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".

Comments

Too Easy

[BoBaBrain]

Case closed.

Re:Too Easy

[PunchMonkey]

I like how hit #10 is kuro5hin's story on this.... 2 days ago. I'm sure some k5 zealot will be ranting about this shortly...

Re:Too Easy

[BoBaBrain]

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...

As a matter of interest, are Google under any legal obligation to provide an "fair" search?


By the way, the link in my original post gave searchking.de top billing as I am searching from Switzerland.

Re:Too Easy

[LinuxWoman]

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.

Re:Too Easy

[BoBaBrain]

Could be. Although there isn't a searchking.co.uk, so maybe germany was the closest.

Possibly?

Re:Too Easy

[phil reed]

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).

Re:Too Easy

[mccalli]

Despite the search criteria 'searchking' being typed in, searchking.com isn't even listed on the first page of results

...because no-one else links to them. I own the domain Astirion.com, a mere placeholder for an email address, and Google doesn't list me at all if you search for Astirion.

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Too Easy

[tiedyejeremy]

• Robert Massa:There is nothing wrong with wanting link popularity for your site and I'm saying there is nothing wrong with sending out email to people you don't know from Adam and trying to conduct business without the benefit of money, but there is also nothing wrong with paying for the value you perceive with cash. I call it doing business.

I call it SPAM!!!!!!

• Robert Massa: Maybe I really am the Internet anti-Christ for saying this, but here goes. I am a salesman. I sell things for a living. I get hired by my clients to sell things. That's what I do, I'm good at it and I make no apologies for it. If a cynical SEO uses the term "eke out cash" as a synonym for "make a sale," then yes, I am guilty.

You are the anti-christ. Case Closed.

Re:Too Easy

[xmutex]

You'd think the real anti Christ would just zap Google with some lightning bolts, some biblical hellfire, or some cool shit like that, rather than some lousy mundane lawsuit.

Too bad!

Re:Too Easy

[Derleth]

By the way, the link in my original post gave searchking.de top billing as I am searching from Switzerland.

Nope. It's first for me, too, and I'm searching from the USA. PageRank is geography-independent.

Re:Too Easy

[emac]

...because no-one else links to them

Not strictly true, Google says about 1570 sites link to searchking.com. Although most of those are probably either his affiliates or stories about the lawsuit.

Re:Too Easy

[Ichijo]

Said by BoBaBrain:
"As a matter of interest, are Google under any legal obligation to provide an 'fair' search?"

Probably not. As a matter of fact, according to Google's own Terms of Service:

"You may not use the Google Search Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales."

...which is exactly what Search King is trying to do for themselves and their customers. Needless to say,the case should be thrown out.

Re:Too Easy

[tevman]

hmmm maybe they would like a call or two... but i mean, under no circumstances should you call them... reallllyyy.... PR AD NETWORK 3517 S. Shields Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73129 Let's get started Call Toll free 888-956-7672 405-634-6562 Fax - 405-634-6568

Re:Too Easy

[Myco]

Um, lawyers have been the devil's instruments since time immemorial.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Despite the search criteria 'searchking' being typed in, searchking.com isn't even listed on the first page of results like you'd expect it to be"

'Search' and 'King' are commonly used nouns. I'm sure that's a factor in it.

Re:Too Easy

[DavidTC]

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.

Not only that, but google has fricken ads down the side of the page. If I want to see who's willing to pay for my eyeballs, I'll look over there (and, indeed, I do sometimes, depends on what I'm searching for). That's where people pay to show up. The search results are not for that.

People paying to get bumped up in the page ranking are idiots. You want to go up in the page rankings, get more people to honestly link to you. You want to pay for more hits, buy an ad.

Re:Too Easy

[theMightyE]

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?

Re:Too Easy

[Dudio]

True, but Google is rapidly becoming the de facto standard for a lot of people, to the point that "google" is frequently used as a generic verb. If this keeps up, at some point they will achieve monopoly power even though numerous competitors exist, just like Microsoft with desktop operating systems.

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.

Re:Too Easy

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Whilst 'search' and 'king' may be commonly used nouns on their own, joining them together in a string 'searchking' is rare."

Google's not so literal with their 'containing all words' feature. Granted, 'SearchKing' should be fine, I've had Google remove periods and dashes from my verbose searches before.

Do a search for '6:05', the first match that pops up is "6/05".

Re:Too Easy

[BRUTICUS]

I never heard of SearchKing before reading this. Maybe this is a new way of advertising.

Re:Too Easy

[dirvish]

As a matter of interest, are Google under any legal obligation to provide an "fair" search?

I don't understand why they would be. If they feel like excluding searchking.com they should be able to. I don't like to see them deviate from their proven algorith just to squash competition I believe they should have the right to. I don't see this case going very far.

BTW, searchking.de is the #1 one result here in California also. searchking.com doesn't show up until near the bottom of the third page.

Re:Too Easy

[wandernotlost]

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.

This is not technically possible, unless Google used a clickthrough system for each link, which it does not. When you click on a link from a Google page, other than things like cached pages or sponsored links, your browser goes directly to the site linked to in order to get the page. No more information is sent back to Google. There is no way for them to get more information about which link you click on, unless each link is to a Google address that redirects you to the real page. Again, this is only done for sponsored links.

Given the fact that both the terms 'search' and 'king' are pretty common, it's not suprising that lots of sites come up.

Neither the search terms 'search' nor 'king' will match with 'SearchKing'. Google and most other search engines, IIRC, don't search based on stems, but for the exact word you type (including plurality). From Google's basic help page:

To provide the most accurate results, Google does not use "stemming" or support "wildcard" searches. In other words, Google searches for exactly the words that you enter in the search box. Searching for "googl" or "googl*" will not yield "googler" or "googlin". If in doubt, try both forms: "airline" and "airlines," for instance.

Re:Too Easy

[WittCycleGuy]

True, but Google is rapidly becoming the de facto standard for a lot of people, to the point that "google" is frequently used as a generic verb. If this keeps up, at some point they will achieve monopoly power even though numerous competitors exist, just like Microsoft with desktop operating systems.

According to Webster's, a monopoly is "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service." While Google has a large market share, and it continues to grow, there are stark differences between them and Microsoft. Google actually inovates freely, and puts out (IMHO) the best product on the market. Their technology is second to few if any. I don't think you can make this arguement about M$. You are comparing apples to oranges. Microsoft does have an unhealthy monopoly over the desktop o/s. There are few reasonable alternative choices for the average user. Even though I don't use M$ on the desktop, a huge percentage of people do! On the same token, Google is a great product, yet there are many feasable and widely availble alternatives. A large market share does not a monopoly make.

Re:Too Easy

[prizog]

That's not a preliminary injunction! It's a motion (i.e. request) for a preliminary injunction!

Re:Too Easy

[Koos]

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.

This is not technically possible, unless Google used a clickthrough system for each link, which it does not.

From time to time it does. I have seen all searchresults link through a redirector at google. Not very often, I have seen it happen twice so far.

Re:Too Easy

[Gaijin42]

Acutally, selective enforcement is grounds for having a law thrown out. (or if not the entire law, your particular case) This is because when the law is selectively encorced it is usually because of racial/ethnic/politicol profiling, someone with an axe to grind, or they couldn't pin anything else on you.

For example : Did you know that it is illegal to drive your car across state lines if you have a loan on it, without first informing the holder of the loan that you intend to do so?

Of course, everyone does this, and nobody gets busted. Until they (yes, the infamous they) want to get you to testify, or give information, or just toss you in jail because they can't prove you were the "bad guy"

Of course, this has no relevence in the google case, which is not a government entity, and can make whatever terms it wants with whomever it wants.

Re:Too Easy

[Brendan Byrd]

As a matter of interest, are Google under any legal obligation to provide an "fair" search?

Obviously not, because SearchKing doesn't provide a fair search. It's nothing but searchable ads.

Re:Too Easy

[Old Wolf]

How would Windows have an OS monopoly? what about Linux, Solaris, BSD... Lots of people use them.

they just have...

[silicon1]

search envy..

Re:they just have...

[Midnight Thunder]

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.

Re:they just have...

[daviddennis]

However, searching Google for SearchKing digs up the dirt on SearchKing before linking to the site itself. (In fact, I don't see a link to anything on searchking.com on the first page).

Not to say that I sympathise with SearchKing. Their practices are clearly in conflict with providing quality search results, so they richly deserved to be slapped.

D

Google's PageRanking algorythm

[WittyName]

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..

Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm

[mt-biker]

Microsoft's OS is owned by Microsoft. As are their file formats.

You expect Microsoft to adhere to any sort of standard? Not to change them in the way that best benefits them financially?

Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm

[lovebyte]

Name says it all.
Yep. It says: I can't spell algorithm!

Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm

[CheapshotOverkill]

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.

Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm

[Omnifarious]

No, I don't, which is the reason their power must be destroyed.

Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm

[moz25]

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.

Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm

[Dirtside]

Not even remotely. The DMCA only applies to devices or technologies that are used to break encryption that is protecting a copyrighted work. Reverse-engineering a trade secret (which is what PageRank is) has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA, and in fact is a time-honored (and court-approved) method of business competition. If you manage to figure it out yourself, and don't engage in any illegal practices to get the trade secret (such as bribing one of the company's engineers), you're totally in the clear.

Yes, it's more complicated than that, but the DMCA has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm

[The Raven]

The worst that google can be blamed (but not sued) for would be that they don't do as they say they do...

Not true. You can sue anyone-anytime-anywhere-for-anything. You just may not WIN. :-)

Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm

[Old Wolf]

Someone tell that to the guys who wrote Internet Explorer

Not so hillarious

[Perl-Pusher]

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!

Re:Not so hillarious

[Xaoswolf]

I think we are OK. Since according to Lawmeme, they shouldn't be able to afford the Lawyers, let alone the new servers after the slashdotting they are recieving right now.

PlowKing?

[RobL3]

Ah... I always wondered what Homer did after the PlowKing fiasco....

Re:PlowKing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Barney Gumble ran Plow King. Homer ran the Mr. Plow business.

Signed,
Simpsons Nerd

Re:PlowKing?

[Gudlyf]

Everybody!

"Call Mr. Search,
that's my name.
That name again
is Mr. Search!"

Re:PlowKing?

[poopsie]

When your search rank is a fallin'
There's a man you should be callin'
That's KL5-4796,
Let it ring!

Mr. Google is a loser,
And I think he is a boozer,
So you better make that call to the Search King!

In Spanish too!

Senor Google no es macho,
Es solamente un borracho

Re:PlowKing?

[mikeage]

First, the Plow King was Barney (Homer was Mr. Plow). Second, we know Homer founded compuglobalhypermeganet, as well as the infamous Mr. X website. Third, get a life (self referencial)

Re:PlowKing?

[cyranoVR]

YES but Homer Simpson was the Internet King

Re:PlowKing?

[dildatron]

Yes, this AC is correct. Remember Homer's Mr. Plow song?

"Mr. Plow, that's my name, that name again is Mr. Plow!"

How stupid do you have to be?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

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

Re:How stupid do you have to be?

[cperciva]

How stupid do you have to be to think you have a chance suing google over improving their technology

Isn't that what the DOJ did to Microsoft?

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).

Their actual case is absurdly weak, but it isn't nearly as crazy as some people are suggesting.

Re:How stupid do you have to be?

[intermodal]

Their actual case is absurdly weak, but it isn't nearly as crazy as some people are suggesting.

Justifiably, there is no case at all to be made. Regardless of Google's popularity, there is no way that Search King can even begin to claim that Google is even required to index their stuff. Dominant or not, Google is still technically a web page, and we all know that unless your server's TOS (i.e. Geocities or Tripod, if the latter still exists) requires banners or other such crap. So if Google runs their own site off their own servers, it's entirely their decision what goes on the site. Even if they're dominant, there are plenty of options out there. This suit is nothing but bullying.

Re:How stupid do you have to be?

[jdcook]

"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.

Re:How stupid do you have to be?

[Cryptnotic]

How come Henry Bemis doesn't just find an optometrist's office? I mean, *some* lenses must have survived the nuke, right

That wasn't the point of that episode. It was supposed to be ironic that he had everything he wanted except he was screwed by the loss of a particular piece of technology (his glasses).

Re:How stupid do you have to be?

[jdcook]

"That wasn't the point of that episode. It was supposed to be ironic that he had everything he wanted except he was screwed by the loss of a particular piece of technology (his glasses)."

Gee, really?

Time for a name change

[red_dragon]

Since they already seem to be in the financial doldrums, it is a good time for them to change their name. I suggest: Suc King.

Re: Time for a name change

[Black Parrot]

> Since they already seem to be in the financial doldrums, it is a good time for them to change their name. I suggest: Suc King.

• SearchFunds
• WhingeKing
• ParaSite

Re:Time for a name change

[demigod]

...I suggest: Suc King.

Almost, how about Sue King.

Re:Time for a name change

[NineNine]

Personally, I like "Scam King"

Re:Time for a name change

[marko123]

What about SearchKings Behind-The-Firewall, Enterprise-Wide search product:

WanKing

And if this were the Simpsons . . .

[IndependentVik]

Everyone knows that google backs Homer's Mr. Search.

"That name again is Mr. Search . . ."

Unbiased reporting..

[larien]

you gotta love it:

SearchKing, Oklahoma's premiere parasitic link-farm

vs

SearchKing is one of the pioneers in developing portal and search engine software and services

Guess which report has which statement? :)

Re:Unbiased reporting..

[JabberWokky]

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..."

Re:Unbiased reporting..

[afidel]

Yep everyone has a bias and it often comes out in our writing. One of the best courses I ever took was my honors american history course. Over the course of the year we used 3 different college textbooks as our primary sources and at the end of the course in liu of a final we had to write a paper on how the bias of the authors effected their reporting of history. This was one of the most enlightening things I have ever had the joy of completing.

Re:Unbiased reporting..

[wandernotlost]

Wait...didn't you just engage in a meta-discussion about 'bias'?

Hmm.

Better way of doing things

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Yea, much better PR doing it this way.

Why on earth...

[LordKariya]

Can google not do whatever the hell it wants with its own site ? If google wants to give sites with the word "Sluts" a +90% page rank... it's perfectly free to do so. The "Whores" have no right to complain.

Re:Why on earth...

[anthony_dipierro]

Same reason that Microsoft can't do whatever the hell it wants with its own Operating System.

Re:Why on earth...

[hendridm]

> Actually they have to fairly apply their standard (algorthmic or otherwise) the same to everyone.

Says who?!?

Does Macromedia need to make sure their web site is equally viewable by all users? What about my personal web page? Does Slashdot (or any other news source) *have to* represent both sides of the story without bias? What about the AMA reporting and cigarette smoking is bad for you - doesn't this disparage Philip Morris (sp)? Why is Google under some requirement to represent all web sites fairly? Do Lycos and Altavista have the same obligation? If so, what about payola?

I don't get it.

Re:Why on earth...

[be-fan]

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.

Re:Why on earth...

[ReelOddeeo]

Same reason that Microsoft can't do whatever the hell it wants with its own Operating System.

Google is not a monopoly. Google does not bundle products that you do not want with products that you must have. Google does not manipulate hardware OEM's so that they cannot afford to offer any competitor's product.

Google is not a monopoly: you can use any search engine you want. They are all equally accessible.

Operating systems are not equally accessible. With extremely few exceptions, if you buy a PC, you must pay Microsoft, whether you want it or not. Not so with Google.

PageRank.c

[CaffeineAddict2001]

// Screw you search king!!
if(q[i]="Searchking") {
q[i].rank = q.bottom - 1
}

Re:PageRank.c

[Skirwan]

if(q[i]="Searchking") {

0 error(s), 1 warning(s):
On line 2 of post 4495094: Possible unwanted assignment.

Re:PageRank.c

[CaffeineAddict2001]

A *REAL* coder would have noticed that q.bottom - 1 would either be out of bounds or be one up from the bottom.

Oh well, bad jokes deserve bad code I guess.

Re:PageRank.c

[micromoog]

A *REAL* coder would have noticed that q.bottom - 1 would either be out of bounds or be one up from the bottom. Oh well, bad jokes deserve bad code I guess.

A *REAL* <blah blah blah> would have noticed that the original article mentions that the SearchKing press release is ranked 2 out of 10. Yes, 2 is "one up from the bottom".

Just like an egotistical ivory-tower half-blind code monkey to start pointing out bugs without reading the spec.

Re:PageRank.c

[Alomex]

if(q[i]="Searchking") {


0 error(s), 1 warning(s):
Program language deprecated; please upgrade:
http://www.python.org.

Re:PageRank.c

[be-fan]

The file is named PageRank.c, which gcc will by default interpret as a ANSI-C file.

Quote from their page

[blitzoid]

"In a much-too-common case of a big organization monopolizing the marketplace, an Oklahoma City e-news company is taking its battle with Internet- giant Google, Inc. to the courts." Yeah, fight the power. I wasn't aware google was a 'monopolizing giant'. Let's home the DOJ takes them down!

Re:Quote from their page

[siskbc]

You can still use Yahoo, Netscape, MSN, altavista, or anyone else. I love how journalists who have no computer, science, or C/S training never fail to mangle tech stories.

and page rank goes up

[jmacgill]

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!"

Re:and page rank goes up

[Sabalon]

which will be great cause when if it gets to court then SearchKing should have a fun time explaining why their ranking is so high and not low as the suit stated.

steam blows over, their ranking falls, lather, rinse, repeat

Re:and page rank goes up

[Ami Ganguli]

As it should, but I think (hope) that Google is more sophisticated than that. It will go up for queries like "google law suit", not for anything SearchKing cares about.

Re:and page rank goes up

[dattaway]

I remember when people discovered the "more evil than satan himself" results, everyone linked to the stories about it, obscuring the original search.

I'm sure SearchKing will get its "more evil than satan" 15 minutes of fame over this. Because I feel they are evil, whoring search trolls. (can they sue me over this too?)

Re:and page rank goes up

[WEFUNK]

The trick will be to get this Slashdot article to be ranked just one higher so perhaps a few of the people dumb enough to think about paying this leach will Google him first and find out what a scam it is. Of course anyone with half a brain who reads this guys very own press release should be able to figure it out:

"In August 2002, PR Ad Network began placing text ads for businesses on web sites with a high PageRank from Google, thereby becoming one of very few competitors to Google's advertising service."

Right. That's like saying an autobody shop competes with Ford and then has the right to sue when Ford switches from sheet metal to plastic or that a used Ford dealer is a competitor to Ford that can sue Ford if they starts discounting new cars or discontinuing models. What an idiot.

Re:and page rank goes up

[mustangdavis]

...

page rank goes down

page rank goes up

page rank goes down

-- Homer Simpson

Re:and page rank goes up

[darksaber]

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.

IIRC,

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC, these guys were previously featured in a Slashdot article for taking advantage of their relatively high standing in the pagerank algorithms by selling prominent links on theif front to the highest bidders for the express purpose of raising their rank in the search results?

Re:IIRC,

[adamjaskie]

selling prominent links on theif front to the highest bidders

(emphasis mine)
Freudian slip?

Maybe I Am Missing the Point

[LordYUK]

Okay, SearchKing (that is soooo cheesy, IMHO) is a search engine, correct? And Google is a Search Engine too, right? Does Toyota advertise for Honda? Is there something here I missed, or is this whole thing just plain stupid?

I mean, really, this guy/company is stupid. Of course, "no publicity is bad publicity", just look at Acclaim...

Re:Maybe I Am Missing the Point

[JabberWokky]

No. SearchKing is a 'service' that says they will improve your score on search engines like Google. They do this by trying to exploit the algorithms of engines like the Google PageRank system. So Google updated their algorithm to prevent the abuse.

It's a bit like Captain Midnight suing HBO. Very bizarre.

--
Evan

Re:Maybe I Am Missing the Point

[cfulmer]

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."

Re:Maybe I Am Missing the Point

[evilviper]

Quite true, but I think LordKariya had a better point... It's google's site. If they wanted to, they could remove sites on a whim. This is like slashdot removing a link from their front page, and being sued over it. There's nothing compelling google to index searchking at all.

Google: Oh, you're suing us, huh? **Click** Your page rank problem has been solved.

It's unfortunate that google has to waste money defending themselves. Hopefully they can recover their legal fees in the end.

Re:Maybe I Am Missing the Point

[orenmnero]

Case in point; In google, my open source application comes up first in a search, in SearchKing, the same search bring me up number 10, after all the commercial vendors. If SearchKing had its way, I would be pushed down in google as well.

Re:Maybe I Am Missing the Point

[leviramsey]

Interestingly enough, the searchking ceo claims that the big issue is the existence of spider-based search engines, for he claims that they are illegally using intellectual property without an agreement.

It's obvious that Google and SearchKing do not have such an agreement, so I say Google should just refuse to follow links to .searchking.com. Guess what that makes SearchKing's pagerank?

His customers?

[TechnoLust]

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.

Re:His customers?

[Quixotic Raindrop]

D000d! That is such a good idea!

I can see it now: "The New York Times is reporting that a Class-action lawsuit filed in San Jose, California, demands that internet search engine SearchKing repay millions in lost revenue to all sites not indexed by SearchKing, because its lawsuit against Google caused an upswing in hits for SearchKing-related websites, which drove customers away from the plantiff's websites. In a related note, a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York today by businesses which are indexed by SearchKing, demanding that SearchKing sue Northern Light, AltaVista, Yahoo, and all other internet search engines to require that SearchKing hits be listed first in all returned search results."

They can't be serious. They CAN'T be f*****g serious. People wonder why innovation in this country is at a standstill virtually everywhere ... (commercially, anyway).

Searchking

[seanmeister]

Is it just me, or does "SearchKing" sound like Popeye attempting to say "searching"?

Re:Searchking

[Gudlyf]

Nah, that would be "Soitchking [insert Popeye laugh here]"

hmm

[cetan]

By this article being posted to slashdot, and others picking up on the story and posting more links to SearchKing, won't their rank go up automagicly?

Maybe they were only after publicity to begin with?

how rich is Google?

[mydigitalself]

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?

Re:how rich is Google?

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Google makes a good amount of money licensing their technology out (See AOL's NetFind).
It also wouldnt supprise me if they got a decent amount of donations just for being the best search engine around. How many hours of research have you saved by just going to google?

Re:how rich is Google?

[cptgrudge]

I suppose if you really want to help "support" google, you can go to the google store.
Yay. I'm gonna buy a pen. And a hat.

However, I don't think they are hurting right now. Take a look at all the business deals they have made in their timeline.

Re:Hilarious

[bsharitt]

Never under estimate the American judicial system.

If it gets to court...

[surprise_audit]

Here's hoping the judge dislikes banner ads and popups as intensely as the rest of us:

SearchKing: We sell banner ads based on...
Judge: Case dismissed.
SearchKing: But, but, but...
Judge: You want to pay the defendant's costs? Great! Keep talking.

Re:If it gets to court...

[quintessent]

Don't diss all banner ads. They're good. They pay for what you read on the Internet. They pay for servers and bandwidth and all sorts of things. Good netizens will occasionally click on one that is truly interesting.

However, these are bad (and you will not catch me clicking on them):
Banner ads that flash, move, or otherwise make it hard to read the text below.
Any ad that tries to look like a system message.
Ads that take up too much space.
Ads that are deceptive in any way.

Really, really bad:
Pop-ups. Pop-ups are evil. Nothing more to say.

LawMeme sums it up best

[Kusanagi]

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."

Baseless claim

[Drizzten]

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.

SearchKing began business as an Internet search engine and web hosting company in 1997, approximately a year before Google's inception. In August 2002, PR Ad Network began placing text ads for businesses on web sites with a high PageRank from Google, thereby becoming one of very few competitors to Google's advertising service. According to the lawsuit, once Google became aware of this, it lowered SearchKing's PageRank and the ranking of the web sites it hosts.

PageRank (PR) is a Google-developed system of determining the value of a particular website. The PR of a site, which ranges from one to 10 (10 being the highest), is displayed publicly on each site visited through the use of the Google tool bar, which can be down loaded to any computer for free, PR value is determined several ways, including calculating the number of web pages (links) pointing to a particular page and how relevant they are to the topic at hand.

"From February of 2001 to last month, SearchKing's PageRank was seven" Massa said. "Within 30 days of launching PR Ad Network's services, our PageRank dropped to four"

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.

[...]

"This action by Google clearly demonstrates the free-trade threat that now faces all businesses with an Internet presence," Massa said. "If using the PageRank were a threat to Google, why would they release it to the public? In many ways, our use of PageRank serves only to validate the system."

This isn't a threat to free trade. Real threats to free trade come from government intervention and business fraud. Google, for reasons it choose on it's own (or maybe even through automated processes out of it's day-to-day monitoring), changed the rank of some webpages. This affected advertising revenue...but there is no mention of any contract among Google, SearchKing, and PR Ad Network formally laying out some mutually-beneficial binding system. This suit seems more like a grasping of straws rather than a serious case.

Re:Baseless claim

[autocracy]

Yes, but if the site contains ads designed to exploit PageRank, then the value of the site probably isn't that high, now is it?

Blackmailing Google?

[Hayzeus]

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.

Re:Blackmailing Google?

[aridhol]

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

Re:Blackmailing Google?

[gorilla]

Yes they can.

Re:Blackmailing Google?

[anonymous loser]

Yes, but that wouldn't matter so much since I would assume the point would be for SearchKing to learn the details of how the ranking system works so they can spam it more effectively, or even duplicate it.

Re:Blackmailing Google?

[aridhol]

Is there any requirement that Google keeps the same PageRank algorithm after the case? They are continually tweaking it, so SK's optimizations are still time-limited.

Re:Hilarious

[Transient0]

shouldn't this be: never overestimate the American Judicial system.

btw, i'm a canadian, but you can assume that all disparaging statements about the US apply to my country as well(unless they're about drug legislation or health care).

Huh?

[aridhol]

Google's PageRank algorithm is designed to ensure that the most topical pages for a search get the top billing. SearchKing's services seem to be altering customer pages to get around Google's requirement to have decent content on the site. Google fixes their PageRank so it can continue to serve its purpose. SearchKing sues.

Is that about how everything is working here?

1. Break Google's algorithm
2. Google fixes algorithm
3. Sue Google
4. ???
5. Profit

SearchKing... of ads

[Diclophis]

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.

Re:SearchKing... of ads

[scott1853]

You're surprised? I'm going to get sued for posting their proprietary searching technology, but here's the source for the SearchKing algorithms:

SELECT * FROM LinksTable ORDER BY AmountPaid DESC

Re:SearchKing... of ads

[jfunk]

Do that search again. The results make sense now.

Either you're lying, or some idiot at Search King messed with their system for that one search.

I believe the latter. Do a search for 'python' and you won't find python.org or pythonline in there. In fact every single result is one of those pages most of us wish didn't exist. They're bottom-feeding and entirely useless.

Search for KDE and get this page as the first hit. I'm sure the author didn't ever intend to be the first hit on a search of 'KDE.' Yet again, no kde.org, but there are a bunch of side KDE sites such as dot.kde.org and www.kde.com.

"Search King" indeed.

Re:SearchKing... of ads

[Tablizer]

SELECT * FROM LinksTable ORDER BY AmountPaid DESC

This is almost identical to a joke posted during the story on Overture's lawsuit against Google about list-ranking systems about 6 months ago.

IOW, the above SQL possibly violates Overture's overly broad "business methods" patent on "ranking links electronically" (dispite the fact that newspapers have been doing it for a long time with ads).

It would be really ironically funny if the tooting of SearchKings's horn causes Overture's ears to perk up and their lawyers come sniffing around SearchKing.

Hillarious?

[FreeLinux]

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?

Re:I guess MS will sue Google soon too

[macrom]

What's even better is the "Sponsored Link" on the right advertising "Windows Replacement". OK, so I left of the "House-" part of that...oops. I'll just saction myself from ever posting about Microsoft again.

Fuckers!

[mosch]

This is shocking. I bet Google will have the gall to claim that they were only making these changes so that the most relevant results are listed, instead of admitting the truth, that they were attempted to destroy the very reputable SearchKing. Now how are on-line casino owners supposed to make themselves the top results for searches like 'Britney Spears Naked', or 'Busty Ladies'.

Clearly, this is a move by Google designed to hurt not only SearchKing, but the general consumer!

Re:Fuckers!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now how are on-line casino owners supposed to make themselves the top results for searches like 'Britney Spears Naked', or 'Busty Ladies'.

SearchKing

Search For: God, Jesus, church, life, pure

....

*** waiting for results ***

....

*** still waiting for results as /. users DoS these bastards *** ....

The results of your search for: God, Jesus, church, life, pure

1. Jesus Christ! God damn are these babes so hot and pure. ... Watch them have sex for the first time in their life ina church! ....
2. WWF smack down! Next week, watch God vs. Jesus, but not in a church; in the ring! This will be a battle for life ... a battle of pure skill!

There were 2 results for your search. If this search wasn't what you were looking for, tell the people that own similar sites to pay us to list their site.

Re:everyone click here!

[Ionizor]

What's even funnier is the result set that's returned:

http://www.searchking.com/servlet/SearchKing?at= se arch&keyword=SEARCHKING+SUCKS+ASS

$ The World's Cheapest Web Host Web Hosting for just $3.95 a month - 30 day free trial. No gimmicks, no surprises, no hidden costs!

1 Feel Fresh Bidet
Distributors of feel fresh bidet Bathroom Accessories and Innovative Health Care Products for ideal personal hygiene

Maybe Google Should Sue SearchKing ....

[mustangdavis]

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!!!

Re:Maybe Google Should Sue SearchKing ....

[tomhudson]

It's not a cheap PR campaign.

It's their way of trying to stay alive when they have NO business plan, NO real product, and NO way to succeed except cheating!

Actually, if google were to put a few lines of code in to totally ignore any links to "Search King", et. al., they'd still be within the law. Google is (last time I looked, anyway) a private business, with no obligation to parasites like Massa.

Google: Single Point of Failure

[Salamanders]

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...)

Re:Google: Single Point of Failure

[XNormal]

If they just outright stopped linking to a given site, is that still their right?

Sure. And it's my right to switch to Teoma or another search engine. I find this scenario quite unlikely, though. True reputation is hard to build, easy to destroy.

Why is it that fake reputation created by continously bombarding people with your name in advertising seems nearly unaffected by the worst scandals?

This is absurd

[A Cheese Danish]

From the motion filed:

Once Google became aware of the fact Search King was profiting from Google's page ranking system it purposefully devalued Search King and the web sites it hosts

First of all, I'm sure this is majorly redundant, what did they expect? Google is not a peace-loving group of coding hippy monkies. It is a for-profit company. I liken this to someone writing a book report, and then someone else trying to sell the book using the book report as advertisment without asking the report's author for permission.

...and one more thing:

We have no control over anyone, including the websites within our network...

That itself speaks volumes!

aparently the pigeons like *real content*

[the_pooh_experience]

Google's rank technique doesn't leave much for "tweaking"

Learning is fun

[Sunkist]

From SearchKing press release

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.

Hate to tell you Bob, an action cannot be arbitrarily ("determined by chance") and purposefully ("intentional") committed.

Way to go you...CEO!

Re:Learning is fun

[Alsee]

Hate to tell you Bob, an action cannot be arbitrarily ("determined by chance") and purposefully ("intentional") committed.

That reminds me of a joke in Law School in a Nutshell, Part III...

There's a lawyer joke you hear pretty early on in law school. It goes:

What did the lawyer say when accused of breaking a vase?

1. It's my vase . . .
2. . . . it was broken when you gave it to me . . .
3. . . . it was in perfect shape when I gave it back . . .
4. . . . and I've never seen that vase before in my life.

This is called "arguing in the alternative." Lawyers do it all the time. For some reason it seems to drive non-lawyers absolutely nuts. The way it works is that you provide a whole bunch of reasons for something, so that even if you lose on N-1 of them, you still win on the last one. The twist is that you act completely innocent whenever anyone complains that your reasons contradict each other. You just look at them and smile, as though you have utterly no idea what they're talking about. All you have to do is pretend that you're living in a Douglas Adams novel and it's surprisingly easy.

-

In Other News

[carlhirsch]

Springfield's "Mister Plow" sued the City of Springfield for taking business away from him.

The "Plow King" declined to comment.

MY Favorite Part

[Compulawyer]

... is the whining Massa does is his "open letter" that he posted in the discussion thread. Massa says:

Re: PageRank by Judicial Decree? SearchKing Sues Google

by bobking on Sunday, October 20 @ 16:26:58 EDT ...

This letter is intended for James Grimmelman, who had the by-line for the SearchKing sues Google article here . It was difficult to find a contact address and if this is not the correct way of reaching him and you have a way, please send it to me or forward this to him.

Thank You Bob Massa CEO SearchKing, Inc. *******************

Just a question James.

Did it ever occur to you to maybe ask the person you're writing about for his views BEFORE insinuating I was a parasitic link farm?

If you take your web presence seriously, and accept that the words research.yale.edu means something, doesn't that put a responsibility on you to be open-minded and fair? To at least try to report objectively?

Have you even looked at the site? Read any of the SearchKing forums or tried to contact me for my opinion? If no, then shame on you.

Regardless of whether I'm just a loser who is whining about his placements or an honest businessman who has spent over 6 years building a reputable online presence with a real concern that could have far reaching effects on the further of search engines and maybe even e-commerce, wouldn't your own work be better if you at least tried to hear and present both sides?

Respectfully

Bob Massa CEO SearchKing, Inc.

I don't know what is funnier - his rant or the fact that his username to post is "bobking." All Hail King Bob!

Re:MY Favorite Part

[schlach]

KEEP SEARCHKING FREE

SearchKing is in the interactive, information and entertainment business. Much like a radio station or TV. We provide information and entertainment to the general public at no charge to our users, just like radio or TV. That means that whether we charge YOU to do a search or use our content or not, we are still a business and we have to make a profit to remain in business.

Like any other business, we have expenses. Employees, servers, bandwidth, rent and utilities. Let's not forget the taxes too. All these expenses have to paid and we are able to pay them through the revenues we receive from advertisers. People who want YOU as their customers.

I refuse to believe this operation is anything more than Bob Massa sitting in his parents' basement. Every piece of content on his web site was written by him. That's a busy CEO...

Unlike far too many of our competitors, we know YOU are smart enough to understand this. So, we don't try to hide or mislead anyone in any way. We are proud of our advertisers and proud that we are able to offer a service such as SearchKing for free.

I'm glad they aren't charging surfers for advertiser-purchased rankings whose prices are based on the page rankings by a free and well-regarded search engine... Hail to the King, baby.

From his post on his own forums:

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?

So the angle he's playing is that he and Google signed on unspoken (and presumably unwritten) contract that Google is now in breach of... uh huh. I don't think anyone should cry for Google's legal expenses. As long as they show up, with or without a lawyer, the case should be summarily dismissed. GOOGLE: There will never be a more perfect time to walk into a courtroom with a monkey in a three piece suit and tell the judge that he's your counsel. Think about it... =)

If his shyster lawyers really thought the suit was viable, they'd tell him to keep his dumb mouth shut...

Re:MY Favorite Part

[matrix29]

Like any other business, we have expenses. Employees, servers, bandwidth, rent and utilities. Let's not forget the taxes too. All these expenses have to paid and we are able to pay them through the revenues we receive from advertisers. People who want YOU as their customers.

I refuse to believe this operation is anything more than Bob Massa sitting in his parents' basement. Every piece of content on his web site was written by him. That's a busy CEO...

The "Staff" of Magic City.com

We'd like you to be able to get to know the people who will be working on your placement. We have a staff of 8 people and each of these people play a specific and crucial role in our clients success. We also have several people that we contract out to build your promotional domain.

BOB
The BOSS.
e-mail: bobking@searchking.com
Robert (Bob) Massa has over 25 years experience in sales, advertising and marketing; marketing online since April '96.
2nd E-mail: bobcard@ionet.net

Picture not yet available
DAN
PROGRAMER
Dan Kavanaugh came all the way from Montana to make himself a member of the Magic-City family. He is an expert programmer. He has been working with code for many years and has even designed his own computer game.
E-mail: dan@searchking.com

ROBERT LARSON
Systems Admin.

Robert joined us in June 1st of 2002. Responsiblities include network and server management. Responsible for installling, configuring and troubleshooting.
E-mail: karma0@spyring.com

KATHI
Office Manager
One of the best award winning website designers in the business. Over 1,000 web pages to her credit. Kathi is also in charge of accounts payable and affiliate management.
E-mail: kathi@craftmax.com

KEVIN
Data Specialist
Kevin Anderson is an incredible asset to our company as he is a highly successful search engine placement professional. He is responsible for tech support and installation.
E-mail: kevin@searchking.com

RONDA
Search Engine Specialist
Ronda has been with our company since 1999. She has an outstanding success record in placing promotional domains in the top of the search engines.
E-mail: ronda@searchking.com

YVONNE
(MOM KING)
She has gone back to being just MOM!
Hope you enjoy your time off.

CONTRACT WEB DESIGNERS

Picture not yet available
MIKE R
Web Designer
We have been using Mike Rotter's services for web site design for over a year. He can build a web site for placement in the search engines with incredible results.
E-mail: mjr@reddingcal.com

Or this page of employees

Sad to think that companies like ALTAVISTA, HOTBOT, NORTHERN LIGHT, YAHOO, and others were pretty much ruined in an all out assault on their search techinques by this Bob Massa goon. They should be SUING HIM for his actions.

PageRank

[QuiK_ChaoS]

PageRank states its pupose. I got a kick out of this.

"Integrity
Google's complex, automated methods make human tampering with our results extremely difficult. And though we do run relevant ads above and next to our results, Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a higher PageRank). A Google search is an easy, honest and objective way to find high-quality websites with information relevant to your search. "

haha, no one can buy a higher page rank. Isn't this what they are doing in the long run? Sheesh, what a sore lus3r...

Spamming Google for $$$

[KjetilK]

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!

Re:Spamming Google for $$$

[noquarter83]

This whole suit is just another example of one of the latest trends: treating the Internet as nothing more than a giant marketplace for companies to get rich off.

Business's such as SearchKing.com (and other similar sites, including others who have also sued Google) seem to believe that it is their right to make money off the Internet. When they talk about how Google's PageRank system affects the ability of people to search the web and link to who they want to link to, what they really mean is that it affects their ability to make money off of people searching the web.

The Internet was never intended to be simply a giant online marketplace, where information and products can be bought and sold. So if other people can provide a better service than you, that produces better results and more accurate information, and that affects your ability to make money...well, tough luck.

Re:Spamming Google for $$$

[Tablizer]

Perhaps Google should countersue SearchKing for spamming Google's customers. It probably won't win, but would drain resources from SpamKing, I mean SearchKing.

Re:Spamming Google for $$$

[matrix29]

Perhaps Google should countersue SearchKing for spamming Google's customers. It probably won't win, but would drain resources from SpamKing, I mean SearchKing.

Or just block them and their related sites out cold. They wouldn't be the first ISP to do it.

Listing of Domains Denied Mail Access @NRCDXAS.ORG

Listing of Domains Denied Mail Access @NRCDXAS.ORG

The following domains have been placed in our "deny" file. This is due to mail abuses that they have not addressed. Mail abuses can be the sending of spam, virus, abusive e-mail to participants in a list or private address, or severe misconduct by a user. When this happens the domain is contacted. If they a) do not correct the problem, or b) do not acknowledge the problem, then they are placed on the deny list.

If you are the owner of one of these domains, and you wish to be removed from this list, you must pay the $50.00 administrative fee for having to clean up your users problem, and take corrective action to prevent further abuse. Please do not contact me unless you are willing to pay the fee and make reasonable security contacts with complaints filed.

[ skipping down ]
202. @searchking.com
203. @securetrader.org
204. @seventwentyfour.com
205. @sexyfun.net
[ end clip ]

And if anyone is interested here is an interview with the shyster by another shyster website
Pagerank Interview with Bob Massa
PageRank For Sale
Exclusive interview with SearchKing / PR Ad Network's Robert Massa.
SearchKing has started selling text ads on its network of independent portals, with prices based on Google PageRank. Jono Craig asks Robert Massa of SearchKing if he really believes he can get away with it.

By Jono Craig, 24 August 2002

If they win maybe I should sue

[craigarc]

I own 2 websites that do not even show up in the first few pages of this guys search engine. If he wins I think I should sue him for "purposefully" devaluing MY website. Since he is a semi local company maybe I could even hire his own lawyer... Now that would be just too much karma....

Documents filed

[Dusabre]

I think that anybody with a legal background or an interest in law might like to take a look at the documents filed. They are rather brief.

Documents

Publicity stunt...

[phreaknb]

This sounds to me like a plubicity stunt to try and get users.

What an ego!

[Ibag]

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.

Re:What an ego!

[Peyna]

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.

I did a lot of work getting into the bank and getting that vault open. I deserve to be paid for my efforts.

Re:What an ego!

[Alsee]

I did a lot of work getting into the bank and getting that vault open. I deserve to be paid for my efforts.

Free food and housing for the the next 20 years*. We'll even throw in free laundry service, basic medical care, and access to a weight room.

*Due to high demand for accomodations we may unilaterally terminate your housing and free services after as few as 5 years.

-

pioneer?

[demigod]

I found this particularly amusing from the SearchKing press release.

SearchKing is one of the pioneers in developing portal and search engine software and services.

Which might mean something if they didn't also say

SearchKing began business as an Internet search engine and web hosting company in 1997.

Sorry, if you ask me, all the pioneering work was done prior to 1997.

Oh, My, God...

[iCEBaLM]

This is why the tech bubble burst people! Bad business plans. Risking your entire business on the ranking your competitor gives your pages? What was this retard thinking?

1. Make search engine
2. Post ads for it on high google page ranked sites
3. ???
4. Profit!

-- iCEBaLM

Search King

[z_gringo]

Ive never even heard of Search King until now. I did a couple of sample searches, and got all commercial sites at the top of the Search King Results, and got usefull information at the top of Googles results. I did like a quote from the page about the suit.

"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."


That probably wasnt the best analogy they could have used seeing as they are comparing themselves to shoplifters, and complaining about Googles "security camera", but I think its appropriate...

Hey look!

[FreeLinux]

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?

Re:Hey look!

[Peyna]

After reading his post I think he is going to sue the local newspaper Movie and/or Food critic next. After all, they evaluate services all the time; many people rely on their services to give them information about what to eat/watch; and if the person is having a bad day when they come to eat your restaurant and give you a bad review, YOU CAN'T SUE THEM FOR IT!

Re:Hey look!

[avandesande]

There has been mention of the case against Mac Donalds by the woman who was scalded by hot coffee and won a 7 million dollar lawsuit against them. Does anyone think MacDonalds thinks that was frivolous, or the lady or the judges, jury or lawyers. I believe everyone involved in that took it VERY seriously and everyone involved in this case does too.

I think I see his point!

Re:Hey look!

[leviramsey]

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.

Re:Hey look!

[Peyna]

7 million to McD's = $1 to you or me.

Re:Hey look!

[theduck]

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

Caveat: I'm still reading about both sides of this case and trying not to give in to my visceral distaste of what Search King seems to be doing, so please bear with me.

The portion of Mr. King's comment you post refers to "express permission." robots.txt is an opt out system. In opt-out systems, permission is implied unless expressly forbidden. So, the presence of a robots.txt option does not address Mr. King's comment.

As an aside, it seems a bit disingenuous for a member of the Slashdot crowd to point to it as a fine solution when there have been reams of complaints about spammers who offer opt-out links.

A question to the poster: Do you really feel that an opt-out system is adequate in this case? If so, how is it fundamentally different than opt-out spammers?

Re:Hey look!

[leviramsey]

A question to the poster: Do you really feel that an opt-out system is adequate in this case? If so, how is it fundamentally different than opt-out spammers?

It's no different, assuming that the spammers do actually remove you from the lists fully and completely (this includes not putting your email address on a list of known live ones which are then sold).

Re:Hey look!

[dacarr]

I just basically called him a schlemiel after telling him that it's the first I've heard of him and hopefully the last. Don't know if he replied, but does it matter at this point?

Re:Hey look!

[Idarubicin]

The portion of Mr. King's comment you post refers to "express permission." robots.txt is an opt out system. In opt-out systems, permission is implied unless expressly forbidden. So, the presence of a robots.txt option does not address Mr. King's comment.

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.

Re:Hey look!

[Dark Lord Seth]

Non-disclosure agreements are a very, very common thing in business, ranging from not giving out annual financial statistic, to not giving away information and details about a source code. But why in Eris' name would a NDA be required to team up with a linkspammer? Something reeks of tunafish around here...

What needs to happen here....

[DesScorp]

...is that the case goes to court, and the judge throws it out WITH PREDJUDICE, meaning the merits of the case are so unworthy that there's no right to appeal. Let's hope horseshit like this gets nipped in the bud pronto-like.

Internet King

[Lothar 0]

I figured that Homer had a new business plan after compuglobalhypermeganet was sabatoged by Gates and his goons.

In a related Simpsons reference

[saider]

Lawyer tells Search King that Google is here to see them.

Google : Mr. Simpson?

Search King: You don't look so rich...

Google: Don't let the haircut fool you, I am exceedingly wealthy.

Search King: [quietly to the lawyer] Get a load of the bowl-job!

Google: Your Internet ad was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if anything, Search King does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out.

Search King and their Lawyer quietly discuss this proposal.

Search King: I reluctantly accept your proposal!

Google: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!

[Googles' lackeys trash the room.]

Search King: Hey, what the hell's going on!

Google: Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks! [insane laughter]

Error 18437: Joke Failure

[scott1853]

I think #3 would be "Sell Banner Ads".

Re:Error 18437: Joke Failure

[iCEBaLM]

Or sue for punitive damages when it doesn't work?

Re:integrity...

[duffbeer703]

Not to sully google's name or image, but that statement means exactly nothing.

Enron told everyone that they made money.
WorldCom told us they carried 60% of internet traffic
The guy in the used car lot says that he is honest.

Tosh

[Dusabre]

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.

Now wait a minute...

[glesga_kiss]

There could be an essence of validity in this claim. If Google deliberatly wrote code to specifically lower someones ranking, that is a very bad thing. If all they did was tweak the alogrithm so that the methods that SearchKing were using no longer worked, that is a good thing.

Google has a big responsibilty on the net. If they start to downgrade web pages for strategic or political reasons, then we should begin to look for another search engine, as it's no longer doing its job.

Re:Now wait a minute...

[ivan_13013]

If Google deliberatly wrote code to specifically lower someones ranking, that is a very bad thing.

Not true! Take a look at http://www.google.com/technology/ ... it says right there, "no one can buy a higher PageRank." And *that* is a good thing!

I am pretty sure that Google imposes a targeted ranking penalty (sometimes referred to as "PR-zero" by SEOs) on sites that attempt to artificially inflate Google ranking for other sites. One type of site that does this is a "link farm." I don't really think that the penalty is a big secret, either. It may be automatic and perhaps considered "part of the algorithm" but it probably also has a manual component and override capabilities.

As it says on the page, a link is like a vote. Google says nobody can buy a higher PageRank. SearchKing was attempting to make that statement false, by selling PageRank. Google is shutting that down. Good for Google!

-=Ivan

Help them by blogging their rank up

[phorm]

They want ratings on google, let's give it to 'em...
If we could blog a bunch of links into google containing "Lawsuit Crazy Morons" and link to search king's site...

This would be something like the "talentless hack" trick (mentioned some time ago on slashdot). In fact, we could do this for a number of sites... who wants to blog Microsoft up as "absolute evil?"

Re:Help them by blogging their rank up

[orasio]

The best you can do is a google search for thesource ofallevil
and you might see something familiar near the top.

The King is Screwed

[forged]

In a very good interview CEO Robert Massa says: "[...] We do not own the Websites and we have no influence over Google, who publicly publishes the PageRank of Websites through the use of their own toolbar, so we have no way of knowing what might happen later".

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 :)

A better analogy

[WEFUNK]

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.

Has anybody else noticed...

[dark_panda]

That SearchKing just forwards a search to Google, parses the output and makes it look like a different search engine?

I entered the name of the company I work for into Google and did the same for SearchKing. Lo and behold, the results were identical. (The only differences being a few links returned by Google were to PDFs -- SearchKing stripped them out.)

Try it yourself:

Google search for "slashdot"

SearchKing search for "slashdot"

There is a slight discrepancy with the first link returned, but other than that, they're the same.

Nice... sue the company that powers your rip-off business...

J

Re:Has anybody else noticed...

[greenhide]

Heck, they're probably using the Google API.

Time for the wayback machine

[Ektanoor]

As this kind of lawsuit concerns the life of this company on the Matrix, this link may give some info on how this company ran up till now:

Wayback on SearchKing

Arbitrary vs Purposefully

[XaXXon]

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...

Re:Arbitrary vs Purposefully

[JPelorat]

Naw, it's not tough at all. Re-read the definitions.

If I walk past you, and I turn around and without any warning punch the back of your head, I've done an action that is both arbitrary (I would have no particular reason to do that, nor would I have a reason to do that to *you*) and purposeful (it's rather hard to punch someone in the back of the head *accidentally*).

The serial killer in the Washington area is a perfect example of this: he picks his victims arbitrarily (apparently), but has a definite purpose - he's trying to kill people.

Analogy

[OrangeSpyderMan]

What I really dig about this kind of post, is reading through all the little explanations of Company X's activity that Slashdot posters will come up with.

Try and picture this - it's as if one farmer sued his neighbour, who made Ford parts out of plastic, and then sprayed graffiti on the underground to advertise the competitor who changed from plastic to steel, that made his farm go out of business because the wool his sheep produced made the jumpers that the plastic press operators wore to keep warm in the winter. You see? No press operators==no money==no jumpers==no sheep.

Is this kind of stuff really simpler to understand than just saying what SearchKing does? Can't people post without having to dream up amazing parallel scenarios?

Next they'll sue us

[AaronStJ]

Next, Searchking will be suing slashdot.org for purposely and arbitrarily lauching a devious attack on the website that prevented their customers from accessing it.

you're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:you're missing the point

[Todd Knarr]

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.

Re:you're missing the point

[phil reed]

Bob King decided to buy/sell pagerank as a commodity, since it has value, and is there. Very American no?

What, to sell something you don't one? I suppose, though you should not be surprised when the true owner shows up and takes his property back.

Re:you're missing the point

[Todd Knarr]

Except that he still didn't buy PageRank from Google. Google assigned it to him based on relevance. If he suddenly starts linking to lots of non-relevant pages, why should he be suprised if Google downgrades him? He's no longer a source of high-relevancy links, after all.

Bob wants something, all right, but it's not for Google to be aware of their commodity. He wants Google to guarantee him a certain amount of that commodity that he can sell and profit from. Google declines to do that. Tough for Bob.

Re:Diffrent market?

[Bastian]

Consider that Google has to make money somewhere, and the only way they seem to be able to do that is by selling advertisemet involving inflated PageRank scores or those extra links at the top of each search page (with the rest of the services Google offers being simple marketing).

In that case, both companies are in the same market, with roughly the same business strategy - their primary source of income is revenue for selling advertisement, and they attract customers to this advertising using various services, with Internet search being one of the main ones.

"[...] causing his business to suffer financially"

[vinsci]

When Search King manipulated the search results, they put Google's reputation as a reliable and impartial search engine at risk, thereby causing Google financial risk in the first place.

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? :-)

Must ... resist ... Simpsons ... Joke ...

[ctid]

"Mr Search, that's my name, that name again is Mr Search!"

Re:Must ... resist ... Simpsons ... Joke ...

[WebMasterJoe]

You completely missed the Internet King joke!

Re:Must ... resist ... Simpsons ... Joke ...

[ctid]

Actually, I wanted to do the Internet King joke, but someone had already made it. Nice link, though :-)

Re:I guess MS will sue Google soon too

[Ionizor]

Want to see something else funny?

Go to www.google.com and punch in %s. GNU project? Huh?

The most amusing part for me is that if I type "google" into the address bar I have attached to my taskbar, it brings up google and searches for %s.

I think they probably did it on purpose.

Doesn't seem like a search engine to me...

[WebMasterJoe]

I did a search on SearchKing to find out why it sucks, but none of the hits were relevant. I guess that's why SearchKing sucks!

But wait, there's more! I searched for the same thing in Google and found this site, which is part of SearchKing. It may not explain why SearchKing sucks, but I think it might answer the question, "What are these guys smoking?"

One has to wonder...

[Xformer]

...if SearchKing is pulling this "RIAA" or "MPAA" act for a hidden reason. Think about it... even if their page rank were purposefully dropped, it'll probably be right back up there tomorrow with all of this publicity and links from pages talking about the lawsuit.

Where's google on search king?

[phorm]

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

cheap plublicity stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:cheap plublicity stunt

[pwarf]

Good point. I hadn't thought about that.
Just the slashdot visitors curious about the site will be significant. Also, all the links from the news websites would increase the rank, as well.
I wonder if the guy is that clever, or if he just got lucky.

The search engine optimisation industry

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Truth in advertising

[ClarkEvans]

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

Re:Truth in advertising

[Frobnicator]

That's what I was thinking, too. After reading the lawsuit, they say that Google altered their code specifically against them. A company like Google is bound to have use a revision control system of some kind, so old copies of their source code are available.

The court could trivially appoint an expert (computer programmer)to look at the code and compare it to the new code. As long as it doesn't specifically state something against their company, the center of their case falls out. If there was something against them specifically then google would have a little explaining to do.

Web crawling is a slow process. Somehow I just can't imagine Google slowing down their web searches by attempting to punish companies on a hit list.

Re:Truth in advertising

[CvD]

Isn't Google their own company providing a FREE service to the Internet? They can choose whatever they want to do with their code. You didn't pay for it, so it's not like you're suddenly not getting what you paid for. It's not like you HAVE to use Google (well, actually... there is no other good search engine out there - or maybe I should try out SearchKing :-)

Cheers,

Costyn.

Re:Truth in advertising

[pete-classic]

Well, I don't think that they claim no bias. I think that they claim to give the most relevent results.

Besides, as far as I can tell Search King started an arms race by gaming the ranking system. They were succesful for a while, but google corrected for the abuse.

No sympathy.

-Peter

Re:Truth in advertising

[be-fan]

I could. I'm sure google takes specific steps to block out those sites that exist just to get themselves higher on the page ranking (like SearchKing).

Re:Truth in advertising

[KjetilK]

No, because what SearchKing is doing is spamming. They're spamming Google, and they admit to it. What google then does is make sure that spammers don't influence the score. If they alter the code to achieve this, they are doing us, the users of the index, a favor.

Search King JINGLE

[Ashurbanipal]

"When your site it gets no linkage
and your hit count shows some shrinkage
dig for 209.217.135.144
send a ping!

Mr. Google is a loser,
And I think he is a boozer,
So you better make that call to the Search King!"

Hey Barney, what about a Spanish version:

"Senor Google no es macho,
Es solamente un borracho..."

--Linda

Why, why, why?

[LaserBeams]

Why would anyone using Google be using it to look for a different search engine?

This one is beyond my comprehension...

Straight from the horse's mouth...

[gillbates]

I hired lawyers and a public relations firm to write those. They do not tell the whole story and they don't for a reason. That's why I hired those people because they know how to say things in a way to get an objective accomplished and that objective was not to impress SEO's.

I can't believe this one. He's basically admitting that he's not being totally honest. Can't wait for the SEC to ask for his accounting records! Maybe those do not tell the whole story either...

If this guy is the CEO of SearchKing, he won't be for long. He's basically admitted to misleading the public, a fact which will probably severely damage his credibility in the eyes of the courts.

"Devalued"? *snort*

[Charles Kerr]

According to their PR release, SearchKing's been around since 1997 and is located in Oklahoma City.

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. :)

Re:roflmao

[DEBEDb]

would bet that he wasn't, maybe the lawyer was.... "Yeah! you definetly have a case here! Probably won't even make it to court, we'll retire rich!"

By "we" he, of course, meant his law firm.

Google is a monopoly and should be watched!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google is a monopoly and should be watched!

[sykora]

EVERYBODY does not use Google. Google is not the only search engine out there, and people do not rely on just google to search things. Some people still have never heard of Google.

Re:Google is a monopoly and should be watched!

[Sodium Attack]

As this poster has pointed out, over 40% of searches are done using search engines other than Google.

Hardly the "monopoly" you claim them to be.

searchking should sue searchking

[onShore_Jake]

A search for "search king" (w/o the quotes) does not show searchking in the first page. I know, I know, there is a space in between search and king in my search but I still think they should sue.

SearchKing seems worthless as a search engine

[eno2001]

I tried doing a few searches there to see if they are truely an alternative to Google as their owner claims. The searches featured ads prominently and only the most obvious hits for real information. The other problem is that rather than ads being separated out from real information, it's intermingled with it. This makes it difficult for "joe user" to find valid info for their searches. More than likely all they will find are products and services that are vaguely related to their searches. In many cases this doesn't help anyone. The real answer would be to establish two different kinds of search engine categories. Those that operate like Google and Altavista and bring you reliable info for your search, and those that are geared towards goods and services. I think it would be great if I could go to a search engine and type in "Oil Change", +Nissan, +City and get a list of oil change shops in the city I am in along with customer ratings and maybe a Mapquest link. Or, I could do "Hard Drives", +Maxtor, vendor=OL (online only) and get a list of web dealers for hard drives along with customer rankings, etc... Maybe even a link to BBB reports. Now, if SearchKing did that, then maybe their PageRanks wouldn't be so low. I highly doubt that Google ranks them low to keep them from competing, it's just that they are currently a pretty crappy search engine.

And the rest are stolen

[wirefarm]

I just searched for MMDC (my own site) on SearchKing and the results seemed to be lifted directly from Google:
Google's index of my site:

MMDC Tokyo :: Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas ...
Aug 29, 2002 - 11:43 PM, MMDC Tokyo, Time is an illusion.
Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams, Main Menu. ...
mmdc.net/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages

SearchKing's:

MMDC Tokyo :: Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas ...
Aug 29, 2002 - 11:43 PM, MMDC Tokyo, Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams, Main Menu. ...

What are the odds that they both crawled my site at exactly the same minute on the same day?

These clowns are pathetic.

Cheers,
Jim

Re:And the rest are stolen

[Chainsaw76]

And what are the odds that both Goodle and search king hit ALSO hit my site at the same time.. (not the same time as your site).

Aug 29, 2002 7:51 for both sites.

BTW, a search for "SearchKing" at search king doesnt bring up their page first!

-Jason

Re:And the rest are stolen

[SpaceLifeForm]

Of course not. That requires cache.

A little background on searchking's owner

[Charles Kerr]

I'd never heard of SearchKing before, so I did a little karmawhor^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdigging with, erm, a search engine which will remain nameless... :)

From Salon's Aug 2002 article Meet Mr. Anti-Google:

Why would somebody pay $69 a month for an ad on maps.searchking.com, a PageRank 7 site? Because they think they know how Google works: If you get a link from an important site, your own site becomes more important. You don't pay the $69 for the clicks you might get from all the visitors to maps.searchking.com -- you pay it to get a higher rank in Google.

In an interview, Massa didn't come right out and say he is trying to sell higher rankings in Google. "I'm just saying that sites with high page rank have a huge perception of value, and if you want to pay more for that I'm not going to talk you out of it," he said. "When they put it on the toolbar and made it public, they must have known it's going to become a currency."

[snip]

Sullivan, of Search Engine Watch, says that Massa's is the first program he's seen that has been so "brazen about selling page rank" -- and he doesn't think it's going to work, especially since Google knows about the program.

From this Sept 5 2002 story Engine Trouble in the Guardian:

As [google] has become celebrated for taking users directly to the information they want, though, a question has emerged in the minds of internet entrepreneurs who are no longer the recipients of millions of easy dollars: could it be manipulated for much-needed profit? One of Google's advantages has always been its refusal to sell placements in its rankings to the highest bidder, but the PageRank system, some argue, has its loopholes. Because Google measures how many pages link to a site, what if you set up thousands of web pages solely for the purpose of linking to one commercial site?

Some have accused Bob Massa, proprietor of a "search optimisation" service called Searchking, of doing just that. "All I want is for webmasters with small sites to get rewarded fairly," he says. "This is a chance to see that those guys get visitors and put up good content. Google wants good content. I can't see any problem."

Google becoming a monopoly? This may be legit soo

[blastedtokyo]

According to this page Google has a 55.1% search share as of Oct 17th. When you throw in that Google runs Aol searches that brings them up to 58.6%. And before June 2002 they were running Yahoo's searches (20.6%).

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.

I meant (would seem to be) stolen

[wirefarm]

...Don't want to get sued by these clowns...

Re:integrity...

[Blkdeath]

Not to sully google's name or image, but that statement means exactly nothing.

It means something when they stand by it. They fought severe legal pressure from the church of Scientology to remove all links to Xenu.Net, and their results continue to be relevant pages to my query; not to their pocket books. Sometimes I'll click on one of their sponsored links because it's what I'm looking for, sometimes just to help Google out.

Judging from the sheer number of not-for-profit or open source, or charitable links I've seen returned in the first page of many of my Google searches, I'd say they're standing by their statemeny of integrity and that it means a whole lot more than the paper it's printed on.

Does Google recognize link farms yet?

[Animats]

The main way to spam Google is to create lots of sites which link to each other, thereby creating an illusion of popularity. This trick is widely used by porno sites and by Scientology. Google needs to recognize such site groups, and treat them as a single site for ranking purposes. That's difficult, but maybe they've made some progress, which would kill SearchKing.

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.

Re:Does Google recognize link farms yet?

[orthogonal]

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.

Why is this a problem at all? If the subject is sufficiently obscure, then most pages referencing the term will be in one or a few groups. In this case, you just do what Google currently does: find the most linked-to pages for this obscure subject, and rank them at the top. The top-ranked pages will likely be within the group of sites, but it's not a problem -- these are not link farmers, these are some real group.

If the subject is not obscure, that is if the self-referential subset of linked pages is only one of many pages or groups of pages concerned with this subject, and the possibility of link farming exists, treat too-closely related pages as fractional pages or as a single (weighted?) node. (The trick is reasonably define "too-closely", of course.)

This is probably useful even if link farming isn't an issue, to disambiguate syntacticly similar but sematically different terms: pages about Apache servers probably cluster, and pages about Apache Indians probably cluster to a less degree, but the two clusters probably interact only slightly ("Welcome to my web site! My name is Bob Flies like a Hawk, and I'm proud to say I'm a full-blooded Apache and a webmaster too. Naturally, my web server of choice is....")

Re:Google actions cry out for government control

[Blkdeath]

Google is so large, so good, and so dominant that outside of specific topic search engines, there is really no choice. As such, altering the ranking of a site on Google will affect the monetary valuation of a business tied to that site.

VHS and Microsoft are but two examples of technology that got to be the dominant force in their respective markets not due to superior technology, but due to crafty licensing, fraud, anti-competitive behaviour, marketting, and legal wrangling.

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.

Is SearchKing run by Daniel Brandt perhaps?

[schon]

One has to wonder if this Search Kink company is run by (or perhaps related to) Daniel Brandt

The similarities are eerily spooky..

Context is fun

[Blkdeath]

Hate to tell you Bob, an action cannot be arbitrarily ("determined by chance") and purposefully ("intentional") committed

Do be sure to read the whole definition. Quoth the Dictionary;

"Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle"

You may find that the most common use of 'arbitrary' is;

"Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference"

... or ...

"Not limited by law; despotic"

There could be something here below the surface...

[onlyabill]

He clearly thinks that he is not doing anything wrong and claims to have tried to raise the issue of page rankings and his business model with Google...

From his own forums section.

Your search engine is very good at detecting things like link farms and hidden tricks. I'm certainly not asking for any special treatment. If I, or anyone in my network, tries to take advantage by lying, cheating or stealing, I would expect them to have to suffer the consequences the same as anyone else. I'm only asking that you look beyond the webmaster world posts and see that these niche sites need the respect and the income that a high PR deserves. They work hard and the reason they have those high PR's is that they don't spam. Please don't penalize them for trying to capitalize on the fact that Google rewarded their efforts.

He is certainly trying to imply by this post and others, that Google is unfairly targeting him because he has chosen to use their page ranking system to help set the prices he charges for ad space on the web sites that he hosts for his customers.

His most recent post tries to explain some of the reasons for his suit.

He claims to not be inflating rankings at all and just using the rankings to set his ad fees. If that is the case, he may have a claim but I guess that is for the lawyers to decide.

If he is manipulating rankings, he deserves to go down in flames. If Google is 'picking' on him cause he is trying to earn more from Google's rankings but he is not 'cooking' the numbers, he may have a case. Read the posts. The web site operators appear to benefit from the higher rankings by getting more for the hosted ads. Just compensation for good work building good sites. Hard to say this is clear-cut without seeing Google's response.

Unscrupulous PR 101

[jeni.grant]

From a PR standpoint, suing Google is absolutely brilliant. The monies to hire a lawyer and file a few bogus suits far outweigh the amount of traffic and attention that SearchKing will generate as a result of this suit (Let's be honest -- how many hits did they get as a result from /.? From other news sites? From other blogs?). Even though a large majority of the attention garnered will be negative, it's still attention. In the PR world, negative attention is almost always better than no attention at all. As a result of all this, they will undoubtedly receive a fresh influx of clients.

On the other hand, SearchKing has just publicly admitted that they've violated Google's TOS ("You may not use the Google Search Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales."). Considering how much of their business is built on exploiting Google's PageRank feature, I predict a sudden decrease in the ability to deliver what has been sold. Sweet, sweet justice.

--

Re:"[...] causing his business to suffer financial

[Frobnicator]

Just think about what's possible if they Google loses, though....

I had a business plan to [do things] on or relating to [target]. [Target] stopped me from [things], so [target] is responsible for my business plan failing.

Now we have a generic formula for lawsuits, filling in 'things' and 'target' we can get all of these:

• increasing PageRank and Google
• complaining about and MacDonald's
• abusing and You
• drug running and Government

The parallels are great.

There are people that don't use Google???

[CvD]

You mean there are people who use other search engines than Google? Who are these people and why has nobody told them about Google? :-)

SearchKing should pay ;-)

[moz25]

Well, since their business *depends* on Google and they earn money thanks to (and at the expense of?) Google, it seems that Google might have a case at suing SearchKing to give them a share of the money that Google could have earned by allowing paid increases of link priorities. Since they have not done so (thereby dramatically increasing their integrity and popularity), it seems very unfair that other companies should do it instead of them and even profit from it.

Re:Google actions cry out for government control

[rnbc]

Google is so large, so good, and so dominant that outside of specific topic search engines, there is really no choice.

Oh yes there is choice. Try www.alltheweb.com and you will see they are quite close to google in quality. Sometimes they are better even.

Not at all.

[registro]

Searchking.de is not the banned site. The banned site is Searchking.com.
The guys at SK think Google has manualy degraded them, and hundreds of innocent parners sites, as a penalty for seling tex based ads, as a way to improve its Google PageRank(TM).
It is not alegally an algorithm problem. Is one big company banning and smashing a number of smaller companys who dare to sell what Google may only Google has the right to do: put you on top of the result search, paying for Google Adwords ads.
I personally belive SK has done a lot of stupid things, one of them suing Google. But I also think we should be more aware of who the Google Guys realy are: agressive ad dealers, who may think are the only guys arround entitle to put a price to who important our sites are.

Re:Not at all.

[JudasBlue]

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.

Re:Not at all.

[adamjaskie]

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.

google is #3 in a Search King search, SK #4 haha

[asscroft]

search search king for search engines and google is #3, behind such "popular" engines as

calclicks and magiccity...yeah I've heard of them before. But most interesting is that Search King lists themselves as #4...

so whatever..

here's the link
http://www.searchking.com/servlet/SearchKing ?at=se arch&keyword=search+engines

Re:Google becoming a monopoly? This may be legit s

[The Bungi]

Legally, you are allowed to run a monopoly so long as you don't use the power it gives you to stifle competition.

It's a fine point, but it's more than just semantics.

Antitrust law deals with proving that a given entity used their monopoly to crush competitors, not to prove that the monopoly exists in the first place. That's almost always a fait acompli.

google owns you

[mstyne]

Did a search at SearchKing for 'google owns you'

The first result is ... er, interesting

here are the results

Next up in the court room

[Transcendent]

SearchKing will next go after slashdot for providing a link to their site, which in turn brought enormous traffic that caused a DoS and loss of website capabilities which hurt their company financially.

Re:Google has a monopoly

[NeMon'ess]

No that's not an unfair trade practice. Think about the boy scouts. If they don't want you in their organization, they don't have to let you in. /. doesn't have to let you post at all.

Re:Google has a monopoly

[hendridm]

> What if slashdot refused to allow me to post on its site because I run SlashdotSucks? Don't you think that would be an unfair trade practice?

Hell no. They can do what they want with THEIR site.

> Google has a monopoly on is PageRank technology.

Again, confusing innovation with domination.

Re:Google has a monopoly

[phil reed]

on its PageRank technology.

But, Google does not have a monopoly on all page ranking technology. There are lots of other search engines out there that rank pages using some other technology. Yours is a very weak objection.

Fair trade at its finest!

[WndrBr3d]

I find it hillarious that SearchKing.com only has a google page rank of 4/10, where as my $5 shareware application homepage (link) has a page rank of 5/10 !

*singing "God Bless America"* ;-)

Google is Ranked lower

[ehiris]

Search for google on SearchKing and look at the pagerank bar on the google toolbar.

Compare this paragraph to, say, a movie critic

[immanis]

Take his "implications of the case we should consider" under consideration for a moment. From the SearchKing take on the suit:

"If someone gives you an evaluation of your site without your requesting it or giving permission for it, and then the company distributes that evaluation to the public for free, does that evaluation belong to you or to the company giving it? Do you have the right to consider the evaluation a value to you or only to the person giving it?"

So, if I went to see, say, Resident Evil (which I did), and then I post in a forum "God, that movie sucked so bad I walked out of it," (Which it did and which I did), by this logic, that post now becomes property of Sony?

Does this mean Sony can sue me now? Wow, they could get both my dollars. I better not post that anywhere.

The Internet King

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Re:The Internet King

[igaborf]

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.

Yeah, he usually delegates that to Ballmer.

Re:Google has a monopoly

[anthony_dipierro]

Weak or strong is what the judge is supposed to determine after hearing all the evidence. I'm not saying Google is wrong here, I'm just saying that they might be, depending on the complete evidence.

hah

[Iamthefallen]

Search for SearchKing on SearchKing, SearchKing.com not found in the top 10 results...

Can you sue yourself for devaluating your own company's ranking on your own ranking site?

Re:Google has a monopoly

[Mr Z]

Google has a monopoly on its PageRank technology.

Yeah, and KFC has a 'monopoly' on its "Original Recipe" with "11 herbs and spices." And Coke has a 'monopoly' on the particular formulas used to make Coke Classic and Diet Coke. So what? It's called trade secret , and it's an accepted, established part of doing business.

Where the rules change, as several other people have pointed out, is when your business is ruled to be a monopoly. Then you fall under regulation so that you cannot use your trade secrets to exert undue influence. It's basically modern capitalism's way of saying "You won this market, you've got the biggest pile. Now play nice with the little guys."

Unfair trade practices don't come into play here. Using one of my examples above, just because Popeye's Chicken can't use KFC's Original Recipe doesn't mean KFC's wronged them. And if KFC accepts competitor's coupons, still no problem. And if KFC launches an advertising campaign saying "we taste better than Popeye's," I'm pretty sure you're still ok.

Unfair trade practices would be something like KFC making deals with poultry distributors so that Popeye's couldn't buy chicken at a decent price. Totally different kind of problem. For instance, Google would be guilty of unfair trade practices only if they went to SearchKing's ISP and exerted muscle on them to degrade SearchKing's connectivity, raise SearchKing's costs, or otherwise affect them. That's totally different than tweaking a private algorithm to cut out the freeloading and search-engine abuse.

--Joe

Windows isn't done

[K-Man]

Until Lotus won't run.

Oh, but this is google so it's OK.

Re:The banned site is Searchking.com

[dipipanone]

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.

What are they hoping for? A web page DOC?

[Kjella]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all web pages are created free and equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent inalienable rights; among which are equal indexing, liberty, and the pursuit of profit."

More seriously, I can't see how they have any case against google. No page has the "right" to show up on google search AT ALL. And Google has every right to set that ranking to whatever they feel best reflect the actual relevance of that site, even if that means doing some manual moderation because a company is abusing the automatic system.

Kjella

Re:Google has a monopoly

[anthony_dipierro]

Yeah but if KFC refused to serve chicken to employees of Popeye's, that would be illegal.

That's totally different than tweaking a private algorithm to cut out the freeloading and search-engine abuse.

True, but SearchKing is alleging that they tweaked the algorithm solely to shut them out as a competitor. Sure, it's probably not true, and the evidence will probably show that, but saying that Google is justfied is much different from saying that they can do anything they want.

But:

[TheOnlyCoolTim]

Google will not inflate a PageRank score for money. All Google's ads are separate from the main results, and clearly marked.

Tim

Slashdot a news source for Google News.

[bobdotorg]

This I did not know.

http://news.google.com/news?q=searchking&num=100 &h l=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

Google Sued over Page Ranking
Slashdot-4 hours ago
OrangeHairMan writes Google.com is being sued by SearchKing.com because Google purposefully

devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites, causing his ...

Two sides to every beef.

[crucini]

Did anyone bother reading the page on Search King's site? I'm not defending SK, because they appear to be an unethical business that tried to sell ranking on Google. But it's disturbing that almost noone has even read the other side of the story.

This isn't about the "PageRank algorithm". It's about Google manually assigning a page rank of zero ("the dreaded PR zero" as SK calls it) to punish SK for attempting to abuse the system. SK also claims that Google enforces an idea of "bad neighborhoods" by assigning PR 0 to anyone who links to a PR 0 page.

In other words, Google appears to be using similar tactics to the spam blacklist SPEWS. Both entities:

1. Claim to be automated and objective, while manually manipulating the listings.
   
2. Penalize not only "bad guys" but those who associate with "bad guys", thereby seeking to isolate the "bad guys" from the rest of the internet.
   
3. Had predecessors (MAPS, AV) that were were easily abused.
   
4. Produce listings by a secret method.
   

I use both SPEWS and Google. I like the results. But I realize that concentrated power tends to be abused. And inability to see both sides of the story makes abuse easier.

Re:Two sides to every beef.

[DavidTC]

Link farms are against Google's written rules. Selling anything to do with Google's rankings are against Google's TOS. (Which could mean that Google could have a fun lawsuit against Search King, as Search King publically claims to accept money to do just that. If they've ever searched Google, they're in violation of Google's TOS...and it just so happens their website uses Google's API to...you guessed it.;..search Google.)

And Google explictly says they will remove people who try to manipulate their ranking system.

It's not a secret system at all. They explictly state they will do what they did if people do what he did.

Oh, and their algorythm isn't secret, it's just patented. You can go and look it up, I think it's on Google's site somewhere. Or you could just google for it. Plenty of other people license it, and if you do so, you can run a carbon copy of Google. (Of course, you need a lot of computers and a fast connection, and obviously if Google has manually assigned rankings you'll have to do it also.) This is actually how 'Search King' works, he writes pages that manipulate the (known) system of ranking by linking to each other, so Google has to manually delete them. I, personally, think that's a great thing for google to do.

And SPEWS isn't 'secret', either, BTW, it's just run secretly. How you get in SPEWS is well known, or at least well assumed...you send mail to their super secret spamtrap addresses. Now, it has no accountablity, but it's not using some voodoo to randomly pick people as spammers.

How lame.

[prh1999]

How lame is your buisness if you depend on google for hits. Google can choose the way they want to rank pages, hell they could just delete searchking.com all together. Does anyone else think this is completely stupid. He's suing Google (a search engine) because his searchking.com (also a search engine) isn't ranked higher. Beside I though Google's ranking system was based on how many sites link to you and what those sites rank is(which is dependant on how many people link to them etc, don't you just love recursion). Its obvious that not alot of people link to him (well not people with a high rank anyway).

Re:Whine Back To Bob...

[matrix29]

Registrant:
SearchKing, Inc.
13601 Quiet Cove
McLoud, OK 74851
US
405-386-4805
Fax:405-386-4806

Domain Name: SEARCHKING.COM

Administrative Contact:
Massa, Bob bobking@searchking.com
13601 Quiet Cove
McLoud, OK 74851
US
405-386-4805
Fax:405-386-4806

Let us drop [ "Bob Massa" ] into GOOGLE and see what we find...

Bob Massa the Bulk Spammer

[ a bit down the webpage ]
Who's spamming, and does it work?
Bulk e-mail can be effective, but it's not always worth the trouble it can cause the sender. Bob Massa, owner of Magic-City.Net, an Oklahoma City, Okla., company that helps other organizations increase Web traffic by submitting their URLs to search engines, used to send out bulk e-mail to advertise his service. "It was more effective than anything else I've known," he says. "When I started, I was sending 30,000 messages a night and getting about a 1 percent response rate. There were times when I got as many as 200 orders in one day."

So why did Massa quit? Because "it's no longer worth it," he says. "Anti-spammers were sending me mail bombs, hacking my site and harassing me. One irate person sent me snail mail saying that he had mailed me a pregnant venomous spider and hoped it would bite someone and cause serious injury or death."

Calvin Fuller, a Burlingame, Calif.-based entrepreneur, has had similar experiences. Fuller has been involved with several Internet businesses and is developing an online and print magazine called Bikini Models, which he describes as a "PG-rated publication that includes pictures of bikini-clad models."

During the past couple of years, Fuller has used spam extensively but has backed off lately for a number of reasons, including the reactions he got from some recipients. "For every person who is excited about what I'm promoting, I'll hear from a lot more people who take the same amount of time to say how they are annoyed."

Fuller is also having trouble finding ISPs that will let him send bulk e-mail. "Most of the major providers of bulk e-mail-friendly accounts have shut down because other ISPs will block their incoming traffic."

Massa's and Fuller's tales of the treatment they received from anti-spammers were echoed by almost everyone I interviewed who had used spam to market products and services. Onsale Inc., a Menlo Park, Calif.-based public company that holds Web auctions, experimented with bulk e-mail but soon dropped it, according to Michelle Pettigrew, vice president of business development. Onsale used software to crawl the EBay Inc. auction site to pick up about 20,000 names and e-mail addresses.

Although Onsale received a significant number of positive inquiries as a result of its mailings, the company also got a lot of negative comment from EBay, Pettigrew says. In general, the potential for backlash is too great. "There are," Pettigrew adds, "ways to reach those customers through other means--such as banner ads--that are nontoxic."

The reaction against spam has been so strong that even people who use subscription-based lists sometimes get angry letters. I know because I'm one of them. I operate a free mailing list for people interested in following the articles I post to my Web site, www. larrysworld.com. The only way to get on the mailing list is to subscribe, but I've still received a number of angry letters from people who apparently forgot they had subscribed. For a while, a temporary glitch in my software failed to remove people who had asked to be deleted, resulting in several letters threatening legal action or requesting that ISPs block all mail from my account. Most people graciously accepted my apology, but a few remained angry.
[ more on the web page ]

A pic of Bob Massa
Bob also owns Searchking, Inc., a unique concept in search engine services which has been online since 1997 and is continuing to grow through a strategy of providing hosted search service software to the public. In a little over one year Searchking has become the largest "portal" host in the world with over 1,000 online portals on it's servers.

Yeah, I can see him as a large "portal" (www.goatse.cx)

But we only need look at his personal webpage
http://www.bobmassa.com/

A bit of truth even from Bob Massa's lips
As the engine has become celebrated for taking users directly to the information they want, though, a question has emerged in the minds of internet entrepreneurs who are no longer the recipients of millions of easy dollars: could it be manipulated for much-needed profit? One of Google's advantages has always been its refusal to sell placements in its rankings to the highest bidder, but the PageRank system, some argue, has its loopholes. Because Google measures how many pages link to a site, what if you set up thousands of web pages solely for the purpose of linking to one commercial site?

Some have accused Bob Massa, proprietor of a "search optimisation" service called Searchking, of doing just that. "All I want is for webmasters with small sites to get rewarded fairly," he says. "This is a chance to see that those guys get visitors and put up good content. Google wants good content. I can't see any problem."

Pot / Kettle over IP tracking

[doublem]

If I am have legal right to use an IP number for my own legal purposes, does a third party have a right to track that IP number and use the information gathered without my permission?

Yet the registration page for their forums, explicitly state that they track the IP of those who register.

Re:Google has a monopoly

[gaudior]

Obviously not, or there wouldn't be a lawsuit.

Since when is it a requirement that a lawsuit make sense before being filed? Lawsuits are filed for many reasons, not the least of which is to attempt to intimidate your opponent. Often, the mere threat of a lawsuit is all that is needed to get the desired behaviour.

Re:Google has a monopoly

[anthony_dipierro]

"The BSA is viewed by many as an inclusive organization open to all boys and youth of good character whose ages fall within certain limits. This belief is well founded in the BSA's own recruitment literature. However, the BSA regards itself as a religious/spiritual organization with specific membership exclusions based on the youth's religion or sexual orientation."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa_0.htm

Re:Google becoming a monopoly? This may be legit s

[poot_rootbeer]

Having 79% of the market may legally make Google a monopoly (IANAL, so I dunno if it does), but it doesn't make them an ILLEGAL monopoly.

A comparison of any sort between the business practices of Google and those of, say Microsoft would be tenuous at best.

Even *if* Google was out to get them...

[0x0d0a]

...would it be illegal? I'm not aware of any laws that say "If you write a search engine your algorithm design must be done in such a way that you rank your competitors equally highly."

Google's always pimped the integrity of their searches pretty highly. I don't buy into these guys.

Re:Hilarious?

[darien]

The dictionary.com page you've linked to actually gives four different meanings of "arbitrary," of which you've cited only the first. The second - "based on or subject to individual judgment or preference" - is presumably the sense originally intended.

Google: Webmaster Dos and Don'ts

[minesweeper]

Google Information for Webmasters (bolding mine)

Do:

• Create a site with content and design that are straightforward, appropriate and relevant for visitors to your site.
• Feel free to exchange links with other sites that are compatible with your site's content and users' interests.
• Be very careful about allowing an individual consultant or company to 'optimize' your web site. Chances are they will engage in some of our Don'ts and end up hurting your site.
• Consider submitting your sites to our partner directories Yahoo! and DMOZ.

Don't:

• Cloak.
• Write text or create links that can be seen by search engines but not by visitors to your site.
• Participate in link exchanges for the sole purpose of increasing your ranking in search engines.
• Send automated queries to Google in an attempt to monitor your site's ranking.
• Use programs that generate lots of generic doorway pages.

Re:He may have a good argument

[DavidTC]

Even if google was a monopoly, it's not illegal to use a monopoly to randomly devalue poeple's businesses. It's illegally to use it against competitors, but SearchKing is not a competitor. (In fact, they use Google's search API.)

And, anway, it's not illegal to stop someone, even if you are a monopoly, from interferring with your stuff. Google was attempting to rank the most relevant sites, SearchKing was screwing that up on Google, Google fixed it. This is not an abuse of monopoly.

Re:The banned site is Searchking.com

[CySurflex]

Why not try searchking.com, for example? Bwahahahahahah.

because they don't even show up on their own search results

now THAT'S funny.

Experiment

[cramped bowels]

As a Java programmer, I wanted to see where Search King ranked the ultimatate java site - java.sun.com; I mean any site for java must have this near or at the top. Entered "java" , and gave up looking trhough the listings at #60 or so. Google ranks, and correctly IHO, java.sun.com as #1 for the search "java".