In one removal service's data, successful removals of court-record copies had a median time of 9 days. Yelp reviews rarely came down at all. A Google review, a republished court record, and a Reddit thread can sit side by side on page one, yet each answers to a different gatekeeper. Treating them the same wastes weeks.
This guide turns that vendor dataset into a triage audit you can run yourself. Read the caveats first, because they change how you use the numbers.
Read the Data With the Right Caveats
The figures come from a sponsored article by the removal service Erase, published on Search Engine Journal. The opinions are the sponsor's, and the data is vendor-reported. It covers 22,620 links from about 1,650 websites, with work starting between January 1 and September 21, 2026.
Two details matter:
- "Success" is broad. Erase counted a link as removed if the page was taken down, de-indexed, or had the client's name or photo removed. A de-indexed page is still online.
- Timing covers successes only. The median of 18 days, and the 71% confirmed within 30 days, describe how long successful outcomes took. Erase says these figures are not the likelihood that a submitted link would be removed.
The data also leaves out Erase's subscription and retainer-based programs, such as data broker removals and copyright takedowns for sensitive images. About 3,500 image links from one case are in the total but excluded from the category numbers.
Use the data to rank your links by how likely they are to move. Don't read it as a forecast for your own case.
What the Vendor Reported by Source
Google reviews made up 52% of the category breakdown. The rest of the mix:
- Images and video: 13%
- Reviews on other sites: 11%
- News articles: 6%
- Social media posts: 6%
- Court records: 4%
- Mugshots: 2%
- Forums, mostly Reddit: 2%
- People-search listings: 1%
Here is how long successful removals took:
| Content type | Median days to removal | Removed within 30 days | |---|---|---| | Court records | 9 | 89% | | People-search listings | 9 | 84% | | Mugshots | 11 | 93% | | Social media posts | 14 | 79% | | Google reviews | 19 | 67% | | News articles | 28 | 51% | | All removals | 18 | 71% |
Each row describes only links that were eventually removed. Full removals were faster than de-indexing, with a median of 14 days versus 21. About one in 10 successful Google review removals took more than 90 days.
Step 1: List Every Negative Link and Name Its Host
Open a spreadsheet and paste in every unflattering URL you want gone. Then identify the website behind each one. The host decides who can act, and therefore which route you take.
Use these host types:
- Google review
- Yelp, Trustpilot, Indeed, BBB, Glassdoor, or another review site
- Court-record copy (Trellis, UniCourt, Justia, CaseMine, vLex, CourtListener)
- Mugshot site
- People-search listing (Whitepages, TruePeopleSearch, Radaris, Spokeo, FastPeopleSearch)
- Social post
- News story
- Reddit or other forum thread
- Government page
Mark each republished court record as a copy. The court's own record rarely changes, so your target is the site that copied it. This pairs well with ai video ad workflow audit for agencies: 3-step checklist.
Step 2: Learn the Five Routes
Every link gets one primary route and one fallback.
- Remove. The host takes the page down. This is the only route that takes the content off the web.
- De-index. Google stops showing the page, but the page still exists. Anyone with the direct link can still reach it.
- Request a name edit. You ask the host to take your name or photo out of the content. A news site, for example, may agree to this when it won't delete the story.
- Reply. You post a short, factual public response. Use it when a review stays up.
- Push down. You change where the result ranks and nothing else. The content stays online and can still be found.
In the vendor's data, about one in four successful news outcomes was a name removal, a photo removal, or de-indexing. More than a quarter of successful court-record cases involved de-indexing rather than full removal. Asking for less than full removal is sometimes the realistic request.
Step 3: Assign a Route by Host Type
Match each host to its likeliest route, then name a fallback.
| Host type | Likely primary route | What the vendor reported | Fallback | |---|---|---|---| | Court-record copy | Request host removal or de-indexing | Usually removed or de-indexed | Push down | | Mugshot site | Ask the site to remove the listing | Usually took listings down | De-index, then push down | | People-search listing | Use the site's opt-out | Opt-outs usually worked; listings can return | Recheck, then re-submit | | Google review that breaks policy | Report, then appeal | Eligible reviews came down more reliably than almost anything else | Reply | | Google review that is harsh but honest | Reply | A harsh but honest review usually doesn't qualify | Push down | | Social post | Report under the platform rule | Instagram came down most often, then Facebook and X; TikTok and YouTube were hardest without a clear copyright or harm issue | Push down | | Yelp and other review sites | Reply if no rule is broken | Rarely came down | Push down | | News story | Ask for a name edit or de-indexing | 708 outlets; most left stories up without a material reason or changed circumstances | Push down | | Reddit thread | Report if it breaks site or subreddit rules | Rarely came down; being unflattering is not a rule violation | Push down | | Government page | Little to try | Rarely took anything down | Push down |
Check the Rule Before You Report
For Google reviews, find the policy the review breaks. Google's prohibited and restricted content policy covers fake reviews, impersonation, harassment, off-topic posts, and personal information. A review that isn't based on a genuine experience can qualify. Report it in Google's Reviews Management Tool. If Google declines, appeal in the same tool and add supporting details.
For social posts, check the platform's rules on impersonation, harassment, and private information. For photos, check for a copyright or privacy issue. A post that only criticizes someone, or contains commentary covered by fair use, is much harder to remove.
Step 4: Sequence the Work
Start with the hosts that move fast: court-record copies, mugshot sites, and people-search listings. Next, file reports for Google reviews and social posts that clearly break a rule. Then send the slower requests, such as news name edits. Finally, post replies and plan push-down work for anything that can't come down. See a closer look at how to audit google ads cpc increases: a worked example for additional background.
File the slow requests early anyway, since they run in parallel. Don't abandon a Google review report after a month, because some successful removals took longer than 90 days.
The Triage Worksheet
Copy these columns into your spreadsheet:
| Column | What to enter | |---|---| | URL | The exact address of the negative result | | Source type | The host type from Step 1 | | Rule violated | The policy, opt-out process, or removal process that applies. Write "none found" if you can't name one | | Route | Remove, de-index, name edit, reply, or push down | | Fallback | What you will do if the route fails | | Recheck date | Dates for the 7-, 30-, and 90-day checks |
If the "Rule violated" cell is empty and the host is a review site, news outlet, or forum, expect a reply or push-down plan rather than removal.
Hypothetical Worked Audit
This example is invented for illustration. The links are not real client data, and the routes are not predictions of outcomes. Imagine a small-business owner with ten unflattering results about her name and company.
| # | Link (placeholder) | Source type | Rule or process | Route | Fallback | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | peoplesearch-a.example/jane-doe | People-search listing | Site opt-out | Remove | Recheck and re-submit | | 2 | peoplesearch-b.example/jane-doe | People-search listing | Site opt-out | Remove | Recheck and re-submit | | 3 | courtcopy.example/case-1234 | Court-record copy | Host removal request | Remove | De-index | | 4 | mugshot-site.example/jane-doe | Mugshot site | Listing removal request | Remove | De-index | | 5 | Google review: "Never worked here, scam" | Google review | Not based on a genuine experience | Report, then appeal | Reply | | 6 | Google review: "Late delivery, rude reply" | Google review | None found; honest complaint | Reply | Push down | | 7 | social-platform.example/post/88 | Social post | Private information rule | Report | Push down | | 8 | localnews.example/story-2019 | News story | None; asks for a name edit | Request name edit or de-indexing | Push down | | 9 | yelp.example/biz/acme | Yelp review | None found | Reply | Push down | | 10 | reddit.example/thread/xyz | Reddit thread | None found; unflattering only | Push down | Report if a rule applies |
Sequence:
- Week one: She submits links 1 through 4, then reports links 5 and 7 under the rules each breaks. She sends the news request for link 8 the same week because it will take longest.
- Week one, public replies: She writes short, factual replies to links 6 and 9. She doesn't argue.
- Ongoing: For link 10, she names no rule, so she plans push-down work and moves on.
- Recheck dates: She logs each date in the worksheet and revisits as described below.
Link 5 gets reported because the owner can state a policy it breaks. Link 6 gets a reply because an honest, harsh review usually doesn't qualify for removal.
Verify Each Result and Recheck It
Don't trust a confirmation email alone. Check Google directly.
- Open a logged-out browser.
- Search your name or brand, plus any terms the link appeared under.
- Confirm the URL no longer appears. For a name edit, confirm your name is gone from the content.
- Record the date and what you saw next to the link in your worksheet.
Also read: related topic: how to build an ai visibility prompt set by tag (template)
A de-indexed page can still load if you visit its address, so judge success by whether Google shows it.
Recheck Schedule
- 7 days: Confirm each request was received or is still pending. Log the status and follow up where a host has not answered.
- 30 days: Search again in a logged-out browser. In the vendor's data, 71% of successful outcomes were confirmed within 30 days, but that counts only links that were eventually removed. Treat anything still showing as open, not failed.
- 90 days: Search again. People-search listings can come back when a site refreshes its data, so confirm they are still gone. Still-pending Google review reports belong here too, since some succeeded after 90 days.
Questions to Ask a Removal Vendor
If you'd rather hire help, ask these before you pay:
- Which sites do you get content removed from? A good answer names sites. Google reviews and court-record sites are realistic. Yelp and news sites are long shots, and a provider who says otherwise should explain how.
- Will this be removed, de-indexed, or pushed down? These are different results. Removal takes the page off the web, de-indexing hides it from Google, and pushing down only changes where it ranks.
- What rule does this content break? If the provider can't name one, ask how they plan to get it removed. The FTC's Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule, effective October 2024, bars businesses from using threats, intimidation, or false accusations to get a review removed.
- How long should this take? For successful removals, expect weeks for court records and people-search sites. News removals often take a month or more.
- How do you define success? In the sponsored data, success included de-indexing and name or photo removal. Ask whether a result you pay for would count the same way, and ask for the outcome in writing for each link.
Limits
This article is not legal advice. If a link raises a legal question, such as defamation or a sealed record, talk to a lawyer. If you manage reviews for a business, follow the FTC rule: no threats, intimidation, or false accusations to get a review removed.
No route guarantees an outcome, and no one can promise a particular ranking or reputation result. The vendor's own data shows the pattern: some sources yield quickly, others rarely yield at all. Use the audit to spend your effort where removal is realistic, and plan replies and push-down work for the rest.
