[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 18/05/14 15:25, Philip Hudson wrote: > On 18 May 2014 01:06, Simon Waters <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> So he is censoring the output of an algorithm he doesn't like the >> outcome of for his own name (although he presumably finds the algorithms >> really useful the rest of the time, as otherwise how did he find out). > > No, no, no. The test is objective and subject to legal challenge: > irrelevant and outdated personal information that disadvantages an > individual must not be the first or only result returned. Not just "I > don't like it" but "it's harmful misinformation for *both* the public > *and* the individual". Sorry that is not the test applied. It wasn't the first, or only, indeed he objected to two links (they can't both be first), the coverage I've read suggested one was in second place for his name, although as I noted earlier the ranking of Google search results is neither static, nor universal, for all users). The CoJ ruling merely reports it occurred in the two pages of results returned. The test is not objective because they don't really lay a test down at all but refer it back to national courts, other than it infringes his right to privacy, and they say that overrides the rights of all other Internet users to have accurate search results. > Raises lots of problems for Google, but the complainant's case is not > at all what you have characterized it as. I fail to see how. Relevance depends what you are doing, if you were investigating say how many people published that government declaration it is entirely relevant to find this result. Google tries to assess relevance as best it can, but some search terms like a name, don't really carry much information to Google. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq