> The procedure should be to get the offending site to take down the content and then have Google remove it from its cache
I agree. What happens when the original site takes down the content, but it stays in Google's cache even after they've been contacted?
What if the content was very much worse? (eg, 'NAME is a convicted pedophile', with images of the person's face; where that allegation is totally false and malicious.)
EDIT: Looks like I'm mostly wrong about this particular case.
> I agree. What happens when the original site takes down the content, but it stays in Google's cache even after they've been contacted?
I believe that is the way you do it. In theory, it will fall out of results on its own, but you can request it be removed from results (but only after it's been removed from the site):
(appears to require a google account, which is shitty, but maybe they get a lot of fraud here or something)
> What if the content was very much worse? (eg, 'NAME is a convicted pedophile', with images of the person's face; where that allegation is totally false and malicious.)
That's pretty close to the Bettina Wulff case[1]. Yes, you want that down immediately, but I don't think that should change the procedure. Again, if you think of web search as "what's out on the web", it becomes just a statement of fact. I will grant that it gets pretty abstracted for people, especially in that case, which is more about search suggestions, and is instead "what are other people searching for when including these words?", but there's no indication of the actual source of the suggestions.
> EDIT: Looks like I'm mostly wrong about this particular case.
Can you be more specific? Nothing lept out at me. Was it that he hadn't gone after the sources of the story, just yahoo and google?
The BBC article makes it seem like he's unrelated to any criminals, and was a victim of a shooting. It seems that he was the victim of a shooting, but that he was associated with a criminal, and a newspaper reported that when they reported the shooting, and a website covered that report.
So it's not malicious people creating false stories that have no basis; and the "link" between him and crime isn't something accidentally falling out of Google algorithms. Someone put it in print; a website covered it; Google indexed it; I think the guy then got the newspaper to take their page down, and got the site to take their page down, and then made a mistake when he asked Google to remove their pages?
I agree. What happens when the original site takes down the content, but it stays in Google's cache even after they've been contacted?
What if the content was very much worse? (eg, 'NAME is a convicted pedophile', with images of the person's face; where that allegation is totally false and malicious.)
EDIT: Looks like I'm mostly wrong about this particular case.
(http://ozsoapbox.com/melbourne/yahoo-held-liable-for-search-...)