
    made in writing my profile and searching for prospects.

    On or about July 4, 2006, I e-mailed your Tech. Support Dept., asking them
    why I had been terminated. I have not received any response. I saw no other
    recourse posted on your website at that time.

    You owe me and my friends better treatment than this. You owe the People of
    the United States better treatment. You brag on your website that you are
    the largest free dating website, and that you rank #5 overall. Therefore,
    you have the responsibility to treat users fairly and to give them proper
    notice and explanation of membership termination, because such termination
    limits their alternatives to the extent that you brag about, yourself. As
    you should know, a provider in a monopoly position, such as yourself, has a
    special duty and responsibility to the public.

    Your actions are unfair, irresponsible, reckless and monopolistic.

    It appears that your business model exploits certain dynamics that drive
    your business, to the extreme extent that you unfairly and unlawfully
    discriminate against male members to maximize the number of female members
    and your advertising revenue. This business is driven by ads posted by
    female members, which attract men who respond to initiate contact. Females
    initiate only a small fraction of contacts, as you know from your own
    statistics. Such facts mirror the real world outside of the Internet.

    Consequently, you do anything you can to retain female members to the extent
    that you pander to them by terminating male members whenever they get a
    certain minimum number of complaints from females, regardless of the merit
    of the complaints. However, it’s obvious that you don’t do the same for
    complaints by males, as indicated by your unresponsiveness to my complaints
    about females who have obviously fraudulent or absurd ads. Some of those ads
    are duplicates (they even log on to both profiles in rapid succession). Some
    of them state absurdly wide or narrow age ranges. Some are generally absurd
    and frivolous. Some are masseuses looking for business. Some are
    18-year-olds looking for 55-year-old sugardaddies. Some are obviously
    prostitutes. Many of them misstate their height (e.g., they list their
    height at 6′, but say they are 5′5″ in their description). I’ve notified you
    of many such ads, but you have failed to respond to any of my complaints.

    It appears that you program your computers to automatically terminate male
    members whenever a minimum number of female members complain, regardless of
    the merit of the complaint. In my case, you terminated me at 8:57 PM (your
    time) on Tuesday night, July 3, 2006 during a 4th of July weekend. I doubt
    anyone was working at POF then, so it appears this process was done
    automatically by computer.

    I understand that you run this website with only two employees: you and your
    wife. But such a low-cost business model is no excuse to discriminate
    against male members and to deny them due process. If you don’t have the
    resources to handle complaints fairly, you should simply advise complainants
    to block mail from members they don’t like, as Matchdoctor.com does.
    Complainants don’t have to read mail or profiles they don’t like. As soon as
    they read something they don’t like, they need only move on to the next one.

    Therefore, terminating male members, based merely upon the number of
    popularity votes by female members, is unnecessarily retaliatory,
    contemptuous, discriminatory and undemocratic. And it’s unlawful.

    You break the law by discriminating against males, defrauding males, and by
    knowingly and intentionally allowing fraudulent
    ads of female members to remain posted.

    You unnecessarily destroy relationships and destroy the investment of time
    male members have made in your website. Ironically, you also destroy
    investments your female members have made in relationships with male
    members. Their male friends just suddenly disappear, without explanation.
    You just leave them hanging. They are frustrated and saddened, and the men
    appear to have abandoned them, without explanation. That’s de facto
    defamation against male members.

    And, obviously, your allegation that only 0.5% of your members are
    terminated is false, given the circumstances of my termination. I used no
    obscene language, nor did I post an obscene profile. And you can’t show why
    my profile or written statements are unlawful. Therefore, if you terminate
    men like me, you must terminate a much higher % of male members than you
    state you do. That’s fraud, too.

    And my style of communicating is nothing like the widespread unethical,
    sexist, anti-social, psychotic, irrational behavior I have observed among
    your female members. And those are the people who seek to retaliate against
    men by clicking on the “abuse” button.

    Your Terms of Use are stated so vaguely that they would allow you to
    arbitrarily terminate any member for any reason. For example, anyone might
    interpret any statement as “mean” or “offensive.” Anytime anyone expresses
    an opinion about anything, someone will be offended.

    The fact that the largest free dating website in the U.S. is allowed to post
    and execute such sloppy, primitive, ignorant and unlawful Terms of Use is a

    The fact that you don’t charge a membership fee is irrelevant. You
    monopolize your market, and you deny arbitrarily terminated male members any
    viable alternative. You have already put such alternatives out of business,
    or you have taken so much market share from them that they aren’t viable
    alternatives. Ironically, you created your own argument against your

    In addition to the above violations, you perpetrate racketeering, in
    violation of U.S. Federal RICO Statutes.

    Two of your competitors, Yahoo and Match.com are being sued by many parties
    for perpetrating violations of law similar to yours.

    Therefore, if you fail to reinstate my membership, by Wednesday, July 12,
    2006, I will take the following legal action against you:

    I will file complaints with the following government agencies:

    1. All 50 U.S. State Attorneys General

    2. The U.S. Attorney of Phoenix, AZ.

    3. Various government agencies in Canada

    4. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission

    5. The U.S. Dept. of Justice.

    6. The FBI.

    Also, I will solicit similarly terminated former male members to participate
    in a class-action lawsuit against you. I will be using the same attorneys
    who are suing your competitors.

    Time is of the essence. I am losing friends and romantic opportunities as
    you read this, and my damages continue to mount.


    Shawn Mattson, XWallstreeter

Comments are closed.