Journalists are outsiders looking in on the stories they cover. By nature, they don’t always get the facts straight. If you see an news article with objectionable content, you might be to get it corrected, removed or, if it’s bad enough, officially retracted. Getting these kinds of changes made requires meeting a high standard. If you have a subjective disagreement, or a different interpretation of the facts, you won’t get anywhere. There has to be an objective factual mistake of some kind, or a clearly libelous or slanderous statement. Anything less you must grit your teeth and accept.
Call the newspaper’s offices, explain that you have a correction to make, and ask for the desk of the department that ran the story, such as the city desk, the features desk or the sports desk. Don’t ask for the paper’s Web producers: Go straight to the newsroom and the editors — unless you know that only the online version of the article, and not the print version, contains the offending material. You can find newsroom contact information from most newspapers’ websites, though you may have to dial a general number to begin.
We’re not the kind of news organization that’s about giving our ‘take’ on something. We’re not looking to start an argument; we’re looking to report the news. We felt that, since so much of the conversation around stories had gravitated toward social, that was the better place for that discourse to happen.
What about pushing around pages that are irrelevant? Reputation management is one thing, but how do you 'cleanse' google of pages that have a long history but have long since been abandoned (and their creator unreachable). Even worse, the content is not relevant but the domain strength seems to prop it up.Oh, an example? dead projects on sourceforge.net that were killed but not requested to be removed from sourceforge (and only the owner can choose to remove a project completely).
“I would say that it is common for an individual who might be applying for a job or an individual who has been wrongly maligned to go to a company like Webcide.com, but for a public university that is funded through taxpayer funds, who has repeatedly stepped into a vast hole, it is surprising that they thought this could be done without the light of day shining on the act,” said a public affairs consultant. “It is one more example of how out of touch the leadership at UC Davis is when it comes to their public perspective.
”With the change, NPR joins a long list of other news organizations choosing to move conversations about its journalism off its own site and instead rely on social media to pick up the slack. But NPR stands for National Public Radio, so a decision to limit "public" input at NPR.org seems especially jarring.But even if NPR has no obligation to provide such a space, the dictates of today's journalism, where audiences expect to be able to interact with their news providers, would suggest that NPR should make an effort to create one. It seems to me that it has at least made a good-faith attempt.
Editor’s note: This article is part of a featured series that tackles the basics of reputation management. In our Webcide.com Reputation Management series, you’ll learn about basic (but important) concepts, tasks, and tips for reputation management. Each post will include actionable advice and realistic ideas that you can use — today — to improve your online reputation. Join us as we explore reputation management resources that everyone should know!
How you've put into perpective how much it can cost you to consider reputation management.
If clients question the fee's, its somtimes in your interest to walk away as it can costs you more in time due to contractual obligations once you commence the project.
That is not to suggest that we are the only website in the world that attracts vexing commenters. Far from it. Nor is it to suggest that all, or even close to all, of our commenters are shrill, boorish specimens of the lower internet phyla. We have many delightful, thought-provoking commenters.8 Make any extra efforts the newsroom asked for, if applicable, to get the offending story corrected or removed. Once you have what the editor wants, call and try again.When bad press hits the Web, it can begin to tear into your reputation, your credibility and even your livelihood almost immediately. To stop the bleeding, it’s important to take action quickly.
Newspapers are an important historical resource, and they’re proud of this fact. They’re generally quite hostile to the idea of deleting or removing published articles, although they are usually willing to delete defamatory or reputation-damaging comments that readers have posted to an article.
The most direct and permanent way to remove a bad search result from Google is to completely remove it from the Internet. Eradicating the link means Google no longer has the bad 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.
Some news orgs are killing comments, but not just because their commenters are terrible at being humans .Many news organizations have had comments sections for as long as they’ve been online. For just as long, many have agonized over the value of the conversations that rage in the space below a story. There’s plenty of debate over the issue, as newsrooms struggle with moderation, the value of anonymity among commenters, and, in some cases, the legal issues that arise from what’s said in the comments.
Several internet spaces are renowned as cesspools of racism, sexism, misogyny and all forms of bigotry.
Health professionals are adapting to a harsh reality in which consumers rate them on sites like Yelp, Vitals and RateMDs much as they do restaurants, hotels and spas. The vast majority of reviews are positive. But in trying to respond to negative ones, some providers appear to be violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the federal patient privacy law known as HIPAA. The law forbids them from disclosing any patient health information without permission.
Webcide.com said online reputation management is usually achieved with software that is used to scrub the more “outrageous accusations or allegations.” If a person puts UC Davis in a search engine, it would eliminate some things initially, but a person would only have to “dig a little deeper to find anything that needs to be told,” he said.
If you want to remove search results, it's going to cost you. In addition to the financial burden, the process is often labor intensive and not guaranteed to work. However, every situation is different, so review the information below to see the likelihood that you can successfully remove negative search results.
There are more than 30 moderators in the group, meaning that you’ll rarely see, for example, an awful sexist comment blaming a woman for receiving creepy messages (“well, what were you wearing on your profile page?”, etc). If you do see one, it’s usually gone shortly (it’s really remarkable, it can be seconds or minutes sometimes). Members of the group can take comfort knowing that whatever they post, they won’t be blamed, harassed or targeted – at least in that subreddit.
Every mention of your brand or product leaves a permanent record on the internet that can be found via the search engines. Our continuous scanning of the web for any mention of your name, brand, and products allows you to engage and respond rapidly to conversations, reviews, and comments.
Some Recent Statistics about Removal of Negative Newspapers articles from Google : A financial professional asked Google to remove more than 10 links to pages reporting on his arrest and conviction for financial crimes. Unsuccessful.GERMANY - A victim of rape asked the search engine to remove a link to a newspaper article about the crime. Successful.ITALY - A single individual asked Google to take down 20 links to recent articles about his arrest for financial crimes committed in a professional capacity. Unsuccessful.UK - A media professional requested the removal of links to articles reporting on embarrassing content he posted to the Internet. Unsuccessful.
ITALY - Request from a crime victim to remove three links that discuss the crime, which took place decades ago. 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 remove more than 50 links to newspaper articles about a botched procedure. Three pages that contained personal information about the doctor but did not mention the procedure were removed from search results for his name. The rest of the links to reports on the incident remain in search results.GERMANY - An individual asked Google to remove close to 50 links to articles about an embarrassing private exchange that became public. Successful.ITALY - An individual asked for a link to a page that had taken a self-published image and reposted it be removed. Successful.ITALY - An individual requested Google remove a link to a copy of an official state document published by a state authority reporting on the acts of fraud committed by the individual. Unsuccessful.UK - A man asked 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 conviction 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 links to articles covering an investigation of sexual abuse accusations while in his professional capacity. Unsuccessful.BELGIUM - An individual asked Google to take down a link to an article covering a contest in which he participated as a minor. Successful.
Document the elements of the article that you would like to have changed. For factual errors in the article, provide the correct information from a verifiable source, or at least be prepared to provide verifiable evidence that the existing facts are wrong. For slander or libel, simply highlight the offending passages, and, if applicable, prepare a brief explanation of the injury that the statements might cause to you or your business, or to the relevant people and businesses involved. Copy the article’s web address, or URL, and take a screenshot or a photo of the head of the article to document that it was published online.
The landmark privacy decision by the European Union Court of Justice arose from a number of cases brought by the Spanish data protection authority in 2011, such as one involving auction notices for a house that had been repossessed, which the former owner felt infringed his privacy. The ruling applies across the EU, even to US-based companies such as Google and Facebook.
Negative results can take several months to over a year and beyond to suppress off of the first page. A number of factors can influence this, including; how authoritative the negative is, the number of negative results ranking for your name, how competitive your name is and more.
Many people, including myself, won’t read a comment section if it is not moderated – often not reading an entire site, even the articles. As The Atlantic’s Adam Felder notes: “unmoderated comments appear to have a small, but real deleterious effect on readers’ perception of the sites on which they appear.”
Yelp’s senior director of litigation, said most reviews of doctors and dentists aren’t about the actual health care delivered but rather their office wait, the front office staff, billing procedures or bedside manner. Many health providers are careful and appropriate in responding to online reviews, encouraging patients to contact them offline or apologizing for any perceived slights. Some don’t respond at all.
Links on the Internet will fall under one of two categories: websites or profiles you own and control, and those that you don’t. Obviously, it’s much easier to remove links that you own — but chances are, if it’s a negative link, you don’t own it anyway. We’ll assume that any domains or websites you own are positive search results for you or your business, as issues with your own website may point to bigger problems than a negative search result.