Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Colleges Help Students Fix Their Online Indiscretions

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the who's-going-to-see-this dept.

Businesses 189

A growing number of colleges are providing graduating students tools to improve their online image. The services arrange for positive results on search engine inquiries by pushing your party pictures, and other snapshots of your lapsed judgement off the first page. Syracuse, Rochester and Johns Hopkins are among the schools that are offering such services free of charge. From the article: "Samantha Grossman wasn't always thrilled with the impression that emerged when people Googled her name. 'It wasn't anything too horrible,' she said. 'I just have a common name. There would be pictures, college partying pictures, that weren't of me, things I wouldn't want associated with me.' So before she graduated from Syracuse University last spring, the school provided her with a tool that allowed her to put her best Web foot forward. Now when people Google her, they go straight to a positive image — professional photo, cum laude degree and credentials — that she credits with helping her land a digital advertising job in New York."

cancel ×

189 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

confused (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450807)

I don't know what she's talking about. First thing I see if that evil Newton killer's image.

Re:confused (1)

roninmagus (721889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450887)

I do as well. How's that for improving your image? To be fair, though, I had to click on Images. The first website result was obviously her reputation site.

Re:confused (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450989)

I didn't have to click on images. The result came up under the Images subsection of a normal search (albeit lower down the page).

Re:confused (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42450953)

I don't see Steve Jobs anywhere on that page. Oh, did you mean Newtown?

Re:confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451073)

LOL! Where's my mod points when I need 'em

Re:confused (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451763)

You have to be logged in to have mod points.

Re:confused (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451093)

Einstein?

Re:confused (1)

nbauman (624611) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451197)

That's what happens when your boss gives you the psycho killer beat.

Re:confused (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42452241)

Doesn't it make you just want to get her name associated with the goat.se picture...

Facebook has crappy policies (5, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450815)

Facebook is one example of a site that has a crappy policy that only allows you to have one profile. It makes sense to have two social media profiles, one for your personal life which you share with friends, post your party pictures and aren't afraid to write whatever you want, and one for your professional life, where you add coworkers and talk about work.

Yet Facebook and other sites are forbidding this, making people put everything in one pot. It's becoming more difficult to separate your personal life from your professional life these days. Stupid real name policies and pervasive connection of everything to everything else is a curse.

We need a push towards policies that make it easy for people to keep personal and work lives separate. It's common sense.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42450897)

that's why you use bing and facebook... and why you don't add your coworkers on facebook (only if they're real friends).

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (5, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450987)

Facebook is one example of a site that has a crappy policy that only allows you to have one profile. It makes sense to have two social media profiles, one for your personal life which you share with friends, post your party pictures and aren't afraid to write whatever you want, and one for your professional life, where you add coworkers and talk about work.

Maybe Facebook could let you organize your social media contacts into different "circles" and let you share content based on which "circle" a person in. They could keep the membership of those "circles" private so no one knows which circle they are in or who else in in that circle.

Someone should start a social media site like that! [google.com] It's sure to be a Facebook killer.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451329)

Eh, I would have started using Google+ for exactly those reasons. I never made a FB profile for exactly those reasons.

...and then Eric Schmidt made it clear that Google+ is an *identity* service. I have no desire to use a service that enforces a real name policy. I'm not alone in that. And, of course, Diaspora is an abortion; most notable merely for being the first time I heard about the Kickstarter metascam site.

/AC, because obviously...

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451931)

There is way more dishonesty on ebay than on Kickstarter so how is it any less of a "metascam" site? Do you just assume that all Kickstarter projects fail to deliver because you've heard a few horror storied? I've had a 100% success rate with the crowdsource projects I have contributed to.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (4, Informative)

DavidD_CA (750156) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451345)

Maybe Facebook could let you organize your social media contacts into different "lists" and let you share content based on which "list" a person in. They could keep the membership of those "lists" private so no one knows which circle they are in or who else in in that circle.

Oh wait. It does.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (2)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451459)

That doesn't help with publically accessible material that gets indexed by Google. Secondly, Facebook does have that sort of functionality and it had it before Google. The only thing google did was simplify things to give potential users the impression they care about your privacy, which, imo, is a bit of a joke.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451921)

That doesn't help with publically accessible material that gets indexed by Google. Secondly, Facebook does have that sort of functionality and it had it before Google. The only thing google did was simplify things to give potential users the impression they care about your privacy, which, imo, is a bit of a joke.

Well, yeah, if you make your data available to the public (if Google's search engine indexes it, it's available to the world), then your data is available to the public. No technology is going to help you with that - if you don't want it public, don't make it public. Facebook does have a way of making pictures of you public without your permission by letting others tag you in photos, but I think there's a setting to prevent that. Not sure if Google has the same functionality.

I thought the problem the GP was trying to solve was that there's no way to make data available to friends without also making it available to others they are connected to in Facebook.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42452133)

The only thing google did was simplify things to give potential users the impression they care about your privacy, which, imo, is a bit of a joke.

As Zuckerberg's own sister found out.

I think it's hilarious that something of hers went public.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451141)

Yet Facebook and other sites are forbidding this, making people put everything in one pot. It's becoming more difficult to separate your personal life from your professional life these days. Stupid real name policies and pervasive connection of everything to everything else is a curse.

You make it sound as though you're being forced to use Facebook and 'other sites'--you're not. Don't use them, problem solved.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451189)

That's why I used linked in for work related stuff. I don't have any co workers who are my friends on facebook who aren't actually my friend in real life.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451209)

There is a cure for that...

Use Facebook for all your personal crap, and LinkedIn for all your professional crap.

Or, just tell Facebook to go /sbin/fsck themselves and create two accounts anyway (one is accessed via Chrome, the other via Firefox, or whatever).

Behave Yourself (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451275)

Maybe you should behave yourself in public places so you don't do stupid shit that ends up on Faceook in the first place.

Do you have different personas in real life that go to different places and dance to the music accordingly?

No? Then why should you get a free pass online to make an ass of yourself in public?

xoxo,
Mom

Re:Behave Yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451593)

Do you have different personas in real life that go to different places and dance to the music accordingly?

Yes. These places are called "work" and "everywhere else"

Re:Behave Yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451631)

Do you have different personas in real life that go to different places and dance to the music accordingly?

No? Then why should you get a free pass online to make an ass of yourself in public?

Only a sociapath does not have different thoughts and actions based on who they are around. Do you think Obama and the first lady have never watched a porn moive or had sex in anything other then the misionary position? You don't think he beats off like every other guy in the world? You don;t think he talks to his close friends in a different way then he talks to another world leader? Its not like a President is above getting a blow job from an office assistant. Everyone acts differently when they are on the clock compared to being off the clock. If you don't think people do that you are being fooled and you are blindly trusting people that are capable of taking advantage of you and getting what they want from you big time.

Re:Behave Yourself (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451657)

Do you have different personas in real life that go to different places and dance to the music accordingly?

Yes, of course I do. Of course everyone does. Do you act the same around your coworkers as you do around your kids? Did you act the same in high school as you do in job interviews? Context is important, and the internet does a very poor job with that context right now.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451431)

The more random information you can find about someone, the more chances that you will find something that you consider "negative" and it seems everyone will take those one or few percieved negatives and ignore all of the positives. A lot of times, those negatives have nothing to do with what you are evaluating the person for. This happens with families, your inlaws, your sons girlfriend, blah blah blah. Your roofing contractor may binge drink on the weekend and be a NRA member. What the hell does that have to do with how well he does a roofing job for you? Does anything change if that contractor is able to hide these details from you? Another contractor was accused of beating his wife and a thrid is behind on his car payment, a forth is on his forth marriage. Who the hell carses? I'm not finding a person to spend a few years with in my fallout shelter, I'm looking for a contractor. I should ONLY care about his actual roofing work and quality. Nothing else about that person matters at all, not a single bit. Its just like the person that blindly trusts someone that is wearing a suit over someone wearing a hoodie. You are judging someone on X when you only need Y from them.

Now if you are specifically looking for someoine that does not go out with friends at night and you see pictures that proves they do, go with your gut feeling but watch out of discimination laws and please realize your criteria for judging that person has nothing to do with how well they will perform at your company. There are also non drinkers and non partyers with no friends that are child molesters, cleptos, and have crappy work ethics. You didn't see that online thought....

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451487)

It makes sense to have two social media profiles, one for your personal life which you share with friends, post your party pictures and aren't afraid to write whatever you want, and one for your professional life

If you were better informed you would already know that LinkedIn is what business people use for business networking.

And if you were not a complete idiot you wouldn't be using FaceBook in the first place.

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (1)

kubernet3s (1954672) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451589)

Except that's not the issue. There are plenty of sites that are "just work" equivalents of Facebook, or else have potential to be, like LinkedIn, or more focused ones like ResearchGate or CiteULike. But employers DEMAND access to the personal stuff. Otherwise there would be no problem: If an employer found a picture of you drinking or partying, then they would know to simply not take that into consideration. However, the issue is not that they do so, but it still subliminally affects them, but that they actively take it into account as part of their hiring strategy, which is why they aren't content with your LinkedIn, but demand your Facebook login info

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451639)

Perhaps you're looking for a feature like lists [facebook.com] .

Re:Facebook has crappy policies (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451829)

G+ lets me choose who gets to see what. Kind of nice. I can even preview as if I am another person to see what all they get to see.

Cum Laude Degree? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42450819)

If putting her best Web foot forward" means she gets a "digital advertising" job she's got bigger problems.

Re:Cum Laude Degree? (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450919)

Why publishers/ad agencies often take English grads from oxbridge = we have an Oxford Alumni on our team (digital marketing for a FTSE100 company) - Bridget Jones worked in publishing and the diary has jokes about "wittgenstein"

Re:Cum Laude Degree? (4, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451537)

Why publishers/ad agencies often take English grads from oxbridge = we have an Oxford Alumni on our team (digital marketing for a FTSE100 company) - Bridget Jones worked in publishing and the diary has jokes about "wittgenstein"

But are any of them capable of forming a complete sentence?

My method works better (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450863)

I just keep my personal info completely off anything public on the internet. Tada, zero results (other than whitepages-style listings for people who aren't me). I don't have a Facebook account, my Google account has a fake name, etc. What a coincidence, I don't have problems like this.

Re:My method works better (5, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450927)

That wouldn't solve her problem, which is that somebody with her exact name had been a very bad girl online. In that case, it makes sense to create a "clean" persona and attempt to push that to the top.

Re:My method works better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42450991)

What exactly was the problem? She was convinced that nobody would want to hire her if they could tell that someone with the same name had been a "bad girl"? This seems a bit far fetched.

Re:My method works better (3, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451021)

This is exactly what people like her fear. I'm not saying it's a realistic fear, but it's a common one.

Re:My method works better (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451153)

She was applying for a digital advertising position.

Advertisers need to be able to market themselves the same way programmers need to know how to write FizzBuzz.

Re:My method works better (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451165)

What exactly was the problem? She was convinced that nobody would want to hire her if they could tell that someone with the same name had been a "bad girl"? This seems a bit far fetched.

TFA suggests that a third of the HR folks surveyed admitted to dismissing a candidate in light of the results that came out of researching the candidate on the web. So not so far fetched.

Re:My method works better (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451237)

Did it also suggest that they think there's one person per name? If so then why didn't she jst change her name to Jesus Christ and everyone would be worshipping her?

Re:My method works better (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451505)

And every one of them should be fired.

Re:My method works better (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451543)

And I'd bet my last shirt that she would have done the same if she ended up in a HR position.

Just hope she lerned her lesson from that and spreads it.

Re:My method works better (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451721)

Just hope she lerned her lesson from that and spreads it.

Too bad Slashdot doesn't have an edit function.

Just say'in.

Re:My method works better (1)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451379)

It's not far-fetched. The potential employers have no knowledge that they need to distinguish the Samantha-the-naughty-party-girl from Samantha-the-cum-laude-graduate search results. So what she needed was a professional photo and professional image so that when the unknown searchers looked for her, they would see pictures of two different looking people.

She also can't tell her potential employers to "search for Samantha -drinking -at -the -foobar -lounge", because that's going to leave them with a bad impression. In seeking a marketing position, it's fatal: if she can't convince them that she can market herself effectively, what good is she to them?

Re:My method works better (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451105)

When I google my name I can't find anything about myself. But there's an arty photographer with the same name as me, so I get a lot of hot naked women pictures.

If some paranoid prospective employer tries to google me, he's in for a surprise :-)

Re:My method works better (1)

Geeky (90998) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451249)

I take arty (yes, that kind of arty) pictures as a hobby. Luckily my name is quite common, so a google search turns up loads of other people with the same name, so I'd be quite hard to track down even though I publish under my own name (to be honest, I'm at a stage in my career when if someone doesn't want to employ me because of my hobbies, I don't want to work for them).

Re:My method works better (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451311)

When I google my real name, I get several Facebook pages, and at least one LinkedIn that aren't me. I have to go to the second page to find a stupid question on some tech list that, er wait I didn't write that question!

Re:My method works better (1)

stuporglue (1167677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451223)

My real name is Michael Moore and I'm not the film maker.

I don't know how many pages you'd have to go through to get to a page that's actually about me.

Re:My method works better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451529)

So, what's that you were quoted, dissing Amerika's troops? Why do you hate the USA?

Terrorist.

Re:My method works better (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451795)

I share a name with a celebrity so i'm in the same situation. Unless you know my nick, you don't find me. If you do, you can probably find quite a bit, but i'm careful to make sure no employers or clients know my nick. I keep an alternate email and so forth for that.

Re:My method works better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451235)

No. What makes sense is telling anyone interested that this isn't you. And be done with it.

Re:My method works better (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451351)

Maybe Evil Sharon likes her online persona. Why should she get bumped down the rankings?

Re:My method works better (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451839)

Hey. She can play the same game if she really wants to that much. Somehow I don't think it's likely. Until HR people can grow brains and stop disqualifying people for stupid shit, this sort of SEO assholery is going to be necessary.

Re:My method works better (3, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450939)

Though some tech jobs might look down at not having a web presence. Perhaps you're out of touch with the electronic world? Perhaps you don't know about social apps, communities, web 2.0, whatever "buzz words" HR might look for.

I'm not saying it's true, just that it could be perceived as true by the HR guys that filter the resumes before they get sent to the department. While other people might look favorably on that for a candidate: security conscious and what-not.

It reminds of a job I applied for, I knew the person hiring (not an underling, the flippin' manager). He said for legal reasons I had to submit my resume through their official channels but once it got to his department he'd help me out. A few weeks go by and he asks why I didn't follow up with the job, I told him I did. He was puzzled, and came back to me later -- the HR department weeded mine out because I "only" had X years experience with .Net. They were weeding out people who didn't have Y+ years experience with .Net... which was "awesome" because they wanted 10+ years with .Net and it had only officially been out for a couple.

He was not happy (nor was I).

Re:My method works better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451111)

Can you read? The summary has nothing to do with a person putting their info online. It has to do with having a common name and people stupidly assuming that anything anyone posts with that name must be her. So, apparently you are more interested in showing how smart you are than actually reading the problem. That makes you appear stupid.

Wouldn't it be better... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42450881)

Wouldn't it be better to teach the employers how to actaully perform an interview and be slightly professional about their hiring policies rather than playing amature hour detective on the web.

Re:Wouldn't it be better... (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451053)

Indeed some HR departments (and US ones tend to be worst culprits) have ideas above there station eg Drug tests and back ground checks for some bog standard little development job - you imagine the HR director spends his weekend dressing up as the SAS /Seal team 6/SAD and running round the woods with a paint ball gun

This level of intrusion for job seekers is only really required/justified for a very small subset of jobs eg those with SC or TS (DV) clearance

Re:Wouldn't it be better... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451467)

Sadly, drug tests and background checks means cheaper insurance.

Re:Wouldn't it be better... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451663)

Matter of time. Right now, the economy sucks. Employers have their pick of candidates, but also hundreds to choose from. It's impractical to interview so many, so they need to apply some heuristics to narrow the field. Quick and good-enough tests that'll eliminate the undesireables. The 'google check' is one of these, along with mostly-automated 'must have qualification X' standards.

Re:Wouldn't it be better... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42452163)

its more like taking a forest clearing logger to cut down one tree. or in car terms, what you say employers do is like taking a perfectly good car with a dent in it and sending it to the crusher because of that dent. nothing wrong with the car, just didnt look quite right, so get rid of it. This practice is the worst because I can make my resume/CV look like exactly what you need, but does that mean that it is what you need. you catch too many qualified candidates with that practice and throw them out the door. leaving you with cheats and liars who when it comes to interview time, well mostly suck.

... and now spamming Slashdot (2, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450895)

"... that she credits with helping her land a digital advertising job in New York." Her first task: get herself and her company some Slashdot hits.

Re:... and now spamming Slashdot (2)

codegen (103601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451211)

I know this is slashdot, and people don't want to read the article, the company that she got a job with is not mentioned in the article. She is just profiled as one of the students using the reputation cleanup service provided by the University. This is in fact a University pushed story since it is college application time, to advertise one of the fringe benefits of the University. The company mentioned was actually created by three of the University Alumni.

Re:... and now spamming Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451509)

Sounds like they should have hired the people at her college that helped her clean up her online profile, instead.

Positive? (4, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450903)

So we define positive in terms of social stigma? God forbid you would be associated with having some social accumen and having a good time. Its always a negative to find out someone has ever been to a party with alcohol.

I don't see whats so negative.... some people could hold anything against you. Do you really want to work for/with such people?

Re:Positive? (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450955)

Indeed. Depending on the kind of person you are and who you wish to work for, it might be of benefit to have a slightly "dirty" online persona to weed out the prudes.

Re:Positive? (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451565)

You are confusing your utopian vision with the real world. How people should judge others is unimportant. How they *do* judge others is. So long as potential employers are judging you, you would do well to play the game and act like the most professional and dull person in the world. Unless you enjoy going back to your parents and begging to be allowed to live in the basement again.

Could be worse. (5, Funny)

Richy_T (111409) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450915)

I just feel bad for John Goatse.

Re:Could be worse. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451015)

And the HR department.

Since about 30 people have the same name as me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42450925)

...I find using a nickname works better.

Re:Since about 30 people have the same name as me (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450973)

It's even better with me. My name is shared with a celebrity, so nobody ever finds me by directly searching for me unless they already have my nickname, which I would never give to a prospective employer or client.

Sir, I beg to differ. (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450995)

I think there are more than 30 people on the internet named "Anonymous Coward"

Re:Sir, I beg to differ. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451067)

There is only one people on the internet named "Anonymous Coward", there just happens to be many stand alone instances distributed IRL.

Re:Since about 30 people have the same name as me (1)

Kergan (780543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451029)

Yeah. It works really well, too, when that nickname (Anonymous Coward) is shared by thousands of other users.

Re:Since about 30 people have the same name as me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451037)

Dear Anonymous Coward

I think a lot more than 30 people have the same name as you.

Yours sincerely,
Anonymous Coward

Re:Since about 30 people have the same name as me (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451321)

Mine is better still. A quick check of my name shows that, well...

I'm not even on the first three pages in here... [google.com]

I see mugshots, wannabe presidential candidates, lawyers, dentists, babies, and even politicians. There's even other tech-oriented folks in the pile. Every conceivable race, creed, and color.

Dear HR drone: Umm, yeah. Good luck with that. :)

More Black Hat SEO from Uni's (2)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450957)

This is arguably against Googles guidelines - and I have seen some dubious link directories that appear to be run the insiders in side universitys that try and leverage the high value and trust assigned to a .edu domain.

Re:More Black Hat SEO from Uni's (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451633)

Agreed, I would hope Google catches onto this and stops it. People need to realise it's not only their name and people want to be able to find the other people with that name too.

How did this help? (1)

bi$hop (878253) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450963)

All the "bad" Samantha Grossmans benefit from this too. How does the digital advertising firm know they hired the sweet, innocent, non-drunkard Samantha Grossman?

No matter how you twist it (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450965)

Blackhat SEO is still unethical. Especially when she brags about kicking other people with the same name off the first page.

Re:No matter how you twist it (3, Insightful)

bananaquackmoo (1204116) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451371)

Believe it or not this doesn't appear to be blackhat. It is SEO though, you're right about that.

Re:No matter how you twist it (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451441)

I don't have problems with creating an online presence that gets on the first page, but kicking out everybody else from it is definitely not fair play.

Advertisement for BrandYourself (2)

tlambert (566799) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451489)

It's an advertisement for . They claim to use SEO techniques which are "white hat", but of course any SEO techniques that attempt to game google results tend to piss off Google, meaning that there's no such thing as "white hat" as far as Google is concerned.

Like most SEOs, this will get you good results for a short while until the back end comparison is made on Googles end to show graph deltas over time, and there's a huge shift in geometry on the particular search tems. At that point, the results she wanted to show up get penalized down in the returned results for searches.

I guess this might be OK, if you expect to look for a job and get one more or less immediately after you do the SEO, but less so if you end up being on the market for a while, at which point the results will be skewed *away* from those you considered desirable when you identified them to the SEO company in the first place.

This type of SEO is probably the only place SEO will work at all, but only if you are in a sellers market for your labor such that you get snapped up quickly before the bias detector figures out what you've done. Since this rarely covers the case of recent college grads with no industry experience, I'd seriously caution against using a service like this until you know what you're getting into.

It's called LinkedIn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42450969)

They need a service to do the following?:

1. Set your Facebook profile to private
2. Create a LinkedIn profile, and keep it moderately active

You control the content of your LinkedIn profile, and it will always be high on a search page. If your Facebook page is particularly nasty, consider cancelling it and starting fresh.

Honestly, if you are entering the full-time job market and can't figure this stuff out, you should have your Internet license revoked.

Re:It's called LinkedIn (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451347)

Actually it is better to have some "good" images set to public on your facebook page, because if you use your real name (and don't set your privacy settings to hide) it is almost guaranteed to come up on the first page and you can use it to make yourself look good. Setting up an empty Google+ account designed to make you look good is also useful as no one uses it, but it usually appears on the first page of goolge.
That is far more effective in the OP's case because it was someone else with the same name that was making her look bad and so your suggestion wasn't an option.

Of all Samanthas (5, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42450977)

It wasn't anything too horrible, Samantha Grossman said. I just have a common name. There would be pictures, college partying pictures, that weren't of me, things I wouldn't want associated with me.

So, how is this Samantha Grossman's prerogative to have exactly her pictures as the top result, instead of the other Samantha Grossmans, who now fret that there are pictures there that aren't associated with them?

Re:Of all Samanthas (3, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451395)

Indeed, what about the party-going Samantha Grossman who WANTED such photographs to be found when you googled her name? What an insensitive clod!

Re:Of all Samanthas (3, Funny)

travdaddy (527149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451547)

Indeed, what about the party-going Samantha Grossman who WANTED such photographs to be found when you googled her name? What an insensitive clod!

Now she'll never get her sugar daddy!

Re:Of all Samanthas (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451515)

So, how is this Samantha Grossman's prerogative to have exactly her pictures as the top result,

Easy.

She is a pushy Jew cunt.

They always want control over everything.

Re:Of all Samanthas (1)

theCoder (23772) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451553)

Maybe they'll also get good digital advertising jobs in New York based on this Samantha's information!

Re:Of all Samanthas (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451591)

Exactly.

I really hate how people think they're the only one who owns a name and therefore get exclusive rights to it. It biases search results and for those of us that want to look up the other Samantha, it screws us over. I hope google puts an end to this.

And somehow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451027)

How you fit in still matters more than what kind of work you can produce.

Why don't we just quit giving a fuck? (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451217)

I party. People know I party. People have evidence that I party. YTF am I supposed to hide that? How about employers stop being prudes and hire humans. I can't stand the fact that the only way to make it through an interview these days is to lie and spout buzzwords. Why is corporate quick to hire squeaky-clean idiots over human beings that have had human experiences?

Re:Why don't we just quit giving a fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451405)

Why is corporate quick to hire people who can appear to be squeaky-clean when required over human beings that cannot?

FTFY.

Might want to look at politics also.

Re:Why don't we just quit giving a fuck? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451881)

Because squeaky-clean is the minimal-risk option.

Re:Why don't we just quit giving a fuck? (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42452095)

i'd take risky over unqualified any day.

Best Idea Ever (1)

jimmetry (1801872) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451357)

Guys guys! I have the best idea to fool the internet into giving her even MORE fame! Let's get on the front page of Slashdot!! So everyone googles her name!!!!! :D Those silly fools will think they're just reading the news.

Dumbing down the average (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451383)

Smart grads wouldn't publish that shit in the first place.

Michael Bolton. There was nothing wrong with it... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42451417)

...until I was about twelve years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
 

ALternativly(and more likely) (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451421)

People will grow up. Society will realize that everyone does stupid shit and recognize it as part of life.

If you can't party well, how are you going to land advertising clients?

"...her best Web foot..." (2)

John Hasler (414242) | about a year and a half ago | (#42451453)

Interesting image there.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>