I've had really good success with all search engines over recent months but kept spotting articles seemingly 'reappearing' back in Google's search results.

On further investigation it seems that Google will only remove searches against a name and nothing else.

So for example if I search for Joe Bloggs, the results have been removed. However if I search for Joe Bloggs Glasgow or Joe Bloggs sports coach, the results all still appear. I've queried this with Google who just keep sending back the same auto-response saying the results have been moved when searching for my name.

Anyone else had this issue? Anyone know if there's anything that can be done about it?

Well, from what I understand, they ask you to provide URL's, and they then delete the links to those URL's. If they're saying they've removed them from searches from your name, then that is not true, because searching for your name with an extra word or two still brings up what should have been unlisted. If they are still the same URL's but can be found by different search terms, I'd say complain to the Information Commissioner's Office, as they are clear on what needs to be done.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Yeah, just as AB said - It's an arduous task as you need to basically try cover all possible bases when submitting your Google/search engine removal.

It's not simply a case of telling them to remove searches of the name Joe Bloggs. You need to account for potentially different things that people might search for.

• Joe Bloggs
• Joe Bloggs Offence
• Joe Bloggs Court
• Joe Bloggs Arrested
• Joe Bloggs Glasgow
• Joe Bloggs Sentence

I had assumed that they should delist search results that included the name, as opposed to only the name. You could ask the ICO, or get in touch with a law firm that deals with this sort of thing. The interpretation of the RTBF is changing all the time depending on rulings. A law firm may be able to tell you if you have a case against Google for not removing all results, you can probably email a few for advice. You'll probably get an answer if you have a case.

Thanks all. I'll follow it up with them and see what they say.

I'm just trying to cover all the options here. As I said before, you have to provide the URL's and they then remove the links. If you miss any URL's, they won't remove those, but you can apply again with the URL's you didn't list the first time around. That can happen as often as you need. If you send them the URL from your search results page, they will remove that link but not the links listed on that results page. I'm assuming that isn't what happened, but I'm mentioning it just in case. Either way, let's hope you get it sorted out OK.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Related to this, there was a ruling a couple of years ago from Sweden. They fined Google for a few things, including applying a too narrow interpretation of what web addresses needed to be removed from the search result listing, and for notifying websites about delisting results due to right to be forgotten requests. Whether Google will change it's practices I wouldn't know.
https://edpb.europa.eu/news/national-news/2020/swedish-data-protection-authority-imposes-administrative-fine-google_en

Well, if it was in Sweden, then they might extend that across the EU, or they might wait until they are forced to. As we're not in the EU, I can see Google ignoring it in the UK, again until they are forced to comply by the UK's ICO. Given that the ICO has done exactly what Google were fined for, I wonder if they will fine themselves....

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

Good point Brexit may give an opportunity for the to at least try to wriggle out of EU rulings, and not apply them to the UK. I wouldn't know. As for ICO, I think I remember a thread on that in the disclosing information about a delisting request, when explicitly asked not to do so. They should have at least investigated the incident: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/report-a-breach/

Given it is the ICO I see huge public interest in that being taken forward. I would have thought a solicitor could negotiate anonymity from a judge, just as they do for other cases that involve the invasion of privacy.

Well, if it's in the High Court in London, it's not about negotiating, it's about applying for an anonymity order. If the case will involve sensitive information, then I can't see the court saying no, but they have to be asked.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)