Before you begin
A few things to take with you.
- Requests, URLs and requester categories measure different things.
- The figures describe Google’s process, not your individual prospects.
- A dated source and clear scope matter more than an impressive headline.
When your name leads to an unwanted directory listing, statistics can provide perspective. They cannot decide your case. Google publishes an official European privacy report that helps explain the scale of delisting requests and the kinds of material involved. Reading it carefully starts with a simple question: what, exactly, is being counted?
This guide separates the published figures from our practical interpretation. It also explains how to use the report without confusing search visibility, source correction and a promise of removal.
The official figures, with a date attached
On 18 October 2026, we checked Google’s European privacy Transparency Report, with all countries selected. These were the displayed cumulative values:
| Measure | Displayed value | Reporting scope |
|---|---|---|
| Requests to delist | 2,200,517 | Since 29 May 2014 |
| URLs requested to be delisted | 8,446,785 | Since 29 May 2014 |
| Directory URLs requested | 1,248,748 | Website-category chart, beginning January 2016 |
| Private-individual requests | 1,686,930 | Requester-category chart, beginning January 2016 |
These are a dated snapshot, not a live counter. The directory chart excludes URLs awaiting review or further information. The four rows have different units and reporting scopes: do not add them together. Submitted URLs are not the number Google approved for delisting.
A request is not a person, and a URL is not a website
Imagine one person concerned about three pages on one directory and two pages elsewhere. Their working list contains five URLs across two websites. If they organise those pages into one submission, the words “person,” “request,” “URL” and “website” still describe different things. This fictional example illustrates counting units; it is not a reconstruction of Google’s reporting system.
For your own records, give every URL a separate row. Include the website, the concern and the outcome you want. A single broad entry called “remove my information” makes later responses difficult to interpret. Separate rows let you record that an address was corrected on one page while another page remains under review.
Do not read cumulative submissions as a count of unique customers, distinct affected people or people willing to pay for help. Those are different research questions. For Nomelys, our interpretation is that the report demonstrates sustained use of a privacy-request process; it does not establish the size of a commercial market.
The same care applies when comparing two snapshots. A larger total tells you that the cumulative count has increased. Before calling that an acceleration, compare equal periods and consistent filters. A lifetime total beside a single recent month can create a dramatic impression without answering whether the underlying pace has changed.
Why the category definitions matter
Google’s reporting FAQ defines a directory as a directory or aggregator of information, such as business or individual addresses and telephone numbers. It classifies private individuals as requesters outside its other requester categories. Neither label means “former director.” Some detailed tracking began in January 2016 after Google changed its internal process.
Our practical reading is therefore narrower than “all these cases resemble yours.” An address aggregator, a professional profile and a business-information page may share a category while presenting different concerns. Likewise, someone acting privately may have a current business role that still matters when their particular page is assessed.
Before citing a chart, write down its title, selected filters, unit and date range. Save those notes beside the number. This small habit makes an explanation easier to update and prevents a country-specific chart from accidentally becoming a claim about Europe as a whole.
What a delisting decision actually changes
Google’s Right to be Forgotten overview explains that this process concerns results for searches relating to a person’s name. The source content can remain available, and other queries may still surface it. The territorial scope also matters. Google weighs relevance, accuracy and public interest; time passing does not automatically settle the balance.
Translate that into a concrete objective. Do you want the publisher to correct a current-role label? Do you want an assessment of whether a page should appear for your name? Do you need both questions considered? Our guide to source removal and Google delisting compares those outcomes.
A useful case note describes the observation precisely: “This URL appeared for this name search on this date.” That is more informative than “everyone can see everything about me.” Record the page separately so a later change in search appearance is not mistaken for a change at the publisher.
Why a published rate cannot predict your outcome
An aggregate percentage describes a collection of reviewed material. Your situation involves particular pages, facts and evidence. Even two apparently similar directory profiles may differ in accuracy, current relevance and the reason they remain published. A rate offers context, not a personal forecast.
Google’s FAQ says the outcome chart excludes pending cases and cases needing further information. It also explains that technical problems, duplicate submissions, alternative routes and public interest can affect decisions. The anonymised examples illustrate requests; they are not a representative sample from which to calculate your odds.
If you receive a refusal, first identify the URLs covered and the explanation given. Then compare that explanation with your original evidence. A factual misunderstanding calls for a different next step from an incomplete URL. Our article on understanding a Google removal refusal provides a structured way to review the response.
Turn the report into a clearer personal review
Start with a small inventory rather than a large submission assembled in frustration. For each page, record the exact address, the detail concerning you, whether that detail is current and the change you seek. Note any correction already requested from the publisher. Keep dated copies of relevant correspondence.
Next, separate observation from explanation. “The page labels me as a current director” is an observation. “My appointment ended on this date” is an explanation that needs supporting material. Keeping those statements distinct makes your reasoning easier for another person to follow and helps expose gaps before submission.
Finally, define a useful partial outcome. Removing a home address, correcting a role and limiting name-search discovery address different concerns. Decide which would help you most. That prevents an appropriately narrow response from being overlooked simply because it does not erase every reference to the company.
Consider a fictional former director whose profile combines a correct appointment history with an outdated contact address. Their inventory should distinguish those fields. Evidence that the address changed supports that factual point; it does not, by itself, explain why an accurate appointment history should become less discoverable. Writing separate reasons avoids asking one document to prove several unrelated claims.
After a response, return to the same inventory. Record what the organisation said, what you can observe and what still needs checking. Avoid marking every URL resolved because one email sounds positive. Equally, avoid treating an unanswered page as a refusal. A clear status record helps you decide whether to clarify, wait or consider another appropriate route.
If you want help organising that review, explore how Nomelys works. The purpose is to clarify the facts and possible routes before choosing a request.
What to remember when quoting these statistics
Use the original Google report, retain the access date and explain the unit beside every figure. Recheck the source before reusing a number in a presentation or a later article. A rounded headline is easier to remember, but a precise definition is what makes it meaningful.
Most importantly, keep evidence separate from promises. The report documents a substantial ongoing process. It does not endorse a provider or establish guaranteed removal. Read our guide to claims that your name will disappear before treating a statistic as a sales assurance. Your next step should follow from your pages and circumstances.
