#google issues

I think I'm gonna take this as a sign to further degoogle and try to move my activities into an account protected by a password rather than being tied to one app or email and see if I can manage to make a sort of proton account on my chromebook. I'm still gonna try to get back into my google account, especially since, again, I have everything on there, but I don't trust google anymore with this.

If all it takes for me to completely lose access to my account is simply forgetting my password, and upon trying to change my password because I don't remember the old one, I am met with an error message, I can't trust google anymore. They were already an evil fucking company to begin with with the coverup deal with Israel and the push to get more people's personal information, but this is just the nail in the coffin. How do they expect people to keep using their services if they keep making their services worse for their users??? I'm lucky I started moving a bunch of shit to protonmail and that I wrote down all my passwords to other websites like Tumblr and Ellipsus because if I didn't, I would've lost everything. I'm glad I'm not still using google docs for things like writing because I bet that would've locked me out too.

Fuck google. Do better.

Alright. Let’s see what movies come up.

^^ “Yes, cause that’s EXACTLY what I typed into the search bar.” ^^

^^ “Wow google the links you brought up are spot on.” *rolls eyes* ^^

^^ “Did you even process what kind of information I requested?” ^^

^^ “omg.” ^^

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/cultural-psychiatry/google-or-not-google-question#comment-49924

This article has conflated a discussion about the legal, ethical, and alliance-building aspects of whether a clinician may or may not search up and then share information about a patient. Questions 1,2,3 are limiting because they ask about ethics only.

Legal:

The internet is a public data base and anyone can legally look up anyone else on it. Regardless of the veracity of the information on the internet (which should be highly suspect), or whether “free-speech”, and private information should or should not be so easily available for the perusal of anyone else, it is legal for a psychiatrist to look up anything that is publicly available on a search engine (except some parts of the “deep net”. See: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-illegal-to-surf-browse-the-deep-web).

Ethics:

Any psychiatrist can make it completely ethical to search public data about any patient as long as they openly state they may do so on their terms of service, i.e., on the clinician’s web site or informed consents patients may sign when they register as a patient. It may sometimes be prudent to search the criminal history of a patient that you are sharing a small private room with a closed door. Any patient who does not wish to be searched up can freely decide not to engage with this doctor. It may still not be unethical to search up about a patient even if it is not specifically stipulated in their terms of service or informed consent, it depends on how broadly we would like to define a clinician’s freedom to use the internet or other public data bases. It could be said to be “common knowledge” that anyone may ethically search up about anyone else, although having a terms of service and informed consent before therapy makes the ethics clear.

Alliance Building:

Alliance building concerns are only an issue if the clinician decides to hint at or tell the patient they have done a search about the patient. It is not far-fetched, however, to conclude that the alliance may likely suffer when it becomes known to a patient that the clinician did a search. The veracity of much of the information on the internet is a big question, patients may feel their privacy has been breached, and helping a patient gain insight should not depend on a clinician’s search results, patients will likely just get defensive. If doing a search in a session together with a patient, or sharing a search result that the clinician has found would help a patient gain insight, they wouldn’t need to be receiving psychiatric care to begin with.

The conclusion of all of this is that:

1.        Clinicians should have a terms of service and informed consent procedures that include the possibility of looking up public information on patients regardless

of whether they would actually do a search.

2.        There are probably very few instances where a clinician would want to share the results of a search about a patient with that patient.

3.        The questions as posed in the article are not answerable under the suppositions of the case that do not specify the clinicians terms of service or informed consent except to say the clinician should have them, search results are not the same as facts, and clinicians should not bring up search results unless they wish to have a tearful or angry patient who may likely quit the therapy, write bad reviews about the doctor, or even self or other harm.

I’m sure there are anecdotes of a “happy ending” to a clinician sharing a search result about a patient with that patient, there are always rules and exceptions to rules in psychiatry.

For more information about Douglas Berger Psychiatrist Tokyo visit the following websites:

http://douglasbergerpsychiatristtokyo.com/

http://douglas-berger-psychiatrist-tokyo-reviews.com/

http://about-douglas-berger-psychiatrist-tokyo.com/

I went looking for pictures of the lovely Amara and google gave me this:

THAT BITCH IS NOT AMARA.

Is Your Site Being Penalized for Spammy Links?

Over the weekend, Google issued Manual Action Penalties through the Search Console message center for websites with too many low-quality outbound links. Watch this video to learn more http://www.gurutrick.com/.

Hopefully, you didn’t receive a notification of this nature from Google over the weekend. If you did, then you need to put on your SEO hat and start the recovery process or contact your SEO manager for assistance, because this is a big deal for your website.

This Google SEO penalty roll-out was first confirmed by SEO expert Barry Schwartz and reported on Search Engine Roundtable and Search Engine Land early yesterday morning. As is typical with Google, no official confirmation on this penalty has been released yet.

The penalties are for unnatural outbound links and were issued via the Google Search Console beginning on Saturday, April 9, 2016. If you see a message that states Google had detected a pattern of artificial, deceptive, or manipulative outbound links (otherwise known as spammy links) then you will need to take action to start removing these links from your website as soon as possible.

While Google is primarily targeting websites that are selling paid backlinks with this manual action penalty, some advertisers, popular blogs, and forums are receiving notifications.

Here is a screenshot of the email notification to webmasters:

How To Verify A Penalty

Log in to your Google Search Console and check your All Messages inbox of your verified domain to see if you received a notification regarding this penalty. This inbox will also notify you if you have any other messages or penalties regarding your website URL and will provide you with instructions on the action you need to take to correct them.

Here is Google’s recommended action to correct unnatural links to your site.

Since this is a manual penalty, it may take some time for Google to detect issues on your site. We strongly recommend that you check your Google Search Console on a regular basis over the next couple of weeks for notifications.

Even if you do not receive a manual penalty, this should be a warning to all webmasters and website owners to check your outbound link quality and remove any low ranking or spammy links that you may have acquired over time.

You can also prevent this penalty by adding rel=”no follow” to your low-quality outbound links. If you are hosting a forum, this is a must. A rel=”no follow” tag prevents backlink attribution (or what we like to call link juice) from being passed to that domain. This should also serve as a strong reminder never to purchase or sell links for/with your website.

Google has recently confirmed that inbound links are still the number one ranking factor for Organic Search. But to stay on the safe side of the link-building process, you need to be sure that you acquire these inbound links organically by creating amazing content and not by link-swapping or purchasing links.

Google initiates more than 400,000 manual action penalties each month and is all set to expire; the length of the penalty correlates to the severity of the problem.

Google has warned that repeat offenders of manual action penalties will see stiffer punishments, making it even more critical to address any issues you see as quickly as possible.