14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
14 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

New Google "Forget" Tool

by dadamson
12 replies
  • SEO
    • |
So apparently a court ruling has just permitted citizens to remove their listing in Google. This service is called Google: Forget.

While this ruling affects only European search results at this time imagine if this ruling was forced upon Google on a more universal scale.

The fact that celebrities and well-known people could simply have Google remove unwanted webpages of them from the index could literally change the fabric of the search engine. Perhaps people would turn to other sources for the full story.

Already 41,000 Europeans have used this service so this alone will change the way a lot of searchers are viewed, within Europe anyway.
#forget #google #tool
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    There is a lot more to it than just putting in the request. In fact Google doesn't have to make a decision on any requests. They can throw it back to the local court to make the decision. There will be very few listings getting removed. The impact on search results will be negligible.
    Signature

    For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9269636].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author promo87
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      There is a lot more to it than just putting in the request. In fact Google doesn't have to make a decision on any requests. They can throw it back to the local court to make the decision. There will be very few listings getting removed. The impact on search results will be negligible.
      @MikeFriedman I am bit confused about this service, I am sure you can help me out on this So here it goes: Does this service allows an individual user to remove some inappropriate pages of them, say like somebody has copied my picture and put over to inappropriate place can I use this service to take down those .... ??
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9270193].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SEOArbiterJoanne
        Originally Posted by promo87 View Post

        @MikeFriedman I am bit confused about this service, I am sure you can help me out on this So here it goes: Does this service allows an individual user to remove some inappropriate pages of them, say like somebody has copied my picture and put over to inappropriate place can I use this service to take down those .... ??
        You can't take down things from individual sites, you can request Google remove things from their index (As in, it won't show up in Google search results if it's removed).

        It's only available to European's, and I believe Google have hired a lot of people that will manually decide on each case individually.

        It remains to be seen how strict/lenient Google will be.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9270624].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dadamson
    ^ Yes that is the theory behind it, but as your location is New York it is not eligible for you. This is only going on in Europe.

    I was under the impression that this was a court ruling and Google HAS to remove the listing. If they throw it back to the court for a second opinion on something already ruled then wouldn't it have to be a case by case basis? That's a LOT of cases to open with the courts.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9270628].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SEOArbiterJoanne
      Originally Posted by dadamson View Post

      ^ Yes that is the theory behind it, but as your location is New York it is not eligible for you. This is only going on in Europe.

      I was under the impression that this was a court ruling and Google HAS to remove the listing. If they throw it back to the court for a second opinion on something already ruled then wouldn't it have to be a case by case basis? That's a LOT of cases to open with the courts.
      Hmm I read that they are forced to remove "irrelevant and outdated information" so I'm not sure if that means they have to grant every request or if not, who gets to decide what is and isn't irrelevant.

      Just had a quick look and it's already being abused:

      Earlier this month, following the Court of Justice ruling, it emerged that Google was already receiving requests for search content removal — albeit, the listed examples were from a convenient trio of what sounded like unsavory types: an ex-politician looking to be re-elected and wanting links detailing bad behavior in office removed; a doctor wanting to erase negative reviews from patients; and a convicted paedophile wanting details of his court conviction for possession of child abuse images taken down.
      Source.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9270636].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author cbpayne
        Originally Posted by SEOArbiterJoanne View Post

        "irrelevant and outdated information".
        That is the crucial part of the courts decision. No criteria have yet been developed as to what is "irrelevant and outdated information"
        Signature
        LookAfterWP - Protection, Maintenance and Performance
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9270643].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
        Originally Posted by SEOArbiterJoanne View Post

        Just had a quick look and it's already being abused:
        The largest daily newspaper in Finland ran a story on this. They had found someone with a good story: ex-con trying to turn his life around and claiming his offenses were from more than 10 years ago. They ran a background check and it turned out that he'd committed some new crimes and still had court cases upcoming.

        So indeed, it's being abused.
        Signature
        Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
        Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

        What's your excuse?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9270998].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by dadamson View Post

      If they throw it back to the court for a second opinion on something already ruled then wouldn't it have to be a case by case basis? That's a LOT of cases to open with the courts.
      Looks like an easy way for a search engine to get around the law considering the average person won't waste their time/money going to court. Those that do want to go to court will probably be waiting in line for years If a search engine decides to drag their feet in court. Looks like a job for a Google lawyer intern.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9271988].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dadamson
    Thanks SEOArbiterJoanne, that would make sense.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9270632].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dadamson
    Interesting. I am sure it will be exploited in that way a LOT, hopefully it doesn't spread outside of Europe.

    I have also read that the pages that get de-indexed from Google in Europe will still be in the index for the rest of the world.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9270645].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    The ruling does not only impact Google, by the way. It is all search engines.

    I would recommend reading this. It is a pretty good description of what the ruling does and doesn't do.

    The Myths & Realities Of How Of The EU’s New “Right To Be Forgotten” In Google Works

    In short, Google does not have to agree to remove anything, and if they are smart, in almost all cases that is what they will do. From there the person can appeal through their local court system. So really, it is likely that the courts will be deciding what may or may not get removed. Google, and other search engines, will stay out of the decision.
    Signature

    For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9271919].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    I don't think it would even be a court case the search engine has to be involved in. My understanding is they can basically do the equivalent of shrugging their shoulders and brushing it off. Then it is up to that person to take it to court for them to make the decision.

    If I was Google, that is what I would do with almost every one of these. Why make a decision to remove one listing and then say no on another? That just opens the door to more problems for them.

    This way they can say, "Hey, it wasn't our choice. The court decided."

    The whole law is really vague anyhow about what should and shouldn't be removed. It's a joke really.
    Signature

    For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9272006].message }}

Trending Topics