4 ms·

Google Suggests changing your name, I suggest google is out of touch with tech.

46 points by Cyndre 16y ago

losethos 16y ago
Is it just me or is it obvious a company might ask, "Why do you have no net presence before 2010? What's your real name?" Some site will probably publish public documents on name changes. The Bible says a reputation is worth more than gold. I guess back then, communities were small and everybody knew your family from when you were a child.
JangoSteve 16y ago
Image search? You won't even need to go that far. Just put the person's current name into Google, and let it suggest, "Did you mean [previous name]?"
- Cyndre 16y ago
  Should have thought of that one. And in the future changing your name will result in a "Did you mean [previous name]?" link on google name search's. Kudos to you
- Prisen 16y ago
  That would only work for rather unique names though.
randomwalker 16y ago
danah boyd has a great post on this: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/08/16/name-changes-reputation.html http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/08/16/name-ch... Summary: "First, it completely contradicts historical legal trajectories where name changes have become increasingly more difficult. Second, it fails to account for the tensions between positive and negative reputation. Third, it would be so exceedingly ineffective as to be just outright absurd." She provides strong evidence for all of these.
will_critchlow 16y ago
It is pretty ridiculous in the form presented. It certainly doesn't scale. Having said that, there are sometimes sensible options around changing what most people search for. Marriage is an obvious example. But even if you are just applying for a job, if you use a different version if your name, the search results can be very different. Compare the results for "will critchlow" and "william critchlow".
- Cyndre 16y ago
  But now add in a few more pieces of information. Like the city, state, country. And the type of job they are applying for. Also roughly age, previous jobs, any information listed on their resume. By itself I agree its meaningless, but when combined with the other pieces of information the potential employer has access to it is very revealing.
  - will_critchlow 16y ago
    Oh. Don't get me wrong, you can still dig in and find stuff, but as a simple separation of work and non-work (especially if some stuff about me did rank for both versions), it can be easier than other options.
axl 16y ago
Google's founders certainly weren't concerned with their collegiate life being permanent record. http://digg.com/tech_news/First_Google_Site_ http://digg.com/tech_news/First_Google_Site_ points at http://web.archive.org/web/20021030152640/www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.jpg http://web.archive.org/web/20021030152640/www-db.stanford.ed... (Sergey Brin)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
greyman 16y ago
As I see it, Eric's suggestion was indeed quite ridiculous, but the problem itself is not. Your digital past can really backfire or harm your future chances in life. [Maybe the people screening candidates based on their past need to stop and think about the things they did as a teenager.] Maybe yes, but what if they will not stop doing such screening? The the problem Eric tried to solve still remains.
- nanairo 16y ago
  Then they might miss some great candidates and be crushed by the company that had better screening. The former will only pick candidates from the pool of full of people with perfect past, the latter from the pool of people with "acceptable" pasts (i.e. minor offences ok, major ones like murder not ok).
varjag 16y ago
I would like to see Eric Schmidt trying it himself.
eru 16y ago
The solution to image search is plastic surgery, of course.
jacquesm 16y ago
They're not only out of touch with tech, they're out of touch with society as well. Changing your name is not without social stigma.
mike-cardwell 16y ago
What was the exact quote please? Including the surrounding conversation... I find it strange that people keep writing about what he said, without writing what he actually said, including the context...
toxicflavor 16y ago
Eric Schmidt's comments are being taken out of context. His statements were a warning that unless young people particularly start taking their online privacy seriously, they may be left with no recourse for erasing their online past, short of some extreme measure like changing their name. But he was not "suggesting" to change one's name - rather, he was warning about the dangers of diminished online privacy.
- akadruid 16y ago
  Unless you have a distinctive name, and the internet gets a lot better at remembering over the long term, there's still nothing to worry about. Try finding anything from 10 years ago or for anyone named Smith, Jones, Taylor, or Patel. I'll bet that doesn't improve in the next ten years either.
spinchange 16y ago
There needs to be some kind of NoFollow attribute for 'social objects.'

46 points by Cyndre 16y ago

Is it just me or is it obvious a company might ask, "Why do you have no net presence before 2010? What's your real name?" Some site will probably publish public documents on name changes. The Bible says a reputation is worth more than gold. I guess back then, communities were small and everybody knew your family from when you were a child.

JangoSteve 16y ago

Image search? You won't even need to go that far. Just put the person's current name into Google, and let it suggest, "Did you mean [previous name]?"

Cyndre 16y ago
Should have thought of that one. And in the future changing your name will result in a "Did you mean [previous name]?" link on google name search's. Kudos to you
Prisen 16y ago
That would only work for rather unique names though.

randomwalker 16y ago

danah boyd has a great post on this: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/08/16/name-changes-reputation.html http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/08/16/name-ch... Summary: "First, it completely contradicts historical legal trajectories where name changes have become increasingly more difficult. Second, it fails to account for the tensions between positive and negative reputation. Third, it would be so exceedingly ineffective as to be just outright absurd." She provides strong evidence for all of these.

will_critchlow 16y ago

It is pretty ridiculous in the form presented. It certainly doesn't scale. Having said that, there are sometimes sensible options around changing what most people search for. Marriage is an obvious example. But even if you are just applying for a job, if you use a different version if your name, the search results can be very different. Compare the results for "will critchlow" and "william critchlow".

Cyndre 16y ago
But now add in a few more pieces of information. Like the city, state, country. And the type of job they are applying for. Also roughly age, previous jobs, any information listed on their resume. By itself I agree its meaningless, but when combined with the other pieces of information the potential employer has access to it is very revealing.
- will_critchlow 16y ago
  Oh. Don't get me wrong, you can still dig in and find stuff, but as a simple separation of work and non-work (especially if some stuff about me did rank for both versions), it can be easier than other options.

axl 16y ago

Google's founders certainly weren't concerned with their collegiate life being permanent record. http://digg.com/tech_news/First_Google_Site_ http://digg.com/tech_news/First_Google_Site_ points at http://web.archive.org/web/20021030152640/www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.jpg http://web.archive.org/web/20021030152640/www-db.stanford.ed... (Sergey Brin)

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

greyman 16y ago

As I see it, Eric's suggestion was indeed quite ridiculous, but the problem itself is not. Your digital past can really backfire or harm your future chances in life. [Maybe the people screening candidates based on their past need to stop and think about the things they did as a teenager.] Maybe yes, but what if they will not stop doing such screening? The the problem Eric tried to solve still remains.

nanairo 16y ago
Then they might miss some great candidates and be crushed by the company that had better screening. The former will only pick candidates from the pool of full of people with perfect past, the latter from the pool of people with "acceptable" pasts (i.e. minor offences ok, major ones like murder not ok).

varjag 16y ago

I would like to see Eric Schmidt trying it himself.

eru 16y ago

The solution to image search is plastic surgery, of course.

jacquesm 16y ago

They're not only out of touch with tech, they're out of touch with society as well. Changing your name is not without social stigma.

mike-cardwell 16y ago

What was the exact quote please? Including the surrounding conversation... I find it strange that people keep writing about what he said, without writing what he actually said, including the context...

toxicflavor 16y ago

Eric Schmidt's comments are being taken out of context. His statements were a warning that unless young people particularly start taking their online privacy seriously, they may be left with no recourse for erasing their online past, short of some extreme measure like changing their name. But he was not "suggesting" to change one's name - rather, he was warning about the dangers of diminished online privacy.

akadruid 16y ago
Unless you have a distinctive name, and the internet gets a lot better at remembering over the long term, there's still nothing to worry about. Try finding anything from 10 years ago or for anyone named Smith, Jones, Taylor, or Patel. I'll bet that doesn't improve in the next ten years either.

spinchange 16y ago

There needs to be some kind of NoFollow attribute for 'social objects.'