Employment, editorial policy and the Art of Googling

I’m not sure how doable it is but if employers continue to find out about this from Googling (and I can think of at least one place the original post from here might be found unedited), it might be possible to “bury” the “bad ” sites with search results that paint a more positive picture.

Multiple googlebombs or something. If it’s possible, I bet somebody’s already done it and the instructions will be lying around somewhere.

Jazz, you’re right, those comments were for chester. I made a mistake, but I’m not going to ask you to correct it for me… 😛

Warning, RiotACT readers: These forums are public, like much of the rest of the internet. Hide behind your screen names by all means, but remember that a lot of what you contribute to this enormous medium stays there…

FOREVER

No Meconium, this minion is happy to submit to the rule of the benevolent despots who insist the quality of the board is reflected in the quality of the posts. It makes her feel safe. This place is a little too Wild West for me to take in more than small doses or short bursts.

I initially thought the person concerned here turned up as an informant/source. But after rereading the original post, I think I can guess what sort of scenario unfolded. An ABC story about some minor matter that wouldn’t rate a mention in a larger city, is reported here. This spawns a bunch of ill-informed opinion that’s now popping up when this guy’s name is searched in Google, resulting in a bunch more ill-informed opinion.

Something along those lines?

If so, I have to revise my earlier opinion and say this is probably a matter solely for the editorial board to decide by reviewing the original material in-confidence. Hopefully they’ll have the wisdom to see it’s not the Googling that’s the problem but the quality of what’s found there. And to act accordingly.

Good decision to remove the name.

TAD – I think most people would think of no conviction recorded as not being a conviction.

Re the Brutality and rudeness of the site – I have wondered if that is why less women seem to post here. Who knows?

Meconium, thanks for the vote of support.

I think you meant to address your comments to Chester, not TAD.

No I don’t interpret your post that way.

Just don’t confuse my postings with Chester’s in the future

TAD, I don’t think the high readership to sign-up ratio is due to a clubhouse atmosphere here. I was originally attracted to the RiotACT because I wanted up-to-date and inside information about the city I live in. I haven’t found another online source on Canberra as valuable as this one.

Criticise the site for being “brutal” and “clicky” [sic, I think you mean ‘cliquey’] all you want, but this is just what happens when people of different beliefs, agenda and politics come together for discussion. You of all people would know that, having seen many forums across the net.

There are casual readers of this site because information useful to Canberrans appears from time to time, and doesn’t always require comment. If you find this source useful, or if you want to chat about Canberra issues alongside us, then by all means, join us! The more the merrier.

As for your “controversial material” hypothetical, that’s a question for the editorial staff – I’m not one of them. But I have faith that Nik, John and others have a good understanding of the fine line between free speech and libel, and over the past year or two I’ve been following the RiotACT, I think they’ve shown good judgement and done a good job.

I hope you didn’t interpret this post as being too knee-jerk “needlessly defensive”; it’s merely my take on the state of the Riot.

What has obviously happened was that the defendant had a finding of guilt but the judge has ordered that the conviction not be recorded as per the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005.

s17 Non-conviction orders—general
(1) This section applies if an offender is found guilty of an offence.
(2) Without convicting the offender of the offence, the court may make either of the following orders (each of which is a non-conviction order):
(a) an order directing that the charge be dismissed, if the court is satisfied that it is not appropriate to impose any punishment (other than nominal punishment) on the offender;
(b) a good behaviour order under section 13.

Now that being said, the conviction is recorded on the defendant’s criminal record and should he be before the courts again it is there. The record is also on police indices. The only difference is between this and a standard conviction is that when getting a criminal history check for employment, visas etc, that conviction is not disclosable.

First time offenders usually get this for their first court conviction as long as the matter is relatively minor.

TAD, according to the ABC story he was not convicted. What’s the difference between being not convicted and not having a conviction recorded?

Chester, that collective lack of insight that you are commenting on is interesting given that 25,000 people read this site a month, and there is absolutely nothing to stop any of them registering to make comment. Maybe that just means we are all stupid and uninformed.

No I wasn’t suggesting that. And some others in this thread have become needlessly defensive. What you do is your business. I just pass through from time to time on my way elsewhere.

But a couple of things I’ve noticed. A high number of go nowhere threads that aren’t “notices” but that produce little or no discussion. Threads (that I haven’t participated in) that degenerate into personal abuse over trivialities.

I don’t know what your participation/sign up rate is compared to your overall readership but my impression is it’s low and, whether you like hearing it or not, I think you probably turn a lot of people off by seeming too clicky and too brutal. I know it’s a problem that at least one forum I’m a member of also suffers from. We’ve had to make a conscious decision not to put off new users by being overly familiar and chummy. But we know we don’t want to be a clubhouse.

But maybe that’s what the majority of your membership wants. I still can’t tell whether you all want to be a private clubhouse, “individuals”, Crikey, a non-real time chat room, a community blog or what.

What would you do, for instance, if some really controversial material that you knew was ridgey didge fell in your lap? Would you print it? What if that had repercussions for your source? Is anybody prepared to print it if they think it’s in the public interest but could have legal ramifications for them personally? I’m genuinely interested to know.

What I do know is that this thread exploded with posts compared to most around here, that everybody has an opinion because, in my experience, everybody’s got their skeletons in the closet and can relate to finding themselves in this position.

And because most people have made the effort to justify their position, it’s one of the more interesting and entertaining threads I’ve read here. It’s the fact you’ve never properly addressed these sought of issues before I find astonishing. But it certainly seems to have touched a nerve as I’m think even the die hard individualists would have to admit.

I only use Google to find pictures of naked female celebs.

you mean to say you’re not a black blues singer? are you sure about this?

i googled my name – sweet FA.

BUT googling my email address…

Agreed Jazz which contradicts the subject’s email to NTP where he says that he wasn’t convicted. His honours decision to not RECORD a conviction just means that the conviction is not disclosable in employment crim history checks.

To be entitled to this he would had to have otherwise never been convicted.

Chester, that collective lack of insight that you are commenting on is interesting given that 25,000 people read this site a month, and there is absolutely nothing to stop any of them registering to make comment. Maybe that just means we are all stupid and uninformed.

TAD, the article iself does indicate that the individual involved was given a good behviour bond

Not having seen the post in question and only going by the description you provide, I’m voting to delete (or at least make hidden/inactive). The discussion has already taken place for the benefit of people who were interested at the time, and if we’re serious about the good of the community, I think it’s better for someone who is trying to rehabilitate from what sounds like a relatively minor matter to be out there working.

No, still comes up on Google.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Guy+Terance+Hawksley&meta=

Good idea Nick seeing how the bloke asked nicely.

He’s fcked with the Google Cache and ABC story anyway.

Woohoo, I guessed correctly (it was this one), do I win a prize?

I forgot to put in the closing tag. I live to find out who you need to bribe in this joint to be able to edit posts. LOL – chester

That would be me – but I fixed this one for free 😉

Giving it some consideration the original post stays with the original link BUT I will be removing his name (which was quoted in the ABC story we linked to anyway). I’ve stayed true to Riot principles and I still feel good about it. Win – win.

I am constantly amazed on my visits to this place about your complete lack of collective insight.

That is because we are not a collective i.e. a joint identity. At best we are a collection of individuals and behave as such.

Nick I think you need to clear up whether the fellow was aquitted (as he says) or convicted with a good behaviour bond (as you said). Whether the conviction was recorded or not means bugger all.

Chester should not have signed the application “Crazy Chester”…

I forgot to put in the closing tag. I live to find out who you need to bribe in this joint to be able to edit posts. LOL

Re: what I’m going on about. I am constantly amazed on my visits to this place about your complete lack of collective insight. As a forum. You seem to have no sense of a collective responsibility to make your discussions informative/challenging/funny/whatever.

Plus you’re covering topics that are inclined to throw up exactly these sort of ethical/moral/legal issues. But you just keep flying by the seat of your pants, making it up as you go along, insular and impervious to what’s going on around you.

Given some of you display a level of familiarity that suggests you’ve known each other over the Net for some time or in real life, maybe you’ve all unconsciously decided to keep the place closed and clubhouse-ish rather than cosmopolitan and open.

What the hell is ^that comment^ going on about ?

There’s a lot of questions being raised here that you guys need to talk about (just saying that’s all). I say it as somebody who frequents what are, ostensibly, tech forums, but whose limited political discussions, have caused no end of trouble to the point of tearing the place in two.

Personally, I think if you want this site to prosper and survive, you should spend a week or so workshopping a whole lot of stuff.

But you get 2 props. One for this thread and another for the one about the case before Higgins. Find the case. Read the case. Share what information you find. Editorialize. Good.

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Because opinions are like arseholes. Everybody has, got one. And after a while they just get boring. But when you back up opinion with facts and knowledge, even if you don’t agree, people are much more likely to at least walk away a little wiser.

FWIW, in my experience, the best forums/discussions employ a delicate balance of benevolent despotism and grass roots democracy.

Screw em. Leave it up.

Seconded

Take it down.

Its John Hargreaves isn’t it.

I’m just giving my own opinion here. Police records and (for Sammy’s benefit) The National Archives are not as easily accessible as Google. Maybe this guy is looking for a retail job where a police check isn’t even thought about or maybe his conviction was not recorded, it doesn’t really matter. I just think he deserves a chance and that’s why I’m voting to either remove the post or have his name censored. If someone is really keen to find out who the story is about, they can email the admin who could pass on his name or something like that. Just let him get on with his own life, we all make mistakes, his just landed him in court.

I doubt very much that it’s Bruford since there would be many, many other links found by Google to that case. It’s someone a lot more low profile.

I guess a record of your court history popping up online is a lot harder to remove than a bit of graffiti on a shop wall hey Aidan.

How exactly did this person’s real name come to be published here?

No you shouldn’t delete posts unless they’re spam or very nasty trolls. Censorship on the internet is to be avoided at all costs. However, someone shouldn’t have to keep paying for something in the past whether or not they’ve been found guilty. Or expect to have their privacy invaded to an unreasonable degree.

Can you edit the name/post to render it anonymous? Disemvowel it perhaps?

Googling pretty much anything other than kiddie porn is legit. If information is in the public domain, get used to the fact that somebody will find it if they want to. If you don’t want them to, or have something to hide, don’t put it out there.

What saddens me is not that the employers are Googling but that they’re condemning the person based on what they find. Given it sounds like some fairly flimsy evidence, it’s akin to forming an opinion of someone based on what you read about them on the back of a public loo door.

Google is letting people remove themselves from the new Street View thing pretty much upon request. But that is pictures. Also go look at some of the sites and forums that have already experienced the problem or are addressing these issues in discussions. A trundle through Wikipedia’s internet category would probably throw up some useful links.

I vote to remove the story/his name.

This is not a perfect world. People are named on credit watch lists, for example, as the result of a stuff up by a creditor, and then have considerable dificulty correcting the record. An employer may look no further than the name and scant details to gain the wrong impression, to the detriment of the named person.

Googling a prospective employer is totally diferent. A business is not generally an individual and would normally fight tooth and nail, including legal action, to have derogatory comment expunged, a course not easily undertaken by an individual.

I’m with the ‘delete it’ crowd. There’s a question of prominence as well. With RA’s high google ratings the article is likely to show up around the top of results for a long time.

The bloke could have done plenty of good things in his time but they will likely never be in the top 3 google results for his name like that article.

Has everyone who comments on this site not done something in their lives they don’t want so easily accessible to potential employers?

What’s your reason for not doing a police check Sammy?

I’m sure if you’re business had anything to do with the Australian Government, that being a contract to do certain work or your company empties their bins or such then you would need to do a police check on your employees as apart of you’re service agreement???

Wouldn’t you want to protect the interest of the Commonwealth?

Thats up to you sammy. In this case you might not give a shit what the offence was.

do you do google searches on your employees?

which all employers DO carry out

I’m an employer, and I don’t do police checks.

Stan, it also says we might agree. Our story already indicates the outcome and its nothing that a basic police check which all most (thanks sammy) employers DO carry out wouldnt show up.

We are not privy to their argument, so we are unable to make a judgment as to whether it is cogent, or otherwise.

The average employer probably doesn’t trawl through the national archives though. I agree with papadoc, I appreciate this is a news site but if this story is affecting the blokes employment then surely a bit of leeway is allowed. I’d say he’s got a ‘cogent argument’:

“You said something really horrible about me! What can I do about it?
You can email us a reply to what has been said; we will run it with equal prominence to the original story. Or you can email us ( root@the-riotact.com ) and ask us to amend it, or take it down and explain why we should. If you make a cogent argument we might agree”

papadoc, should we send a team into the National Archives, and have them delete anything in there that doesn’t meet your approval?

I’m going against the consensus as usual, but I say remove the post. Regardless of what the incident involved, this person is allowed to get on with their life and it would appear as though your story is hampering that.

This bloke’s not looking to change history and I’m sure that the story isn’t really “news” anymore, so why not help him out?

I appreciate what you’re trying to uphold here by keeping the information available, but he just wants a favor and I can’t see why you shouldn’t delete it (Unless he killed his former employer lol).

I just think that unless the story is relevent, we should help him out.

Leave poor old adrian alone…

For the record in both our post and the ABC story that it is linked to already reflect the results of the case. And of course if the person in question wishes to they can add comments to the post.

If he was cleared of all charges, perhaps editing the riot act story to reflect this?

Can’t the person in question add a comment to the story that clarifies the situation and points to collaborating evidence.

And is googling a potential employee kosher?

Absolutely. I’ve had someone fired as a result of a Google search which showed he was a lying bastard and had previous form in stealing intellectual property from previous employers.

I also Google prospective employers – it makes a good impression at the interview if you can show that you have done some research and know a bit about the company, its products and markets. It also helps identify companies you want to stay well away from (Hint: Have a look for ‘Commitments Test Entity’ reports on ASX for listed companies, they indicate the ASX is concerned of the company’s financial well being).

I agree with Thumper.

I think snahon’s idea is the best and most appropriate / decent without setting potential can of worms style precedent.

and for the record, I have been ranked 1st in a number of interviews but because of my court case I haven’t got the job.

I personally think you should remove it… I’m in the same situation, if you google my full name, some unfortunate information comes up.

I take the approach that I tell any prospective employer about it all… but I still think that it is unfair. My court matter is ‘trial by media’ and not the way it should be. The records will always be online regardless of the outcome of court, for everyone to see.

If I could have it all removed, I would in a heartbeat.

I should clarify that the request recieved in the past was for a different case (and took an altogether more confrontational approach).

I reckon I know who it is (initials GTH?).

It isn’t the first time such a request has been recieved – see here for johnboy’s response in the past. I say let precedent stand – it’s now a matter of public record.

If he was cleared of all charges, perhaps editing the riot act story to reflect this? That way, history “isn’t erased” but the outcome can be reflected in the story?

us and the ABC. I can’t see them doing anything to help our Mr X

Yeah, like ABC News online, which is frequently cited as a source on this website.

on the many times it’s been attempted legal action has never succeeded against Riot.

Although if I was the potential employer I might be worried about a discrimination case.

is this the only place he comes up ?

if it was a ‘brush with the law’ then its probably also on other websites.

And I guess if we were talking about Gareth, then he might have sought legal advice from his father. That’s assuming they’ve reconciled, which I have no idea about.

is googling a potential employee kosher

People Google potential employers, so I see no reason why it shouldn’t work in reverse.

If this person is serious, then they may consider legal action. Then you’ll have some decisions to make.

I agree. Leave it up. History should not be censored.

Having said that, it’d suck to be in the unfortunate complainants position.

despite all your incorrect guesses as to the identity of the requestee (can’t you lot read – it’s a bloke!) you seem to be missing my point (well Maeliner hasn’t).

Should we ever remove a post?

And is googling a potential employee kosher?

Anu Singh was convicted, so that rules her out.

If the brush with the law didn’t result in anything, then what is the problem with a discussion about it ?

Surely an employer (who I might note, very well done on googling your prospective employee), may want to know the character qualities of a prospective member of their staff ?

If the employer elects not to choose you based upon non-tested allegations, that is their loss (provided you were the lead candidate for that position).

Personally, I say leave it up. If he wants to defend himself against googling, he can create a few webpages or a wiki node to himself in a more positive spin.

look anu, you made your bed now lie in it.

or scuttle off to the states like the cockroach accomplice rao.

And I guess if you’re asking for ‘Clemancy’ [sic], you should first learn how to spell it.

First thing I do after meeting someone is Google them.

So, is Amber applying for jobs now?