The fundamental problem without a "right to be forgotten" is that missteps and deliberate mischief are not covered equally by journalists. the news making process is not a perfectly efficient system (ie. not all cases get covered equally) - some cases simply get covered because they are funny, just filled a remaining gap in the newspaper, were especially bizarre, were very embarrassing, etc. other missteps (of similar gravity) do not get covered. this law allows such people to counter their misfortune, while the cases which are actually important to the public still remain to be seen for everybody. If you look at hiddenfromgoogle.com, it links to quite a few of such cases. They are to a large extent mundane and exaggerated stories (which are typical for dailymail and the guardian). They carry no/very little importance for the general public - however can be very incriminating for the individual itself.
When I'm searching for a academic's name I am more likely to be interested in that person's work than some theft they committed years ago.
I guess this shows the flaws in Google's algorithm and the destructiveness of shitty SEO. Irrelevant information is pushed to the top of Google's first page and useful information is dropped. (People who need to know someone's criminal record status can use existing mechanisms to get that, so long as they're complying with the various laws about rehabilitation of offenders. Google should not be your method of getting reliable conviction or arrest information about a person.)
