February 9, 2001
8:34 PM Subscribe
I will say about the Google thing that it's amazing what you can find these days. When that kid who was going to blow up his college in California was arrested Obscurestore.com had a link to some mail list he posted to in 1998. They must have found that through Google. I'd post the link to their link but I can't find it Obscurestore's site and I don't see archives. =
I guess the way to think about it now is that anything you post will become part of the web forever. Just a quick link to your name. I don't know if thats scary or just weird.
posted by redleaf at 9:45 PM on February 9, 2001
But I didn't want to put it on my site because I had just emailed a woman I had a crush on 10 years ago and didn't want her to think I was even creepier than I am. Also, better not to reveal how we find those email addresses... heh heh heh
No, I'm not a stalker. Really. Honest.
posted by anildash at 9:53 PM on February 9, 2001
What's the earliest trace of yourself that you can find on google by using your name/nickname/whatever?
posted by gluechunk at 10:24 PM on February 9, 2001
posted by xtrmntr at 10:40 PM on February 9, 2001
I am also dead. But on the bright side, I'm sure I lived a very rich and rewarding life, as a jockey, fireman, and nice Jewish girl.
posted by Optamystic at 11:23 PM on February 9, 2001
The first thing they would learn about me, from the top match? Why, that I'm MetaFilter user #1666, of course. [shakes head]
posted by youhas at 12:42 AM on February 10, 2001
Jesus, if you're going to make up fake anecdotes and conversations to fill out your story about something you do personally and make it sound like a big trend, try to make it realistic by having some people say they "searched" or "looked online" or something. This article completely smacks of those stupid Cosmo articles where they have anecdotes from dozens of fake people about dating or whatever, with no more bio info than "Jane, an advertising professional". I think this writer was just looking for an excuse to use Google as a verb. Which she did 18 times. If it wasn't Google, I'd almost think the company's marketing department just got this done hoping to get people to use their name as a verb.
If I didn't make it clear, I think this was a terrible, stupid article. That's all.
posted by beefula at 1:19 AM on February 10, 2001
(she ripped my heart out my ass)
posted by fullerine at 2:39 AM on February 10, 2001
Sort of like cashing a check.
posted by Postroad at 3:42 AM on February 10, 2001
posted by rodii at 8:20 AM on February 10, 2001
And if you don't know my nick, you don't know me.
BTW, did anyone notice how shallow a lot of these "googlers" were? Oh boy! He makes a lot of money! What a catch!
posted by frykitty at 9:48 AM on February 10, 2001
posted by sugarfish at 10:54 AM on February 10, 2001
posted by bkdelong at 11:02 AM on February 10, 2001
Interestingly enough, I share my name with a guy out west, down to the middle initial; web searches on either version seem to hit me slightly harder these days than him, though that only happened once I started blogging.
The Cheswick page is something I'd come across, but forgotten; it's quite cute. For those who missed it, cut the <br> off the link, and you'll get the entry intended to be linked to.
RIP Deja. <sigh>
posted by baylink at 12:23 PM on February 10, 2001
posted by rodii at 1:08 PM on February 10, 2001
posted by tomorama at 2:25 PM on February 10, 2001
posted by dhartung at 4:14 PM on February 10, 2001
posted by Mars Saxman at 4:28 PM on February 10, 2001
that jargon page is wild. I didn't know that peterme coined the term "blog", or that kottke coined "dotcommerce". That is so cool.
posted by Optamystic at 5:59 PM on February 10, 2001
By far the most interesting part of that page is if you scroll down and read about how Georgemag.com's online forums were trashed by people posting pr0n images and stuff from rotten.com. Heh, what did they think would happen if they let people anonymously post images in an online forum?
posted by Potsy at 6:07 PM on February 10, 2001
posted by bjgeiger at 6:30 PM on February 10, 2001
posted by dagnyscott at 6:33 PM on February 10, 2001
I happen to have the same name as a major league baseball player who played for the Cubs, the Indians, and the Twins over the span of 1956-1965 and who now apparently coaches for the University of Arizona. (When I had a listed number, I used to occasionally get calls asking if I was him.) He's written a lot more books than I have. And about half the Google results (maybe more) refer to him, not me.
posted by kindall at 7:04 PM on February 10, 2001
posted by Mark at 9:20 PM on February 10, 2001
posted by dhartung at 9:53 PM on February 10, 2001
posted by beefula at 11:30 PM on February 10, 2001
That's one of the reasons I finally went back to my maiden name after I got divorced - my married name was far too unique, I didn't want to be searched on.
Now I've got Plausible Deniability: "It wasn't me; it was one of the other ones with my name."
And as a bonus, I managed to snag my dotcom name before any of the other Beth Roberts's got around to it. (And no, I'm not going to ever try to deny that I wrote anything there).
I don't even want to search on any of my old nicknames, though. Ugh. I may end up being grateful that there are no Usenet archives for certain years (though there is one piece I'd like to recover). Ah, well.
But I do confess to googling someone who already posted on this thread, several months back. :) (And yes, I found some good stuff, and yes, I also told them).
posted by beth at 12:02 AM on February 11, 2001
That L.A. Times Google story looked awfully familiar to himFrom DAVID BLUM:
"Don't Be Shy, Ladies -- Google Him!" -- headline in The New York Oberver, 1/15/01 ...
"Don't Just Stand There -- Google" -- headline in The Los Angeles Times, 2/9/01.
Did anyone else notice the eerie similarity between the L.A. Times article
(last Friday), by Hilary E. MacGregor on the front page of the living section, and a front-page article a few weeks ago in the cutting-edge small-circulation, high-influence New York weekly? Though not a clear-cut case of plagiariasm, MacGregor's article takes an identical approach to the
subject as the Observer piece. The anecdotal lead of both articles is a first-person account of the reporter going out on a date with a seemingly successful man -- in both cases, the date is referred to as having a thick head of hair -- and returning home to "Google" him on the popular internet
While the "borrowing" of story ideas, without credit, has long been a part of the TV news-gathering game, newspapers generally adhere to a higher standard. In this case, however, the L.A. Times story yesterday looks suspiciously like an effort to duplicate the Observer story -- even mimicking the approach of the writer. Perhaps the L.A. Times thinks that because the Observer's audience is so much smaller (particularly on the West Coast) it can
appropriate the approach of an article without reproach. But as a longtime print journalist, I think it's sleazy -- MacGregor should have taken an extra few minutes to find an original way to tell her story. [Romenesko note: I've left a message for MacGregor, inviting a response to Blum.]
posted by aaron at 8:53 AM on February 12, 2001
posted by cCranium at 9:05 AM on February 12, 2001
posted by Dreama at 3:01 PM on February 12, 2001
« Older Torture Still Widespread In Asia Says Amnesty | "The Standard Model" of the universe takes a hit.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by xtrmntr at 9:44 PM on February 9, 2001