Approach Summary
[{"sender": "Christina Galbraith", "recipients": ["Jeffrey Epstein <jeevacation@gmail.com>"], "timestamp": "Friday, December 16 2011 06:41 PM", "subject": "Approach Summary", "body": "1. Optimizing good information to push down the negative: using new content (blog,\nwebsites, press releases, public network profiles, google images, etc) and search engine\noptimization. Changing the Wikipedia profile. Notes Wikipedia below.\n\n2. Eliminating the bad information using prevalence and proprietary algorithms; redirecting\nthe way in which Google sequences your information (reassociating it with the positive\ncontent). This is called off-page optimization.\n\n3. Eliminating personal information (social sec, tel #’s, dob, addresses etc) from all public\nand private directories.\n\nCOMMENTS:\n\nStep 2 is critical otherwise one is just bailing water from an ongoing flood of negative press. By\nrealigning the algorithms (i.e. reinforcing positive associations with your name and weakening the\nnegative associations), one almost permanently seals up the water hole or at least closes it\nsignificantly. This allows for Step 1 to be a onetime project (which will take 2 to 4 months approx.),\nwith just tweaking here and there down the road with updated content.\n\nBEST PEOPLE TO USE:\n\nYou need people who eat, drink and sleep algorithms and search engine optimization. I’ve\nresearched several companies and the most skilled, discrete, award winning and comprehensive is\na company called, www.reputation.com based in Silicon Valley. See their attached docs for review.\nBelow are bulleted key points on them:\n\nLookup Page just creates web pages and will not solve your problem.\n\nI would serve as a liaison between you and Reputation. I would monitor their progress and provide\nthem with all positive content that they need. They would make sure that the content has maximum\nalgorithmic potential. You could keep your positive content simple (using you Edge.org summary\nwhich is good), or expand your content with updates on current science work and scientists. The\nbenefit of the former, is that it keeps you more anonymous. The benefit of the latter is that is\nalgorithmically associates you to a larger pool of known scientists, further pushing up positive\ncontent. My advice would be to combine the two: a simple repetitive bio summary of you but with a\nlarger list of scientists added on. But I would ask the Reputation team about this: saying that the\nmain goal is to enhance anonymity and algorithmic associations at the same time.\n\nWHY REPUTATION (in no particular order)\n\nRepresents numerous fortune 500 companies\n\nclients in more than 100 countries\n\nbased in Silicon Valley\n\nFeatured on CNN, WSJ, Forbes, NY Times etc\n\nUndisputed world leader in online reputation management\n\nPrevalence and proprietary algorithms to drive positive search results to the top.\nIntimate knowledge of search engine optimization.\n\n200+ employees\n\nPatented Internet technology"}]