201–210 of 313 posts
Even if I didn't know about the mistake, I would still think idly that something was amiss, because that's the best-dressed and friendliest-looking goddamn serial killer I've ever seen!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.
For libel, you generally have to show harm, but there are some claims that are assumed on their face to be damaging an no proof of harm is needed (libel per-se). Falsely accusing someone of being a serial killer would generally fall into this category. Edit: I think the harder part would be showing that people would believe the claim (which legally is separate from showing harm). Google could argue that since the box…
You should seriously consider suing for defamation if this isn't fixed within a few days. This is an egregious error, especially if it was done by an automated system (and this could be a systemic issue affecting many others). I think you have a decent chance of getting a five figure+ settlement from this. Talk to a lawyer about your options. EDIT: When I search "Hristo Georgiev" (from US IP) there is no longer an im…
>I think you have a decent chance of getting a five figure+ settlement from this. Against Google? I am more inclined to think the dude is actually a serial killer than that he has a chance of winning a defamation suit.
I think he has a very good chance of receiving a settlement, Google will not want to take this to court.
Probably that's why :-)
Please don't kill me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually he should sue them. The damage to his reputation and prospects are real.
He should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This just seems like a bad faith comment. Is there ANY example of a user raising a legitimate concern like this and getting banned for it? This reads like cheap, low-effort bashing.
Google has cheap, low-effort customer support, so I'll allow it.
It's like some guy punching me saying "For the Green Team!" and then you come by and punch me saying "For the Yellow Team!". Like, dude, you didn't undo the first punch. I'm now twice-punched. I want to be zero punched.
Google's Knowledge Graph info boxes are automatically-generated and littered with errors. I've been burned twice on operating hours, once for my local bank and once for a convenience store, driving over each time only to find the place closed. In both cases, the correct hours were posted on the business's website. I've also seen bad KG results for medical conditions, listing the wrong symptoms or describing easily-tr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He should sue to get it fixed if they don't fix it, but I believe he'd have to show evidence of harm if he were to sue for damages.
For libel, you generally have to show harm, but there are some claims that are assumed on their face to be damaging an no proof of harm is needed (libel per-se). Falsely accusing someone of being a serial killer would generally fall into this category. Edit: I think the harder part would be showing that people would believe the claim (which legally is separate from showing harm). Google could argue that since the box…
A reasonable person would realize which part was a mistake: that it's a picture of the serial killer, or that the serial killer died in the 80s?