[...] spend more time on maintaining what information there is about you on-line. Read more about this on Jerimiahs blog. Here his example on where an individual has little presence on-line has his Google search [...]

[...] strategist Jeremiah Owyang recently examined an online dispute between a photographer and an employee at the San Francisco [...]

[...] of me I thought I’d burned. It’s going to be okay. Thanks to the magic of Google we’re never going to be able to control our identities again, and we’re all going to have to learn to live with it. Those old pictures are still me, even [...]

[...] The Long Term Impacts of Online Critics on Personal Brands, Web Strategist [...]

[...] Owyang, in his post The Long Term Impacts of Online Critics on Personal Brands (a great analysis, btw), points out that when you consider how 77% of recruiters use online search [...]

[...] The Long Term Impacts of Online Critics on Personal Brands I’m hesitant to publish this post, not because I don’t think it’s important, but instead, I don’t want to be caught in the cross fire between Thomas Hawk and Simon B of the SF museum. My focus is on the online impacts, not the specific quarrel these two have around photographers rights, I wasn’t at the museum that day, so I really can’t comment on what happened. (tags: business marketing) [...]

Maybe ask yourself, “Where’s the aloha in this post?” before you click, publish.

love love one another…

[...] strategist Jeremiah Owyang recently examined an online dispute between a photographer and an employee at the San Francisco [...]

[...] online presence: small pieces loosely joined. En Google is degene die voor de zoeker een kruimelspoor maakt. Personal branding? Dat doet Google voor mij. Of ik het nou wil of [...]

[...] http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/08/10/the-long-term-impact-of-online-criticisms-on-personal-... [...]

[...] incident has sparked a pretty respectable uproar and has led me to another post discussing the long term impacts of online critics on personal brands. Jeremiah Owyang has crafted an excellent branch of the discussion started by Thomas Hawk, [...]

Excellent post. We as bloggers along with the freedom to post what we want also have a responsibility just like traditional media to check our sources and write correct stories.

Not only has Simon’s online reputation been damaged, but Thomas’ reputation may have been tarnished as well.

Time will tell.

[...] probably seen more than a few posts saying that today’s resume is your Google search results. Your social network sites, content, updates, what others say about you…all of it is [...]

[...] while Will over at Imagethief as always has very good insights.  And though not directly related, Jeremiah has useful advice that can easily be adapted to our on-line responses (please, just take this link in stride).  I [...]

As a recruiter, and someone who has been warning recruiters and candidates for years about Google search results, I can only say that the results of the study are overstated.

Yes, we do filter candidates from information we find online, but a smear campaign, or a blogstorm, will not permanently damage a candidate’s reputation unless it was something serious.

I’ve seen actual crimes committed that have been swept under the rug with Google results, and while Simon may temporarily be embarrassed, long term it won’t matter that much.

And if it did, he would have a pretty decent lawsuit against Thomas Hawk for interfering with his right to employment. If it could be shown that the negative results were libelous, or intended to harm Simon’s long-term prospects, it would be even stronger, especially as Thomas knows the impact of his actions.

SERP’s are a bit ahead of collective legal mind right now, which is actually a bigger danger, as the actual damage may seem worse than it is.

And let’s not forget the damage down to the Thomas Hawk brand. Clients are terrifed of online mobs as it is. When they see stuff like this, they run for the hills, and they’re much less inclined to work with someone in a public spat.

Pick your battles carefully, people.

I’ll be honest. I’m a friend of Blint’s. He has repeatedly implored his friends and family not post since this began, because he was afraid of this awful mob descending on us, as well, and affecting our lives and careers as it has affected his. He also wanted to respect the museum’s wishes that he not speak out while they decided what, if any, response they might issue. This is why I posted anonymously here (where Jeremiah offered a bit of reason), but have refrained from doing so otherwise.

I don’t think this would have de-escalated quickly, regardless of response. Should the museum have come crawling to Hawk, prostrate on their knees? He would have just escalated that response again, ensuring further hero-worship and more pain for Simon.

We’ve all seen the photo in question now. While we understand it was a wide-angle shot, any of us non-photographers in the crowd could easily have mistaken it for a telephoto lens, and the camera was clearly pointed down at a young girl. Misunderstanding on Simon’s part? Yes. Might you have assumed the same thing? Yes. Was Hawk “forced” to respond the way he did? No.

The internet, in this situation, is where the worst of human nature has emerged–mob mentality, based on only one side of the story and blind emotional loyalty to a blogger, whom people create in their minds to be whomever they want him to be. And frankly, that blogger himself is a creation of his own emotions and ego–flashy name, shiny site….this isn’t a man who does laundry and works for a living! This is a man who crusades about the city, fighting the good fight for freedom!

And so the mob is born to protect their superhero. And while you might get mad in traffic and curse a little, the guy next to you might get mad and pick up a gun.

And while you go home and sleep all warm in your bed tonight, my friend is reduced to couch-surfing, because his address was outed, and now he can’t go home.

If this were YOU we were talking about, would I still be missing the point?

[...] Online Brand über Jahre hinweg ruinieren. Doch welche Schlüsse kann man daraus ziehen? Jeremiah sieht es wie [...]

As far as I’m aware, blggging is simply a chronologically ordered website, which can be used for any purpose, including news or personal opinion.

If I was publicly humiliated and thrown out of a building by someone who was unaware of the rules, I’d be annoyed, and would be telling everyone I knew about it. It’s an entirely understandable human reaction.

I’m a strong believer that blogs should always strive to include a right of reply and portray two sides of each story, for legal reasons and to avoid misunderstandings, but that doesn’t mean I expect everyone in the world to respond in that way in the heat of the moment.

It’s unfortunate that it’s resulted in threats of physical violence, but are we saying no-one should ever publicly complain due to a vocal, usually anonymous, and usually pretty harmless minority? If there are threats of violence, then go after those making the threat – not someone voicing a just complaint.

I don’t know either of the people involved in the dispute, and obviously the only knowledge of the event has been via this article, so I have absolutely no idea about who is right or wrong.

I do think that KT August, and Simon’s superiors are missing the point if they’re not trying to get him to respond asap. This could have stopped escalating pretty quickly.