Slashdot Mirror
Google Sued over Page Ranking
OrangeHairMan writes "Google.com is being sued by SearchKing.com because Google "purposefully devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites, causing his business to suffer financially." There's a page on SearchKing.com's site too." Does anyone besides me find this hilarious? My favorite part is that the name of the site is "Search King".
Name says it all. It is owned by google..
They expect google to never change it? In return for what? Do they have ANY business relationship with google, other than the obviously parasitic one?!?
FOAD..
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
It's only funny if it gets thrown out of court, like it should. If they win or google settles, that would not be funny at all!
How stupid do you have to be to think you have a chance suing google over improving their technology?
Oh, wait, this is the same company that sold placement on a site they didnt have any rights to..I think I just answered my question
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
As a direct result of this /. and other sites linking to SearchKing to run this story the page rank(tm) on goolge will fly up. (given that its based, in some way, on the number of sites that link to a page)
SearchKing will then be able to say, "ha we complained and google fixed it!"
Spell checker (c) creative spelling inc. (aka my dyslexic brain)
So, is this a pay search engine, or are people paying him to rank their sites higher? If so, then everyone else with a web page should sue search king for "purposefully devaluing" their sites.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
just wondering how much loot our frinds google have. it's becoming a more common occurance to see their name involved in stupid lawsuits such as this; clearly they either have to pay laywers or give in - giving in would ruin the integrity we've come to love and respect. surely this is hurting google?
1) Make sure Google is faced with the possibility that it might have to reveal the details of its page ranking algorithm in open court. Might make for a quick settlement.
2) Quick publicity for Search King! They consider themselves a publicity company, after all.
Makes perfect sense to me, especially if you can get an attorney willing to take the gamble. Given the current glut of attorneys, this wouldn't seem to be much of an obstacle.
Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot
Gads, I went through this on K5 on a regular basis - I got sick of the meta-discussion about 'bias' and stopped visiting. Suddenly /.'s policy of only reporting news and not accepting stories about Slashdot itself look nice.
--
Evan "flashbacks with sound suck even more..."
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
So at what point (if any) could Google be considered part of the infrastructure of the Web... If they just outright stopped linking to a given site, is that still their right? Could they ever get widely enough used that it would no longer be their right to arbitrarily influence page rankings? (I see a whole fleet of lawsuits lining up unless the Judge slams this one hard...)
Due to the high value associated with PR, Massa claims in his lawsuit that the purposeful reduction of SearchKing and its related web sites' rankings has damaged the company's reputation and diminished its value.
If SearchKing had been the only site whose pagerank changed, I might say they had a case. Unfortunately, several sites had their rankings changed by the new algorithm. It doesn't appear to have been a systematic attack directed only at him.
The following quote made me burst out laughing:
Massa explained [...], "High PageRanks don't come easily. The webmaster had to do a lot of work to get enough people linking to him to give him that ranking. They deserve to be paid for that effort."
They found a way to cheat the system and cause google to give results that overvalue their pagerank, and it took effort to implement it for new pages. Because cheating the system isn't easy, they deserve to be paid? I just don't get it.
considering that oe of the biggest reasons google got started in the first place was to honestly rank pages - i.e. in a way that wasn't influence by tricks like paid page rank or misleading meta-tage - it shouldn't surprise anyone (including searchking) that a parasite who's trying to trick the ranking system would intentionally get a lowered ranking...
... ... PANDIA. PANDIA GUEST WRITER. PageRank For Sale. Exclusive interview with SearchKing ... SearchKing and the PR Ad Network. ...
The second link on the google search for searchking says it all "PageRank For Sale -- Exclusive interview with SearchKing / PR Ad
/ PR Ad Network's Robert Massa.
Description: SearchKing has started selling text ads on its network of independent portals, with prices based on..."
Geez. If I really wanted to just go to the site that paid the most in advertising I'd stick with watching TV so I could just get my info from commercials. We all know how honest and accurate THAT system is.
SearchKing doesn't have a point anyway, unless there's a contract between the two obligating Google to do something to benefit Searchking (in exchange for Searchking benefitting Google in return). If SearchKing doesn't have a contract, Google doesn't have an obligation, therefore SearchKing doesn't have a basis to file a suit (and the suit should get tossed relatively quickly).
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Is this a subtle troll or just rubbish?
Google has viewers because it has integrity and quality. If it abuses its position, it first loses integrity and quality and then loses viewers. No government intervention needed.
This isn't comparable with monopoly cases, hell, this isn't even a market liquidity case (i.e. Ebay is dominant because it is dominant, it doesn't pay to auction elsewhere because everybody auctions at Ebay...). Anybody clever enough can set up a server farm and get viewers if they have a Google beating engine quality.
On the legal side, this might be an unfair competition case but its difficult for a competitor (A) to claim that a company's (B) actions within B's business are unfair as they stop A's manipulation of B's business... You have to have clean hands as well to succeed with unfair competition claims.
Cheers,
Ian
From the SearchKing (can anyone say that with a straight face?) press release regarding the suit (bold font added):
/.'d.. I think that's about my daily recommended dose of irony for the day...
Bob Massa, president of SearchKing., Inc. and PR Ad Network, filed a lawsuit today against Google on the grounds the organization arbitrarily and purposefully devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites, causing his business to suffer financially. Massa is asking that the court grant preliminary and permanent injunctions against Google.
from dictionary.com:
arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
purposeful - Having a purpose; intentional
From what I can tell, it's pretty tough to do something arbitrarily and purposefully.
I wanted to go back and read more of the page.. but it seems that this web hosting site has been
Thus Search King is suing Google for manipulation, because Google is protecting their own business against Search King's manipulation. Where can I place a bet on the outcome of this lawsuit? :-)
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
IT IS A PUBLICITY STUNT. Nothing else, "search king" has no real case. They are just making alot of noise to boost hits. hugh
Sadly, there are plenty of other companies like SearchKing out there practicing a wide variety of techniques to achieve higher search listings purely for marketing purposes. The whole attitude of the search engine optimisation industry is that the only thing that matters is how high their own sites (or those of their customers) rank.... quality search results are irrelevant.
It's sad to see that a technology which started out as such a revolutionary way for users to find information is being so corrupted by those who don't care about the primary reason people use search engines, which is to find the information most relevant to them.
Google is leading the way in providing the high quality results, in contrast to the majority of the other major search engines who willingly compromose the quality of their service for advertising purposes, and for that I respect google highly. I can only hope that they will continue to fight these sorts of activies by improving their technology to effectively prevent search engine spamming becoming a more serious problem, and they are certainly doing a great job of this so far.
The whole search engine optimization industry sickens me. I wish these people would put their efforts towards more useful endevours such as improving the quality of content on sites, or making them better organised/easier to navigate/more accessible. These are the real problems that need to be solved, and will be of actual benefit to end-users.
The only problem is that before Bob could have bought PageRank, Google would have had to have been selling it. They don't sell PageRank. They sell ad placements in other areas, but PageRank isn't something you can buy from them any more than you can buy a good review on a book from a reliable critic. All Google did was downgrade their estimate of the worth of references from him after they determined he was in the business of inflating the worth of pages he listed.
Yes, it's going to hurt his business. It's going to hurt the business of a book critic to have it advertised that you can buy a good review from him. The fault for the damage no more lies with Google than it does with the papers and shows that no longer rely on the critic's bought-and-paid-for reviews.
Not that I think PageKing has any ground to stand on, but I do think that it would be great if there was some sort of court certification that Google's ranking mechanism is in fact unbiased as it is claimed by their Marketing and PR. That is, that there isn't code like:
If domain is 'pageking' Then
PageRank = 0
End If
Truth in advertising is a good thing. Now, for those claiming government intervention is bad (or that it is Google's algorithem and they can do with it as they please) there are two facts: (a) Google claims that it is a unbiased algorithem, (b) People depend upon this claim when using the service. Thus, while Google is free to change their algoirhtem, they should be constrained to do so in accordance with what they have advertised. Just like when I order a product I expect it to operate as advertised.
So, I'm hopeful that the court case goes forward and that it can set a precident that on-line services can be challenged if someone thinks that it operates with a different spirit than as advertised. That said, I also hope the Judge awards Google appropriate attorney fees after Google wins.
not that I htink P
Holy shit. Mr. King is even stupider than I originally thought. I'll let him speak for himself.
It's called robots.txt. Learn it. Use it.
Oh, so now you want to destroy search engines themselves. Except for yours. Yeah... um... riiiiiight...
So not even your link spamming buddies are willing to support you. You know you've got it bad when even the pr0n sites and casinos that googlebomb look down on you.
Google is but one example of a technology that got to be the dominant force in its market because it's the best.
To that end, one of the primary advantages of Google is the unbiased approach to page rankings (by Google themselves). Companies quickly came to realize that it does them no good to have their site returned first for a number of queries if the visitors don't click through on the grounds that the returned link is irrelevant.
Google's statement of integrity clearly spells out the fact that they strive to make human tampering with their results difficult, and if that is the only basis of SearchKing's lawsuit, then I hope it's thrown out of court before a judge even has to waste time sitting in a court room.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Quit trolling.
1) MS is a monopoly, so no, it can't do whatever the hell it wants with its own OS. Google is not a monopoly, so it can.
2) MS has a history of strong-arming companies who use alternative OSs. Google hasn't, as I recall, blocked the site of any PC company that by default shipped with their browsers linked to AltaVista. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter, because Google isn't a monopoly and Microsoft is! Once you commit certain crimes (using monopoly position to hurt your competitors) you lose certain rights.
3) Google isn't a platform. It takes very little effort to switch to another search engine. Same thing with Ford cars or Charmin toilet paper. Not only does it take a non-trivial amount of effort, but Microsoft actively uses it's monopoly power to make it difficult for users to switch, by locking people into proprietory file formats and closing services off to people using alternative OSs.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
But I also think we should be more aware of who the Google Guys realy are: agressive advertising dealers, who may think are the only guys arround entitle to put a price to who important our sites are, with the power to ban your site.
What nonsense. They have no power at all to ban your site. You have an absolute right to put whatever you like on your website, and they have an absolute right (within the limits of the law, of course) to put whatever they want on theirs. If you don't like how Google works, use another search engine.
Why not try searchking.com, for example? Bwahahahahahah.
Given the fact that both the terms 'search' and 'king' are pretty common, it's not suprising that lots of sites come up. Since almost nobody has heard of SearchKing, most people are likely looking for something else (why the hell would ANYONE be looking for some fourth-string search engine if they already know about Google?). The higher number of clicks on the other sites will naturally raise their ranking above SearchKing, no evil plot on Google's part is needed.
If there is some sneaky stuff going on here, I think it'd have to be coming from SearchKing - anyone wanna bet that after the normal slashdotting dies down SearchKing has been clicked on enough to raise it's Google ranking?
In fact, the preliminary injunction pretty much argues that Google already has this monopoly power. For example, look at these quotes:
"...page ranking ... has become the identifiable measure of credibility"
"Google, as the provider of a ranking system upon which the internet community relies, must apply the system in a manner that is not arbitrary, nor aimed at restraint of trade"
My feeling is that SearchKing is a little early to the party. Give it a couple of years and they might have a case though.
Bull. This is not about "companys who dare to sell what Google may only Google has the right to do: put you on top of the result search" or google trying to squash competition.
What this is about is someone taking advantage of the google system and google doing an error correction. Google is of use because it works as a ranking engine, and these people are intentionally trying to throw off the rankings.
This isn't trying to stomp on people, it is manually tweeking an algorythm. And it is a GOOD thing.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
The Google AdWords ads are those ads in the bar to the right of the search results. Google does not allow people to pay for placement in the actual search results, only for placement in the ad bar to the right of the results. Google's page-rank system relies on the number of links to a page from various other pages. SearchKing seems to be abusing this system by creating hundreds of dummy pages with links to each other to inflate the page-rank of those pages. They then sell pages to companies, who pay a lot of money for a page with an artificially inflated page-rank. SearchKing is intentionally tricking the page-rank system for their own profit. Google has a right to reduce the page-rank of a site that is intentionally taking advantage of their system they have put in place to provide accurate results. SearchKing has no right to sell a page-rank. A page-rank is for Google to determine, not an advertising company. This case will likely be thrown out of court, or SearchKing will end up paying Google's legal fees.
/usr/games/fortune
The difference here is that by choosing to post content on the public internet, one can argue that a webmaster gives implicit permission for the world to view that content. If you put something on the Web, you can expect it to be viewed--it's the nature of the beast. If you want to limit access to your information to people with "express permission" to do so, then password protect part of your site, or keep it on your local intranet and accept emailed requests.
robots.txt provides an option for a webmaster to publically disseminate information but avoid having it indexed. It strikes me as an excellent compromise.
Complaining that Google indexes sites without express permission is like complaining that someone took a picture of a billboard by the highway without express permission.
~Idarubicin