Search Results For TOTALLY

When you apply for a new job, many employers will evaluate your social media presence to ascertain if you are a suitable candidate. Advertisers will scrape publicly available information on you, your public profiles, and your search history for targeted marketing.

Search results for TOTALLY

A misjudged tweet from years ago or an inappropriate Facebook photo can destroy future job prospects or ruin a career. A Google search that reveals an old conviction can make it more difficult to get hired, and allegations of criminal conduct spread online can cause misery and impact your mental wellbeing.

The Google search engine, among others, is a double-edged sword: It provides links and website addresses to users in response to search queries, but unless the right controls are in place, your search queries can be cataloged for marketing purposes. These engines search can also be used to uncover exactly what information about you is in the public domain.

Once you know what is online, you can start tackling the problem. Run a quick search for your full name and note any website domains that flag you, social media account links, YouTube videos, and anything else of interest.

After filling in this form, requests are reviewed by Google employees on a case-by-case basis. You must provide the specific URLs you want delisted, and any search queries related to these URLs, and you must explain why the tech giant should agree to your request.

You also have the option to remove your Facebook profile from search engine results outside of the social networking platform. Under the Location tab, consider turning off location data collection by Facebook, too.

In the Settings area, you can choose to lock down your account and make tweets private. You can also turn off tweets containing location data, decide whether or not to allow email and phone number searches to connect others to your profile, and choose whether to allow others to tag you in photos.

You need to research your local laws and find out if the person posting your content could be prosecuted. For example, revenge porn in the United Kingdom is illegal. If you are a minor, please talk to a trusted parent or guardian and let them help you.

Starting from scratch may seem extreme, but it could be worth considering in some cases. The outright deletion of email accounts, social media, and e-commerce services won't immediately destroy all of your data or search results connected to them, but it will, over time, make them less likely to appear.

116. Linked to as Wikipedia Source: Although the links are nofollow, many think that getting a link from Wikipedia gives you a little added trust and authority in the eyes of search engines. Google has denied this.

A note to add: Google did publicly release their Quality Guidelines a while ago; more on it here: -marketing-skinny-march-2-2013/, plus _content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/insidesearch/howsearchworks/assets/searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf

Thanks Brian, I was really searching for something like this over some time, since I got into blogging. Your list covers almost all factors and on top of it getting all those factors altogether at one place is very difficult. All the best.

For a modest a la carte price of $2.45, you can get a standard one-off people search report. To perform an unlimited number of basic searches, you need to get a monthly subscription, which is available for $19.95.

Cochrane Reviews take a systematic and comprehensive approach to identifying studies that meet the eligibility criteria for the review. This chapter outlines some general issues in searching for studies; describes the main sources of potential studies; and discusses how to plan the search process, design and carry out search strategies, manage references found during the search process, correctly document the search process and select studies from the search results.

This chapter aims to provide review authors with background information on all aspects of searching for studies so that they can better understand the search process. All authors of systematic reviews should, however, identify an experienced medical/healthcare librarian or information specialist to provide support for the search process. The chapter also aims to provide advice and guidance for medical/healthcare librarians and information specialists (within and beyond Cochrane) involved in the search process to identify studies for inclusion in systematic reviews.

This chapter focuses on searching for randomized trials. Many of the search principles discussed, however, will also apply to other study designs. Considerations for searching for non-randomized studies are discussed in Chapter 24 (see also Chapter 19 when these are specifically for adverse effects). Other discussion of searching for specific types of evidence appears in chapters dedicated to these types of evidence, such as Chapter 17 on intervention complexity, Chapter 20 on economic evidence and Chapter 21 on qualitative evidence.

Medical/healthcare librarians and information specialists have an integral role in the production of Cochrane Reviews. There is increasing evidence of the involvement of information specialists in systematic reviews (Spencer and Eldredge 2018) and evidence to support the improvement in the quality of various aspects of the search process (Rethlefsen et al 2015, Meert et al 2016, Metzendorf 2016, Aamodt et al 2019).

Most Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) employ an information specialist to support authors. The range of services, however, offered by CRGs and/or their information specialists varies according to the resources available. Cochrane Review authors should, therefore, contact their Cochrane Information Specialist at the earliest stage to find out what advice and support is available to them. Authors conducting their own searches should seek advice from their Cochrane Information Specialist not only on which sources to search, but also with respect to the exact strategies to be run (see Section 4.4). If the CRG does not provide this service or employ an information specialist, we recommend that review authors seek guidance from a medical/healthcare librarian or information specialist, preferably one with experience in supporting systematic reviews.

Systematic reviews require a thorough, objective and reproducible search of a range of sources to identify as many eligible studies as possible (within resource limits). This is a major factor distinguishing systematic reviews from traditional narrative reviews, which helps to minimize bias and achieve more reliable estimates of effects and uncertainties. A search of MEDLINE alone is not considered adequate. Research evidence indicates that not all known published randomized trials are available in MEDLINE and that even if relevant records are in MEDLINE, it can be difficult to retrieve them (see Section 4.3.2).

Searching beyond MEDLINE is important not only for ensuring that as many relevant studies as possible are identified, but also to minimize selection bias for those that are found. Relying exclusively on a MEDLINE search may retrieve a set of reports unrepresentative of all reports that would have been identified through a wider or more extensive search of several sources.

Time and budget restraints require the review team to balance the thoroughness of the search with efficiency in the use of time and funds. The best way of achieving this balance is to be aware of, and try to minimize, the biases such as publication bias and language bias that can result from restricting searches in different ways (see Chapter 8 and Chapter 13 for further guidance on assessing these biases). Unlike for tasks such as study selection or data extraction, it is not considered necessary (or even desirable) for two people to conduct independent searches in parallel. It is strongly recommended, however, that all search strategies should be peer reviewed, before being run, by a suitably qualified and experienced medical/healthcare librarian or information specialist (see Section 4.4.8).

Systematic reviews have studies as the primary units of interest and analysis. A single study may have more than one report about it (or record for it), and each of these reports or other records may contribute useful information for the review (see Section 4.6.1). For most of the sources listed in Section 4.3, the search process will retrieve individual reports of studies, so that multiple reports of the same study will need to be identified and associated with each other manually by the review authors. There is, however, an increasing number of study-based sources, which link multiple records of the same study together, such as the Cochrane Register of Studies and the Specialized Registers of a number of CRGs (see online Technical Supplement), and some other trials registers and regulatory and industry sources. Processes and software to select and group publications by study are discussed in Section 4.6.

All review authors and others involved in Cochrane should adhere to copyright legislation and the terms of database licensing agreements. With respect to searching for studies, this refers in particular to adhering to the terms and conditions of use when searching databases and other sources and downloading records, as well as adhering to copyright legislation when obtaining copies of publications. Review authors should seek guidance on this from their medical/healthcare librarian or information specialist, as copyright legislation varies across jurisdictions and licensing agreements vary across organizations.

The search for studies in a Cochrane Review should be as extensive as possible in order to reduce the risk of reporting bias and to identify as much relevant evidence as possible (see MECIR Box 4.3.a). Searches of health-related bibliographic databases are generally the most efficient way to identify an initial set of relevant reports of studies (EUnetHTA JA3WP6B2-2 Authoring Team 2019). Database selection should be guided by the review topic (Suarez-Almazor et al 2000, Stevinson and Lawlor 2004, Lorenzetti et al 2014). When topics are specialized, cross-disciplinary, or involve emerging technologies (Rice et al 2016), additional databases may need to be identified and searched (Wallace et al 1997, Stevinson and Lawlor 2004, Frandsen et al 2019a). 041b061a72