Had a bit of a reality check today — one of my friends, a young guy I’ve been lucky enough to photograph has had his identity assumed by someone else.

Unlike many such cases this isn’t credit card fraud — but this is equally as bad; this young man’s identity has been stolen and abused publicly — in online forums. The faker took his name and used it to leave abusive comments that would, potentially end up with legal involvement. this wasn’t just someone passing themselves off as him for kicks — this is someone actually damaging his reputation online.

If you search for this guy on google the first result is now post after post on a lads mag site of girls complaining about what a cad he is (I cleaned up their adjectives).

Now this guy works in the caring sector and has a potentially successful sporting career ahead of him — and really doesn’t need this sort of abuse in public.

I’ve now spent the better part of the day looking into things I can do to help him repair his online reputation — or at least to change his Google results. The sort of things I’ve suggested are to create a lot more buzz about himself (lots of social media profiles) and to create a blog or website that he controls.

But the number one thing I’ve suggested is that he makes use of an amazing, powerful and simple tool offered by Google — Alerts. This allows you to be notified when different websites have information posted to them including given phrases. It’s not perfect and won’t be all that useful to John Smith of London; but it is a good tool to ensure you know what new information about you is on the ‘net.

Link: Google Alerts

Call me mischevious if you want — but I’m a little annoyed that the best the Daily Mail’s PR office could do was to claim the Twitter and Facebook responses to the hideous article by Ms Moir was part of an organised campaign to target the former food writer.

I mean — the amount of effort to go to in an attempt to convince a large audience to react negatively without making the decision for themselves. Well, it’s insane.

It would be far easier to spread a story about a small boy taken away by a balloon… or something similar.

Can they not, for one moment, realise a conclusion that a very large number of individuals were made aware of an article. They read it. And then came to their own conclusion they disliked the tone, inference and content of that article.

And then they got vocal about it.

Worringly of all — some of these people who got vocal and were offended and realised just how hideous the article was weren’t even gay. Even worse some may not have had best friends and relatives who were gay. Some were even just good, everyday folk.

Stephen Fry and his celebrity twittering friends do have a wide reach — but they don’t have an ability to mobilise people without fair reason.

Or do they?

Maybe I’m a victim of too much political correctness, or maybe it’s just a virtue of having taken part in online chat for 16 years or so — but I am constantly amazed by just how uncaring some people can appear to be when taking part in online communication.

After a day or so of chatting online you will be aware that can indicate someone being a little jokey. But, when this is omitted, is it always the senders fault if the receiver doesn’t get that the comment was a joke?

Another example is — when the writer has an obvious inability to empathise with the other users of that space; no measure of how a blunt comment or specific action will almost certainly cause annoyance — why do we feel bad for getting annoyed at them?

Thru millennia we have established effective body language to assist us to communicate face to face.

Over recent centuries we have worked out ways to use written language to achieve the right reaction when producing considered, written material such as newspaper reports or letters.

So why is it that, in under two decades, we have not yet managed to solve the problem of effectively dealing with people who don’t understand how importance of effective communication?

Oh, we have — blind ignorance!

Isn’t it weird how there are so many people who still feel that it is acceptable to parachute into a web conversation; tell people about their great product/service/idea and then leave again?

What a horrible practice — and how annoying it seems to those who spend time building relations with those who regularly take part in the discussions within that area! But… it’s an easy trap to fall into; the cynical might just think ‘if I blanket advertise it; I’ll get buy in’ — a slightly more targeted version of viagra spam emails. But I’m aware that I’ve done this from time to time — re-joining Flickr groups I was once (or never) a member of and promoting an event I thought they would really like to know about.

What I’ve since realised is — even though you would do this with every best intention — why not take your time and introduce yourself into the conversation first or at very least contact an administrator/moderator and ask them about your concept.

Discussions aren’t the place to blankly promote a service — just imagine how annoying you’d find it if, in a lull in a conversation at a party, that guy that’s just walked in the front door walks over and tries to sell you his used car/ insurance/ personal services? Even if he stood around long enough to ensure it was on topic — you’d still be a little less than excited by his arrival!

So… parachutists; learn to explore the terrain a little before erecting your billboard and getting airlifted out!

I hate undue celebrity being foisted upon the latest reality tv star, so it’s with a heavy heart I’ve started to use the term ‘Flickebrity’ — but I think this is due.

With a few exceptions — fame (or infamy) on Flickr is generally gained through talent, creativity and a talent for effective socialising. I accept that, whilst I have a natty habit of getting things done around the photo-sharing site, that I’m far from having some form of celebrity status.

I used the term originally to describe Cybergabi and Tootdood — both who came by their status by posting interesting imagery in an almost soap opera way — by giving us a glance into an edited version of their daily life through the ‘365’ images they have posted daily.

I realise that their celebrity is limited and it is closer to local renown than anything else — local being their social network sphere, rather geographically but it is great to see that people can achieve some level of fame from more than ‘right place, right time’ methods generally found in the mainstream broadcast media.