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

[hedwards]

I disagree to some extent, it is relatively common for HR to look into those sorts of things quickly. But I don't think that they can legally use somebody else's actions against a prospective employee.

It's often part of the screening to do to make sure that they're not going to be embarrassed by web information. I don't think the practice will continue into the future, especially in light of the fact that it's going to be increasingly difficult to avoid candidates that are completely clean or non-existent online.

But honestly, many employers do have a prescreen which would catch both that as well as the lack of a criminal conviction. It would be potentially dangerous legally to use wrong information of that nature in a decision to not hire.

Re:Short answer

[bigstrat2003]

And? I didn't say no companies at all did this, I said no company worth your time does this.

Re:Short answer

[Cro Magnon]

I agree that anyone who does this is an idiot. But, in this day and age, many people have no choice but to work for idiots.

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

[Applekid]

Checking the social networking sites for pictures and video you've posted showing yourself street racing and smoking crystal meth? Fair game.

It came in quite handy when I applied to be a crystal meth smuggler.

Re:Short answer

[Squid]

With high unemployment and thousands of people applying for every job that opens, they don't really have to give you a reason why you never got a call. If you suspect there's something funny going on, that they're tossing your resume aside for illegal/unethical/just-plain-dumb reasons, you'd have a heck of a time proving it.

It's only illegal if they get caught, seems to be the basic ethical guideline many companies use. And once caught, they pay the fine and are more subtle about it next time.

And is it just me, or is it common practice that HR in most companies is staffed with the "unfirables" that no other department wanted? Owner's spouse or relatives, owner's ex-spouse with Clauses In The Divorce Papers, owner's golfing buddy who happens to have Pictures Of People Doing Stuff, owner's fling-on-the-side, owner's child-by-fling-on-the-side, etc - that if they had enough technical clue to understand concepts like "name collision" they probably wouldn't be in HR?

Re:Short answer

[eln]

Checking the social networking sites for pictures and video you've posted showing yourself street racing and smoking crystal meth? Fair game.

It came in quite handy when I applied to be a crystal meth smuggler.

Man, you're lucky...I've been trying to get into the meth trade, but the first person to show up when you Google my name is a decorated police officer. It sucks.

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.

Re:Short answer

[mapsjanhere]

Few comments on this:
1) The poster is a college graduate, he competes with hundreds of nominal equal qualification
2) the trick is not making it past the interview, the trick is making it to the interview
3) Employers will probably interview less than 10% of the applicants
4) 90% of applications don't make it past initial vetting
5) Initial vetting will contain required skill set, anything extraordinary positive, any potential downside
The latter is huge if you're competing with a crowd. Googling the applicant is part of due diligence now, and, unlike e.g. credit check, leaves no trace and doesn't require permission. Which is why he should really try hard to get this either removed, or if needed, try to play google ranking and move something else to the top. Similarly, I never understand why people need to point out things like "active in boy scouts, NAACP, KKK, AARP, League of Woman Voters, PETA, Knights of Columbus or AUSSC"; the potential for positive recognition is so much less than the potential for conflict, either with the HR person himself due to bias or because the HR person knows his or her work force.
And no, you will never be able to prove that, your "thank you for your application" letter will always have a "decided on a person with qualifications more suitable for the position".

Re:Short answer

[commodore64_love]

>>>what they can legally do and what they do do are two different things.

True. I saw an ad in the paper for a local company that was hiring for ~15 different tech, engineer, and programming jobs. I called the phone number and asked how to submit my resume by Email and they said, "Sorry. We're not accepting resumes at this time."

"Oh. But you have this ad in the paper. Aren't you hiring?"
"Yes we're hiring but we're not accepting resumes."
"Why?"
"....."
"Hello?"
"I'm sorry sir but we're not accepting resumes at this time."
"'kay thanks. Goodbye."
(click)

I've heard two reasons for companies doing this. (1) Is to help boost stocks by convincing investors the company is growing, even though it's not actually hiring anybody. (2) To claim they searched for U.S. candidates, could not find any, therefore they need to import cheap labor from China or India. Whichever one it is, it was obvious I wasn't getting the job even though I'm only 30 minutes away from the factory.

Re:Short answer

[commodore64_love]

Yeah the sounds just great. Now here's the reality I observed while visiting Compaq Corporation in Houston:

- 3 HR ladies, and about 5000 resumes piled on the floor.
- They rapidly read each resume, perhaps 30 seconds each.
- Good resumes were carefully stacked.
- Bad resumes got a giant X marker and tossed into a large trashcan.

Round 2:
- When they were done, they went through the good candidates, maybe 500 total.
- Once again bad candidates got X'd and tossed.
- Eventually after a full afternoon's work, they narrowed it down to around 50 resumes.

There wasn't a deep background investigation or any of that other nonsense. It was just a quick review of qualifications. Google didn't yet exist back then (2000) but if it did, I bet a VERY quick google search for any "redflags" would have been performed during round two, and even the slightest hint of negativity would mean getting an "X" and tossed in the trash.

Re:Short answer

[Zenaku]

I worry about this kind of thing too, because though I too have a not-very common name, there is another guy with my name who grew up in the same town that I did, at the same time. He was about 8 years younger than me, and it still resulted in confusion more than once when I was living there. For example, people would ask my sister if she were related to {my name}, and she would say yes, not realizing that they were talking about the other guy with my name.

Fortunately, the kid's kept his nose clean as far as I know. But I'll still never forgive him for getting his drawing of a ninja turtle published in the kid's section of the local paper when I was 16. That was a rough day of high school, let me tell you.

Re:Short answer

[electrostatic]

Does your full name match -- same middle name and same spelling? If not, spell it out fully. Otherwise add home town, age, University attended and years... There's bound to be a few salient facts of your bio that blatantly distinguish you from him. Is his SSN shown in his online record? Make sure HR knows yours is not his.

Re:Short answer

[Anonymous Coward]

And is it just me, or is it common practice that HR in most companies is staffed with the "unfirables" that no other department wanted? Owner's spouse or relatives, owner's ex-spouse with Clauses In The Divorce Papers, owner's golfing buddy who happens to have Pictures Of People Doing Stuff, owner's fling-on-the-side, owner's child-by-fling-on-the-side, etc - that if they had enough technical clue to understand concepts like "name collision" they probably wouldn't be in HR?

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the economy started falling apart shortly after HR departments staffed with idiots became the norm?

Re:Short answer

[Anonymous Coward]

David Brent understood recruitment:

Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them.

Re:Short answer

[Kagura]

Just avoid the problem entirely - change your name. It's not expensive. Hell, its the same anyone else would do if someone else started using your email address, isn't it?

Why should I have to change my name? He's the one who sucks.

Re:Short answer

[uhlume]

A lousy job may be preferable to no job & living like a parasite (living off the Dole).

...Bob? Elizabeth?

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.

Re:You're looking at this wrong

[merreborn]

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.

Unfortunately, in reality, if any employers do see this as an issue, they'll never bring it up. They'll just refuse to interview you in the first place, or fail to make you an offer after your interview.

If you ask, you'll get a vague response like "We don't think you're a good fit".

Most employers will never give you specific reasons for turning down your application, largely as a CYA move.

Use it as a reason to call.

[Shadow Wrought]

90% of the applicants are going to call to verify that HR got their app. How many are to call to clarify that they are not in fact the pedophile of the same name. If nothing else you know they'll look at your resume after that!

FTFY

[ChienAndalu]

Submit a story to Slashdot that reads

"Hello, my name is $REALNAME, and I'm currently a senior nearing graduation..."

You're screwed

[plover]

Now if you google for illini1022 and pedophile, you'll get this story. I don't think there's much you can do, other than provide people with google queries that help isolate you.

Tell your future boss to google for "John Smith -pedophile". That will assure him you're a good person.

For one thing...

[TheSHAD0W]

You should've put your real name on the Slashdot article. That probably would've topped the Google search in and of itself, displacing the pedophile article.

One perfect solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

Find the other you and kill them. I'm sure the stories about John Doe killing John Doe over his online reputation will shoot to the top. And, if you're killing a pedophile, I'm sure the judge will go lightly on you and just give you a life sentence. Okay, that last part isn't perfect, but it's a start.

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.

NAMBLA here...

[Ecuador]

As a member of the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes, I feel your pain...
I would advise you to join our group for some moral support, but I somehow doubt that would help you...

Re:NAMBLA here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please-- having the name that your parents gave you slandered on the internet is no laughing matter. I too have suffered this misfortune, and I'll thank you not to make light of it.

Sincerely yours,
Stephen A. Twogirlsonecup

I think I'm paranoid

[sandysnowbeard]

You're paranoid and overreacting. I know that doesn't help you very much, but run through the logic, man:

Being falsely accused is something we all fear. I understand how you feel, I bet it makes you terribly anxious. But you can quickly demonstrate you're innocent, right? If you're innocent, you shouldn't be worried about it, right? Furthermore, if they're interested in you enough to Google you, they're probably going to be interested enough to click that link and read into it. Just think about it...

I've said it a million times before...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...and I'll say it a million times more. The primary function of giving someone a name is to allow you to single out one person from a collection of people. If you call someone John or David or some other common name then you are failing in that one simple task.

Names should be unique identifiers. For some strange reason, the one segment of American society that understands this issue are vilified for using "black-sounding names". What's so hard for people to get? Stories like this are the inevitable consequence of selfish parents copying names from people around them. Frankly, I think anyone who calls their kid John should be guilty of child abuse.

The only thing I can suggest is suing your parents.

Here is what you do

[basementman]

Set up your own blog on a domain using some part of your full name. Write a dozen posts or so about your professional/personal life using keywords like your name that your employer would search for. Then do some link building with your name as the anchor text. Unless your name is a particularly competitive search term (guessing it isn't) this should bring you up pretty high in Google and most major search engines.

illini1022 for city council!

[PMuse]

Nothing will bury search results like filing to run for office.

(Nothing will dig up your dirty laundry as fast, either.)

Re:Offer a Background Check If You Suspect This

[Geoffrey.landis]

Should I attempt to set up my own site that would steal the top Google search from this blog posting?

Of course.

You want the top search on your name to be you, not some low-life with your name. Carpe webium.

the rule of assassins and famous killers

[jollyreaper]

Now you know why notorious killers and assassins are always referred to by their full names. Lee Michael Oswald can flatly deny having anything to do with assassinating Kennedy. John Wayne can point out his last name isn't Gacy and he never owned a clown costume. I guess when it isn't a matter of national notoriety, middle names get dropped.

I suppose you could always introduce yourself as such: "Hello, I'm John Doe. No, not the pedophile, though I get that a lot." Somehow I imagine you saying that with "Hi, I'm a PC's" voice.

Of course, you could always try making yourself more infamous so that you'll be the one everyone thinks of when they hear your name. Then the other guy will say "No, I'm John Doe the pedophile. Please don't confuse me with the other guy. I have my standards."

Play it up

[StikyPad]

In the interview, just mention that there happens to be a child molester out there with the same name as you, but that it's definitely not you. After that, say something like this, "I certainly haven't been discovered, yet, but if I don't get this job, I know a certain someone's kids who just might get molested! Hahahaha." The humor will set the interviewer at ease, while at the same time making him think, "Hmmm, this SOB might actually molest my kids."

Adwords!

[AlHunt]

Go here:
https://adwords.google.com/select/TrafficEstimatorSandbox
Buy your name in quotations as Adwords so your own website will appear every time someone searches you out. Keep it up while you job search.

Use your middle name

[elrous0]

You specified "full name" in your post. Unless by "full name" you meant "including my middle name too" (which would be a huge and unfortunate coincidence), consider just using your middle name on everything job-related. For example, if your name is "John Gordon Rivers" then just call yourself "Gordon Rivers" on your resume, cover letter, cv, etc. They won't need to know your real first name until you start to fill out the formal paperwork (which probably won't be until after they've already hired you). And if they ask at that point, you can just tell them that you go by your middle name (a pretty common and unsuspicious practice). If they google you at that point, they'll be far enough along in the hiring process to actually take the time to verify that it's not you.

Of course, this could be a problem if your middle name sucks. But just add that to the list of things to resent your parents for.

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.

Useful Answer

[sherriw]

I see this post has fallen into the typical /. answers along the lines of - any employer who would disqualify you based on Google hits isn't someone you want to work at. This is a shortsighted response. Any HR department worth it's salt finds out AS MUCH as possible about a candidate before hiring. If it's illegal they can always give another reason why they didn't hire you.

You're not over-reacting at all- if someone doing a cursory Google search of your name could misconstrue you with this pedophile, you really should do something about it. Like:

- Set up your own website which includes your latest resume, info about you and examples of your work if appropriate. If you are not web-development savvy- use an online profile site like linkedin or blogger or something. Put the url to your online portfolio ONTO your resume. So people know the best channel to take in order to find your legit online info.

- Change the city on your resume that this other guy was in, to the next closest city. If an employer asks about that resume entry during an interview- you can explain the situation.

- Politely ask the blogger if they would be willing to take down the blog post or add some info about the pedophile that would make it OBVIOUS he's not you. Like middle name/initial or age, or birth place. Many bloggers have old posts they are no longer so fired-up about and would be willing to take down if it was causing someone like you to possibly get a bad-rap for nothing. Last resort- put a comment on the blog post with a link to your online portfolio- saying this guy is NOT John Doe from Yourtown[link to portfolio].