Your browser (Internet Explorer 7 or lower) is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites. Learn how to update your browser.

You Don’t Mess With The SEO

This is just translated with Google Translate. Will be fixed soon-.

-The cases of Mike Goorman, John Ripås, Unni Drougge multi-

It can be risky to fuss with an SEO guy. It is becoming increasingly common for employers or potential romantic pair will check you on the web. Meanwhile, anyone who can master search engine optimization quickly and easily ruin it for you. Completely anonymously SEO guy make sure you never get that working interview or to tjeje / guy you’re dating never hear back from them. This blog entry will show how fast and easy it is for a skilled SEOs 1 to cause problems for a company or a person you dislike. An SEOs who work with links 2 does not even take the time to blog about his nemesis. It might be enough to bump the existing pages in search results. All this is completely anonymous and ospårbart.

So-called reputation management online is still a relatively new phenomenon. But as reported by DN and SvD so watch four out of ten recruiters go online and at social media can cost you the job. Even the Employment Service writes that social media is becoming increasingly important in recruitment.

Below are some examples of cases where people have “messed with the SEO guy”.

Mike Goorman

To make a long story short, got a German lawyer named Mike Goorman annoy me greatly for a few years ago. I had just purchased a German domain . A site was created on the domain and everything was hunky-dory. Then there will a pre-written e-mail with false allegations to 3 on page content from Mike Goorman. When the error was pointed out rather more funny business 4 and claim 5 . Furthermore Goorman ignored my questions and made ​​sure to lock my domain extra fast when my answer does not please him 6 . My work with the domain is thus wasted. No big thing but I still chose to blog about it all (now removed) and to ensure that the item was shown at the top of search results for searches on \ “mike goorman “. A few months later I get another email from Mr. Goorman where he writes that they may soon have to activate the domain without any of the preceding claims. My blog is not mentioned in this mode. The domain active again and all is back fine. Not surprisingly, however, I contacted again and they ask me to remove the blog post. So far, the lawyers had conducted themselves well. They had solved the original problem and asked me to remove the negative information from the network. But then they moved to it by using a trick that seems to be common among attorneys who are active online. Suddenly, I got emails from two different lawyers in the same firm. They tried to put more pressure on me 7 . As icing on the cake \ ‘t be Mike Goorman not help but send a little small threat:

Believe me, I do not wish to Escalate this matter … -Mike Goorman

Mike Goorman are right that he does not want to escalate. He would only risk a Streissand effect, that the negative information is spread even more as a direct result of trying to get away with threats and lawsuits. Enough about Mike Goorman, the next man to shave is …

John Ripa

Documents from the inside: Fur Hunters

So-called Google-cleaning has been on the fashion and soon appears SVT documentary, \ “You are Googlad ” (Broadcast March 22). The documentary tries to Johan ensure that anyone who googles the name \ “John Ripa in the first place will see John Ripa’s web site about himself. This is therefore the same problem as in the case of Mike Goorman where you want to get rid of problematic information from search results. If you can not get the negative information off-picked as one trying to fill up the search results pages with sanitized information. In the case of John Ripa deals mostly with two strongly negative sides. First, a blog post by Alex Schulman , accusing John Ripa for using both creative cutting techniques and lies to get to the interesting content to its documentary Dope Forever (Not online but there is a seemingly dead torrent here ). And then another one article for information about John Ripa must have used a similar approach to get to an interview for a documentary fur hunters. It also looks like you have cleaned off criticism from Wikipedia Posted on John Ripa from an IP on national television. See discussion at Wikipedia here and the original wikipedia post here . I am not alone in finding that John Ripa main problem is that people write negatively about him, but that they actually seem to be justified to do just that. Just when google cleaning began to produce results has anyone begun to link to the two negative items , and prompt puttat them up to the first page of search results again. Another little lighter cases are …

Unni Drougge

Unni Drougge wrote about the search consultants in an article on IDG. The Chronicle contains conscious or unconscious errors 8 , lace to 9 and provokes 10 in a manner that is common among columnists who would otherwise find it difficult to be seen. To do this usually among SEOs called a link baiting or possibly trolling. It’s simply to concoct something that gets enough attention to other bloggers or writers spontaneously to link to link bait. Unni Drougge has been 100% successful here and that is just taking off his hat for a successful work. Unni Drougges Chronicle raljerar then proceeds to write that someone will get angry and register While this provocation go home and sure enough, someone is anonymously registering domain and creating the page . The page turns out to be a harmless link bait itself (which this article falls for), but still shows how quickly and easily you can set up an anonymous page in someone else’s name.

Johanna Sjodin

While the example shows how easily and quickly it could be be done to really create problems similar to what has befallen Johanna Sjodin : Another person with the same name has a blog that scares people, and this has created problems for the former Johanna Sjodin.


The above examples are still pretty nice, factual and does not use any real fulheter. A sufficiently enraged SEOs would be able to write completely fictional things during his alteregos name. He can create fake articles with very kompromenterande content and post them on sites that are completely trustworthy out. Debate articles, blogs and forum posts which are pushed up in search results could become a real nightmare to deal with.

First Sökmotortoptimerare. second links. third Erroneous statements from Mike Goorman. 4th More weirdness from Mike Goorman. fifth requirement from Mike Goorman. 6th Mike Goorman barring the domain. 7th Scholl Meyer & Rickert tactics to put more pressure. 8th Unni Drougge factual errors. 9th Unni Drougge tips. 10th Unni Drougge provocative.


  1. Very entertaining reading, I must say. Pretty impressed. Do you know how the laws will look like when it comes to creating websites for companies or just ordinary people? The websites I refer to contain absolutely no threat or the like, but only aim to rank above them real pages with sensible information.

    • David Olofsson March 4, 2012 at 1:22 am:

      I have wanted to check it out there properly, but has fortfarantde not in full control. As I understand it, it might be illegal to write negatively about a person even if what is written is true (!)

      If you get a utgivartillstånd to his writing on the Internet it will, however, suddenly constitutionally protected and may publish the name without any problems. Then do not PUL, your sources are protected and mynigheter may not attempt to make your publication (however, this has happened yet).

      I understand that one can only experience problems if you father with untruth once you utgivartillståndet. To be eligible to become responsible utgvare must, however, live in Sweden so it’s unfortunately not an option for me.

      • The thing utgivartillstånd are checking out. Have always thought only newspapers can have it but I was wrong. A similar problem for me has just appeared, and after speaking with one I know who knows a little law, then it should not be any law to write about any company or person as long as it does not work against the company (if I understood him correctly, to speak) and there is true what you say with that as long as it is not affected, say what you want. Screwed in my opinion, but safer to stay within the law. :)

  2. Interestingly, this suggests that more should be as early as possible to take control of your search results. For example, someone has already registered

    • David Olofsson March 4, 2012 at 1:28 am:

      Taking control of its search results is of course good, but hard for a mere mortal to do anything against a professional who has hundreds of sites to link from, or press any buttons and create automated link building. That type of junk links work is without a doubt in situations like this.