Will this Marriage Finally Be Consummated?

[ltci4sure]

Ones that were captive with GNW and then went to LTCFP ?

Attention deficit much?

I am not buying your shtick.

I would not sell you my shtick even if you had sufficient funds to buy.

I already posted this before.

are you sure you don't have it mixed up - which entity merged with which, or perhaps which agents I was talking about?

----------

תודה לך חבר הטוב שלי

על לא דבר

You should really be thanking me :-)

On the other hand, we find upon examination of the wikipedia page on LTCFP these two lines:

(cur | prev) 21:06, 18 April 2012‎ Total-MAdMaN (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,642 bytes) (-136)‎ . . (Undid revision 487862500 by Jacklenenberg (talk) Reverting spam link addition.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 17:15, 17 April 2012‎ Jacklenenberg (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,778 bytes) (+136)‎ . . (→‎External links) (undo)

For the confused on this forum:
Wikipedia allows people to contribute content. Someone representing himself as Jack, inserted a link to his own website into the article about LTCFP. Someone else noticed that and removed the link the very next day.

Really cool, eh?

 

[ltcadviser]

For the confused on this forum:
Wikipedia allows people to contribute content. Someone representing himself as Jack, inserted a link to his own website into the article about LTCFP. Someone else noticed that and removed the link the very next day.

Really cool, eh?

Now we are confused?

Says the only anonymous poster here.

I have been told by many people my website has good content. Just trying to contribute.

Our industry needs good positive content to be published on the web, rather than all of the negative press that our industry receives.

Websites such as mine, or Scott's LTCShop.com, et al only help all of us if they are visible.

What hurts all if us is if a negative article such as everything Howard Gluckman publishes is blasted on Page 1 of Google every three months.

Regarding link building techniques, Search engine optimization consultants working for ACSIA have commented for years on my blog posts with links back to ACSIA websites.

Frankly, it has never bothered me. I simply remove the comments.

I understand it is/was just SEO consultants trying to do their job--well , in a pre-Panda, pre-Penguin, pre-Hummingbird world.

 

[Arthur Rudnick]

previously posted by ltcadviser

תודה לך חבר הטוב שלי

Jack,
If that means happy July 4th, right back at ya.............

 

[scagnt83]

Jack's site has excellent content and is possibly one of the most authoritative and comprehensive LTCI sites on the web.

I am not afraid to admit that I have gained info from his site. I even sent one of his articles over to a client considering LTCI once.

I would trust Jack's info over anything wiki publishes. I have seen some extremely inaccurate info on wikipedia when it comes to insurance.


But at the end of the day Jack is an agent who does this every day, and a lot more of it than most agents do.


Ltci4sure,
The reason that true indy agents do not like outfits like LTCFP is because they bill themselves as independent when they really are not. They are quasi captive.

One of the biggest problems indy agents have with an upline is that many try to push you just towards their "preferred" carriers.

But with outfits like LTCFP you are restricted to just their "preferred" carriers. Which is even worse for the client, but at least they are honest about it to the agents...

But unfortunately LTCFP is notorious in this industry for unethical sales practices. You can argue that it is the minority all you want to. But us agents in the field everyday have seen it way too many times for it to be "coincidence". Often it is the restrictions put on the agents that cause the ethical dilemma.

 

[CALTCAgent]

Attention deficit much?

OK lets go there.

You come on here whining about something you won't even tell us what the problem is ?

I simply can't even figure out what you are talking about. It spins one why, then the other.

You won't put where you are and who you work for ?

You obviously are with LTCFP.

I would not sell you my shtick even if you had sufficient funds to buy.

Your shtick is totally weak man.

You can get naive agents to believe you behind closed doors.

But don't come here and expect some of the most experienced agents to buy your baloney. Not gonna hapenn. You are getting called out over and over, and frankly you look bad.

I guess it is time for the legal threats from you ?

are you sure you don't have it mixed up - which entity merged with which, or perhaps which agents I was talking about?

Frankly it doesn't matter. The flawed system they have does not make them of any consequence to me.

Who and what are you ?

For the confused on this forum:
Wikipedia allows people to contribute content. Someone representing himself as Jack, inserted a link to his own website into the article about LTCFP. Someone else noticed that and removed the link the very next day.

Really cool, eh?

At least he says who he is, and you are ?

 

[ltcadviser]

This is what Wikipedia says about LTCFP's self generated entry:

This article appears to be written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by rewriting promotional content from a neutral point of view and removing any inappropriate external links. (September 2011)


Imagine that.

And if my memory serves me correctly I attempted to help and improve the LTCFP Wikipedia content by updating and correcting the number of States that had approved State Partnership programs. I do not believe I linked to my website in the article. I believe I placed a link to my website's State Partnership page in the footnotes as a citation to the correction I made.

----------

jack's site has excellent content and is possibly one of the most authoritative and comprehensive ltci sites on the web.

I am not afraid to admit that i have gained info from his site. I even sent one of his articles over to a client considering ltci once.

I would trust jack's info over anything wiki publishes.

……….…………………….תודה

 

[ltci4sure]

This article appears to be written like an advertisement.

Imagine that.

Sure, it was written by some marketing folks I imagine. They can't write anything but the adverts.

And if my memory serves me correctly I attempted to help and improve the LTCFP Wikipedia content by updating and correcting

Not really. Comparison with the previous version shows that *the only* change was to insert the link to your website. Spammer!

----------

You come on here whining about something you won't even tell us what the problem is ?

Perhaps "whining" isn't quote the word you are looking for? I have explained many times on here what the problem is, and how it came to be. Read up, man. Back to my point about the attention deficit.

You won't put where you are and who you work for ?

For the same reason that none of the so called "proponents of going independent" would express their opinion on GNW practices - don't want the problems.

You obviously are with LTCFP.

so for someone to have an opinion dissenting from yours automatically makes them belong to the other party? Much sense?

Your shtick is totally weak man.
You can get naive agents to believe you behind closed doors.

See above, if you are referring to LTCFP, their recruiting practices isn't something I am particularly privy to.

But don't come here and expect some of the most experienced agents to buy your baloney. Not gonna hapenn. You are getting called out over and over, and frankly you look bad.

Don't be ridiculous. I am not selling anything, just trying to provide some balance to an obviously opinionated but misinformed and biased crowd.

I guess it is time for the legal threats from you ?

Sanity check?

The flawed system they have does not make them of any consequence to me.

Any system that *they* may have has pluses and minuses. The fact that it won't work for you does mean a whole lot.

Funny that your entire post took flight as an attempt to defend wiki spamming.

----------

Jack's site has excellent content and is possibly one of the most authoritative and comprehensive LTCI sites on the web.

Don't you get it? It really doesn't matter. Link spamming on wiki is NOT ok.

But at the end of the day Jack is an agent who does this every day, and a lot more of it than most agents do.

Great. I am very happy we have such a dedicated agent in our midst.

The reason that true indy agents do not like outfits like LTCFP is because they bill themselves as independent when they really are not. They are quasi captive.

Having gained some familiarity with LTCFP comp plans, I would argue the opposite. While they are limited to the carriers available to them (no GNW for no fault of theirs) - the comp plan makes sure they're not biased, they get paid the same no matter which product they offer. In conversations with their sales management, they also make it clear that the goal is to serve the client. Can you say the same for all indy agents?

But with outfits like LTCFP you are restricted to just their "preferred" carriers. Which is even worse for the client, but at least they are honest about it to the agents...

See above. Obviously individuals have their own biases/preferences, but as a company, they don't push agents to "preferred" carriers.

But unfortunately LTCFP is notorious in this industry for unethical sales practices.

You don't say! Such an accusation - how about some specifics?

Summary of your response: Jack - good, link spamming - ok, LTCFP -bad.
Balance?

 

[CALTCAgent]

Perhaps "whining" isn't quote the word you are looking for? I have explained many times on here what the problem is, and how it came to be. Read up, man. Back to my point about the attention deficit.

It is easy to have ADD with some of yours posts about this GNW thing. It does not concern the consumer or independent agent.

Nothing you said stands out to me.

so for someone to have an opinion dissenting from yours automatically makes them belong to the other party? Much sense?

I like to hear other opinions. I look for value. I am not on one party or another. I just sense you are only showing the LTCFP point of view, like a recruiter.

See above, if you are referring to LTCFP, their recruiting practices isn't something I am particularly privy to.

OK, then you just know Irena in human resources and a lot about the company. Every post defends them. Oh don't forget Gene. Oh you were reading their wikipedia page.

All these things are coincidental ?

OK, so are you a LTC producer ?

Don't be ridiculous. I am not selling anything, just trying to provide some balance to an obviously opinionated but misinformed and biased crowd.

Why only this section ?

Any system that *they* may have has pluses and minuses. The fact that it won't work for you does mean a whole lot.

It doesn't work for the majority. It is a revolving door system.

 

[ltcadviser]

Comparison with the previous version shows that *the only* change was to insert the link to your website. Spammer!

Don't you get it? It really doesn't matter. Link spamming on wiki is NOT ok.

Wikipedia states it undid my revision correcting the number of partnership states solely because I placed a link to my website page in the footnotes as a citation.

If calling me a "link spammer" makes you feel good, then I am ok with that.

 

[ltci4sure]

I just sense you are only showing the LTCFP point of view, like a recruiter.

While I happen to know people at LTCFP - I am not looking to recruit anyone. Simply trying to set the record straight. A lot of misinformation and just plain bs about their policies and practices.

OK, then you just know Irena in human resources and a lot about the company. Every post defends them.

Ironically, I don't personally know Irena, who (ADD strikes again?) said she works with leads in her post, not hr.

Oh don't forget Gene.

What about Gene? I have no idea who that person is.

It doesn't work for the majority. It is a revolving door system.

How interesting. I know people who had been with them for many years and aren't planning to switch. At some point LTCFP was trying to train new producers who were not part of the industry - naturally a lot of people discovered it was not a good fit.

----------

Wikipedia states it undid my revision correcting the number of partnership states solely because I placed a link to my website page in the footnotes as a citation.

I am sorry if I missed that, but let's check wikipedia.
The history of Jack's edits looks like this:

May, 13 2013 - page on long term care insurance. The only difference is an added link to your page. Removed a few days later.
April 17, 2012 - LTCFP page. The only difference? an added link to your page. Removed the next day.
April 17, 2012 - entry on Long-term care. The only difference? (I think the readers should be getting the hint by now)...
April 17, 2012 - entry on home care. Same stuff again.
...

Here is a link to contributions on wikipedia:
User contributions for Jacklenenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Small useful link "diff" allows to examine the difference between edits.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the challenges involved rather well. But in the posts here certain people seem to claim the "ethical high ground", and try to accuse me of all sorts of things. Let's just play nice and not be "all that" :-) Live and let live.