All names, addresses, identifiers, searches, and URLs below are fictional. The reserved domain example.com is used so no private person is identified.

Scenario

Jordan Example, an adult, searches their name and finds a result from https://directory.example.com/jordan-example. The live page displays Jordan’s home address and personal phone number. Jordan does not control the page. The result is not presented as a government, educational, or newspaper page, and Jordan has not observed threats or calls to harm or harass.

1. Initial assessment

Jordan opens the result and confirms that the contact details remain on the source page. This rules out Refresh Outdated Content at the current stage. Jordan confirms the address and phone number are theirs and maps the exposure to Google’s personal contact-information category. (Google private-information policy)

Jordan does not label the page doxxing: the observed facts contain contact information, but no stated doxxing circumstance. This keeps the category faithful to the evidence.

2. Route selection

Jordan is the affected adult and can access Results about you, so that is an appropriate first route. If the feature were unavailable, if Jordan did not want to sign in, or if a representative were submitting, the detailed form would be the appropriate operational route. (Results about you)

Jordan also decides to contact the website owner because Search removal would not delete the directory page.

3. Evidence preparation

Jordan creates case JEX-001 and records:

  • Source URL: https://directory.example.com/jordan-example
  • Search context: query [Jordan Example]
  • Category: home address and phone number
  • Observed: 2026-10-17, Europe/Paris
  • Screenshot: page title, URL bar, and the relevant section; unrelated entries cropped out
  • Ownership: affected person
  • Policy mapping: address/phone category
  • Next action: Results about you request; separate source-owner request

The case log records phone ending 42 instead of copying the full number. The screenshot remains in restricted storage.

4. Submission

Jordan signs in, opens Results about you, reviews the matched result, and selects Request to remove. Jordan enters the information exactly as displayed, completes the flow, and records the confirmation. If using the detailed form instead, Jordan would select personal information, select address/phone/email, provide the specific URL and requested context, confirm accuracy, and submit.

5. Source-owner action

Jordan finds the directory’s privacy contact, identifies the exact URL, and requests deletion of the address and phone number. Jordan does not send an identity document unless the site provides a verified process and the request genuinely requires it. (Google website-owner guidance)

6. Status tracking

Jordan records the request ID, submission date/time, and status shown under Results about you > Removal requests. Jordan does not submit a duplicate while the status is In progress.

Possible result A: approved/full removal

Google marks the request Approved and applies full removal. Jordan verifies that the submitted URL no longer appears in Search after the processing period described by Google. The source remains live until the directory acts, so the owner request stays open.

Possible result B: approved/query-based removal

Google approves a query-based removal. The URL no longer appears for searches containing Jordan’s name but can appear for other searches. Jordan records the exact scope and does not describe it as deletion or universal de-indexing.

Possible result C: denied

Google denies the request and supplies a reason. Jordan compares that reason with the evidence. If the submitted URL was wrong, Jordan corrects the specific error. If Google’s reason reflects a public-interest determination and there is no new evidence, Jordan does not repeatedly resubmit the same case. The source-owner route remains distinct; an applicable legal route would require its own basis and submission.

Possible result D: source changes first

The directory removes the address and phone number while Google still shows the old snippet. Jordan verifies that the details are gone from the source and submits a Refresh Outdated Content request. Jordan no longer describes the source as containing the information.

Optional doxxing distinction

If a separate fictional URL, https://forum.example.com/thread/123, displayed Jordan’s contact information alongside a call for readers to harass Jordan, the relevant evidence would include the exact call and its context. Jordan would use the detailed form’s doxxing branch instead of treating the ordinary directory listing as doxxing.

Official references

Policy review record

  • Last policy review: 2026-10-17
  • Documentation version: 1.0.0