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".

25 of 592 comments (clear)

  1. Google's PageRanking algorythm by WittyName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm by CheapshotOverkill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At the risk of starting of as a troll..... If Search King has reverse engineered Google's algorithm to increase the ranking of their pages, Google might have a DMCA case.

      --
      There's no shot like a cheapshot and there's no kill like an overkill.
    2. Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm by moz25 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly, Google can do whatever they please with their algorithm. It's *their* site. A mistake that people often make it that online places that are avialable to the public are similar to real life public environments in the sense that they have certain rights there. The difference is that online public environments are usually privately owned, whereas real-world public environments are usually paid for by tax dollars. The worst that google can be blamed (but not sued) for would be that they don't do as they say they do... but that's not relevant here. As long as they don't do slander, etc.. there can't really be a basis for lawsuits.

  2. Not so hillarious by Perl-Pusher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  3. How stupid do you have to be? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:How stupid do you have to be? by jdcook · · Score: 4, Insightful
      "Trolls aside, Search King is claiming that Google used their dominant market position (in web searches) to shut down a competitor (Search King) in a different market (advertising)."

      I think you are saying that the thrust of their claim is antitrust. I think this is correct (NOT their claim itself; merely the divination of what their claim is) and they are attempting to argue that Google is an "essential facility." They can't claim breach of contract since they don't have one (although I'm sure Google is going to argue, if it comes to that, that SearchKing is in breach of the toolbar TOS). They do not appear to be claiming tortious interference. Their argument appears to boil down to "something happened at Google that changed our Page Rank and that's unfair so make them stop." This is sort of an "essential facility" argument. But to have even a small chance of prevailing it must first be established that Google is a monopoly. I think this is going to get tossed on a 12(b)(6) motion.

      --
      Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
  4. and page rank goes up by jmacgill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)
  5. His customers? by TechnoLust · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!"
  6. how rich is Google? by mydigitalself · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  7. Blackmailing Google? by Hayzeus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Maybe the point of all this is twofold:

    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.

    1. Re:Blackmailing Google? by aridhol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      IANAL, but can't Google request that the court documents be sealed if they contain trade secrets?

      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  8. Re:Unbiased reporting.. by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Eh, they're both biased, and that's fine. If you think any printed phrase is unbiased, you're just reading something that happens to match your own bias.

    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
  9. What an ego! by Ibag · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Too Easy by LinuxWoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    The second link on the google search for searchking says it all "PageRank For Sale -- Exclusive interview with SearchKing / PR Ad ... ... PANDIA. PANDIA GUEST WRITER. PageRank For Sale. Exclusive interview with SearchKing
    / PR Ad Network's Robert Massa. ... SearchKing and the PR Ad Network. ...
    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.

  11. Re:Too Easy by phil+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Unless Google are deliberately out to get them, then SearchKing don't have a point. If SearchKing is being subjected to the same search algorithm as every other site then I don't see what the problem is. Unless that algorithm was designed specifically to weed out SsearchKing...


    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."
  12. Tosh by Dusabre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Arbitrary vs Purposefully by XaXXon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the SearchKing (can anyone say that with a straight face?) press release regarding the suit (bold font added):

    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 /.'d.. I think that's about my daily recommended dose of irony for the day...

  14. cheap plublicity stunt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IT IS A PUBLICITY STUNT. Nothing else, "search king" has no real case. They are just making alot of noise to boost hits. hugh

  15. The search engine optimisation industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Truth in advertising by ClarkEvans · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  17. Re:Hey look! by leviramsey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy shit. Mr. King is even stupider than I originally thought. I'll let him speak for himself.

    Does an unspoken contract exist between search services and webmasters that allow a search engine to legally build it's business using the content of webmasters without express permission?

    It's called robots.txt. Learn it. Use it.

    Those are just a few of the questions that I personally believe every search service on the net may be liable for. These are questions that have never been asked. There is no precedence for and they have never been challenged. Now we all live with an internet that is riddled with mistrust, misconceptions and misunderstandings. It is a shame.

    Oh, so now you want to destroy search engines themselves. Except for yours. Yeah... um... riiiiiight...

    For the sake of time and in consideration of limited finanacial resources, this case has to be about only one or two things at this time. I can't sue on behalf of all the portals. I don't have permission from everyone. It seems that most people are forgetting that SK is one thing and the portals are something else. It seems no one wants to see that the portals are all independent, but no matter what anyone sees, they are independent and that would have to be something more like a class action suit and I'm not even sure what that entails and could die a happy man if I never have to learn.

    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.

  18. Re:Why on earth... by be-fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  19. Re:The banned site is Searchking.com by dipipanone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Too Easy by theMightyE · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As I remember, Google's ranking algorithm takes into account both the number of other sites that link to you AND the number of people who have historically clicked on a particular link for a given combination of search keywords. For example, a straight search for the keyphrase 'Monty Python' might bring up sites for both the British comedy group and sites about big snakes written by a guy named Monty Burns. Suppose for a second that both have an equal number of links, due to the popularity of the Brits in pop culture and a large number of scientific papers linked to the snake site. Google notes that more people are really looking for Eric Idle, et. al, than there are snake enthusiasts in the world and their engine learns to rank that page higher.

    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?

  21. Re:Not at all. by JudasBlue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.