What a search returns about a medical writer
A name search reveals the information a prospective employer, client or colleague can find about a writer. Auditing those results and deciding what to disclose are parts of managing an online presence.
Searching and reviewing results
A writer should search Google for their name, preferably in quotation marks to keep first and last names together, adding a field keyword if the name is common and searching any company or trading name as well. The results should be analysed for the professional impression they create. Employers and clients should be expected to search for applicants online, and personal Facebook photographs can appear in image results.
Unwanted material, including blog posts, videos or photographs uploaded by someone else, can be the subject of a removal request. In one case discussed in 2019, a freelancer found their photograph and biography on the website of a company they had never worked with, promoting the company's capabilities without permission. The company complied when the freelancer demanded immediate removal. Writers should remain vigilant about where their information appears online.
Privacy and disclosure choices
Privacy advice in 2012 recommended the following practices for controlling personal information on social networks.
- Read each site's privacy policies and practices, including what information is recorded, how it is used, whether it is shared with third parties and whether sharing can be refused.
- Manage privacy settings before posting; Facebook's separate personal and professional contact lists were one way to control who could see particular material.
- Avoid oversharing, photographs or information that could cause future embarrassment, personal attacks and posts that could be interpreted as demeaning or reflect negatively on the writer or their organisation.
- Know the audience: a public LinkedIn profile was visible to anyone searching, not only existing connections, so personal details should be shared cautiously.
- Release only information comfortable to share publicly; an image could replace a photograph for someone unwilling to show their appearance, and one communicator chose not to publish her real birth date, address or home telephone number.
- Use a separate email address for online connections rather than a primary or work address to reduce exposure to spam from sites sharing addresses, and check it regularly for recruiters and prospective clients or employers.
- Understand connections between sites: using Facebook applications to connect with external websites meant agreeing to share personal information with those sites.
Online banking, shopping and social networking make total anonymity impossible.
Employers' use of online information
A nationwide 2012 Harris Interactive survey for CareerBuilder included more than 2,000 hiring managers and human-resource professionals across industries and company sizes. It found that 37% of companies used social-networking sites to research job candidates and glean information about character and personality beyond the interview. Twelve per cent of hiring managers deliberately sought reasons not to hire, and 34% reported deciding against an offer because of discoveries on social media.
The sites employers most frequently consulted were:
| Site | Share |
|---|---|
| 65% | |
| 63% | |
| 16% | |
| Other | 17% |
Freelancers should not assume that clients will refrain from similar research.
CareerBuilder findings reported in 2019 put the share of employers using social networks to research job candidates at 70%; 57% of those employers had found content that caused them not to hire a candidate. Employers looked for the following information.
| Information sought | Share |
|---|---|
| Support for the candidate's qualifications | 58% |
| A professional online persona | 50% |
| Information others posted about the candidate | 34% |
| Reasons not to hire | 22% |
Reported social-media activities among candidates not hired because of their online activity were:
| Activity | Share |
|---|---|
| Provocative or inappropriate photographs, videos or other negative behaviour | 40% |
| Posts about drinking or drug use | 36% |
| Discriminatory comments | 31% |
| Criminal behaviour | 30% |
| Lying about qualifications | 27% |
| Disparaging a previous company or colleague | 25% |
| Sharing a previous employer's confidential information | 20% |
Search engines and author identity
Google introduced authorship in 2011 to connect content with an author profile, biography and photograph, intending to influence page rankings through author reputation and digital signatures. It cancelled the programme in autumn 2014 because of limited success and Google+'s declining prominence. The proposed benefit was author authority: credibility and awareness that could help content get read.