As Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum loses two primary races to rival Mitt Romney, perhaps he can console himself with, ironically, another loss. Spreading Santorum, the page defining “santorum” as a by-product of anal sex, has finally dropped from the top results on Google. The related anti-Santorum blog, however, remains. And a page from Urban Dictionary keeps the definition alive, more explicit than before.

The definition is not something we’re going to post here in full, but suffice it to say it is pretty grisly and certainly not something the self-proclaimed “conservative, pro-family” candidate wants to be associated with.

The problem with article spinning software is that it often produces low quality content, even unreadable versions of an article. Instead of using article spinning software, you can simply re-write articles manually. You might be surprised that it takes the same amount of time to write a freshly created article than editing a spun one. Manual re-writing may take time not to mention skill and effort, but it’s all worth it.

The article lists eight reasons not to overuse spinning software–all of them are worth reading.

Fake Reviews
It is not above an organization to write false reviews about a competitor. The bile spewed forth from them completely buries the good SEO content created by the unfortunate company on the receiving end of the fake reviews. Suddenly, when someone uses a search engine and types in your company’s name, all they find are reviews which state how awful your business is.

As a result, your sales start to plummet and your rival wins. Or do they? You can hire specialist companies to create more SEO content as a means of restoring and managing your online reputation. When you consider that around 75% of customers make a purchasing decision based on customer reviews, those on the wrong end of a fake defamatory review need to take action and fast.

This is hardly shocking to those who have read lots of reviews, but it certainly shocks a lot of fake review victims.

Darm is suing Tiffany Craig for $1 million.

The case stems from commentary on Craig’s Twitter feed, @tcraighenry, and her blog, Criminallyvulgar, where the 31-year-old IT worker writes about everything from current events, computer technology and gaming to the treatment of women in comics and her large collection of shoes.

The case is an interesting one that has ramifications for the Google reputation management industry. It will be interesting to see if Darm’s online reputation is harmed more by the original statement, or the news of the lawsuit.

Usually, nothing comes of that request — only a tiny sliver of defamation cases ever make it to a jury (the bulk getting tossed out or settled), and even when a plaintiff wins, the result is usually just money. Since we almost never see one of these injunctions make it off the pages of the complaint, higher courts haven’t had to deal with their implications — but the idea of a court-ordered takedown of somebody’s speech should send your prior-restraint klaxons blaring.

It certainly is concerning to anyone who has a concern for free speech, but for those who are tired of seeing online defamation ruining peoples lives, it is also an option we think ought to maybe be put on the table more often, even if it isn’t necessarily used.

What is the importance of online reputation? Bad postings, negative feedback in blogs, horrible testimonials in popular forums, unrealistic scam allegations, product reviews from false users and disgruntled employees can potentially put a company out of business.

The first step they list, of course, is to Google yourself. How will you know if you even have a reputation problem if you don’t do some research on yourself? One of the other best pieces of advice is to use social media. This is an essential part of any successful Google reputation management campaign.

But St. Louis County District Court Judge Eric L. Hylden said the statements were “nothing more or less than one man’s description of shock at the way he and in particular his father were treated by his physician” and said there was no reason to treat online comments any differently than more traditional means of expression.

While I disagree that chatting it up with your friend about a doctor’s bedside manner is the same as posting an online review or comment about him, I get the basic point of what the judge is saying. There is no reason to intervene here because in the end, the son is just expressing his opinion about the services rendered by the doctor. Ultimately, this boils down to the doctor wanting to protect his online reputation. If that is his real concern, he should turn to reputation management instead of lawsuits.

But according to legal experts, it may be a difficult proposition to get these US companies to agree with the UK court order. The Guardian reports that the Wikimedia Foundation, and Automattic (the company that owns WordPress) have stated it will only comply with a US subpoena for such data.

Louis Bacon is a man who clearly cares about his online reputation. In addition to his (highly successful) lawsuits, he should look to Google reputation management, too. This could serve as a protection against online defamation being seen by too many others.

While this court case has no bearing here in the United States, it certainly is a good reason to be a tad alarmed. The various laws that govern online defamation, both here in the United States and abroad, are constantly changing thanks to court systems and legislatures. However, this decision by the court is a dangerous precedent that we should hope does not sweep through the world’s court systems and legislatures.

A Milan judge has found Google Italy guilty of defamation because of the way its search engine linked the name of an Italian businessman to the word “fraud” and has ordered the company to modify the operation of its Autocomplete service.

In total, Google was only fined $5500, but they were also told to change the way their autocomplete works. Also, $5500 per complaint could pile up quickly in a class-action lawsuit. The ramifications for Google reputation management are legion, too. Search engine reputation management specialists should follow cases like this more closely.

WestLaw News & Insight is a website that can help anyone interested in virtually any legal topic. It is particularly useful for those legal areas which are constantly evolving and changing, still. One of those areas, online defamation, is covered by WestLaw really well. This article concerns the evolving law facing online posters.

In Jeffrey M. Miller, et ano v. Junior Achievement of Central Indiana, Inc., et al, Indiana Superior Court, Marion County, Cause No. 49D14-1003-PL-014761, a former CEO of a non-profit organization, in an effort to expand a pending defamation action, sought to identify the person who posted, under the name “DownWithTheColts,” allegedly defamatory comments about the CEO on the website of the Indianapolis Star. He sought an order compelling the Star to disclose information, such as the poster’s Internet Protocol address, that would identify the pseudonymous poster.

The Communications Decency Act covers the idea that the website, The Star, might be liable for the commenter’s statements, they aren’t. And the CEO doesn’t seem to be seeking damages from The Star, he simply wants to know the identity of the individuals whom, he says, defamed him.

Online commenters should be careful about what they say online, even if they think they have anonymous protections. Online reputations matter these days, they can effect whether you get hired by a company or not. Google Reputation Management is the industry that can attest to this fact.