DISQUS

Steven Bradley · 2 years ago

It's interesting that stories people dealt with years ago and thought long behind them might possibly come back to haunt them.

I would think in some cases the Times article will be accurate and the person simply isn't happy seeing others reminded of the issue, but where the information in the article was later found to be inaccurate the Times should at least respond to complaints. I don't see them removing the original story and I'm not even sure they would update the stories, though adding a link to a later article might be enough to satisfy many.

The robots.txt solution might be the best and easiest to implement. The story is still there, but the problem or if showing up so prominently in search results goes away.

On the other hand why are search engines ranking 16 year old news stories so highly?

Ed Kohler · 2 years ago

With only one complaint a day, why not stick an intern on this?

Mike · 2 years ago

You can't just get rid of that old information. If somebody is looking for time period information, it needs to be in the index.

The NYT should be responsible for correcting incorrect information but if somebody isn't happy about what the NYT wrote about them, they can start their own blog write something showing how the NYT hosed them and try to get some inbound links so they can get themselves to show up in the same search results.

Isn't there some legal course people can take if news agencies publish false information about them and don't correct it? Isn't that what libel is all about?

Marc Beharry · 1 year ago

ha ha, thats what they get for being soo slow to react. I told them years ago to put all of their content online so they would dominate the search engines, but they didnt listen. lol

evolve or be fossilized!

Marc Beharry's last blog post..Clinton, Hillary Rodham- (D - NY) Senate