[k-mcgrady]

I actually have what I think is a valid reason to use this.

Years ago I created a friendfeed account. I used their Twitter signup button. Now years later I would like to close my friendfeed account to remove that information from the internet. There's nothing particularly bad about it but it's old, useless and I would rather it was deleted. The problem is I can't login into my account as I authorised through Twitter and I've since deleted my Twitter account. I also can't get in touch with anyone at friendfeed since they've shutdown but left their site up.

This ruling gives me a way to hide that friendfeed page from people. Unfortunately it will still be up but it's unlikely anyone will find it 'accidentally' if it isn't on Google.

[higherpurpose]

I also agree that for reasons such as this (deleting an unwanted account) the ruling is useful. The real problem is demanding Google or other services like theirs to delete data that appears from other services, that Google has nothing to do with, other than indexing them. Of course you'd have to believe that once the data is gone from the parent host, it disappears from Google's cache, too, automatically.

But just asking Google to get rid of it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I think it unnecessarily punishes them, too. Think about the tens of millions of such requests they'd have to respond to every year in the future.

[camus2]

The ruling can be use for good and bad reasons.But I think it's important people can at least reach google in some special case,where a result from 10 year ago can be detrimental.

[mike_hearn]

If it's really just irrelevant clutter why not ignore it and let Google decide how best to hide it? That's their job, right?