I am curious if potential employers bother to be sure they read up on the right person when they research a job applicant's name online? It is possible for two or more people to have the same name, right down to middle initials and suffixes (such as Jr., IV, etc. in the case of men). It is the case with myself -- Googling my own name (with middle initial and Jr.) turns me up as an attorney (which I am not), but I have no idea of his reputation. "Richard Anderson" is not exactly an uncommon name. Aside from the Hollywood actor Richard Anderson, in the state in which I live, I could be confused with a sitting judge or a convicted murderer if you read the newspapers, and I am neither of those people. How do prospective applicants ensure they're not falsely accused by some HR person's poor research or refusal to sort out a confusing deluge of Google results from dozens of people with the same name? Perhaps poor John Smith will have to legally become "John Smith X32a!w#" to avoid this problem :-) Folks whose names follow the midwestern tradition of an initial with no following period (e.g. "Harry S Truman") might even be confused with someone whose initial does have a period. Computers are stupid, or they're no smarter than the people using them. I have engaged an attorney whose first name is "J" not "J." or "Jay." I can just see the confusion surrounding a Google search for him by someone who doesn't pay attention to detail. I once had a potential client look me up, and tell me she "couldn't find anything" on me in a Google search. All I can say is, she didn't look very far, or ask me what to associate with my name in a search to get her fast, accurate results.

I don't even want to think of cases of stolen identity, either by people trying to ride on your good reputation to get a job, or plant false information to deny you one out of spite or some beef they have with you (e.g. divorced partners, losers in lawsuits). Do HR people bother to look beyond the superficialities to be sure they actually "got their man/woman"? Relying solely on a Google search seems like a naively trusting, lazy, sloppy way to go about reference-checking. Please, HR people, call a reference, speak to a real person, and if you find something negative or confusing online, ask your candidate before you assume it is necessarily connected with him or her. You just might pass up the best person for your opening.

Good luck folks. May you be delivered from being smeared by incompetent checkups!

While that is true, searching and finding unflattering info about yourself in a pinch, have any ideas as to how to 'purge' much of that info, if possible?

Thanks - Samuel S

Excellent pointers that should be appropriate for those in non-tech fields as well as those in IT.

I suspect it might be possible to hurt yourself at the opposite extreme as well. Being too aggressive in providing obviously favorable material about oneself on the Web could throw up red flags as well. Nobody wants to hire someone with a poor reputation, but few people want to hire someone with a tendency towards shameless self-promotion either.

Sincerely,
Charles Rathmann
IFS North America
http://ifsradionetwork.na.ifsworld.com

Interesting Google Items on �Michael Ramey�, but not me:

http://www.oranous.com/innocence/innocentskilled.html
�Donney and Michael Ramey� possibly implicated in a murder, which Roger Coleman was convicted. Later DNA evidence and polygraph showed that Roger was the murderer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/12/AR2006011201210.html
also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Keith_Coleman

I�ve attempted to contact oranous.com to have this information included to no avail. Any suggestions on clearing this up?

MJR

whatever.

Like, what can you do when you are famous about something that is well - relevant, but no loner needs a champion ?

http://www.publish.com/article2/0,,1762297,00.asp

You assumed incorrectly, I don't know the old joke about what happens of you Google yourself. What is the joke?

Marc

I think it is interesting that people can use non-authoritative information and assess it in another context to apply it to an even different context. As anyone listening to the grapevine at work knows, most people who think they have a clue about someone really have no clue because even the people at work don't validate information that is easily validated. If they can't get their act together at work to explore authoritative and accurate information, how does one believe they can conduct a "Google" search and expect to come up with any sort of rational analysis? This is where principles of life apply to avoid heresy and erroneous information prejudicing good people. Principles such as believing people are trying to do the best job they can or that what they say in a particular forum outside work should not be presumptuously used against them without a fair and impartial analysis. I've "Googled" my name and it's funny. Frankly though, if I don't get a job because I got mis-googled, then that is the potential employer's bust and really it saves me some hassle because if that employer is that way, then I probably didn't want to work with them in the first place. You reap what you sow and stupid is as stupid does apply to both sides of this equation...

I heard a good idea at a networking group (WIND, in Mass.) Make a web page about some aspect of yourself or get connected to "LinkedIn." When I google my son's name I go directly to his organic farm web site.

I just googled myself (and having typed that I feel so dirty & embarassed). Being nobody I didn't expect to find myself. I was not suprised to find many hits though. (I have one of the most common english first name in the language). My last name has Gaelic origins and means.. uh.. certain species of 4 legged mamalls. (cringe). Thankfully? I won't be mistake for anyone in the music or medical professions, etc. At least a google search on my name alone didn't rank me any higher than 40 or 50 on the public web, which was all the patience I had for finding myself & presumable all the patience any HR worker would probable have either. (If you don't rank this important, why would they hire me??) Now if I could just clear those Parking Tickets!

1) Recruiters and HR people verify information that they find online to ensure that they are reading about the right person. Recruiters are also letting candidates know that they do online searches in advance and often tell the candidates what they find.

2) The majority of executive candidates expect recruiters to Google them and 20% have taken steps to ensure that positive information is found.

3) Negative information can't be eliminated but it can be suppressed. 14% of execs have a website that displays their resume, articles, press mentions and professional accomplishments so recruiters find this information first.

Here is an example of something alarming when I googled muyself:

Democrats & Liberals:: Dennis Miller
Posted by: John Howard Oxley at June 30, 2003 09:42 PM. Comment #466. As a former Vermonter, Howard Dean IS a TRAITOR! Posted by: John at July 1, ...
www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/000171.html - 38k -

Now I think that anyone reading this hit would assume that I called Howard Dean a traitor. Since I knew I had not done so, I checked the post -- and sure enough, I had posted, and made a distinction between someone being an appeaser rather than a traitor -- my post did not include the message cited above [which was from the article lead].

So I do think there is reason for concern about this practice -- it is one thing to be dinged for saying a bad thing, and quite another for not saying what you are alleged to have said.

"I think it is interesting that people can use non-authoritative information and assess it in another context to apply it to an even different context."

Well, if there are many more applicants than jobs all HR people want is *any* excuse to reject appliations to bring down the number of candidates to consider. If there are more jobs than applicants than HR people will just hold their noses. Their goal is to get a shortlist with the least effort and cost.

Now in IT and engineering in the USA and Europe often there are dozens or more often hundreds of applicants per job opening, so the shortlist selection process is anything but fair or balanced.

In that case I expect that people about which nothing is known to fare a lot better in shortlist selection than those who have any apparent ''oddity''.

Wait a minute. I find it hard to believe that nobody is asking a very important question.

We're GUARANTEED the right to freedom of speech.

How does corporate America get the right to bypass that guaranteed freedom?

So what if I don't like gays. So what if I do like gays. So what if I vote republican or democrat? How long does corporate America hold what I said against me? What does it matter if I have Black ancesters, or if I have White ancestors? Who cares if I get into heated debates on abortion (pro or con). Do they also get the right to hold it against my child that was named after me before Google decided they didn't have enough money and posted everything DeJa news archived from the wost possible source - Usenet News? How about what other people say about me? Do they get the right to use that?

Corporate America has no right to dictate freedom of speech. Those who hold people hostage for exercising their right to freedom of speech should be jailed with the general population - no questions asked. If I'm not breaking the law, corporate America has no right to be sleezing around behind my back.

Just because you may feel a certain way about an issue doesn't mean it'll affect your job one bit. Just because you engage in a flame war doesn't mean it'll affect your job. People did this stuff long before corporate America and a bunch of idiot recruiters decided to play detective.

I find it incredible that the very people who hold us to such ridiculous standards are the ones who are constantly getting nailed for looting companies, taking advantage of stockholder's inability to to organize, and 14% of them are even afraid of what they'll find online on themselves?

Absolutely incredible.

Even if you do believe it's fair game to search people's names out online, do you honestly trust the people who are unethical enough to do so to use the information the right way?

Re: freedom of speech. True, candidates should not be rejected because of their opinions. However, sometimes a Google search uncovers evidence of other issues which may make a candidate undesirable, such as unprofessionalism, emotional instability, etc.

"We're GUARANTEED the right to freedom of speech.

How does corporate America get the right to bypass that guaranteed freedom?"

We are guarnteed that OUR GOVERNMENT does not infringe on our right to free speech. There is no right that others must listen to you.

So a name like "Johnson" or "Smith" gets Googled? C'mon