|
LostSole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10,
Visits: 50
|
Maybe I've not been clear. I've submitted the request to google and they told me to jog on basically. I've also filed a complaint with the ICO who are currently looking into the matter however I received an email with the follow statement... "I have carried out a Google search and the first six pages return only the following result: http:/website address Please can you confirm if the remaining URLs have now been delisted? If so, can you provide us with a copy of some of the correspondencethat confirms this, perhaps from the site x or site y, for example."
Its the "I have carried out a Google search and the first six pages return only the following result:" part that I am talking about as when I done my research and read up on this subject at no point did I come across any material that stated the search result had to be in any amount of pages. So it got me wondering if I've missing anything that any person can throw some light on this issue prior to receiving further correspondence from the ICO.
I have already replied to the email with screen shots of each relevant page for their information so it is purely the comment about the first six pages that has got me thinking / worried.
|
|
|
|
|
J J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 141,
Visits: 541
|
+x+x+x+x+xMy understanding is that you have to request the individual search engines to de-list you under the EU "right to be forgotten" ruling. If they don't, then that is when you make a complaint to the ICO. Happy to be corrected as I'm hoping to make a similar request in a year and a half. Indeed it is. I have spoken to google previously and they gave a very generic response which again was part of my argument. I have made the complaint to the ICO already and it is being looked into, As I say they emailed asking for evidence of the search results listed as a search of my name only got back 1 result in the first 6 pages (the other results are on pages from 8/9/10) and I was confused as to why it matters what page they are on. As I say I cant find any information or case studies relating to the relevance of what page the results are listen on. I'm not sure the answer. You could send them a screendump with the offending articles circled. Where results appear in the list changes all the time, indeed it is affected by where you are located and if you are logged in. If you are in a particular city results about that city may rank higher. For those reasons I don't think they should discard the seriousness of how low the results are ranking, as that can easily change. And that is something you could point out to them. However, they may argue that most people do not go past the first few pages, so it is less serious. I don't know, that is just a guess of their mindset, or they are simply too lazy to click through the results and evaluate your case properly. It may be that the results rank much higher if someone searches on your name and the city where you live. I'm not sure if they can or do take that into account though? You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1 As I say I've completed the process and the complaint is currently with ICO. My question is around the ICO's question to me about the search results only returning 1 result in the first 6 pages and the rest being over pages 8/9/10 and its relevance i.e why it would matter what page the results were on and any case law around this. When you completed the form did you get any reply from google? I'll dig out the paperwork and see what they told me.
|
|
|
|
|
LostSole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10,
Visits: 50
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xMy understanding is that you have to request the individual search engines to de-list you under the EU "right to be forgotten" ruling. If they don't, then that is when you make a complaint to the ICO. Happy to be corrected as I'm hoping to make a similar request in a year and a half. Indeed it is. I have spoken to google previously and they gave a very generic response which again was part of my argument. I have made the complaint to the ICO already and it is being looked into, As I say they emailed asking for evidence of the search results listed as a search of my name only got back 1 result in the first 6 pages (the other results are on pages from 8/9/10) and I was confused as to why it matters what page they are on. As I say I cant find any information or case studies relating to the relevance of what page the results are listen on. I'm not sure the answer. You could send them a screendump with the offending articles circled. Where results appear in the list changes all the time, indeed it is affected by where you are located and if you are logged in. If you are in a particular city results about that city may rank higher. For those reasons I don't think they should discard the seriousness of how low the results are ranking, as that can easily change. And that is something you could point out to them. However, they may argue that most people do not go past the first few pages, so it is less serious. I don't know, that is just a guess of their mindset, or they are simply too lazy to click through the results and evaluate your case properly. It may be that the results rank much higher if someone searches on your name and the city where you live. I'm not sure if they can or do take that into account though? You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1 As I say I've completed the process and the complaint is currently with ICO. My question is around the ICO's question to me about the search results only returning 1 result in the first 6 pages and the rest being over pages 8/9/10 and its relevance i.e why it would matter what page the results were on and any case law around this. When you completed the form did you get any reply from google? I'll dig out the paperwork and see what they told me. I did yes and they said "Having assessed the balance of relevant rights and interests relating to the content in question, including factors such as its relevance to your professional life, Google has decided not to block this content" which is total nonsense. So when I got that response I then replied and said thanks for the email and update however can you provide me with further reasoning as the reason provided is generic and shows very little if any consideration has been applied. I then got back a email which said "We have received and reviewed your complaint. At this time, Google has decided not to take action based on our policies concerning content removal. As always, we encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the owner of the website in question."
I don't believe for one minute google looks into these cases properly and assess each one of their merits. The very generic replies say it all in my eyes its just a shame no legal firm or budding young solicitor picks this issue up and runs with it as I really believe given a little time and effort a very strong case could be brought against google (and others search engines). They seem to hide behind the public interest or public safety catch all cover time and time again.
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
Whilst I empathise with your situation, any delisting also involves them notifying the original web page owner that the page is being delisted. I know some local papers who have made the delisting request the subject of a new news story. That is beyond the right to be forgotten legislation and they are legally within their rights to do so. The story that a search on my name leads to is wrong. It is wrong on a factual basis and wrong on a journalistic basis. However, I took the decision to avoid the Streisand Effect. Others are obviously entitled to fight their own corner in whichever way they see fit, but collateral damage from being "right" isn't always a price worth paying.
|
|
|
|
|
J J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 141,
Visits: 541
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xMy understanding is that you have to request the individual search engines to de-list you under the EU "right to be forgotten" ruling. If they don't, then that is when you make a complaint to the ICO. Happy to be corrected as I'm hoping to make a similar request in a year and a half. Indeed it is. I have spoken to google previously and they gave a very generic response which again was part of my argument. I have made the complaint to the ICO already and it is being looked into, As I say they emailed asking for evidence of the search results listed as a search of my name only got back 1 result in the first 6 pages (the other results are on pages from 8/9/10) and I was confused as to why it matters what page they are on. As I say I cant find any information or case studies relating to the relevance of what page the results are listen on. I'm not sure the answer. You could send them a screendump with the offending articles circled. Where results appear in the list changes all the time, indeed it is affected by where you are located and if you are logged in. If you are in a particular city results about that city may rank higher. For those reasons I don't think they should discard the seriousness of how low the results are ranking, as that can easily change. And that is something you could point out to them. However, they may argue that most people do not go past the first few pages, so it is less serious. I don't know, that is just a guess of their mindset, or they are simply too lazy to click through the results and evaluate your case properly. It may be that the results rank much higher if someone searches on your name and the city where you live. I'm not sure if they can or do take that into account though? You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1 As I say I've completed the process and the complaint is currently with ICO. My question is around the ICO's question to me about the search results only returning 1 result in the first 6 pages and the rest being over pages 8/9/10 and its relevance i.e why it would matter what page the results were on and any case law around this. When you completed the form did you get any reply from google? I'll dig out the paperwork and see what they told me. I did yes and they said "Having assessed the balance of relevant rights and interests relating to the content in question, including factors such as its relevance to your professional life, Google has decided not to block this content" which is total nonsense. So when I got that response I then replied and said thanks for the email and update however can you provide me with further reasoning as the reason provided is generic and shows very little if any consideration has been applied. I then got back a email which said "We have received and reviewed your complaint. At this time, Google has decided not to take action based on our policies concerning content removal. As always, we encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the owner of the website in question."
I don't believe for one minute google looks into these cases properly and assess each one of their merits. The very generic replies say it all in my eyes its just a shame no legal firm or budding young solicitor picks this issue up and runs with it as I really believe given a little time and effort a very strong case could be brought against google (and others search engines). They seem to hide behind the public interest or public safety catch all cover time and time again. Wow! I need to reread, but from what I understand you can't even appeal it!? How is that even right? You could also apply to the data controller of the website holding the data, but that is so wrong! I dont care what you did, the way i see it is if you want it removing then you have every right to have it removed.
|
|
|
|
|
LostSole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10,
Visits: 50
|
+xWhilst I empathise with your situation, any delisting also involves them notifying the original web page owner that the page is being delisted. I know some local papers who have made the delisting request the subject of a new news story. That is beyond the right to be forgotten legislation and they are legally within their rights to do so. The story that a search on my name leads to is wrong. It is wrong on a factual basis and wrong on a journalistic basis. However, I took the decision to avoid the Streisand Effect. Others are obviously entitled to fight their own corner in whichever way they see fit, but collateral damage from being "right" isn't always a price worth paying. Thanks, Yes I read about this but its like being dammed if you do and dammed if you don't and its almost a no win situation. Sadly I don't know what other option I have / had to be quite honest. I can't secure work and have been out of work since the incident, I've been offered jobs only for the offer to be withdrawn once a google search was conducted so I see no other way. I fully believe in the freedoms we have in the UK and I would fight tooth and nail for them however with these freedoms comes a responsibility to ensure what is being said is factual, relevant and balanced however sadly all too often factual and balanced are left in the gutter to sell a headline or make a penny.
|
|
|
|
|
LostSole
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10,
Visits: 50
|
So I got a reply from the ICO who stated "Other results are returned, but not within the first six pages, which is our usual search parameter." I find this very odd that this parameter isn't mentioned in any of the ICO owns delisting criteria or anywhere that I have found. Appears to me that the ICO move the goalposts when they see fit, totally shocking behaviour from an "independent authority"
|
|
|
|
|
J J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 141,
Visits: 541
|
+x+x+x+x+xMy understanding is that you have to request the individual search engines to de-list you under the EU "right to be forgotten" ruling. If they don't, then that is when you make a complaint to the ICO. Happy to be corrected as I'm hoping to make a similar request in a year and a half. Indeed it is. I have spoken to google previously and they gave a very generic response which again was part of my argument. I have made the complaint to the ICO already and it is being looked into, As I say they emailed asking for evidence of the search results listed as a search of my name only got back 1 result in the first 6 pages (the other results are on pages from 8/9/10) and I was confused as to why it matters what page they are on. As I say I cant find any information or case studies relating to the relevance of what page the results are listen on. I'm not sure the answer. You could send them a screendump with the offending articles circled. Where results appear in the list changes all the time, indeed it is affected by where you are located and if you are logged in. If you are in a particular city results about that city may rank higher. For those reasons I don't think they should discard the seriousness of how low the results are ranking, as that can easily change. And that is something you could point out to them. However, they may argue that most people do not go past the first few pages, so it is less serious. I don't know, that is just a guess of their mindset, or they are simply too lazy to click through the results and evaluate your case properly. It may be that the results rank much higher if someone searches on your name and the city where you live. I'm not sure if they can or do take that into account though? You need to fill this form in: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1 As I say I've completed the process and the complaint is currently with ICO. My question is around the ICO's question to me about the search results only returning 1 result in the first 6 pages and the rest being over pages 8/9/10 and its relevance i.e why it would matter what page the results were on and any case law around this. I guess what they're saying is that they can never get rid of them, and most people would stop clicking through at pages 8,9,10. If this is the case - its daft
|
|
|
|
|
Zack
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 60,
Visits: 4.6K
|
+xSo I got a reply from the ICO who stated "Other results are returned, but not within the first six pages, which is our usual search parameter." I find this very odd that this parameter isn't mentioned in any of the ICO owns delisting criteria or anywhere that I have found. Appears to me that the ICO move the goalposts when they see fit, totally shocking behaviour from an "independent authority" You could reply and ask them if they could amend their "usual search parameter" in this instance, pointing out that this is not mentioned in their guidance on their website, and that it is causing you problems. You could also ask to provide their criteria for how they decide to support or not delisting - perhaps under freedom of information. If they persist in not considering looking at the matter, then you could ask when they started limiting to the first 6 pages, if this includes all delisting requests or just certain types, and the rational behind it. This is still a very new area, and things are likely to change a lot due to cases being brought to court. I'm guessing they want to limit their involvement where possible.
|
|
|
|
|
Was
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 282,
Visits: 3.6K
|
Now I could be wrong on this and I'm happy to be corrected but my understanding of the right to be forgotten legislation is not that there is a blanket ban on searching for a name, is that if you enter a name and a page comes up you can ask for that specific page to be removed from the search results. To exercise the right to be forgotten and request removal from a search engine, one must complete a form through the search engine's website. Google's removal request process requires the applicant to identify their country of residence, personal information, a list of the's removal request process requires the applicant to identify their country of residence, personal information, a list of the URLsto be removed along with a short description of each one, and attachment of legal identification. to be removed along with a short description of each one, and attachment of legal identification. The applicant receives an email from Google confirming the request but the request must be assessed before it is approved for removal. If the request is approved, searches using the individual's name will no longer result in the content appearing in search results. The content remains online and is not erased. The applicant receives an email from Google confirming the request but the request must be assessed before it is approved for removal. If the request is approved, searches using the individual's name will no longer result in the content appearing in search results. The content remains online and is not erased. The organisation/media outlet will be informed that their page is being removed. They may or may not make a point about it being removed which they are entitled to do. Google notifies websites that have URLs delinked, and various news organizations, such as BBC, have published lists of delinked articles. But there is not a generic all search request are removed right.
|
|
|
|