Timeline for Should I send a "cease-and-desist" letter to ResearchGate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2015 at 13:58 | comment | added | WetlabStudent | point of clarification. ResearchGate knows that nearly all of their citation counts are wrong. Their citation counts are based solely on articles added to researchGate not citations from journals. | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 7:48 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @BillBarth: The danger of the Streisand effect is that when one is attempting to "hide, remove, or censor" a particular piece of information, that very piece of information is promoted to primary popularity and thus gets widely known while, or before, the actual legal effect kicks in and leads to the removal of the content. Evidently, that cannot be a problem here, as there is no information involved that the OP does not want to be publicly known. | |
| Jun 30, 2014 at 7:45 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @BillBarth: And if people find out about the OP's opposition against or inactivity toward a party suspected of shady behavior, they may consider the OP to be supportive of said behavior, which is certainly something to be avoided just as well. | |
| Jun 29, 2014 at 15:12 | comment | added | Bill Barth | People care about the strangest things. If nobody cares about this kind of thing, why is the orginal post anonymous? | |
| Jun 29, 2014 at 14:56 | comment | added | Faheem Mitha | "Due to the Streisand Effect, sending them a C&D letter or suing them is likely to do your career more harm than if ResearchGate had complied with your wishes." Sorry, I don't understand why this would be the case, as least if we are restricting ourselves to talking about a letter. Most people might think it was a waste of time, but I can think of no reason why it should hurt the posters career. I think that sueing them would be way overboard, but still can't think of a reason anyone would care. Maybe they'd think you were a bit oversensitive/eccentric. | |
| Jun 29, 2014 at 14:12 | comment | added | Bill Barth | As I pointed out at the top, a C&D has no legal force that I know of in the US. It's just a letter from your lawyer to RG. It's a threat to sue them if they don't do what you demand. | |
| Jun 29, 2014 at 14:05 | comment | added | Has QUIT--Anony-Mousse | Filing a suit is much more than requesting a C&D. I'm not trying to "hide" or "censor" (or in any other way remove) information, as the information continues to exist on e.g. my own page, and other sites I consider fair use. I'm interested in stopping them from using my name in the way they do (it's about how they use the information, not the actual information). At the same time, I'm not of enough media interest to get a multiplication factor. | |
| Jun 29, 2014 at 13:57 | comment | added | Bill Barth | If you file suit against ResearchGate, that will be public information that people that search for your name may find. If people think that your lawsuit against them is silly, that may reflect negatively on your career. The Streisand Effect includes the attempt to use legal process to "hide, remove, or censor", it doesn't have to be a secret. | |
| Jun 29, 2014 at 13:50 | comment | added | Has QUIT--Anony-Mousse | The Streisand Effect does not make sense to me. It's not as if the information on me is incorrect. I dislike their attempt to lure others into their site, by using my name and research. | |
| Jun 29, 2014 at 13:45 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | The Streisand Effect can only strike when one is trying to keep something a secret (but achieves the opposite by one's actions). Taking action against what one perceives as being spammed by an organization is certainly not something that others should not discover, or that would throw a bad light on oneself. | |
| Jun 29, 2014 at 12:48 | history | answered | Bill Barth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |