[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 18 May 2014 01:18, Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Let's say Google apply a manual downgrade to this result. Let's say the > person involved goes bankrupt again, because it turns out he is reckless > with money and not just unlucky in the past, no one will tell Google, > people dealing with him won't now find both results, only the later > bankruptcy. How do you know this? It's a pure leap in the dark on your part, based on false suppositions about what is being said in the verdict. I would have said that in this scenario the "irrelevant and outdated" test the court applied to the earlier bankruptcy immediately ceases to apply, the existing order is no longer enforceable and it becomes incumbent on Google to deliver the full picture. Now you might say it's incumbent on Google to do that now (with the implied assertion that that's what Google always does, almost by definition), to which I say that that is precisely what the court has found Google is *not* doing when it returns irrelevant, outdated links and nothing else. -- Phil Hudson http://hudson-it.no-ip.biz @UWascalWabbit PGP/GnuPG ID: 0x887DCA63 -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq