Repairing / Establishing Online Reputation?

illini1022 writes "I'm currently a senior nearing graduation from college. With studies focusing on power and energy I believe I have set myself up extremely well for post-graduation employment. I have one concern. The top search result on Google for my full name is a blog posting regarding an article about a pedophile that happens to bear the same name as myself. The blog also originates from a city I lived in during one summer (specified on my resume). Upon closer inspection, it would become quickly apparent that the subject in question is not me. The person of interest was in the military, and I have never been. However, I fear this unfortunate coincidence might cost me chances at employment with companies I'm now applying to. I have absolutely no issue with any employer finding anything I've put on the Internet; I have been careful to protect my reputation. My concern is with an employer mistaking me for someone else, and disqualifying me from recruitment. I've attempted to contact the blog owner to no avail. What are my options? Am I overreacting? Should I attempt to set up my own site that would steal the top Google search from this blog posting? I appreciate any insight/advice."

Comments

Short answer

[bigstrat2003]

Am I overreacting?

Yes. Any employer worth your time is either a) not going to be doing something as petty as e-stalking you, or b) doing it properly, and making sure that the person is really you.

Re:Short answer

[Samschnooks]

But I don't think that they can legally use somebody else's actions against a prospective employee.

Let's say you're correct and they do use it. How do you prove it? They can always find a reason not to hire you. My favourite: your skills don't match.

Re:Short answer

[commodore64_love]

>>>it is relatively common for HR to look into those sorts of things quickly

Precisely, and in my experience a lot of the HR persons are little more intelligent than a typical elementary ed major. They will see the name, see the city, and ASSUME that the resume in front of them is the same person as the pedophile. The next place your resume will land is the trashcan.

As one HR person explained to me, even a HINT of negative attitude and/or background is reason to withdraw a candidate from consideration. After all, they have thousands of other people they can choose from. They don't need you.

As to the fix:

Change the city on your resume to something else. For example if the location was Teterboro New Jersey, you could just say "New York". Or if it was Glen Burnie Maryland, just say "Baltimore". Pick a city that doesn't match the pedophile's city and therefore won't trigger a google hit.

Re:Short answer

[NinjaCoder]

The OP is a near-graduate. The economy is tanking.

And your advice is what? If the company's HR monkeys can't do their job properly then the whole company is fucked in the head, and don't deserve him??

I also graduated in the middle of a downturn; it sucks that zillions of shiny happy ex-students are chasing every opportunity - I totally believe that some HR bod will bin the CV/resume based on a 20 second google, after all there will be another dozen in the file next to his.

It's not so much that the company is looking for stupid reasons not to hire, but they are looking for ways to whittle down the short list of people to call for interview.

It sucks to be a graduate, with debits, and missing out on opportunities.

You're looking at this wrong

[taustin]

Ask yourself if you really want to work for a company that would assume that anyone with your name is you, even if - in your own words - "it would become quickly apparent that the subject in question is not me." If they're willing to do that, they'll be willing to assume you're to blame for anything anyone accuses you of to cover their own ass, and a host of other sins that employers commit ever day.

Think of this as an IQ test of a potential employer. If one brings it up, point out to them, in detail, how easy it would have been to determine this wasn't you, then walk out of the interview and be thankful you've dodged a bullet.

Is your name common?

[Slashdot Parent]

If you have a very common name, then seriously, don't worry about it.

Even if it's not a very common name, I still wouldn't worry too much about it. Most employers will be doing a criminal background check, which is a lot more reliable than some random blog posting.

Lastly, if you find yourself getting into a pattern of great interviews followed by curt rejections, you might consider being proactive and having a humorous, but prepared statement that you can give during an interview about online reputations, mistaken identity, evidence that the pedophile in question could not be you, as well as how much the situation has taught you about protecting your own reputation, and by extension, the reputation of your employer. Most anything can be spun into a positive.

Long answer

[fyngyrz]

First of all, do you really think that (mis)identification as a "pedophile" will be regarded as "trivial" by a potential employer? I rather doubt it, myself.

More generally, there's no incentive for the alleged pedophile to do anything about this, if that's who posted the blog. On the contrary, the more people's lives the registration system inadvertently damages, the more likely it is that it will be reformed.

As long as it is maintained in such a way as to pillory teenagers, as long as it violates any sensible interpretation of ex post facto, as long as it confounds the identification of actual child molesters with consenting, informed people pursuing normal sexual concourse, as long as it is a manifestation of a line in the sand that consists of nothing but arbitrary age - it really does need to be reformed.

Unfortunately, it is a legislative and voter's freebie, an issue where people think last, if at all, about the broader implications of what they are supporting. The public is very easily manipulated on these issues, and I, for one, can't think of a solution to that which doesn't involve an IQ test, a constitutional comprehension test, and a formal disqualification from voting and serving as a lawmaker or judge if the individuals tested can't meet a reasonable standard of competence.

This is the root problem with most democracies. Any two uninformed twerps can outvote an informed expert on the subject at hand, in an environment where expertise is a rare commodity. It's self-destructive for the host society, visibly and obviously flawed at the most basic level, and yet, the problem is rarely addressed. We don't let unqualified drivers direct a car on our streets or install plumbing, but we let any drooling idiot exert a considerable level of control on everyone else's actions though the mechanism of the law. Pitiful, really.