There is no such thing as an eraser on the Internet.
Search engines provide endless opportunities for ego surfing, Google bombing (influencing traffic so it spikes a particular site) and Google juicing (enhancing one's "brand" in the era of micro-celebrity). Overshare and follow yourself too closely: Google narcissist.
But Googling people is also becoming a way for bosses and headhunters to do continuous and stealthy background checks on employees, no disclosure required.
Google is an end run around discrimination laws, inasmuch as employers can find out all manner of information--some of it for a nominal fee--that is legally off limits in interviews: your age, your martial status, the value of your house (along with an aerial photograph of it), the average net worth of your neighbors, fraternity pranks, stuff you wrote in college, liens, bankruptcies, political affiliations, and the names and ages of your children.
"There is no way that in the next couple years people aren't going to Google you before they hire you---or invite you to a party," says Debbie Well, author of The Corporate Blogging Book.
I think its fair game. Its not any different from calling old employers and references. Everyone at one point or another has Googled someone they know or met to see what comes up. I try to Google myself on a monthly basis to see what comes up.
Totally fair game, if you do it carefully -- there are plenty of name doubles out there, and you wouldn't want to believe everything you read. Approach whatever you find on Google with skepticism, and consider whether it would be a faux pas to bring up something you found on Google during the interview. "I discovered you won this award" might be okay; "I found your spring break pictures, and you can sure do a keg stand" might not be.
Fair game, because if you're going to hire someone, it's only prudent to do some background checks. In my opinion there's no difference between calling a reference and Googling.
You would hate to think that if you are John Doe and there's a few other John Doe's in the world,,,,that may have done "no telling what" that you'd be overlooked because of such potential confusion.
That said, I would consider it a tool. But one used with extreme extreme EXTREME caution.
The FAR LARGER focus SHOULD BE on whether John Doe can do the job or not.
If it appears that John's been at the Fire Island Barn dance or a wet t shirt contest is a likely scenario regardless of who you hire if you dig long enough.
Is any of that gonna keep John from doing his job...is the question.
It's fair game. It shouldn't be the soul basis of your decision making, just another tool to be used thoughtfully.
People should pay attention to their personal brand. If someone "googles well", meaning the search results are consistent with the person before you, that's a good sign. If someone "googles poorly" meaning inconsistent, or as Ricky Ricardo would say, "Has some 'esplaining' to do", that's okay too. It's how they respond that makes the difference.
Now wire tapping, THAT would be a blantant invasion of privacy.
I think publicly accessible information is fair game. You may 'stumble' across information just as easily in the course of your daily surfing habits. There are two sides to this and I think most feel negative information will be discovered. There is always positive information that is favorable to potential employees as well.
Absolutely not. By using google, they seek information that they are not allowed to actually ask, therefore it should be illegal and google should be required to control its content.
13 Total
March 19, 2008 at 9:11am by John Agno
There is no such thing as an eraser on the Internet.
Search engines provide endless opportunities for ego surfing, Google bombing (influencing traffic so it spikes a particular site) and Google juicing (enhancing one's "brand" in the era of micro-celebrity). Overshare and follow yourself too closely: Google narcissist.
But Googling people is also becoming a way for bosses and headhunters to do continuous and stealthy background checks on employees, no disclosure required.
Google is an end run around discrimination laws, inasmuch as employers can find out all manner of information--some of it for a nominal fee--that is legally off limits in interviews: your age, your martial status, the value of your house (along with an aerial photograph of it), the average net worth of your neighbors, fraternity pranks, stuff you wrote in college, liens, bankruptcies, political affiliations, and the names and ages of your children.
"There is no way that in the next couple years people aren't going to Google you before they hire you---or invite you to a party," says Debbie Well, author of The Corporate Blogging Book.
March 19, 2008 at 9:59am by Nathan Minetti
I think its fair game. Its not any different from calling old employers and references. Everyone at one point or another has Googled someone they know or met to see what comes up. I try to Google myself on a monthly basis to see what comes up.
March 19, 2008 at 10:46am by Kevin Ohannessian
I believe it is fair. I have even Googled potential employers before an interview.
March 19, 2008 at 1:45pm by julia morrow
I think googling is fine, but looking at their facebook and/or myspace (or any similar) is DEFINITLY an invasion, should it affect the hiring process.
March 19, 2008 at 2:14pm by Chris Dannen
Totally fair game, if you do it carefully -- there are plenty of name doubles out there, and you wouldn't want to believe everything you read. Approach whatever you find on Google with skepticism, and consider whether it would be a faux pas to bring up something you found on Google during the interview. "I discovered you won this award" might be okay; "I found your spring break pictures, and you can sure do a keg stand" might not be.
March 20, 2008 at 12:15am by Jules Yim
Fair game, because if you're going to hire someone, it's only prudent to do some background checks. In my opinion there's no difference between calling a reference and Googling.
March 20, 2008 at 12:27am by Aaron Bare
Fair game, it is part of researching candidates and a neccesary process.
March 20, 2008 at 2:55am by m e
You would hate to think that if you are John Doe and there's a few other John Doe's in the world,,,,that may have done "no telling what" that you'd be overlooked because of such potential confusion.
That said, I would consider it a tool. But one used with extreme extreme EXTREME caution.
The FAR LARGER focus SHOULD BE on whether John Doe can do the job or not.
If it appears that John's been at the Fire Island Barn dance or a wet t shirt contest is a likely scenario regardless of who you hire if you dig long enough.
Is any of that gonna keep John from doing his job...is the question.
March 20, 2008 at 3:12am by jiro Jepr
Absolutely not. It is fair. Creating a bias however about content you might find is not fair game at all.Heck, I just googled my name right now.
March 20, 2008 at 3:18am by Karl Bimshas
It's fair game. It shouldn't be the soul basis of your decision making, just another tool to be used thoughtfully.
People should pay attention to their personal brand. If someone "googles well", meaning the search results are consistent with the person before you, that's a good sign. If someone "googles poorly" meaning inconsistent, or as Ricky Ricardo would say, "Has some 'esplaining' to do", that's okay too. It's how they respond that makes the difference.
Now wire tapping, THAT would be a blantant invasion of privacy.
March 20, 2008 at 7:09am by Mark Litke
I think publicly accessible information is fair game. You may 'stumble' across information just as easily in the course of your daily surfing habits. There are two sides to this and I think most feel negative information will be discovered. There is always positive information that is favorable to potential employees as well.
March 20, 2008 at 1:12pm by David Grossman
It's by definiteion, not private if it's on the interweb Potential employees should take note of that.
August 26, 2008 at 4:31pm by Daryl Basarab
Absolutely not. By using google, they seek information that they are not allowed to actually ask, therefore it should be illegal and google should be required to control its content.