One of the elements of libel is that you have to clearly identify the person you are talking about. Traditionally, this meant naming them, or otherwise indicating who they were in a way that was identifiable by a large number of people.
In the Style section of the New York Times today is an essay titled The New Nanny Diaries Are Online, in which a Helaine Olen takes apart her former nanny. She notes that her view of her former nanny was changed when she started reading her blog. She starts out the story:
Our former nanny, a 26-year-old former teacher with excellent references, liked to touch her breasts while reading The New Yorker and often woke her lovers in the night by biting them. She took sleeping pills, joked about offbeat erotic fantasies involving Tucker Carlson and determined she’d had more female sexual partners than her boyfriend.
Sounds like the kind of person I would like to meet! Leaving aside whether “the nanny” was, in fact, defamed (“false light” might be closer, but I doubt any defamation would actually stick), does Olen identify her nanny?
The easy answer is “no,” but the actual answer is “yes.” Later in the article, Olen anonymously quotes the blog. Any non-trivial quotation is easily found Google, leaving little doubt as to the identity of the nanny. She answers the essay on her blog, making a persuasive argument that she was mis-characterized. (Though I find a much earlier post more interesting.)
So Google makes her identifiable through the quote. But paradoxically, it also makes her capable of responding, and engaging Olen in a public debate. She has no interest in suing, but if she did, I think you could make the case that she already has set the record straight. You would think the least the Times could do is link to her rebuttal.