UK online reputation management
** Theme reconstruction / tweaking in progress **
I keep getting bloody spam from these people and of course, there’s no ‘unsubscribe’ link in their emails.
So here they are in my ‘Spam Hall of Shame’ complete with highly Google-visible title so that the next time they (or some other spam recipient like me) searches on their name, they’ll get this polite reminder:
PLEASE TAKE ME OFF YOUR EMAIL LIST (you know, the one I never asked to be on in the first place?)
I wish people would stop getting on all shocked and horrified to find porn on YouTube pretending to be videos of kiddies’ favourite artists.
Does that mean I think it’s right, or good or healthy? Of course not.
What it means is I wish people would wake up and understand that there IS no way to control the internet and its content (short of being China). That means our precious kiddies have, do and will be accidentally, occasionally and often deliberately watching porn. Of the hardest, nastiest kind.
The problem we have in society today is that it’s too unpleasant to even look at truth of that sentence long enough to digest what it really implies (far less the actual material out there that our kids are watching).
Yes, mums and dads. Hardcore, abusive, nasty, dirty, depraved, degrading and soul destroying stuff that our under 10s are finding every day on YouTube – even before this ‘newsworthy’ attack. I watched that nice child psychologist, Professor Tanya Byron, on BBC Breakfast tv a couple of months ago talking about going into schools to teach children a new ‘Green Cross Code’ for internet safety; Zip It, Flag It, Block It. It’s utter nonsense.
Why? Because Government and well-meaning professionals seem to have no idea about the scale or true nature of this problem. Don’t believe me? Then ask yourself this: what’s the first thing an internet-savvy person would do after creating an ‘internet safety campaign’ aimed at kids? That’s right – grab that keyphrase. But if you Google ‘Zip It, Flag It, Block It‘ you’ll see that Prof Byron has failed to do that.
What does this mean? Well, for starters it suggests that the people behind this initiative don’t really understand how the world of search and online marketing works. That, in turn, makes me question how they can possibly have an realistic grasp of the scale or the nature of the problem.
And on a practical level, it delivers children, parents and educators searching for ‘Zip It, Flag It, Block It’ to commentators like me, newspapers and other indirect sources. And if I can get on to the first page of Google (and I could have got higher on P1 if I’d put the phrase ‘Zip It, Flag It, Block It’ at the start of my post title and repeated in the headers but I chose not to) you can see how easy it is for a pornographer to hi-jack this search phrase to put his/her wares in front of kids. That’s a real world demonstration of how easy it is.
I don’t mean to be unsupportive, Tanya. I respect your intentions and in principle we should try to equip our children to deal with what they find online. But until we’re honest about the world we’ve created online, about how much unhealthy stuff we – and they – are already consuming and until we are able to have a more enlightened debate about why it’s unhealthy in the first place, I really don’t think it will make much difference.
Like drug and alcohol use, the situation is worse so long as we’re in denial about what’s really going on – even if it’s only because we really don’t know. Personally, I think the growing effect of the consumption of online content is more damaging than anyone is prepared to admit or is willing to discuss openly.
Remember, there’s no point reaching for solutions until we’ve learned to be honest about the problem.
This picture is one of an ongoing series called ‘The Elephant Under The Table’ representing the things that people in organisations (and our wider culture) just can’t – or won’t – say.
You can follow the series on Twitter or by visiting Delta7′s website.
You’re welcome to print or re-use any of these images providing you leave the copyright attribution in the image.
If you want to crop or edit that’s fine – but remember to add the copyright notice again please.
Seems like to avoid getting hit by max fare charges, I would need to have used my ticket to exit the overground rail system and then come back in with my Oyster. I’m not a Londoner; how the bleedin’ ‘ell would I know that?
Somehow I’ve missed that information. Don’t you get caught out.
Last week, I was surprised – and inconvenienced – to find my OysterCard had run out of credit. Again. I went to the ticket window and asked the woman to put £5 on it.
“You’ve got a negative balance” she said after swiping the card.
“What’s that?” I asked. ‘Look” she said showing me her little screen “It says -£2.20’ “
“How the hell did I get a negative balance?” I asked. She printed a list of my journeys over the last couple of days. The first thing that struck me was how many of them were £4.00 journeys, not the usual £1.60.
“Why was I charged £4.00 for travelling two stops between Richmond and Gunnersbury?” I asked, confused.
The lady printed out my ‘Oyster Usage Statement’ for the last two days:
19/11 08:00 – Gunnersbury No Route Data £4.00
19/11 16:47 Pre Pay entry Gunnersbury £4.00
19/11 16.47 Add Pre Pay Gunnersbury £10.00
20/11 10.41 – Gunnersbury No Route Data £4.00
20/11 13.52 Pre Pay Entry Gunnersbury £4.00ending up, of course, with the attempt to get through gate with a negative balance
20/11 18.21 Rejected Exit (Code 36)
She explained that the reason this had happened was that somehow I hadn’t registered the start of my journey. Her explanation was that often, the card doesn’t register properly – but still opens the gates.
Eh? Hang on a minute.
It failed to register my card properly yet still let me through? And given the gates opened to let me through, how was I supposed to know I was being charged £4.00 each time for a £1.60 fare?
I was, as you can imagine, outraged, thinking “I’ve been overcharged by nearly £10 by a system that’s programmed to let me through a gate and then secretly charge me more than double the fare!!”
Well, apparently, it’s much simpler than that. I found out today that if you take a train (main line) to Richmond – as I did – you either have to exit the train station with your mainline ticket and come back in with your OysterCard or find a machine to ‘touch in’ to start your journey.
Apologies to TfL. I got it wrong. I’ve obviously had to learn the hard (expensive) way 
. But what the lady at the ticket office said worries me. Does the system really allow people in through the gates without properly registering the start point of their journey?
So why do Audible and Amazon still sell it as non-fiction?
I just finished listening to this book, via my ’2 titles a month’ account with www.audible.co.uk. I have to say, I quite enjoyed it (heroic second world war Russian gulag escape romp) up to a point. The point being the party’s encounter with a pair of 8 foot tall Yetis. Hmm, I thought. I bought this thinking (not unreasonably, given the title and the marketing puff) it was a ‘true’ story.
Wrong. The tiniest bit of online research demonstrates quite clearly that it’s credentials are, to put it midly, shaky. No corroborating evidence; no trace of the others in the party, no historical records except those which contradict the story entirely. Ah.
Ok, so I wasted £10. But at least I got a chance to review it on Audible (let’s see if they publish my comment!).
The process of research was interesting. Why? Because it took only a couple of minutes to surface the controversy over this book – a debate that’s nearly 60 years old. The first clear indication was, of course, good old Wikipedia. The second was the huge number of reviews on Amazon.com. Note the number of reviewers who found it inspiring (and want to believe in it). Note also the clarity of the critics’ arguments. You can see that some of the critical reviews come from as early (in internet terms) as 2002.
All of which makes the Guardian’s 2004 obituary for Slavomir Rawicz seem mildy amusing – and makes the journalist involved look faintly ridiculous. Alright, so in 2004 Wikipedia wasn’t up to much (started in 2001) but c’mon? You’re a journalist for God’s sake.
If you’ve arrived here after reading the book (which is more likely) all I can say is ‘Yep, you’re right. It was too good to be true’ and ‘Come on, Audible and Amazon, you need to put a virtual sticker on the front of this one’ or else people will be asking for their money back.
“Truth” said someone a little while back “is information about which there is no serious dispute”.
“Would you pay an extra penny on income tax to subsidise students?” asks the TimesOnline in this worst-of-all-kinds-of-survey.
Why is this so annoying?
Firstly, because the question is pretty meaningless. If you don’t think so, then take it seriously for a moment and try to answer it yourself. Yes? No? It depends…?
It’s annoying because the issues of student debt and the way that education is funded are far more complex than this dumbed-down, ‘web-friendly’ question implies.
Secondly, because I’m not prepared to talk about subsidising education until we talk that other big student expense that never gets talked about: alcohol and drugs.
But guess what? When did you last hear ANYONE honestly account for the part that alcohol and drugs played in their ‘£15,000′ overdraft? Funny isn’t it? They don’t, ever. It’s always ‘tuition fees, books, rent, food’.
Booo! Party-pooper!
In case you think I’m being fuddy duddy, I’ve been there and done it myself. First as a student at university (where I spend a healthy amount on drink and drugs) and secondly as a university lecturer (where – like most, if not all of my colleagues – I also spent a healthy amount on drink and drugs).
So it’s not about a moral highground. It’s about honesty. In answer to your question, TimesOnline: ‘No. I’m not prepared to subsibise ongoing cultural denial about the trouble our education system and our students are in with alcohol and substance abuse.’
Now, which box should I tick?
Re-tweet. Can’t. Spent 5 minutes trying to find out inside Tweetie; with Tweetie ‘help’ files and finally via Google. Need I say anymore? Oh, except there aren’t even any meaningful answers out there.
And I vow NEVER to use as many ‘Twitter-derived’ words in one post ever again.
Nope, Tweetie’s not happening. Crap. Goodbye.
Because not a single one of the UK’s major, publicly-funded agencies have any idea they exist.
A search on the following websites gave no results whatsoever: Serious Fraud Office, Metropolitan Police Service, SOCA (Serious Organised Crime Agency), Home Office, CIFAS, IC3.
This fraud (and variants of it) have been known about for years. The best (and disgraceful to report – ONLY) resource online about this nasty form of scam is Jules Woodell’s ‘StopECG‘ site. Despite repeated personal attacks, JW has continued to wage war on these people single-handed.
If you’ve been scammed by these people (who use forms designed to trick you into signing a contract for services you think are free but in fact cost around £1000 a year for three years) then you ought to be disgusted that no-one in authority has any idea about it.
The fact that it’s down to people like Jules Woodell and, to a much lesser extent me, to try to stop people being defrauded is a national disgrace. What’s even more worrying is how unaware government, police and legislators in this country are in respect of these matters. And while that is the case, expect to be ripped off at pretty much every turn.
As an amusing yet depressing footnote to this post, my quick search for official online fraud advice turned up this nasty piece of work (below) masquerading as helpful advice. Exploitation at £1.50 a minute or more.
..but you’ll only have found out the hard way. Like I did. Probably the first time you came to drag-and-drop widgets after upgrading (reluctantly if you’re anything like me) to WordPress 2.8.
I’ve ranted about the enslavement to upgrades that you’re forced into when you start blogging (or making sites) with WordPress. No sooner than you get used to one version, some unknown entity decides its time to upgrade. If you don’t things gradually stop working on your site. Or your clients’ sites. But even if you do, things inevitably and suddenly don’t work too. Why? Because the people who make the free plugins you’re so dependent on haven’t caught up with the WordPress upgrade. They either haven’t had time, or worse, can’t be bothered since no-one’s paying them to keep up.
With WordPress, things go down like a line of dominoes. Just now, I noticed that the widget that comes with the WP AudioBoo plugin wasn’t showing on my homepage. So I replaced that plugin with a more recent one. Then I went to the widgets dashboard and tried to drag and drop the AudioBoo widget into my sidebar only to find I couldn’t. Further exploration revealed I couldn’t drag or drop anything. Ah. New problem.
Next step, Google and search for ‘can’t drag and drop widgets in WP’. That led me to a number of threads in the WordPress Codex where people had upgraded to WP 2.8 only to find themselves unable to drag and drop widgets. 10 minutes later, I had worked out that it was the Ecommerce plugin from Instinct Entertainment (!) that was messing up the drag-and-drop function in WP 2.8.
A few people offered crude, temporary work-arounds. None of them solved the problem and all of them required a level of php expertise that would kill off all but the code-obsessed developer.
My solution? Lose the WP Shopping Cart plugin since I’m not really using it.
And where does that leave me? Stranded between WP Shopping Cart 2.5 and 3.7 and WP 2.8 and 2.8.2 with no real confidence that anything will ever work properly and a growing sense of the stupidity of the whole, idiotic endeavour.
I’ve really, really had enough running just to stay still. It’s insane – a modern madness that I want no further part of. There. I’ve said it.
Recent Comments