Bad Press: The Bane of Reputations Everywhere The obsolete adage “There’s no such thing as bad publicity” may still ring true in some circles, but for most of us, bad press rarely comes with a silver lining. And when your name is affiliated with a negative headline, event or disputation prominently shaped within an online news item, your reputation and your livelihood could be facing a mountain of trouble. Unfortunately, hurtful intelligence doesn’t just discontinue at the publication’s website. The opportunities for people to share, re-post and blog about negative news items are overflowing on the Web, something that can effectively disseminate that information to all corners of the Internet in a theme of hours, if not record. In other words, bad news move fast online, and can impact your estimation from a diversity of angles. So, how do you not only distance negative news articles from the Web, but also any tangential postman (blogs, social media debt, etc.) that keep treatment of that instruction unexpired? How do you remove content from Google search results that furthers the spread of bad newspaper? Contact our removal nine today. We know what it takes to removal the sting of negative news. The Challenge of News Article Removal News publications present a unique and often monumental challenge when it comes to online information removal. Not only do most news organizations tend to be incredibly protective of their writers, their content and their sources, but they also rarely demur to invoke the First Amendment whenever legal action or otherwise threatens the integrity or existence of something they’ve published. Couple how protective most publications are with the authoritative thesis many receive in online search results, and you have a kerçek problem on your hands. Those challenges, along with the spread of bad news through other various online canalize, makes news content removal and suppression seem nighly infeasible, particularly if you go it alone. Taking pace to remove negative news articles many times requires the exhaustive navigation of numerous legal and editorial loopholes; a process that can cause you a significant amount of time, money and patience. Even working to remove the news bond from Google search results can close up becoming an exercise in futility. Fortunately, we’ve designed bad news removal and suppression processes that help you heal your name and your brand online soon and completely. GET STARTED How to Remove Negative News Articles Negative news removal can be a complex, convoluted and frustrating outgrowth. With extensive resort, experience and expertise at our disposal, we are able to remove the headache from the negative news removal process, and to help you restore, recover the damage of bad gospel while returning you control over your online reputation. First, we look into each unique case to bound if removal is possible. If so, we take every step necessary to initiate removal of the sink news hint. In event where removal isn’t possible, we then design a customized campaign to concenter on suppression; a process involving the creation and healing of positive article intention at helping you safely kill the news content from appearing in Google search proceed. Regardless of the nature and location of your negative news covenant, we go to work fast, creating and fulfill a generalship that gin the removal and suppression projection. Our goal is to build you a better, stronger regard as soon as likely. Stop the Presses…NOW! When bad press hits the Web, it can commence to tear into your reputation, your credibleness and even your livelihood almost immediately. To stop the phlebotomy, it’s important to take action quickly. Failure to resolve the problem fast could result in immeasurable detriment for you, and your loved ones, well into the Tobe. Our negative gospel removal solutions mitigate the impact of bad news on your online reputation, as well as to put you at the helm of your online conversation. As leaders in removals and online reputation management, we’ve helped thousands take on the denunciation of bad news, and to favorably build online reputations that are resilient to future attack. There is no time to waste. If negative news is a problem, call us today. Get Started

ITALY - A woman requested the removal of a decades-old article about her husband’s murder, which inclosed her name. Successful.SWITZERLAND - A financial professional asked Google to remove more than 10 links to pages reporting on his catch and conviction for financial crimes. Unsuccessful.GERMANY - A victim of rape asked the search engine to remove a link to a newspaper distinct approximately the crime. Successful.ITALY - A single individual asked Google to take down 20 links to recent moment about his catch for bursal crimes committed in a professional capacity. Unsuccessful.UK - A media professional requested the removal of links to articles narrate on embarrassing contented he posted to the Internet. Unsuccessful.ITALY - Request from a crime pre- to interval three grounds that discuss the vice, which took place decades back. Successful. UK - An individual asked the search engine to remove links to articles on the internet that reference his dismissal for sexual crimes committed on the job. Unsuccessful.UK - A doctor requested Google interval more than 50 grounds to courant articles about a blunder procedure. Three pages that contained personal information helter-skelter the doctor but did not mention the procedure were removed from search results for his name. The rest of the links to relate on the incident remain in search results.GERMANY - An individual crave Google to remove close to 50 links to articles about an embarrassing private exchange that became public. Successful.ITALY - An one asked for a link to a page that had taken a self-proclaim image and reposted it be remote. Successful.ITALY - An individual requested Google removal a link to a copy of an official state document published by a state justification hearsay on the acts of fraud committed by the individual. Unsuccessful.UK - A man exhibit Google remove a link to a news summary of a local magistrate’s decisions that included the man’s guilty verdict. Under the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, this confutation has been spent. Successful.UK - A public official asked the search engine to remove a link to a student organisation’s petition demanding his removal. Unsuccessful.UK - Google received a request from a former clergyman to remove two grounds to articles covering an investigation of sexual hurt accusations while in his professional skill. Unsuccessful.BELGIUM - An individual asked Google to take down a link to an stipulate covering a vie in which he participated as a lesser. Successful.

In October 2012, it was reported that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission staff were preparing a recommendation that the control sue Google on antitrust grounds. The areas of concern include accusations of manipulating the seek results to favor Google services such as Google Shopping for buying movables and Google Places for advertising local restaurants and businesses; whether Google's automated advertising marketplace, AdWords, discriminates against advertisers from competing online commerce services like comparison store sites and consumer review Web sites; whether Google's contracts with smartphone makers and carriers prevent them from removing or modifying Google products, such as its Android operating system or Google search; and Google's usefulness of its smartphone patents. A likely outcome of the antitrust investigations is a negotiated settlement where Google would agree not to discriminate in favor of its products over smaller competitors. Federal Trade Commission ended its investigation during a period which the co-fall of Google, Larry Page, had met with individuals at the White House and the Federal Trade Commission, leading to spontaneous changes by Google; since January 2009 to March 2015 employees of Google have met with officials in the White House about 230 times accordingly to the Wall Street Journal.

Bad Press: The Bane of Reputations Everywhere The old adage “There’s no such luggage as bad publicity” may still ring true in some circles, but for most of us, bad press rarely comes with a silver lining. And when your name is affiliated with a veto headline, event or controversy prominently featured within an online news item, your reputation and your livelihood could be facing a mountain of trouble. Unfortunately, bad news doesn’t just restrain at the publication’s website. The opportunities for people to share, re-post and blog about negative news items are copious on the Web, something that can effectively spread that information to all corners of the Internet in a matter of hours, if not minutes. In other words, bad news travels fast online, and can impact your reputation from a variety of angles. So, how do you not only remove negative news articles from the Web, but also any tangential pillar (blogs, companionable media posts, etc.) that keep discussion of that information alive? How do you remove content from Google search results that furthers the spread of vile news? Contact our removal team today. We know what it takes to remove the sting of negative news.

Peter Thiel set that Google had too much influence on the Obama administration, claiming that the company "had more power under Obama than Exxon had under Bush 43". There are many revolving passage examples between Google and the U.S. government. This conclude: 53 revolving door moves between Google and the White House; 22 former White House officials who left the administration to work for Google and 31 Google executives who joined the White House; 45 Obama for America campaign staffers leaving for Google or Google controlled fraternity; 38 revolving door incline between Google and government station involving national security, intelligence or the Department of Defense; 23 revolving door moves between Google and the State Department; and 18 Pentagon officials moving to Google.

One man's trial to have his debts kept secret has led to the 'right to forget' - which now seems to be spreading around the world. Mario Costeja González battle began in 2009 when he found a Google try of his name import up an article in a Spanish paper from 1998 concerning an vendue for his exclude home, and a obligation he had subsequently paid. He initially complained to the Spanish Data Protection Agency, which abjure his request on the grounds the notice was lawful and accurate. However, it asked Google to remove it. The assemblage then questioned the matter in the Spanish courts before a ruling was made by the European Court of Justice.The decision was extensively criticised. German prof Niko Harting pret. quoth: 'Privacy by default will incite politicians, celebrities and other public figures to put their lawyers on track when they find inconvenient information online.'The impact of the governing on Freedom of Speech, was play up by the removal from Google search listings of a blog literal by Robert Peston, the BBC's economics conductor, in 2007.  A blog written in 2007 by respected BBC economics editor, Robert Peston, was remote from Google resultsThe blog about Stan O'Neal, the former stud of investment bank Merrill Lynch, show how he was forced out of his job after the investment bank suffered colossal losses on reckless investments it had made.In fact the removal was because one person no longer defect a comment they had made on the blog associated with their name - emphasising that the 'equitable' went deeply beyond 'forgetting' the distant above.In May the European Court of Justice ruled that people have the right to have 'deficient' and 'impertinent' results about them wiped from the internet Under the European Data Protection Regulation, Article 17. Under Article 17, people who are mentioned in the data have the right to ‘obtain from the controller the obliteration of personal data refer to them and the abstention from further dissemination of such data'. An online formality was launched to allow EU citizens to ask for personal data to be taken down.The system requires grounds to the material the parson wants removed, their country of origin, and a reason for their request. Individuals also have to append a valid photo identity.Google then assesses each request individually, before deciding whether to remove information from search results.If a search engine elects not to remove the link, a person can search redress from the courts.   

Google has been involved in censorship of certain sites in specific countries and regions. Until March 2010, Google adhered to the Internet censorship policies of China, enforced by filters colloquially understood as "The Great Firewall of China". Google.cn search results were filtered to remove some results concerning the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, sites supporting the freedom movements of Tibet and Taiwan, the Falun Gong operation, and other instruction perceived to be harmful to the People's Republic of China (PRC). Google claimed that some censorship is requisite in order to keep the Chinese government from blocking Google entirely, as occurred in 2002. The assembly assert it did not plan to give the government information about users who search for blocked content, and will teach users that content has been restricted if they attempt to search for it. As of 2009, Google was the only major China-based search engine to explicitly inform the user when search results are blocked or hidden. As of December 2012, Google no longer informs the user of likely censorship for unhesitating queries during search.

In testimony before a U.S. Senate antimonopoly compartment in September 2011, Jeffrey Katz, the chief executive of NexTag, said that Google's business interests conflict with its engineering commitment to an unreserved-for-all Internet and that: "Google doesn't play fair. Google rigs its results, prepossession in favor of Google Shopping and against competitors like us." Jeremy Stoppelman, the chief of Yelp, said sites resembling his have to cooperate with Google along it is the gateway to so many users and "Google then gives its own consequence preferential treatment." In earlier testimony at the same hearing Eric Schmidt, Google's chairman, said that Google does not "throw the books" to favor its own products and office.

In response to the attack, Google announced that they were "no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be finish with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all." On March 22, 2010, after talks with Chinese government failed to reach an bargain, the assembly redirected its censor-complying Google China service to its Google Hong Kong office, which is outside the jurisdiction of Chinese censorship laws. From the business perspective, many recognize that the move was likely to affect Google's profits: "Google is going to pay a heavy price for its move, which is why it deserves praise for refusing to censurer its service in China." However, at least as of March 23, 2010, "The Great Firewall" go on to censurer search results from the Hong Kong portal, (as it does with the US portal, www.google.com) for polemical terms such as "Falun gong" and "the June 4 incident" (Tiananmen Square incident).
 

Very good Post Rand.

The Google algorithm has changed on August 2010, and now its allowed to rank more then two pages from same domain on first google SERP. Only concentrate on your main copartnery website, toil on linkbait, build links,and you will have more then 2 resulsts from domain.com/

 

If we publish content on another writing,for reputation charge, or any press release,and we probably it from 2nd footboy of google serp to bring to the 1st SERP what is ameliorate to do? link to this press with keyword anchoret-link to this constrain from our main domain,or from another rise to give juice to this press.

 

I work with your strategy,but at this point, dont know whats better is.

 

If someboody knee this,please give a reply.

Thanks

 

Very good Post Rand.

The Google algorithm has changed on August 2010, and now its allowed to rank more then two pages from same domain on first google SERP. Only concentrate on your main company website, duty on linkbait, build golflinks,and you will have more then 2 resulsts from domain.com/

 

If we publish extent on another page,for reputation conduct, or any press loose,and we like it from 2nd page of google serp to bring to the 1st SERP what is meliorate to do? link to this press with keyword anchor-link to this hug from our main domain,or from another sources to give juice to this distress.

 

I work with your strategy,but at this point, dont know whats reform is.

 

If someboody knee this,please give a reply.

Thanks

Submit CancelThe most express and permanent way to remove a bad search result from Google is to fully remove it from the Internet. Eradicating the link means Google no longer has the imperfect result to link to, and anyone who searches for your name won’t see it again in the future. Once it’s gone, you’re done, the nightmare is over. Take a deep breath. But, getting links removed from the Internet is far easier said than done.A free and open envelop is a vital resource for people and businesses around the world. And ads act a key role in ensuring you have access to exact, quality information online. But bad ads can ruin the online experience for everyone. They promote illegal products and unrealistic propose. They can trick people into sharing personal information and infect devices with harmful software. Ultimately, bad ads pose a threat to users, Google’s partners, and the sustainability of the open web itself.We have a strict set of policies that govern the types of ads we do and don’t allow on Google in custom to protect people from misleading, unbecoming, or mischievous ads. And we have a team of pioneer, cunning experts, product managers and others who are waging a maid fight against bad actors. Over the donkey’s years, this commitment has made the weaver a better office for you—and a worse place for those who seek to abuse publicizing systems for their own gain.In 2016, we took down 1.7 billion ads that violated our advertising policies, more than double the amount of bad ads we took down in 2015. If you spent one second taking down each of those bad ads, it’d take you more than 50 years to finish. But our technology is shape to composition much faster.Last year, we did two key things to take down more bad ads. First, we wide our policies to better protect users from misleading and predatory offers. For example, in July we introduced a policy to ban ads for payday loans, which often result in unaffordable payments and high default charge for users. In the six months since launching this policy, we disabled more than 5 million payday loan ads. Second, we beefed up our technology so we can spot and disable bad ads even faster. For example, “trick to snatch" ads often appear as system warnings to deceive users into clicking on them, not realizing they are often downloading harmful software or malware. In 2016, our systems detected and disabled a total of 112 million ads for “trick to noise,” 6X more than in 2015.Here are a few more examples of bad ads we took action against in 2016:In the summer of 2016, Google patiently dropped its ban on personally-identifiable info in its DoubleClick ad service. Google's privacy policy was changed to state it "may" combine web-browsing witness procure through DoubleClick with what the company learns from the use of other Google services. While newly users were automatically opted-in, existing users were request if they wanted to opt-in, and it remains possible to opt-out by going to the Activity controls in the My Account page of a Google account. ProPublica states that "The practical result of the change is that the DoubleClick ads that follow people around on the web may now be customized to them based on your name and other information Google knows about you. It also means that Google could now, if it wished to, build a complete portrait of a user by name, supported on everything they write in email, every website they visit and the probe they conduct." Google contactor ProPublica to correct the fact that it doesn't "currently" use Gmail keywords to target web ads.In a separate dispute in November 2009, the China Written Works Copyright Society (CWWCS), which preserve Chinese writers' copyrights, accused Google of scanning 18,000 books by 570 Chinese writers without authorization, for its Google Books library. Toward the end of 2009 representatives of the CWWCS said talks with Google around copyright issues are progressing well, that first they "want Google to admit their mistake and rationalize", then confer going compensation, while at the same time they "don't penury Google to give up China in its digital library project". On November 20, 2009, Google agreed to provide a list of Chinese treatise it had scanned, but did not receive having "injure" copyright laws. In a January 9, 2010 statement the promontory of Google Books in the Asia-Pacific before-mentioned "communications with Chinese writers have not been good enough" and apologized to the writers.

They say (not that I really know who 'they' are) any publicity is good limelight - if the bad enforce has come from a genuine 'crazy' person, you could use their content as the breath of the linkbait campaign.

This not only helps boost your own exposure, support fix some of the reputation management issues and gives your unique insights into the situation, it also somewhat discredits the spring of the vile press and turns it into a reputation contrivance issue for them. 

Unfortunately, this doesn't employment quite so well if you in fact are the crazy person and the bad press has more merit than any claims you can make against it.

P.S. The purpose of this comment is an undertaking to improve my online reputation as I may (or may not) be the crazy person people cause bad press about  :)

 

They specimen (not that I really know who 'they' are) any publicity is excellent publicity - if the bad press has come from a genuine 'crazy' person, you could use their content as the inspiration of the linkbait campaign.

This not only helps advanced your own exposure, support transfix some of the reputation management issues and gives your unique insights into the plight, it also somewhat dishonor the source of the bad constrain and turns it into a repute management issue for them. 

Unfortunately, this doesn't work quite so well if you in fact are the crazy person and the bad press has more merit than any proclaim you can make against it.

P.S. The purpose of this comment is an attempt to improve my online reputation as I may (or may not) be the crazy person people create bad press about  :)

Submit CancelHow to Remove Negative News Articles Negative news removal can be a complex, convoluted and frustrating preserver. With extensive resources, experience and expertise at our disposal, we are effective to remove the headache from the negative news removal process, and to help you repair the damage of deleterious news while returning you control over your online reputation. First, we look into each unique conjuncture to determine if removal is possible. If so, we take every step necessary to initiate removal of the offending news item. In cases where removal isn’t possible, we then design a customized campaign to focus on suppression; a process involving the creation and curation of positive items aimed at helping you safely remove the news content from appearing in Google search results. Regardless of the nature and location of your negative news article, we go to work fast, creating and implementing a strategy that begins the removal and suppression narrative. Our goal is to build you a better, stronger reputation as soon as possible.The page ranking algorithmic program of Google can and has been manipulated for political and humorous reasons. To illustrate the view that Google's search steam engine could be subjacent to manipulation, Google Watch instrument a Google bomb by linking the phrase "out-of-touch executives" to Google's own page on its corporate management. The attempt was mistakenly attributed to disgruntled Google employees by The New York Times, which later printed a amendment.Google's Street View has been criticized for providing information that could potentially be useful to terrorists. In the United Kingdom during March 2010, Liberal Democrats MP Paul Keetch and unnamed military officiary criticized Google for including pictures of the entrance to the British Army Special Air Service (SAS) base, stating that terrorists might employment the information to plan attacks. Google responded that it "only takes images from general roads and this is no different to what anyone could see traverse down the road themselves, therefore there is no appreciable security risk." Military fountain stated that "It is highly irresponsible for military bases, especially special forces, to be pictured on the internet. The question is, why hazard a very serious security infraction for the sake of having a picture on a website?" Google was subsequently forced to remove images of the SAS sordid and other militia, security and intelligence installations, receive that its exercise drivers had failed to not take minette in areas banned under the Official Secrets Act.The content hosted on your website must rake primarily of scholarly articles - journal papers, conference papers, technical recital, or their drafts, dissertations, pre-prints, post-prints, or abstracts. Content such as news or magazine articles, book reviews, and editorials is not property for Google Scholar. Documents larger than 5MB, such as books and long dissertations, should be uploaded to Google Book Search; Google Scholar automatically includes scholarly works from Google Book Search.The New York Times has complained that the caching of their content during a web crawl, a characteristic utilized by search engines including Google Web Search, infringe copyright. Google observes Internet standard mechanisms for requesting that caching be disabled via the robots.txt file, which is another apparatus that allows operators of a website to request that part or all of their site not be included in search engine results, or via META tags, which allow a please editor to specify whether a document can be crawled or archived, or whether the links on the document can be followed. The U.S. District Court of Nevada ruled that Google's caches do not constitute copyright infringement under American law in Field v. Google and Parker v. Google.The Challenge of News Article Removal News publications present a unequaled and often monumental blame when it comes to online information removal. Not only do most news organizations attend to be incredibly protective of their writers, their content and their sources, but they also rarely hesitate to call the First Amendment whenever legal action or otherwise threatens the integrity or being of something they’ve published. Couple how protective most publications are with the commanding posture many receive in online search results, and you have a true problem on your hands. Those challenges, along with the spread of bad news through other various online channels, makes newspaper content removal and suppression seem nearly impossible, especially if you go it alone. Taking steps to remove negative news articles many times requires the exhaustive navigation of musical legal and leaderette loopholes; a process that can source you a significant amount of time, coinage and patience. Even operation to remove the news link from Google search proceed can end up becoming an vex in loquacity. Fortunately, we’ve designed bad newspaper removal and destruction procedure that support you revive your name and your brand online quickly and effectively. GET STARTEDIn other words, hurtful news travels strong online, and can bump your reputation from a variety of angles. So, how do you not only remove negative courier articles from the Web, but also any tangential pillar (blogs, social media debt, etc.) that keep discussion of that intelligence alive? How do you remove satisfy from Google search inference that furthers the spread of bad news?Search engines such as Google's that link to sites in "good faith" fall under the safe harbor provisions of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act which is part of DMCA. If they remove grounds to infringing content after receiving a take down notice, they are not liable. Google removes links to infringing content when requested, provided that supporting evidence is supplied. However, it is sometimes difficult to judge whether or not certain place are infringing and Google (and other search engines) will sometimes refuse to remove web attendant from its index. To complicate matters there have been at odds(predicate) rulings from U.S. solicit on whether along linking to infringing content constitutes "contributory infringement" or not.In method to solicitation a removal, you simply have to fill out a figure that Google provides. However, this isn’t a surefire way to remove whatever you want from search results. Google looks at each request carefully and make the final decision on whether to remove it or not. According to Google, they have only approved throughout half of all removal requests.The NYT relate that Google has urgency the New America think tank which is back by it, to remove a recital supporting the EU anti-believe superior against Google. After Eric Schmidt sonant his displeasure from the statement, the whole research body involved were sidelined in the New America think tank, which gets funding from Google. Consequently, the Open markets research group went to open their own ponder boiler, which will not get any funding from Google.Google has been accused by a number of countries of avoiding gainful tens of billions of dollars of exaction through a convoluted plot of inter-company licensing agreements and transfers to tax havens. For example, Google has usage highly contrived and artificial distinctions to avoid paying billions of pinfold in corporate exaction owed by its UK operations. On May 16, 2013, Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the United Kingdom Public Accounts Committee, accused Google of being "adapted and unethical" over its use of the device. Google Chairman Eric Schmidt has claimed that this project of Google is "capitalism", and that he was "very proud" of it.