communication. community. cognition.
Disposable News
To be honest, most of the information that passes through our mammoth news hydrant is disposable and ultimately unimportant. However, it remains searchable, and that could be a problem if we aren’t a little smarter about how we communicate online.
I won’t use any names, but within the last 48 hours there has been a rather large online effort to locate a missing teenage girl. Her father has a rather large network on Twitter, and the word spread quickly and rapidly. Bloggers wrote entries asking for help in finding her. It was the power of Social Media in action.
Permanent Record
She was found and is okay, but what to do with all of that internet debris? While this young woman will want to put this embarassing episode behind her, will she be able to run away from the negative effect of having her name published across the internet? Already, responsible marketers like BL Ochman are taking down their entries, but how many will not? And more importantly, is there a way to extract all that “Google Juice” back? Is there a protocol to clear out the cached entries?
It would be simple to say that given enough time, this incident will fall off the first page of Google searches. But what will happen when the next generation of search algorithms starts digging out the deep stuff? Employers looking for dirt on potential hires do dig deeper, and eventually will have smarter searches to look for anything involving police or investigators and bring them to the top.
Also, is it fair for us to make it incumbent upon a teenage girl to somehow generate enough “positive news” about herself so as to eventually “drown out” an embarassing event in her life?
Disposable Posts
Maybe it’s time we create a new tag, microformat, or classification for certain types of information. Use it for things that we want the search engines to find today, but we may want them to “forget” later. You can already put in code on certain pages that tells search engines not to index, so why not something that says “Index this, until I you encounter a revocation code — then yank ALL the old pages out of the index.”
The might be some potential abuses of such a technology. Maybe if it was visibly flagged, so there would be no surprise. A “Creative Commons” style license, that indicates “This page may be considered TEMPORARY.” That way you could just the merits of the information with the appropriate degree of skepticism. And we could use these awesome publishing tools to do some amazing short-term good with minimal long-term side-effects for those who don’t deserve a mark on their permanent records.
[tags]Ike Pigott, Occam’s RazR, information, google, search, communication, emergency communication[/tags]
| Print article | This entry was posted by Ike on October 17, 2008 at 10:13 am, and is filed under Communication. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |









about 3 years ago
HTML pages do have a way to indicate an expiration date, but they are rarely used correctly:
[meta http-equiv="expires" content="Wed, 26 Feb 1997 08:21:57 GMT"]
Could the search engines honor these expirations — and could we avoid their use just to clear the browser cache? What do we do about pages (like Twitter) on which we have no control? I think the tools are there if we use them properly, but as you know that’s much easier said than done.
about 3 years ago
Interesting thoughts… Might this also allow PR firms and businesses to “bury” old crises? This tactic might have averted recent stock debacles like the years-old news item about a United Airlines bankruptcy, and the more recent Apple/”Steve Jobs is dead” rumor, both of which created huge stock sell-offs.
about 3 years ago
This is a really good point. Not sure what the answer is, but you bring up a very important issue. It’s hard to apply an eraser to this info-rich virtual world!
about 3 years ago
@Shannon –
That’s why I wouldn’t mind some type of common, recognized and visible flag that says “This Page is subject to search-engine elimination.” One could then assume that anything without it was meant to be more “permanent.”
Just editing the pages doesn’t do anything about clearing Google’s cached archives.
I don’t have a good answer about the Twitter-effect.
@Deb –
If PR firms are posting information that is flagged as “disposable,” then you shouldn’t give it much stock. (Unless it is precisely the sort of information I describe above, which wouldn’t likely be on a corporate site anyway.)
As to the recent stock debacles, you mention a couple of cases where the existence of the archives actually helped. There was a way to compare the supposedly “new” information with the old, make a match, and debunk the new posting.
By all means, it’s not a perfect system. As Shannon points out, there are some existing protocols that might help, but they are beyond the ability of the average user and are not as transparent as we might like.
If there is the existence of a “magic key” that can yank a page out of history, those reading it today deserve to know about it.
about 3 years ago
Ike – you raise interesting, but dangerous points. Information is not disposable and the fact that what goes online stays online comes with the territory.
It is probably not journalistically correct to take down the posts, but it is ethically and humanly correct IMO, and that’s why I did it.
I am sorry for the young woman and the turmoil she and her family have obviously experienced. It was a value judgment on my part to take the post down and I think a lot of other bloggers may follow.
BUT, there are too many ways to abuse posts marked “disposable” or temporary.
And the way life is, there are consequences for our actions.
Nobody trusts corporations or PR firms now. Believe me, giving them the opportunity to disappear news would not help anything.
about 3 years ago
BL, I totally understand. And I applaud you for putting your personal ethics and feelings for this young woman ahead of someone else’s notion of “journalistic integrity.”
Your question is a fair one. Do I want PR firms engaging in this as a regular tactic? No. That’s why it should come with a big, fat, public stamp that indicates it could be pulled from all archives.
While some bloggers do indeed aspire to be considered “citizen journalists,” I would posit that many well-meaning bloggers and Twitterati who helped publicize the disappearance would like for a clean way to yank it from the cyber-record. Maybe it’s still fresh enough you can extract it. Maybe not.
Heck, even the “Recall this Message” feature in Outlook only works 60% of the time.
Thanks for joining the discussion. And we do agree, the vast majority of information online deserves to stay there — but can we come up with a clean solution for instances like this one that can harm down the road?
about 3 years ago
I don’t know anything about this girl or the story on her but you do make a good point. We are entering into unexplored territory – a brave new world of sorts.
I’m not sure how you get rid of things once they are cached. I have no idea how to do such with Twitter or the like. It’s something which we all should be thinking about.
I have never had much use for FB because of this, and use other services of the type on a very limited basis.
about 3 years ago
This has even larger implications for what businesses and organizations post that later becomes obsolete, inaccurate, or the (overlooked) subject of legal agreements. When I was doing bank PR, an activist group helping a customer in a dispute with the bank posted a news release on its website accusing (by name) a bank employee of discrimination. After a legal settlement was reached it turned out that the activist group never linked the original press release to the agreed statement that the matter had been resolved and that it agreed the employee had NOT engaged in discrimination. The original accusation was dogging the (now former) employee as new prospective employers engaged in Google searches and found this item in the employee’s background.
It’s the Web 2.0 version of the story appearing on page one, but the correction being on page 12.
There must be a way to deal with this…
about 3 years ago
Ike,
This post just floored me, and I’m upset it took me *this* long to get around to it!
I couldn’t agree more with how vital this is, the need for a techno gew-gaw to remove expired/fatuous/defamatory postings. In fact, I’m the direct (and sadly much too experienced!) victim of this sort of articular caching, and it’s perhaps less severe in my case since the claptrap being posted isn’t in English, thank the Higher Power!
When I’d politely asked the editor on three separate occasions to yank the posts (once directly, by phone), or at least to remove my tri-monikered attribution from the now-defunct organization about which the article was initially penned — the editor flatly refused.
You might be interested in this little bit of business I caught the other day by podcast at BBC’s Monday Documentary, a propos to what you’re talking about:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2008/10/081029_caucases_doc.shtml