It took me a while to catch onto what Tama was on about with this topic with the cute name. Having heard the iLecture, read the Course Work and the readings, done the activities and done some of the Discussion Board questions, I may have a better handle on it now. Maybe. There seem to be two main threads, firstly the concept of continuous partial presence (in miniblogs) and secondly the integration of the different components ("contexts") of our internet footprints.
Ross Mayfield coined the term continuous partial presence and applied it how "a never-ending steam of presence messages prompts you to update your own". This mysterious impetus causes us to become a frequent microblogger, with individual posts not meaning much, but collectively they allow a nuanced profile of our style, behaviour and interests. We saw this in action in an activity by studying the tweets of a prolific twitterer. Microblogs such as Twitter with their strict character limits require much less effort and commitment than other forms of online communication such as email or blogs, and so participants are more inclined to use them frequently. This argument must surely apply to SMS messages on mobile phones.
Elizabeth Lawley clarifies this mystery somewhat in language easy to digest. "But asking 'who really cares about that kind of mindless trivia about your day' misses the whole point of presence. This isn't about conveying complex theory--it's about letting the people in your distributed network of family and friends have some sense of where you are and what you're doing. And we crave this, I think. When I travel, the first thing I ask the kids on the phone when I call home is 'what are you doing?' Not because I really care that much about the show on TV, or the homework they're working on, but because I care about the rhythms and activities of their days. No, most people don't care that I'm sitting in the airport at DCA, or watching a TV show with my husband. But the people who miss being able to share in day-to-day activity with me--family and close friends--do care." This makes a lot of sense to me, and goes a long way to explaining the phenomenon of serial-twittering at least amongst family and real-life friends. And her definition of presence is also very illuminating: "The big 'P' word in technology these days is 'participatory'. But I'm increasingly convinced that a more important 'P' word is 'presence'. In a world where we're seldom able to spend significant amounts of time with the people we care about (due not only to geographic dispersion, but also the realities of daily work and school commitments), having a mobile, lightweight method for both keeping people updated on what you're doing and staying aware of what others are doing is powerful. I don't have to add anything to this!
Tama introduced us to FriendFeed, and as an activity, we were asked to open an account and link it to the accounts in Web 2.0 platforms that we created in previous activities. This consolidation of individual threads creates the social me(dia) river of the title. The outcome reminds me of a primitive form of personal web presence, which is maybe what Tama intended. It doesn't have the flexibility of a PWP, or its ability to customise in a style which represents our persona, but FriendFeed's collection of posts from different contexts is just what our PWP assignment requires. It's quite easy to see that studying anyone's FriendFeed site (if they have one, and if they link their other platforms in) will quickly reveal a lot about the person's identity and interests. This picture may be deliberately crafted of course, but one way or another, it will add up to a pretty complete profile, be it real or fictitious.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Conversations on Privacy, Reputation and Banality
In the last week or two, the NET11 Discussion Board has been running hot on issues of banality, reputation and privacy. Because I have a respect for people’s privacy, I have only shown contributors’ initials below.
We have been amazed at references to users of social networking sites who post considerable detail about themselves, much of it showing them in a very unfavourable light, and some of it sufficient to make contact, without, apparently, ever thinking that it may be seen by a villain, or by an employer, or by a parent, and without a thought being given to privacy settings on the SNS platform.
We discussed how SNS users share intimate details happily with people that have never met. NW said “maybe it will be a generational thing, children and adolescents who grow up now with social networking sites as the norm, may have numerous strong ties to people that they have never physically met. I don't believe that it will replace face-to-face relationships but what impact might it have on young people's social skills? I'm sure I'll be bringing out the old parents line ‘when I was a boy we...’, to my kids!”.
We pondered over why users feel the need to share every gruesome, banal detail of their life. I said “it just seems to me that there is some pressure amongst Facebook devotees to report their every action, as if not to do so implies some sort of defect or failure. Twitterers seem to have the same behaviour.” MN said “But this is different, it is like a showroom of banality, tragedy and performance, often negative. Disclosure of personal things is taken for granted” and he referred the class to lamebook.com which appears to be a site devoted to collecting feeds from the very worst Facebook has to offer.
Much bandwidth was used up discussing whether employers should use online resources to seek additional intelligence on job applicants.
MN discussed the case study of Mimi whose activist history found in her digital shadow affected her job application. “Sure she might have felt very strongly once in protesting but now she is qualified and willing to do the job. I agree with boyd if Mimi is the non-traditional person who can business wise and culturally work the store to a level of success then I would say hire her.”
KL was very frank with us and admitted to a case where she overlooked a job applicant due to a black digital shadow. I said “if her out-of-hours behaviour would have no effect on her capacity to perform [the job]then you should not taken that information into account. Maybe in the back of your mind, you were looking for human qualities like tact, discretion and judgement in the role, and felt that the candidate had disqualified herself in those regards. [However] you were perfectly entitled to Google up both candidates, and should not feel guilty about it. It's a perfect illustration of Tama's point, that our reputation is increasingly sourced from the internet and will influence employers and the like whether we like it or not. So we should take pains to manage our digital shadow with an internet footprint, so to speak!” SC agreed, and added that “online communication is such an important part of our lives these days that in many roles, not knowing appropriate behaviour online seems tantamount to not knowing proper spelling and grammar, or not knowing how to use a word processor. This is, of course, not the case with all jobs. But I feel like for many jobs, not knowing proper online etiquette is a bad sign.”
SP argued that “shouldn't we be judged on our professional use of online communication rather our personal use when applying for a job?” but I felt that the proposition “when people apply for jobs, they submit their CV’s which includes their previous jobs, publications, referees etc. Recruiters are permitted to consult these, and they recognize that such references will always be selected to cast a positive light on the applicant. There is no justification to stop employers looking for an independent or more balanced view, but what those applicants also have a right to expect is that the employers will keep what they find in context, and will only consider material that is relevant to the job. The trouble is, a rejected applicant will never know for sure that it was their online reputation which cost them a job or an interview.”
This gets us to what is possibly the strongest argument in this NET11, namely that you can’t control what others post about you, and you may regret what you posted about yourself in the past, but you can try to counter an unfortunate digital shadow with a positive internet footprint, a personal web presence. MN is sceptical: “If something negative exists get a blog then? Recreate your image? There is a difference in skill from just posting to making a full blown hey i'm wonderful just because I was throwing up at a mate's party please don't neglect my job application blog or website. But if someone sees something on the net and determines you are the 'hoon' or whatever for relationships or jobs, and no amount of arguing with evidence convinces them you are not, then rent, mortgages and food are important, as is love, but do you really want to be with people or work with people like that?”
My comment on this topic “we would hope that prospective employers would respect [that] online reputation is not a black and white question of good and bad. What teenagers post about themselves, or have posted about themselves should not generally count for much 10, 20 years later especially if it's about relatively trivial matters such as partying, nudity etc. or even political views. What would definitely be of more concern would be if those early posts pointed to seriously warped values, like encouraging terrorism, violence, abuse or even discrimination. Values held deeply as a teenager don't go away, even if immaturity does for most of us. On one hand, a boss should not disqualify an applicant unless the poor reputation found online is identifiably relevant to the job at hand. And on the other hand, every single job applicant must accept that any employer is perfectly within his or her rights to seek any legally available information on that applicant.” The sickening example of Kenny the cat abuser, posted by MN, is an example of those “seriously warped values”. I would never employ that guy!
MN admitted the value of a managed internet footprint and called for judgement with “online presence can be crafted, I am now accepting that argument, but there might be something from over 10 years ago out there that may haunt, but people change, so let's hope there is a sensible approach from all parties on this issue.”
The above is only a selection of the posts on whether a person’s digital footprint should be accessed by prospective employers for example. It could hardly be said that we resolved this difficult question, but one thing looks certain – as today’s young move into and the workforce and up through career structures, their digital shadow looks as though it will be increasingly consulted by those recruiting them and promoting them. It’s best to be alert and prepared, if not alarmed.
Demonising Facebook
One of my fellow students mentioned that our blogs and conversations in NET11 were tending to demonise Facebook. Indeed, there have been little argument citing value in the social networking site, but (surprisingly) many people admitting that they are Facebook users despite the privacy issues we have been discussing.
Facebook has had two further dishonourable mentions in the news recently.
First, some students at the all-male St. Paul's College at Sydney University established an "open, public ... pro-rape anti-consent" site on Facebook. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, which broke the story on Monday 09Nov2009, the NSW Rape Crisis Centre described the site as "grooming perpetrators of sexual violence". The newspaper said that the students "proudly displayed their membership on their personal Facebook pages. Note to employers: don't forget to Google up male graduates of Sydney University over the next few years. A follow-up letter to the SMH editor criticised Facebook for "allowing these groups to indulge their sick ideas".
Then today, an item on the Channel Ten Sydney news reported that one Natalie Tomkins had been stalked by someone who got her details off her Facebook site. (The stalker had been identified and appeared in court today.) On the news, Ms. Tomkins said she had since removed all identifying information from her Facebook profile. I suggest you have a look at her Facebook site to see if you think she would like prospective employers to see this, or to consider whether she may have been inviting undesired attention. (By the way, I can't be sure this is the same Natalie Tomkins. It might be a case of mistaken identity, but I can say the image of her on Facebook resembles the person who appeared on TV tonight.)
There must be some good in Facebook. Googling terms like "worthwhile Facebook" didn't find me much - maybe this isn't a hot topic for research. But, prompted by another news item, I did find a personal Facebook page of "value". The site is that of Yoani Sanchez , who is a prominent Cuban blogger (Generation Y) who, in a parallel to the Baghdad Blogger, wrote about daily life and its frustrations living in Cuba. The news report talks about how Ms. Sanchez has been beaten up by Cuban authorities.
It's nice to discover that there are some serious (non-business) users of Facebook.
Facebook has had two further dishonourable mentions in the news recently.
First, some students at the all-male St. Paul's College at Sydney University established an "open, public ... pro-rape anti-consent" site on Facebook. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, which broke the story on Monday 09Nov2009, the NSW Rape Crisis Centre described the site as "grooming perpetrators of sexual violence". The newspaper said that the students "proudly displayed their membership on their personal Facebook pages. Note to employers: don't forget to Google up male graduates of Sydney University over the next few years. A follow-up letter to the SMH editor criticised Facebook for "allowing these groups to indulge their sick ideas".
Then today, an item on the Channel Ten Sydney news reported that one Natalie Tomkins had been stalked by someone who got her details off her Facebook site. (The stalker had been identified and appeared in court today.) On the news, Ms. Tomkins said she had since removed all identifying information from her Facebook profile. I suggest you have a look at her Facebook site to see if you think she would like prospective employers to see this, or to consider whether she may have been inviting undesired attention. (By the way, I can't be sure this is the same Natalie Tomkins. It might be a case of mistaken identity, but I can say the image of her on Facebook resembles the person who appeared on TV tonight.)
There must be some good in Facebook. Googling terms like "worthwhile Facebook" didn't find me much - maybe this isn't a hot topic for research. But, prompted by another news item, I did find a personal Facebook page of "value". The site is that of Yoani Sanchez , who is a prominent Cuban blogger (Generation Y) who, in a parallel to the Baghdad Blogger, wrote about daily life and its frustrations living in Cuba. The news report talks about how Ms. Sanchez has been beaten up by Cuban authorities.
It's nice to discover that there are some serious (non-business) users of Facebook.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
What Happens on the Internet, Stays on the Internet
Can, and should, this information be considered by future employers?
The proposition “what happens on the internet stays on the internet” is as absurd as its sporting and travel equivalents. I can see no basis to prevent future employers from obtaining whatever information they can readily and legally access on prospective employees. When people apply for jobs, they submit their CV’s which includes their previous jobs, publications, referees etc. Recruiters are permitted to consult these, and they recognize that such references will always be selected to cast a positive light on the applicant. There is no justification to stop employers looking for an independent or more balanced view, but what those applicants also have a right to expect is that the employers will keep what they find in context, and will only consider material that is relevant to the job. The trouble is, a rejected applicant will never know for sure that it was their online reputation which cost them a job or an interview.
An applicant aware that he or she has an unfavourable digital shadow would be well advised to counter it with a favourable Personal Web Presence as Tama has taught, and to possibly admit it up front in the job application, to prevent the “eureka!” moment. Even employers were young and immature once, and should be prepared discount history which is irrelevant to the job and to the applicant’s present situation. As Dana Boyd puts it: “Many of today's teens will also look back at the immaturity of their teen years and giggle uncomfortably. Over time, foolish digital pasts will simply become part of the cultural fabric.” However, where the unfavourable digital shadow is pertinent to (for example) a job’s requirements, then the applicant will have to live with it, and will learn Tama’s mantra to jealously guard your online reputation.
boyd states that "my generation isn't as afraid of public opinion as his was. We face it head-on and know how to manage it. We digitally document every love story and teen drama imaginable and then go on to put out content that creates a really nuanced public persona." Do you agree? Is boyd overemphasising the extent to which young people can design their online image?
Boyd is probably right to assert that “her generation” is less concerned about public opinion, but that is possibly because they are not aware how public are the details they have shared with their friends, and how they can count against you in the not too distant future. I reckon that young people can theoretically craft their online image to an incredible degree – they just need to make the determination to do it and have their wits about them from a very early age. I suspect this is not often the case!
The proposition “what happens on the internet stays on the internet” is as absurd as its sporting and travel equivalents. I can see no basis to prevent future employers from obtaining whatever information they can readily and legally access on prospective employees. When people apply for jobs, they submit their CV’s which includes their previous jobs, publications, referees etc. Recruiters are permitted to consult these, and they recognize that such references will always be selected to cast a positive light on the applicant. There is no justification to stop employers looking for an independent or more balanced view, but what those applicants also have a right to expect is that the employers will keep what they find in context, and will only consider material that is relevant to the job. The trouble is, a rejected applicant will never know for sure that it was their online reputation which cost them a job or an interview.
An applicant aware that he or she has an unfavourable digital shadow would be well advised to counter it with a favourable Personal Web Presence as Tama has taught, and to possibly admit it up front in the job application, to prevent the “eureka!” moment. Even employers were young and immature once, and should be prepared discount history which is irrelevant to the job and to the applicant’s present situation. As Dana Boyd puts it: “Many of today's teens will also look back at the immaturity of their teen years and giggle uncomfortably. Over time, foolish digital pasts will simply become part of the cultural fabric.” However, where the unfavourable digital shadow is pertinent to (for example) a job’s requirements, then the applicant will have to live with it, and will learn Tama’s mantra to jealously guard your online reputation.
boyd states that "my generation isn't as afraid of public opinion as his was. We face it head-on and know how to manage it. We digitally document every love story and teen drama imaginable and then go on to put out content that creates a really nuanced public persona." Do you agree? Is boyd overemphasising the extent to which young people can design their online image?
Boyd is probably right to assert that “her generation” is less concerned about public opinion, but that is possibly because they are not aware how public are the details they have shared with their friends, and how they can count against you in the not too distant future. I reckon that young people can theoretically craft their online image to an incredible degree – they just need to make the determination to do it and have their wits about them from a very early age. I suspect this is not often the case!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Digital Shadow - Boyd's Trainwreck
danah boyd's article raises a number of interesting points regarding our perceptions of privacy and the arrangement of personal information online. This is a timely reading, as those of you with facebook will have noticed that the 'news feed' feature has been changed yet again. As always, a few questions to start us off:
- Inadvertent exposure: boyd addresses how personal relationships are transformed into quantifiable data online. How do you feel when your daily interactions, likes and dislikes are presented back to you as a public 'news feed' or list of actions?
I would not appreciate this at all, but then again, I don’t let it happen. Everything I read about Facebook makes me glad I have little involvement with it. Why would anyone post on Facebook everything they do when they know that it will be broadcast to everyone they know? Surely, to do so is the height of naivety and immaturity. Peer pressure must be the explanation.
- For those of you who use facebook, have you felt exposed as a result of the changes in format? Do you think twice, knowing that performing an action will produce data that is visible to all of your 'Friends'?
Not applicable to me, but I wonder what drivers are behind the “changes in format”. Is it (as we discussed in a previous module) commercial motivations driving Facebook’s quest for information about everyone? (Sounds unlikely, because it doesn’t add to Facebook’s database.) Are users actually asking for this facility? (I doubt it.) Are the ongoing changes part of experiments by Facebook to make the site more attractive to its impressionable customers, thus enabling it to grow? (I suspect so.)
- Information invasion: boyd comments that "the stream of social information gives people a fake sense of intimacy with others that they do not really know that well. If this is true, it could be emotionally devastating" (p17). Does the constant updating of your facebook Friends make you feel closer to them? Is this an asymmetrical relationship? Is it so different from 'following' a celebrity on Twitter?
Again, I can’t comment from personal experience. Facebook must be an interesting “topic” to study in that it produces such questions. I can only respond with another question: what motivates people to post anything on Facebook at all? It just seems to me that there is some pressure amongst Facebook devotees to report their every action, as if not to do so implies some sort of defect or failure. Twitterers seem to have the same behaviour. I joined Twitter as part of this Unit, but I find that most tweets, including my own, are most banal.
- - boyd argues that "infinite social information" can be ultimately destructive. Do you agree?
Infinite anything will probably destroy anything, but in this case, destructive of what? I think it’s Boyd who says that she receives so much information that it causes her to read none of it. In such a case, it is “overwhelming” and a waste of bandwidth. I suspect the biggest risk of destruction is to an individual’s time management and maybe self esteem?
- Inadvertent exposure: boyd addresses how personal relationships are transformed into quantifiable data online. How do you feel when your daily interactions, likes and dislikes are presented back to you as a public 'news feed' or list of actions?
I would not appreciate this at all, but then again, I don’t let it happen. Everything I read about Facebook makes me glad I have little involvement with it. Why would anyone post on Facebook everything they do when they know that it will be broadcast to everyone they know? Surely, to do so is the height of naivety and immaturity. Peer pressure must be the explanation.
- For those of you who use facebook, have you felt exposed as a result of the changes in format? Do you think twice, knowing that performing an action will produce data that is visible to all of your 'Friends'?
Not applicable to me, but I wonder what drivers are behind the “changes in format”. Is it (as we discussed in a previous module) commercial motivations driving Facebook’s quest for information about everyone? (Sounds unlikely, because it doesn’t add to Facebook’s database.) Are users actually asking for this facility? (I doubt it.) Are the ongoing changes part of experiments by Facebook to make the site more attractive to its impressionable customers, thus enabling it to grow? (I suspect so.)
- Information invasion: boyd comments that "the stream of social information gives people a fake sense of intimacy with others that they do not really know that well. If this is true, it could be emotionally devastating" (p17). Does the constant updating of your facebook Friends make you feel closer to them? Is this an asymmetrical relationship? Is it so different from 'following' a celebrity on Twitter?
Again, I can’t comment from personal experience. Facebook must be an interesting “topic” to study in that it produces such questions. I can only respond with another question: what motivates people to post anything on Facebook at all? It just seems to me that there is some pressure amongst Facebook devotees to report their every action, as if not to do so implies some sort of defect or failure. Twitterers seem to have the same behaviour. I joined Twitter as part of this Unit, but I find that most tweets, including my own, are most banal.
- - boyd argues that "infinite social information" can be ultimately destructive. Do you agree?
Infinite anything will probably destroy anything, but in this case, destructive of what? I think it’s Boyd who says that she receives so much information that it causes her to read none of it. In such a case, it is “overwhelming” and a waste of bandwidth. I suspect the biggest risk of destruction is to an individual’s time management and maybe self esteem?
Digital Shadow - Solove: Information, Liberation and Constraint
How might we protect our reputation online, given the speed with which unflattering or incorrect information can spread?
Tama has given us the answer to this question. If we fear that unflattering or incorrect information is spreading online, or is going to, the best defence is attack with a preemptive strike, namely a Personal Web Presence. This is best done early, so that search engines will have picked up the PWP and keywords of your name will cause the PWP to rank highly.
Another proactive stance is to modify one’s behaviour so that noone will be inclined to publish anything untowards. This would be hard for many to comprehend, especially the very young, but just as little children are taught “don’t talk to strangers”, so must they be trained in digital literacy (“don’t post anything you don’t want your mum/teacher to see”) and general good behaviour (“don’t do anything you’d be embarrassed about”). These sound like motherhood statements, and they are, but they are also values we should be imbuing in our children and adopting as adults.
The examples that Tama showed us in his lecture, and that Solove described, make fine case studies, and could be used more widely.
The internet may be a 'global village' but as Solove points out, it lacks the corrective familiarity of a real village. Or does it?
Even real villages have long memories. Whilst embarrassing information may live forever on the internet, some of the examples we have been shown demonstrate that people can learn from their mistakes and even overcome them (and others don’t). Heather Armstrong (dooce.com) may have been fired, but she has become a very successful blogger – she took advantage of her notoriety. Little Fatty is now a “star” although he was initially “devastated”. Both of these cases demonstrate that the global village can repair reputational damage, or at least compensate for it. Other examples have less happy endings.
Consider Solove's discussion of "John Doe," the anonymous person who contacted him online. If you want to check up on a person, how can you identify truth from misinformation online?
Nowadays, anyone offering themselves for employment or other consideration renders themselves liable to online scrutiny. It is in the interests of both parties for the scrutiny to be critical, but this is not easily achieved. Instruction will be given to “ensure that the source is credible”: this is good advice but it is often difficult to implement, especially when searching in unfamiliar territory or on controversial subjects. In academic pursuits, peer reviewed articles in “respected” journals score high in credibility, but these options are usually not available when investigating the reputation of a prospective employee, for example.
Checking up on someone, a scrutineer must rely on his/her judgment in the particular circumstances. Information on SNSs or in gossip columns would always have to be suspect, while data on government sites or from previous employers would be more credible, but still not infallible. Sources of news items in the media are supposed to be collaborated, but just view Media Watch on ABC1 for exceptions. Images are telling but they make be fake, manipulated or just taken out of context. Personal Web Pages are bound to be positive, by definition, but are not necessarily true. People lie about their past: one case in recent news concerns an 83 year old whose false claims have netted him $400,000 in unjustified pensions. See http://www.smh.com.au/national/fake-war-veterans-five-more-cases-investigated-20091011-gsdv.html .
What if someone has the same name as you? Not so good if they commit a crime or publish dubious photographs of themselves. How can you protect and define your identity as an individual online?
Having the same name as a criminal (or a terrorist) must be particularly hazardous especially if your name is not so common, and you are passing through immigration is some airport somewhere! Such matters make the news from time to time. Online, the problems are potentially similar, and the consequences may be just as embarrassing, inconvenient, expensive or career-busting!
This question reminds me of readings elsewhere in this Unit of the balance between anonymity and self-disclosure. Basically, the more (accurate) information you give about yourself, the less you could be mistaken for someone else or vice versa. For example, including an image with a biography online (in your Personal Web Presence) increases its strength of definition, and may help a scrutineer distinguish you from someone else (only if that someone else has his mug shot in there too!).
But total disclosure in a PWP will surely help overcome mistaken identity in an online search scenario, but that total disclosure must be balanced by an individual desire for privacy.
Tama has given us the answer to this question. If we fear that unflattering or incorrect information is spreading online, or is going to, the best defence is attack with a preemptive strike, namely a Personal Web Presence. This is best done early, so that search engines will have picked up the PWP and keywords of your name will cause the PWP to rank highly.
Another proactive stance is to modify one’s behaviour so that noone will be inclined to publish anything untowards. This would be hard for many to comprehend, especially the very young, but just as little children are taught “don’t talk to strangers”, so must they be trained in digital literacy (“don’t post anything you don’t want your mum/teacher to see”) and general good behaviour (“don’t do anything you’d be embarrassed about”). These sound like motherhood statements, and they are, but they are also values we should be imbuing in our children and adopting as adults.
The examples that Tama showed us in his lecture, and that Solove described, make fine case studies, and could be used more widely.
The internet may be a 'global village' but as Solove points out, it lacks the corrective familiarity of a real village. Or does it?
Even real villages have long memories. Whilst embarrassing information may live forever on the internet, some of the examples we have been shown demonstrate that people can learn from their mistakes and even overcome them (and others don’t). Heather Armstrong (dooce.com) may have been fired, but she has become a very successful blogger – she took advantage of her notoriety. Little Fatty is now a “star” although he was initially “devastated”. Both of these cases demonstrate that the global village can repair reputational damage, or at least compensate for it. Other examples have less happy endings.
Consider Solove's discussion of "John Doe," the anonymous person who contacted him online. If you want to check up on a person, how can you identify truth from misinformation online?
Nowadays, anyone offering themselves for employment or other consideration renders themselves liable to online scrutiny. It is in the interests of both parties for the scrutiny to be critical, but this is not easily achieved. Instruction will be given to “ensure that the source is credible”: this is good advice but it is often difficult to implement, especially when searching in unfamiliar territory or on controversial subjects. In academic pursuits, peer reviewed articles in “respected” journals score high in credibility, but these options are usually not available when investigating the reputation of a prospective employee, for example.
Checking up on someone, a scrutineer must rely on his/her judgment in the particular circumstances. Information on SNSs or in gossip columns would always have to be suspect, while data on government sites or from previous employers would be more credible, but still not infallible. Sources of news items in the media are supposed to be collaborated, but just view Media Watch on ABC1 for exceptions. Images are telling but they make be fake, manipulated or just taken out of context. Personal Web Pages are bound to be positive, by definition, but are not necessarily true. People lie about their past: one case in recent news concerns an 83 year old whose false claims have netted him $400,000 in unjustified pensions. See http://www.smh.com.au/national/fake-war-veterans-five-more-cases-investigated-20091011-gsdv.html .
What if someone has the same name as you? Not so good if they commit a crime or publish dubious photographs of themselves. How can you protect and define your identity as an individual online?
Having the same name as a criminal (or a terrorist) must be particularly hazardous especially if your name is not so common, and you are passing through immigration is some airport somewhere! Such matters make the news from time to time. Online, the problems are potentially similar, and the consequences may be just as embarrassing, inconvenient, expensive or career-busting!
This question reminds me of readings elsewhere in this Unit of the balance between anonymity and self-disclosure. Basically, the more (accurate) information you give about yourself, the less you could be mistaken for someone else or vice versa. For example, including an image with a biography online (in your Personal Web Presence) increases its strength of definition, and may help a scrutineer distinguish you from someone else (only if that someone else has his mug shot in there too!).
But total disclosure in a PWP will surely help overcome mistaken identity in an online search scenario, but that total disclosure must be balanced by an individual desire for privacy.
Digital Footprint - No Ego Surfing for me!
I’ve been mulling over this since the start of NET11, but the lecture and notes on Your Digital Shadow have finally crystallized for me what the Web Presence required for Assignment 4 is all about. It is Tama’s solution to the problem of managing your online reputation when faced with the reality that you can’t control what others may post about you, and whether its true or false. A Web Presence will certainly (eventually) appear high up in Google’s and other search engine’s rankings for any individual, and will help balance any misinformation or undesirable truths which are also there.
I find this a persuasive argument, but I’m still not quite buying it. Well, not for me anyhow. My reasoning lies in the answers to the questions that Gwyn has posed us on Ego Surfing …
This week Tama asked you to go 'ego surfing' using Google, Blindsearch and Spezify
- How did you go? Were you comfortable with the results, did you find information or images that surprised you?
- If you did not find much information on yourself, are you happy about this? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having little or no digital shadow?
I have an unusual name, so by Tama’s logic, that should help search engines find me without too much other noise. However, my surname happens to be a noun in English and other languages that gets associated with businesses and functions. I also have not participated in online social networking, and my previous business life was professional but confidential, and has definitely not led an online trail. Accordingly, putting my name into Google produced pages and pages and pages of links nothing to do with me. In Tama-speak, I am an online nobody, I have no reputation! Similarly, Blindsearch and Spezify produced nothing on me.
When I deliberately helped Google by adding keywords for specific organizations that I work with that have web presences, at last the search engine found me successfully. I am now only nearly an online nobody.
Did this shatter my ego? No, au contraire, I am comfortable with this situation. I don’t operate in industries where your online persona is all there is of “you”. My reputation is with people I see and work with on a regular basis. I am not looking for a job. I don’t care that people can’t find me online. It’s possible that old buddies would like to contact me, but they are disappointed when they can’t find me on Facebook. Well, they could try the hard copy or online phone books! I don't deeply feel the need for a Personal Web Presence at this stage.
As an aside, while trying to stroke my ego, I came across www.intelius.com which admits that it only covers US residents. This site found 48 people with my name, told me where they lived, who their relatives were, what their criminal record was etc. Crikey!
It’s a legitimate question to ask why I am doing this Unit? I’m obviously an SNS virgin! That doesn’t make me disinterested, however. I’m a technophile doing a Computer Science degree for fun. I’m fascinated by all this twittering about Facebook, I’ve done all of Tama’s activities, and I have found the learnings to be interesting and entertaining. I can now astound my younger friends and family members with my knowledge of “their preserve”. I think it makes them a bit uncomfortable.
It occurs to me that those associated with running this Unit (no disrespect to anyone) believe that virtually “everyone” is engaged in online social networking, and are surprised to find examples or people who are not. The statistics such as we saw at http://pewinternet.org/Infographics/Growth-in-Adult-SNS-Use-20052009.aspx are stunning, but that same graph shows that there is a very sizable demographic not engaged in SNS. With my ego-surfing such a failure, I thought I would try an experiment. I tried vicarious ego-surfing on behalf of a cross-section of my friends. I deliberately looked for friends in each age decade. I only used Google, and I looked at the first 3 pages for each name. I was careful to spell their names correctly and did not use nicknames. I used only first and last names. The results are below, with only initials shown to preserve my friends’ privacy (but to remind me who they are), together with sex, age and hometown.
1. T.E-A (16,M, Sydney): Very unusual name, Google produced only 4 entries in total, none associated with my friend. He tells me he is an active online social networker, but it’s obviously under an assumed name. I cheated with this friend and also tried his preferred first name abbreviation. Another 4 entries, two false and two contained his City To Surf results.
2. A. McC (21,F, Sydney): Slightly unusual name. Found numerous genuine references to her on skiing websites on the first page of Google, all posted by others. Found Facebook and Twitter sites for others by the same name, but not my friend. I know (from past experience) this person used to have a MySpace page – maybe she disguises her name.
3. K.M (30, F, Sydney): Very unusual name. Google only had 26 links total on this name, all were references to my friend regarding her profession, none were posted by her. Her reputation is indeed forged online, and she could well be advised to get her own Web Presence.
4. C.B (39, F, Central Coast NSW): Reasonably unusual surname. Google had 130 links in total for this name. Many pertained to my friend, all posted by others, almost all relating to her career and profession. Found her father’s Facebook site, but not hers (even though I know she has one). Also a photograph of her.
5. M.M.(49, M, Sydney): Common name. Google had 325,000 entries. He’d be embarrassed to see images of some people with the same name. Could not find any correct link to my friend, even after adding “linkedin” to the keywords, because I know he’s listed there. Is this the curse or the benefit of a common name?
6. A.S. (55, M, Melbourne): Moderately common name. Google had 1970 link for this name. The top link was for someone else, but the second and later links were for his own website (I created this for him a year ago – I should be proud to get such a ranking.). A “linkedin” page for A.S. (that I was not aware of) was also on Google’s first page.
7. D.S (67,M, Braidwood): Extremely common name, but I tried this friend because he is very well known in his profession, but not a celebrity. Google found 390,000 results. I couldn’t find any referring to my friend.
8. A.B. (73, M, Florida USA): Moderately uncommon name, Google found 351 links, many relating to my friend arising from his past professional career. Easily found a lot about his genealogy.
The lessons for me from these anecdotal exercises are that:-
• It’s best not to live in the USA.
• My friends, even the young ones, don’t have much of a digital footprint.
• You’d have to work harder than just putting a name into Google to find information on people with common names.
• Adding extra keywords (but only if you know them) helps a search engine immeasurably.
• People with uncommon names (like Tama) are easily found.
So, to Gwyn’s other questions…
- How were the search engines different? How might the presentation of information alter its impact or meaning?
Blindsearch was as Tama described. The 3 search engines gave quite different results for me and others from my list above, but I couldn’t distinguish quality or relevance.
Spezify has an attractive and interesting graphical approach, came up with noting for me, but found items on my friends that I hadn’t noticed in the Google search (it used MSN search). I can’t deduce how Spezify decides what graphics or text to use, or how to rank pages, but the effect is stunning. I’m going to use Spezify more often, especially when I’m looking for something offkey. I keyed in my suburb name and Spezify displayed a number of random photos of mine located in a website with a similar name. How did it do this?
- Would you be comfortable with an employer or employee searching for you? What about your family members?
No, I wouldn’t be comfortable with that, but it just brings home the lessons that Tama has taught us. Mainly, don’t post anything you don’t want you boss, staff or family to see, because it’ll be there forever. And manage your online existence with your own personal website.
I find this a persuasive argument, but I’m still not quite buying it. Well, not for me anyhow. My reasoning lies in the answers to the questions that Gwyn has posed us on Ego Surfing …
This week Tama asked you to go 'ego surfing' using Google, Blindsearch and Spezify
- How did you go? Were you comfortable with the results, did you find information or images that surprised you?
- If you did not find much information on yourself, are you happy about this? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having little or no digital shadow?
I have an unusual name, so by Tama’s logic, that should help search engines find me without too much other noise. However, my surname happens to be a noun in English and other languages that gets associated with businesses and functions. I also have not participated in online social networking, and my previous business life was professional but confidential, and has definitely not led an online trail. Accordingly, putting my name into Google produced pages and pages and pages of links nothing to do with me. In Tama-speak, I am an online nobody, I have no reputation! Similarly, Blindsearch and Spezify produced nothing on me.
When I deliberately helped Google by adding keywords for specific organizations that I work with that have web presences, at last the search engine found me successfully. I am now only nearly an online nobody.
Did this shatter my ego? No, au contraire, I am comfortable with this situation. I don’t operate in industries where your online persona is all there is of “you”. My reputation is with people I see and work with on a regular basis. I am not looking for a job. I don’t care that people can’t find me online. It’s possible that old buddies would like to contact me, but they are disappointed when they can’t find me on Facebook. Well, they could try the hard copy or online phone books! I don't deeply feel the need for a Personal Web Presence at this stage.
As an aside, while trying to stroke my ego, I came across www.intelius.com which admits that it only covers US residents. This site found 48 people with my name, told me where they lived, who their relatives were, what their criminal record was etc. Crikey!
It’s a legitimate question to ask why I am doing this Unit? I’m obviously an SNS virgin! That doesn’t make me disinterested, however. I’m a technophile doing a Computer Science degree for fun. I’m fascinated by all this twittering about Facebook, I’ve done all of Tama’s activities, and I have found the learnings to be interesting and entertaining. I can now astound my younger friends and family members with my knowledge of “their preserve”. I think it makes them a bit uncomfortable.
It occurs to me that those associated with running this Unit (no disrespect to anyone) believe that virtually “everyone” is engaged in online social networking, and are surprised to find examples or people who are not. The statistics such as we saw at http://pewinternet.org/Infographics/Growth-in-Adult-SNS-Use-20052009.aspx are stunning, but that same graph shows that there is a very sizable demographic not engaged in SNS. With my ego-surfing such a failure, I thought I would try an experiment. I tried vicarious ego-surfing on behalf of a cross-section of my friends. I deliberately looked for friends in each age decade. I only used Google, and I looked at the first 3 pages for each name. I was careful to spell their names correctly and did not use nicknames. I used only first and last names. The results are below, with only initials shown to preserve my friends’ privacy (but to remind me who they are), together with sex, age and hometown.
1. T.E-A (16,M, Sydney): Very unusual name, Google produced only 4 entries in total, none associated with my friend. He tells me he is an active online social networker, but it’s obviously under an assumed name. I cheated with this friend and also tried his preferred first name abbreviation. Another 4 entries, two false and two contained his City To Surf results.
2. A. McC (21,F, Sydney): Slightly unusual name. Found numerous genuine references to her on skiing websites on the first page of Google, all posted by others. Found Facebook and Twitter sites for others by the same name, but not my friend. I know (from past experience) this person used to have a MySpace page – maybe she disguises her name.
3. K.M (30, F, Sydney): Very unusual name. Google only had 26 links total on this name, all were references to my friend regarding her profession, none were posted by her. Her reputation is indeed forged online, and she could well be advised to get her own Web Presence.
4. C.B (39, F, Central Coast NSW): Reasonably unusual surname. Google had 130 links in total for this name. Many pertained to my friend, all posted by others, almost all relating to her career and profession. Found her father’s Facebook site, but not hers (even though I know she has one). Also a photograph of her.
5. M.M.(49, M, Sydney): Common name. Google had 325,000 entries. He’d be embarrassed to see images of some people with the same name. Could not find any correct link to my friend, even after adding “linkedin” to the keywords, because I know he’s listed there. Is this the curse or the benefit of a common name?
6. A.S. (55, M, Melbourne): Moderately common name. Google had 1970 link for this name. The top link was for someone else, but the second and later links were for his own website (I created this for him a year ago – I should be proud to get such a ranking.). A “linkedin” page for A.S. (that I was not aware of) was also on Google’s first page.
7. D.S (67,M, Braidwood): Extremely common name, but I tried this friend because he is very well known in his profession, but not a celebrity. Google found 390,000 results. I couldn’t find any referring to my friend.
8. A.B. (73, M, Florida USA): Moderately uncommon name, Google found 351 links, many relating to my friend arising from his past professional career. Easily found a lot about his genealogy.
The lessons for me from these anecdotal exercises are that:-
• It’s best not to live in the USA.
• My friends, even the young ones, don’t have much of a digital footprint.
• You’d have to work harder than just putting a name into Google to find information on people with common names.
• Adding extra keywords (but only if you know them) helps a search engine immeasurably.
• People with uncommon names (like Tama) are easily found.
So, to Gwyn’s other questions…
- How were the search engines different? How might the presentation of information alter its impact or meaning?
Blindsearch was as Tama described. The 3 search engines gave quite different results for me and others from my list above, but I couldn’t distinguish quality or relevance.
Spezify has an attractive and interesting graphical approach, came up with noting for me, but found items on my friends that I hadn’t noticed in the Google search (it used MSN search). I can’t deduce how Spezify decides what graphics or text to use, or how to rank pages, but the effect is stunning. I’m going to use Spezify more often, especially when I’m looking for something offkey. I keyed in my suburb name and Spezify displayed a number of random photos of mine located in a website with a similar name. How did it do this?
- Would you be comfortable with an employer or employee searching for you? What about your family members?
No, I wouldn’t be comfortable with that, but it just brings home the lessons that Tama has taught us. Mainly, don’t post anything you don’t want you boss, staff or family to see, because it’ll be there forever. And manage your online existence with your own personal website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
