Clyde Cadiddlehopper’s Advice for Managing Internet Libel
For client to choose: option 1 or option 2
::::::OPTION 1 DIRECT Disclosure of Personal Struggle with Online Defamation::::::
Clyde Cadiddlehopper has been battling a toxic, relentless, digital smear attack.
Clyde Cadiddlehopper’s protagonist has targeted him in an attempt to decimate his online reputation & his organization, without reason, and implicated some scandalous things that do not deserve repeating.
However, Clyde Cadiddlehopper has learned a great deal through the episode, and graciously authorized our team to bestow this foresight openly so that everyone, will be better prepped, should you ever incur the rage of an internet crazy-maker, as Clyde Cadiddlehopper has.
::::::OPTION 2 INDIRECT Advice but non-disclosure of personal problem::::::
By: Clyde Cadiddlehopper ~ Google results can produce top-ranking errors that injure relationships and employment opportunities. These are some tips on fixing these problem Google search results.
********** END OPTIONAL INTROS *******
STEP # 1: DETACH! DO NOT FIGHT BACK
Whenever you detect a bogus criticism posted about you and your firm, it is all right to provide a compelling answer instantly, but always keep it modest. The criticisms against you are a type of psychological war; you will win or lose the minds of your would-be customers, depending on how you behave. BEAR IN MIND: Publish ONLY one reply on the actual gripe website, otherwise the problem article will certainly gain much higher Search engine positions. According to Clyde Cadiddlehopper you shouldn’t worry, you will be able to indicate to the visitor that the lack of other replies is not proof of guilt, by starting your one-time reply with something along these lines:
“I will not enter into an on-going debate on this website, as it will likely stir even more derision from my detractor (or other appropriate summary). However, I do respectfully put forward this one-time response for the interest of my clients’ confidence”
STEP # 2: FOLLOW THESE BASIC RULES IF YOU DO REPLY
- DO NOT open up aged articles on the gripe site. Doing so would just raise their search engine rank since Google delights in debate, & our research suggests dispenses further ranking to progressing conversations. It is prudent to let old posts pass away.
- DO NOT be unduly defensive. Do you remember Shakespeare: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” which is a quote from the 1599/1600 theater play Hamlet. It has been used as hyperbole, in a number of styles, to represent someone’s ardent and too frequent efforts to convert the public of some topic, thus making him or herself seem defensive, and two-faced.
- DO NOT mention your protagonist. Make use of third person terms like “he” or “she”. If you use their name or business name, you’ll only incite him or her further. More importantly, it seems vindictive and sleazy to the readers. Forbearance = Classy.
- Continue to publish favorable text referring to you and/or your organization, occasionally the only fix for deleterious debate, is better speech. In the event that you do not take command of Google’s search results page for your full name, somebody else will, without your consent, and it will certainly end horribly if he does not admire you. If you do not have much of important, positive material about yourself, then Google has no choice but to present the diatribe provided by others, some of whom don’t like you and your family.
STEP # 3: GET FREE AID WITH DO IT YOURSELF TUTORIAL TO CURING YOUR ONLINE CREDIBILITY AND REPUTATION CONCERNS
- A team of dedicated online reputation management masters have generously entrusted their experience and strategies, to the free help site namely Defamation911.org
- The same team controls a totally free tip blog at www.blog.page1.me
- Their Facebook page is www.facebook.com/defamation911/
STEP # 4: FIND EXPERIENCED ONLINE REPUTATION MANAGEMENT HELP IF THE DILEMMA WARRANTS THE EXPENSE
Professional Online Reputation Repair businesses are growing, by virtue of Google’s search program, which seems to present at least one harmful search engine result, for many organizations and entrepreneurs.
SPAM email comes from a large number of companies that are based in developing countries. Many of these exploit desperate, aggrieved persons, seeking a quick fix for the trouble caused by their online reputation concerns. Clyde Cadiddlehopper recommends to conduct background checks, check that the individuals you bring on board share your native vernacular, and provide complete transparency about who they are, and where they are based.
STEP # 5: ABSTAIN FROM IT IF YOU CAN – BUT A LAWSUIT MAY BE THE
“See you in court!” is in many cases the number one reaction from a person bad-mouthed by online defamation. Bear in mind, this sort of action very often brings with it significant emotional debilitation and misery. It is important that you relax, and are aware of the financial and emotional consequences before opening that particular Pandora’s Box.
If you decide to enter a personal injury lawsuit against your defamer, look into NOT asking for personal damages; as the litigation will be much less challenging. If your vital objective is the removal of the insulting Google results, then you might merely ask for (1) Declaratory Relief and (2) Injunctive Relief. Whereas, declaratory relief is only a notice by the Judge, that one thing is or is not so. For example, if in your claim you ask the bench to certify that the on-line statements made against you are untruthful, he or she will, hopefully, deliver findings to that effect. And so, the court will possibly also order that the detracting texts be expunged from public view by the defendant. If the publisher refuses, then most of the time every of the online search engines will most likely recognize the intention of the opinion, conclusions, and injunctions, and eliminate the offending data from their search indexes. This way, regardless of whether the upseting information endures inside the problem site, let’s face it, if it is not available in search results, it is unlikely anybody will find it. As such, your purpose of remedying the open-ended character catastrophe will have been reached.
If your opponent sees that the injury he or she has been causing you has been deleted, then the injury of reputation may likely commence all over again. At this point you may go back to the judge and request the judge to provide succeeding injunctions. However hopefully, the first order will feature language that restrains additional dissemination of similar accusations.
This article has been written with the help of Clyde Cadiddlehopper.