|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+x+xAs mentioned in my previous comment, there's still more popping up each time one link is removed but it's just the number in the URL that changes and I have no idea how high it goes as it seems random - In my latest removal email to Google I did state it might be worth while doing a catch-all and binning the URL including any suffix as the base itself is exactly the same: https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[REDACTED NAME]?category=22 So far I've had these removed in the order they appeared: https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[REDACTED NAME] https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[REDACTED NAME]?category=18 https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[REDACTED NAME]?category=16 https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[REDACTED NAME]?category=14 https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[REDACTED NAME]?category=9 https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[REDACTED NAME]?category=10 https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[REDACTED NAME]?category=17 https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[REDACTED NAME]?category=22 I suppose if you classify it as a sub-domain (or maybe a sub-sub-domain - I'm not a techie), they might be amenable to that, as it would only affect posts about you. It would also mean they don't have to keep removing links to the same article repeatedly. Yeah, I did mention it to them in this morning's removal request but they don't seem to actually respond or react to any messages I put in the email, every response is exactly the same: Hello,
Thanks for reaching out to us.
We had a look at these URLs:
[URL]
[URL]
We'll delist these URLs from search results for queries related to your name. We'll delist them in your country, and from other European versions of Google Search. It may take a few hours for this to happen.
The content itself will still be online, but you can ask the site's webmaster to take it down. You can learn how to contact a site's webmaster on our Help Center.Regards, The Google Team Ultimately I don't mind too much as they seem to be removing them happily enough, just a bit annoying that I feel this is going to be a daily occurrence as I have no idea how high that number could possibly go. I've not properly investigated the website but my suspicion is as it states "category" and the website is a catch-all for all abusers I'm going to assume they assign a category depending on the offence "child = cat 1, porn = cat 2, paedo = cat 3 etc." so when they setup a profile they just tick a bunch of categories which obviously have numbered IDs for the backend (Wordpress?) to deal with for filtering and stuff. I could be wrong but that's what makes logical sense to me at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
I've been playing whack-a-mole all morning with these - Weird it seems to have just started happening too.
I'm up to 9 different numbers so far, I'm keeping a catalogue of them.
They don't seem to be showing up sequentially either as here is the numbers in order as they popped up: 18, 16, 14, 9, 10, 17, 22, 19, 20
Should maybe think about using them for my lottery picks...
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+xI've been playing whack-a-mole all morning with these - Weird it seems to have just started happening too. I'm up to 9 different numbers so far, I'm keeping a catalogue of them. They don't seem to be showing up sequentially either as here is the numbers in order as they popped up: 18, 16, 14, 9, 10, 17, 22, 19, 20 Should maybe think about using them for my lottery picks... Thought I'd just update this in case anyone was on the edge of their seat wanting to know. For now it looks like that's it sorted, I had another number which I submitted, it was removed and so far nothing else has popped back up.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xTook about 2-3 weeks from what I remember to get an initial response, I then got an email back saying they'll removed them all. From then on all I do is reply to that email with any new links that pop up and they're gone in like 24-48 hours. Have you done the additional ones recently? I had a few links removed from my initial request then any subsequent ones that popped up were removed simply by replying to the original email. I noticed a new one the other day (same source, an archive page with a slight mention) so emailed but i've heard nothing back in nearly two weeks, despite chasing. Not super recently, thankfully I wasn't reported on too much so it limits the potential for the spread. Most recent I flagged up on the 11th of April (2025) and got a reply on the 18th of April that it have been removed, which is definitely longer than usual. Just for reference here I have finally had a reply removing it. The total time for a response was over 3 weeks which had me worried when normally it's in the realms of 3 hours! You've just reminded me to have a wee check and 4 URLs have popped up 😬 Seems to be Google's weird way of showing them as they're URLs they've removed in the past but these have a mobile prefix despite being on desktop. Either way, pinged them off to Google so interesting to see how long it is for me! It's Google's way of indexing. They choose a 'canonical' main version of the URL and index that. When you remove it they then work their way down the list to the next one. I'm on version 5 or 6 of the same article. It's a bit whack a mole but easy enough. Yeah, thought as much. You can tell by the URL just being slightly different it's obviously the same article. For example some more have now popped up since those removals with https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY NAME]?category=14, then when that is removed a new one pops up like https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY NAME]?category=9 and so on, mostly seem to be this one new website that started up in November 2024. Feel a bit aggrieved they added me to their database (that totally isn't a database, honest, police!) as my offence was spent as of February 2023 so I was a free man for about a year and a half prior to their website starting up, their website also seems to have a section on an offenders 'profile' where they add in their social media profiles. Surely there's some kind of harassment/legal issue there? ... But I digress. Got the alert setup to ping me weekly though so fingers crossed I got that setup right! EDIT:
Actually, the more I think about it the more that website annoys me - I've sent an enquiry off to Police Scotland to see what their stance is on it as they're not just linking to news articles as others appear to do as some kind of alleged 'legal loophole'. Thought I'd also follow up on this as I actually just had a call back from Police Scotland about it. The short summary is: There are no harassment laws in Scotland, them publishing personal information such as phone numbers and addresses is perfectly legal. Only if something happens off the back of it will/can they step in and typically it'd only be the person doing the attack that would be dealt with - The person facilitating it isn't liable which seems a bit odd to me but I digress. We had a bit of a debate about over it and I likened it to drug dealing in how it makes more sense to go after the drug dealers as a higher priority than those doing drugs but they weren't interested. They also reiterated that they'd be in the police for 20 years (as it meant something) and that there is no harassment law in Scotland, which is verifiably false as here it is, covered under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/crossheading/scotland
|
|
|
|
|
xDanx
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 408,
Visits: 12K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xTook about 2-3 weeks from what I remember to get an initial response, I then got an email back saying they'll removed them all. From then on all I do is reply to that email with any new links that pop up and they're gone in like 24-48 hours. Have you done the additional ones recently? I had a few links removed from my initial request then any subsequent ones that popped up were removed simply by replying to the original email. I noticed a new one the other day (same source, an archive page with a slight mention) so emailed but i've heard nothing back in nearly two weeks, despite chasing. Not super recently, thankfully I wasn't reported on too much so it limits the potential for the spread. Most recent I flagged up on the 11th of April (2025) and got a reply on the 18th of April that it have been removed, which is definitely longer than usual. Just for reference here I have finally had a reply removing it. The total time for a response was over 3 weeks which had me worried when normally it's in the realms of 3 hours! You've just reminded me to have a wee check and 4 URLs have popped up 😬 Seems to be Google's weird way of showing them as they're URLs they've removed in the past but these have a mobile prefix despite being on desktop. Either way, pinged them off to Google so interesting to see how long it is for me! It's Google's way of indexing. They choose a 'canonical' main version of the URL and index that. When you remove it they then work their way down the list to the next one. I'm on version 5 or 6 of the same article. It's a bit whack a mole but easy enough. Yeah, thought as much. You can tell by the URL just being slightly different it's obviously the same article. For example some more have now popped up since those removals with https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY NAME]?category=14, then when that is removed a new one pops up like https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY NAME]?category=9 and so on, mostly seem to be this one new website that started up in November 2024. Feel a bit aggrieved they added me to their database (that totally isn't a database, honest, police!) as my offence was spent as of February 2023 so I was a free man for about a year and a half prior to their website starting up, their website also seems to have a section on an offenders 'profile' where they add in their social media profiles. Surely there's some kind of harassment/legal issue there? ... But I digress. Got the alert setup to ping me weekly though so fingers crossed I got that setup right! EDIT:
Actually, the more I think about it the more that website annoys me - I've sent an enquiry off to Police Scotland to see what their stance is on it as they're not just linking to news articles as others appear to do as some kind of alleged 'legal loophole'. Thought I'd also follow up on this as I actually just had a call back from Police Scotland about it. The short summary is: There are no harassment laws in Scotland, them publishing personal information such as phone numbers and addresses is perfectly legal. Only if something happens off the back of it will/can they step in and typically it'd only be the person doing the attack that would be dealt with - The person facilitating it isn't liable which seems a bit odd to me but I digress. We had a bit of a debate about over it and I likened it to drug dealing in how it makes more sense to go after the drug dealers as a higher priority than those doing drugs but they weren't interested. They also reiterated that they'd be in the police for 20 years (as it meant something) and that there is no harassment law in Scotland, which is verifiably false as here it is, covered under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/crossheading/scotland What about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? Once a conviction becomes spent, you then have a legal right to live as if the conviction never happened. Could the ROA not be used in such a way to stop the website from publishing and repeatedly altering the links? :edit I looked into it further and apparently not, ROA can not prevent other websites from publishing spent convictions. I think something should be done about that as if you have a legal right to live as if the conviction never happened, how can you if websites such as these are allowed to retain / publish data?
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xTook about 2-3 weeks from what I remember to get an initial response, I then got an email back saying they'll removed them all. From then on all I do is reply to that email with any new links that pop up and they're gone in like 24-48 hours. Have you done the additional ones recently? I had a few links removed from my initial request then any subsequent ones that popped up were removed simply by replying to the original email. I noticed a new one the other day (same source, an archive page with a slight mention) so emailed but i've heard nothing back in nearly two weeks, despite chasing. Not super recently, thankfully I wasn't reported on too much so it limits the potential for the spread. Most recent I flagged up on the 11th of April (2025) and got a reply on the 18th of April that it have been removed, which is definitely longer than usual. Just for reference here I have finally had a reply removing it. The total time for a response was over 3 weeks which had me worried when normally it's in the realms of 3 hours! You've just reminded me to have a wee check and 4 URLs have popped up 😬 Seems to be Google's weird way of showing them as they're URLs they've removed in the past but these have a mobile prefix despite being on desktop. Either way, pinged them off to Google so interesting to see how long it is for me! It's Google's way of indexing. They choose a 'canonical' main version of the URL and index that. When you remove it they then work their way down the list to the next one. I'm on version 5 or 6 of the same article. It's a bit whack a mole but easy enough. Yeah, thought as much. You can tell by the URL just being slightly different it's obviously the same article. For example some more have now popped up since those removals with https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY NAME]?category=14, then when that is removed a new one pops up like https://madebyredrose.co.uk/abuser/[MY NAME]?category=9 and so on, mostly seem to be this one new website that started up in November 2024. Feel a bit aggrieved they added me to their database (that totally isn't a database, honest, police!) as my offence was spent as of February 2023 so I was a free man for about a year and a half prior to their website starting up, their website also seems to have a section on an offenders 'profile' where they add in their social media profiles. Surely there's some kind of harassment/legal issue there? ... But I digress. Got the alert setup to ping me weekly though so fingers crossed I got that setup right! EDIT:
Actually, the more I think about it the more that website annoys me - I've sent an enquiry off to Police Scotland to see what their stance is on it as they're not just linking to news articles as others appear to do as some kind of alleged 'legal loophole'. Thought I'd also follow up on this as I actually just had a call back from Police Scotland about it. The short summary is: There are no harassment laws in Scotland, them publishing personal information such as phone numbers and addresses is perfectly legal. Only if something happens off the back of it will/can they step in and typically it'd only be the person doing the attack that would be dealt with - The person facilitating it isn't liable which seems a bit odd to me but I digress. We had a bit of a debate about over it and I likened it to drug dealing in how it makes more sense to go after the drug dealers as a higher priority than those doing drugs but they weren't interested. They also reiterated that they'd be in the police for 20 years (as it meant something) and that there is no harassment law in Scotland, which is verifiably false as here it is, covered under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/crossheading/scotland What about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? Once a conviction becomes spent, you then have a legal right to live as if the conviction never happened. Could the ROA not be used in such a way to stop the website from publishing and repeatedly altering the links? :edit I looked into it further and apparently not, ROA can not prevent other websites from publishing spent convictions. I think something should be done about that as if you have a legal right to live as if the conviction never happened, how can you if websites such as these are allowed to retain / publish data? Yeah, it sucks but it's a discussion and issue for someone with a bigger brain and a higher bank balance than me to resolve! haha To be fair to the website - I'm not convinced they were manually altering the links with the numbers, I feel it's just an automatic thing their CMS does for indexing purposes and likely due to the categories assigned on the article they made. Google don't notify webmasters when they remove a search result and "my" profile page looks to have been completely inactive since the day it was posted. As an aside, I'm looking to potentially be quite cheeky though if I can get away with it. Their domain expires on the 26th of November this year, got a reminder set to see if I can snipe it lol.
|
|
|
|
|
david123
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 26,
Visits: 2.4K
|
I've had the same issues with the myredrose website but Google have removed the new ULRs when requested. Has anyone had successes with removing links from Bing\Yahoo? Google have agreed to remove links to my spent conviction but Bing and Yahoo have been using the "Still in the public interest" reason for not removing the links, The ICO is a waste of time every time I contact them they side with Bing and Yahoo, I think once they know you are classed as a SO they don't want to know.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+xI've had the same issues with the myredrose website but Google have removed the new ULRs when requested. Has anyone had successes with removing links from Bing\Yahoo? Google have agreed to remove links to my spent conviction but Bing and Yahoo have been using the "Still in the public interest" reason for not removing the links, The ICO is a waste of time every time I contact them they side with Bing and Yahoo, I think once they know you are classed as a SO they don't want to know. Yeah, Google have thankfully removed the red rose ones without any fuss and (touch wood) that's me clear for a bit there now on Google. I approached Bing a few months ago and was given the "public interest" pish as well. I did lodge it with ICO in April but I'm still waiting to hear back, I chased them up in May and was advised they were behind and just starting to pick up January-February case work at that point so I'm probably looking about August-September before I get any movement on that. I do remember a while ago when I first tried to get the results moved Google refused due to public interest so I went to ICO and it was a disaster as t hey ended up passing on my complaint and contact details to one of those offender register websites basically saying "Hey, this guy wants you to take down the post about him!" - I'll give you two guesses how that went down. I raised a complaint with ICO at the time but they didn't really seem to give a fuck either. Not tried Yahoo yet, my plan was to focus on each search engine individually otherwise I could see myself getting into a bit of a mess.
|
|
|
|
|
marcovanba
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 33,
Visits: 2K
|
How long do Bing / Yahoo usually take to reply to a 1st enquiry?
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 385,
Visits: 20K
|
+xHow long do Bing / Yahoo usually take to reply to a 1st enquiry? Just checked on my last attempt. About 1 week. Request sent off on the 11th of April and got my response on the 19th.
|
|
|
|