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".
Case closed.
I am a Karma Library.
I was thinking along the same lines when LawMeme said "The King does have a point: when your "business" consists of shoplifting and the corner store installs a security camera, you're going to go out of business quickly enough that an injunction is your only hope."
-Major Kusanagi, Section 9
"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
results for "php" on searchking Note that the first page of results has nuthin to do with php, or its development, hell it doesnt even return php.net (php's homepage). Meanwhile Google's results return very informational and useful sites, and clearly define which results are paid for. I suppose this is just a window into the obviuos.
Jon Bardin
No, it's pathetic that Google actually will have to waste money defending against such a frivolous suite. I did find this funny though...
on the grounds the organization arbitrarily and purposefully devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites
So, it was an arbitrary ranking, that purposefully targeted him and his customers? I would have thought that arbitrary and purposeful targeting would be mutually exclusive.
I guess he never gave any thought to the possibility that his work sucks. It's always somebody else's fault, isn't it?
for using Google's good name for free advertising!
Is it just me, or does this wreak of a cheap PR campaign for SearchKing?
Has anyone even heard of searchking before this article?
Maybe searchking will be able to sell enough casino ads to pay Google for the rights to use thier name in a pointless law suit that is really just a cheap advertising campaign!
Two words for the wonderful people at Google : COUNTER SUIT!!!
HallmarkOrnaments.Com
My view of what's happening is that SearchKing is in the business of artificially inflating the ranks of their customers on google.com. Google has noticed this and has taken steps to un-inflate those ranks. SearchKing sues of the basis of Tortious Interference (ie they claim that google.com is interfering with a business relationship.)
The claim is pretty bogus because it's sort of like saying "Our company advertises your company by writing grafitti on subway walls. We're suing the subway owners who keep cleaning up the grafitti."
Well, Searchking's business model consists of making people pay them to spam google for them, by making non-paid documents coming up lower. What Searchking doesn't get is that I'm not interested in being spammed by their customers, I'm interested in good search results. It is comforting to see that Google penalizes sites that tries such tactics, because it means that I get better search results. Go Google!
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Yep, SearchKings search algorithm doesn't work too well either. I put in the name of the company I work for (kept anonymous), and it didn't appear top. Given that the name of the company is two words I am suprised that it came up with references to the company, before it even listed the companies web site? Google shows the company's web site first. Hmm, try searching both sites for 'slashdot' for example.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
SearchKing has forums. I like this post best. It is from the SearchKing himself, Bob King. It is a defense of his actions. It seems that he's taking heat for this on his own site.
Care to give him your take on it?
Right there, you said it King. You have no way to control someone else's own business. If you don't like it, fcsk you.
Later he goes on saying, "In the event the PR of a page with an ad changed, we would simply adjust the pricing or adjust where the ad was being displayed at the advertisers request."
I suppose you will sell your services at a real low price, very shortly :)
Sorry to reply to my own comment, but I feel like I gave this guy way too much credit.
An even better analogy to the description he uses in his own press release is that of a car thief that specializes in stealing and stripping Hondas announcing that he's one of Honda's few competitors, and that he has the right to sue Honda if they improve their alarms and anti-theft devices.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
I met this Bob guy (Mr. Searchking) in Vegas a year or two ago (at an Internet marketing conference, yes) - he's a cool guy, funny, and actually had intelligent advice to give.
I think the point he is trying to make is that Google is inherently a commercial entity as they provide business referrals. They also value those referral sources relative to one another, and that value determines the number of referrals they are able to push.
Bob King decided to buy/sell pagerank as a commodity, since it has value, and is there. Very American no?
When Bob did this, Google decided to lower the value of his site. What Bob is arguing is that Google did this arbitrarily, not naturally, and that his business (which was in the business, I presume, of convincing people they can attain a high pagerank on google for you, you know Search Engine Optimization) is damaged by being assigned a low pagerank. Which obviously it is. I wouldn't hire and SEO firm with a PR of 4, and neither would you anyone with a clue. Bob knows this.
In a way Bob has a point, if not a case within that point.
What they don't realize is that their ranking probably went down because they changed their own link structure. If they read the published PageRank papers, they would have know that this would happen. In essence, they devalued themselves as a hub/portal page when they added links for unrelated ads which would naturally bring down their ranking. Any upswing in ranking would be because more incoming links are "assigning authority" to them.
Try looking up "Internet Search" on this site.
Hmmm, no link to google on page 1
How about page 2, um, nope
Oh the irony - phorm
I've been yahooing/altavista-ing/metacrawling/googling (in that order, chronologically) since 1997, and lived in Oklahoma City since then, and I've never heard of these people before now.
I suspect they've got a lot of work ahead of them to prove devaluation. :)
Here's what I posted in my web log when this story broke a couple days ago:
SearchKing runs an elaborate baiting scheme of fake Web pages that link to each other, to try to convince the Google robot to rank its clients' pages higher than you or I would think the pages deserve. Google updated its algorithm to better resist the scheme. SearchKing loses money because of that; SearchKing sues.
I think this is actually less clear-cut than it sounds. SearchKing are bad actors - they were trying to cheat, they don't have a right to do that, it's okay for Google to tweak its algorithms to avoid them, that much is clear. However: what everyone is going to say about this is that Google is a private company and they have a free-speech right to rank pages however the heck they want, and I'm not sure that's actually true. I think there could be situations (not this one, but) where it would be okay for a company to sue Google for ranking them too low.
The reason is that Google is in a monopoly position. Let me say that again: Google is in a monopoly position. It really is. If your Web site gets delisted by Google, or penalized by Google's page ranking algorithm, you don't have the option of saying, "Oh, well, people will find us in some other search engine." It doesn't work that way - everyone uses Google, and if you're not in Google, you're nowhere. Just like everyone uses Microsoft Windows, and if you can't run under Microsoft Windows, you can't run anywhere. Linux, sure, but if you can't run under Windows, you can't run in a large enough number of places that you have a big problem if you were counting on running under Windows. The Google monopoly is actually more solid than Microsoft's because it's not tied to specific independent companies (Intel, etc.) for support.
Google's monopoly means that it does not have complete freedom to rank things however the heck it wants to, the way a smaller search engine might. Google has responsibilities that come from its monopoly. Microsoft cannot legally design its operating system to deliberately screw up its competitors' applications. (Okay, they do that, but they do it illegally.) Google, similarly, should not be allowed to tweak its ranking algorithm in ways that are sneaky and bad. I don't think that penalizing SearchKing is sneaky and bad... but it's easy to imagine that Google could do things that would be sneaky and bad. We just have to trust them not to, and that gives me the willies, especially because Google could do all kinds of things that we'd never know about.
For instance, Google could decide to advocate a political party, and rank that party's pages higher than others, always. Maybe if you searched "Democrat" you would get the Republican anti-Democrat site before the actual Democrat site. (I name U.S. parties because it's more plausible that Google would care about them.) They have plausible deniability, because they could claim that the ranking comes from an objective ranking scheme based on how many links there are, and "Oh, well, I guess there were a whole lot of links to the Republican Web site". That would be sneaky and bad. Google has already shown a willingness to tamper with their search results for reasons that have nothing to do with page relevance, in the xenu.net affair. Granted they were between a rock and a hard place on that one, legally, but I'm not sure they made the right decision, and it's a step that puts them on a slippery slope.
Suppose Google quietly made a site disappear; or, better yet, they just make it appear a few notches lower on the list than it otherwise would. That's a very real harm to the site because people only look at the top few links in the search results; losing one position on the list translates into a loss of a large amount of mindshare. If it was a small site that would normally appear low on the list anyway, would we ever know there was manipulation going on? That's why Google's monopoly frightens me - PageRank is secret, we can tell that overall it seems to work fairly, but they could make a large number of individual exceptions to fair ranking and we, the users, would just chalk that up to "Oh, the algorithm isn't perfect". Google could manipulate its results a whole lot and we would have no way of knowing. We just have to trust Google to be honest. Just like we have to trust censorware companies not to put their political and social agendas into the blocking lists. You know how far I trust censorware companies.
I don't think that Google is abusing its monopoly yet - certainly not in the SearchKing case and probably not anywhere else either. But I do think Google has a monopoly, I do think that monopolies are very dangerous, and I think the Google monopoly needs to be watched. I don't think we should be fooled by their open-source heritage and their cute holiday graphics and so on. Google is a large U.S. corporation that's making a lot of money from their monopoly on an important part of the computing business, we have very little way of knowing whether they are acting honestly, and they have incentives to act dishonestly. This is a dangerous situation. Who will be the Linux to Google's Microsoft?
Oh, and hey, they decided they wanted everyone to come to them first for Internet news reporting too. When Conrad Black did that with Canadian news papers, a lot of us were kind of concerned; but when it's the Web, and it's Google, it's all good, and we all like it, because Google Is Cool. Don't say I didn't warn you.
If they get back up to that 79% number and hold it for any length of time, legally, that makes them a monopoly. No matter how much we may like Google today, it's a lot of power for one search engine to be able to have. It seems like a matter of time if they keep gaining share before they start abusing that power. Microsoft was innovating when they were at war against 1-2-3 and Wordperfect just as Google is today against Overture. With AskJeeves, Inktomi and Altavista looking like they'll go away soon, we will see Google to keep 'innovating ' making the little guys not show up in their search engine anymore?
As much as we may love them now, remember who they're trying to serve: their venture (vulture) capitalists.
The defense mechanism needed in a link-based search engine is to identify groups of sites which link extensively within the group, but have few links from outside the group. The problem is that this is likely to identify as a group any set of sites devoted to a single but obscure subject where most of the people involved know about each other. It's hard to do this on topology alone, although it might turn out to be possible.
The Internet King episode aired in February 1998.
Comic Book Guy: Oh, Captain Janeway. Lace: The Final Brassiere. Oh hurry up, I'm a busy man. Ugh, this high-speed modem is intolerably slow. [The download is interrupted by a banner ad for the "Internet King", with a little picture of Homer wearing a crown.] Hey, what the? Huh, the Internet King. I wonder if he can provide faster nudity.
[Scene changes to Homer's office]
Homer: Welcome to the internet my friend, how can I help you?
Comic Book Guy: I'm interested in upgrading my 28.8 kilobaud Internet connection to a 1.5 megabit fiber-optic T-1 line. Will you be able to provide an IP router that's compatible with my token ring Ethernet LAN configuration?
Homer: [long pause] Can I have some money now?
So you see, Homer ran a very typical Internet company. The only thing notable about it was the very untypical way it ended (for a dot-com, that is), with Bill Gates showing up in person to trash Homer's office. But you have to give the Simpson's writers credit. This was written in 1998 and back then nobody knew that an Internet company needs to turn a profit to survive.