Google Sued over Page Ranking

Too Easy by BoBaBrain · 2002-10-21 02:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Case closed.

--
I am a Karma Library.

Re:Too Easy by BoBaBrain · 2002-10-21 02:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
I am a Karma Library.
Re:Too Easy by LinuxWoman · 2002-10-21 02:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

considering that oe of the biggest reasons google got started in the first place was to honestly rank pages - i.e. in a way that wasn't influence by tricks like paid page rank or misleading meta-tage - it shouldn't surprise anyone (including searchking) that a parasite who's trying to trick the ranking system would intentionally get a lowered ranking...

The second link on the google search for searchking says it all "PageRank For Sale -- Exclusive interview with SearchKing / PR Ad ... ... PANDIA. PANDIA GUEST WRITER. PageRank For Sale. Exclusive interview with SearchKing
/ PR Ad Network's Robert Massa. ... SearchKing and the PR Ad Network. ...
Description: SearchKing has started selling text ads on its network of independent portals, with prices based on..."

Geez. If I really wanted to just go to the site that paid the most in advertising I'd stick with watching TV so I could just get my info from commercials. We all know how honest and accurate THAT system is.
Re:Too Easy by phil+reed · 2002-10-21 02:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unless Google are deliberately out to get them, then SearchKing don't have a point. If SearchKing is being subjected to the same search algorithm as every other site then I don't see what the problem is. Unless that algorithm was designed specifically to weed out SsearchKing...

SearchKing doesn't have a point anyway, unless there's a contract between the two obligating Google to do something to benefit Searchking (in exchange for Searchking benefitting Google in return). If SearchKing doesn't have a contract, Google doesn't have an obligation, therefore SearchKing doesn't have a basis to file a suit (and the suit should get tossed relatively quickly).

--

...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Re:Too Easy by mccalli · 2002-10-21 03:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by tiedyejeremy · 2002-10-21 03:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
- 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.
--
Anything you say will be held against you. ... "tits"
Re:Too Easy by xmutex · 2002-10-21 03:52 · Score: 5, Funny

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!

--

jack's bicycle is music to my ears
Re:Too Easy by emac · 2002-10-21 04:27 · Score: 3, Informative

...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.

--
Best new white rapper since Pimp Daddy Welfare... Pimp-T!
Re:Too Easy by Ichijo · 2002-10-21 04:51 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Re:Too Easy by Myco · 2002-10-21 05:33 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
My deviantArt site
Re:Too Easy by DavidTC · 2002-10-21 06:18 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:Too Easy by theMightyE · 2002-10-21 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

As I remember, Google's ranking algorithm takes into account both the number of other sites that link to you AND the number of people who have historically clicked on a particular link for a given combination of search keywords. For example, a straight search for the keyphrase 'Monty Python' might bring up sites for both the British comedy group and sites about big snakes written by a guy named Monty Burns. Suppose for a second that both have an equal number of links, due to the popularity of the Brits in pop culture and a large number of scientific papers linked to the snake site. Google notes that more people are really looking for Eric Idle, et. al, than there are snake enthusiasts in the world and their engine learns to rank that page higher.
Given the fact that both the terms 'search' and 'king' are pretty common, it's not suprising that lots of sites come up. Since almost nobody has heard of SearchKing, most people are likely looking for something else (why the hell would ANYONE be looking for some fourth-string search engine if they already know about Google?). The higher number of clicks on the other sites will naturally raise their ranking above SearchKing, no evil plot on Google's part is needed.
If there is some sneaky stuff going on here, I think it'd have to be coming from SearchKing - anyone wanna bet that after the normal slashdotting dies down SearchKing has been clicked on enough to raise it's Google ranking?
Re:Too Easy by Dudio · 2002-10-21 08:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

they just have... by silicon1 · 2002-10-21 02:21 · Score: 5, Funny

search envy..

--
Natural-Selection Be

Re:they just have... by Midnight+Thunder · 2002-10-21 02:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yep, SearchKings search algorithm doesn't work too well either. I put in the name of the company I work for (kept anonymous), and it didn't appear top. Given that the name of the company is two words I am suprised that it came up with references to the company, before it even listed the companies web site? Google shows the company's web site first. Hmm, try searching both sites for 'slashdot' for example.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.

Google's PageRanking algorythm by WittyName · 2002-10-21 02:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

Name says it all. It is owned by google..

They expect google to never change it? In return for what? Do they have ANY business relationship with google, other than the obviously parasitic one?!?

FOAD..

--
The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.

Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm by mt-biker · 2002-10-21 03:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by lovebyte · 2002-10-21 03:30 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm by CheapshotOverkill · 2002-10-21 03:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
There's no shot like a cheapshot and there's no kill like an overkill.
Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm by Omnifarious · 2002-10-21 03:36 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm by moz25 · 2002-10-21 04:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
see a Text Widget
Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm by Dirtside · 2002-10-21 09:54 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased

Not so hillarious by Perl-Pusher · 2002-10-21 02:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's only funny if it gets thrown out of court, like it should. If they win or google settles, that would not be funny at all!

PlowKing? by RobL3 · 2002-10-21 02:22 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:PlowKing? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-21 02:26 · Score: 4, Informative

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

Signed,
Simpsons Nerd
Re:PlowKing? by Gudlyf · 2002-10-21 02:28 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
Re:PlowKing? by poopsie · 2002-10-21 02:46 · Score: 5, Funny

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? by mikeage · 2002-10-21 02:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

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)

--
-- Is "Sig" copyrighted by www.sig.com?

How stupid do you have to be? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2002-10-21 02:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

How stupid do you have to be to think you have a chance suing google over improving their technology?
Oh, wait, this is the same company that sold placement on a site they didnt have any rights to..I think I just answered my question

--
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx

Re:How stupid do you have to be? by cperciva · 2002-10-21 02:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Re:How stupid do you have to be? by intermodal · 2002-10-21 03:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:How stupid do you have to be? by jdcook · 2002-10-21 03:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Trolls aside, Search King is claiming that Google used their dominant market position (in web searches) to shut down a competitor (Search King) in a different market (advertising)."

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

--
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.

Time for a name change by red_dragon · 2002-10-21 02:22 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
In Soviet Russia, Jesus asks: "What Would You Do?"

Unbiased reporting.. by larien · 2002-10-21 02:23 · Score: 5, Funny

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.. by JabberWokky · 2002-10-21 02:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Eh, they're both biased, and that's fine. If you think any printed phrase is unbiased, you're just reading something that happens to match your own bias.
Gads, I went through this on K5 on a regular basis - I got sick of the meta-discussion about 'bias' and stopped visiting. Suddenly /.'s policy of only reporting news and not accepting stories about Slashdot itself look nice.
--
Evan "flashbacks with sound suck even more..."

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien

Why on earth... by LordKariya · 2002-10-21 02:24 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
I alternate between posting +5 and -1 Comments. Karma: +53 -47 = 6

Re:Why on earth... by be-fan · 2002-10-21 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Quit trolling.

1) MS is a monopoly, so no, it can't do whatever the hell it wants with its own OS. Google is not a monopoly, so it can.

2) MS has a history of strong-arming companies who use alternative OSs. Google hasn't, as I recall, blocked the site of any PC company that by default shipped with their browsers linked to AltaVista. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter, because Google isn't a monopoly and Microsoft is! Once you commit certain crimes (using monopoly position to hurt your competitors) you lose certain rights.

3) Google isn't a platform. It takes very little effort to switch to another search engine. Same thing with Ford cars or Charmin toilet paper. Not only does it take a non-trivial amount of effort, but Microsoft actively uses it's monopoly power to make it difficult for users to switch, by locking people into proprietory file formats and closing services off to people using alternative OSs.

--
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...

PageRank.c by CaffeineAddict2001 · 2002-10-21 02:24 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:PageRank.c by Skirwan · 2002-10-21 02:32 · Score: 5, Funny

if(q[i]="Searchking") {
0 error(s), 1 warning(s): On line 2 of post 4495094: Possible unwanted assignment.
Re:PageRank.c by CaffeineAddict2001 · 2002-10-21 02:43 · Score: 4, Funny

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 by micromoog · 2002-10-21 02:51 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

Quote from their page by blitzoid · 2002-10-21 02:24 · Score: 3, Funny

"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!

--
I am a filthy pirate.

and page rank goes up by jmacgill · 2002-10-21 02:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

As a direct result of this /. and other sites linking to SearchKing to run this story the page rank(tm) on goolge will fly up. (given that its based, in some way, on the number of sites that link to a page)

SearchKing will then be able to say, "ha we complained and google fixed it!"

--
Spell checker (c) creative spelling inc. (aka my dyslexic brain)

Re:and page rank goes up by Ami+Ganguli · 2002-10-21 02:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Re:and page rank goes up by dattaway · 2002-10-21 02:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

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 by WEFUNK · 2002-10-21 02:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
Re:and page rank goes up by darksaber · 2002-10-21 03:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

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, by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-21 02:24 · Score: 4, Informative

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?

Maybe I Am Missing the Point by LordYUK · 2002-10-21 02:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

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...

--
This is my sig. Its pathetic.

Re:Maybe I Am Missing the Point by JabberWokky · 2002-10-21 02:34 · Score: 4, Informative

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

--
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Re:Maybe I Am Missing the Point by cfulmer · 2002-10-21 02:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

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."

His customers? by TechnoLust · 2002-10-21 02:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, is this a pay search engine, or are people paying him to rank their sites higher? If so, then everyone else with a web page should sue search king for "purposefully devaluing" their sites.

--
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"

Re:His customers? by Quixotic+Raindrop · 2002-10-21 02:32 · Score: 5, Funny

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).

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)

Searchking by seanmeister · 2002-10-21 02:25 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Re:Searchking by Gudlyf · 2002-10-21 02:33 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.

how rich is Google? by mydigitalself · 2002-10-21 02:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

just wondering how much loot our frinds google have. it's becoming a more common occurance to see their name involved in stupid lawsuits such as this; clearly they either have to pay laywers or give in - giving in would ruin the integrity we've come to love and respect. surely this is hurting google?

Re:how rich is Google? by irc.goatse.cx+troll · 2002-10-21 02:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

--
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Re:how rich is Google? by cptgrudge · 2002-10-21 03:24 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium

Re:Hilarious by bsharitt · 2002-10-21 02:26 · Score: 3, Funny

Never under estimate the American judicial system.

If it gets to court... by surprise_audit · 2002-10-21 02:26 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

LawMeme sums it up best by Kusanagi · 2002-10-21 02:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

I was thinking along the same lines when LawMeme said "The King does have a point: when your "business" consists of shoplifting and the corner store installs a security camera, you're going to go out of business quickly enough that an injunction is your only hope."

--
-Major Kusanagi, Section 9

Baseless claim by Drizzten · 2002-10-21 02:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--

"All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas

Blackmailing Google? by Hayzeus · 2002-10-21 02:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Maybe the point of all this is twofold:

1) Make sure Google is faced with the possibility that it might have to reveal the details of its page ranking algorithm in open court. Might make for a quick settlement.

2) Quick publicity for Search King! They consider themselves a publicity company, after all.

Makes perfect sense to me, especially if you can get an attorney willing to take the gamble. Given the current glut of attorneys, this wouldn't seem to be much of an obstacle.

--

Roving Web-Teleoperated Robot

Re:Blackmailing Google? by aridhol · 2002-10-21 02:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

--
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Re:Blackmailing Google? by gorilla · 2002-10-21 02:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes they can.

SearchKing... of ads by Diclophis · 2002-10-21 02:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

results for "php" on searchking Note that the first page of results has nuthin to do with php, or its development, hell it doesnt even return php.net (php's homepage). Meanwhile Google's results return very informational and useful sites, and clearly define which results are paid for. I suppose this is just a window into the obviuos.

--

Jon Bardin

Re:SearchKing... of ads by scott1853 · 2002-10-21 02:49 · Score: 5, Funny

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

Hillarious? by FreeLinux · 2002-10-21 02:31 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

Fuckers! by mosch · 2002-10-21 02:32 · Score: 5, Funny

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:everyone click here! by Ionizor · 2002-10-21 02:33 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--

--
Todd's Law: All things being equal, you lose!

Maybe Google Should Sue SearchKing .... by mustangdavis · 2002-10-21 02:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

for using Google's good name for free advertising!

Is it just me, or does this wreak of a cheap PR campaign for SearchKing?

Has anyone even heard of searchking before this article?

Maybe searchking will be able to sell enough casino ads to pay Google for the rights to use thier name in a pointless law suit that is really just a cheap advertising campaign!

Two words for the wonderful people at Google : COUNTER SUIT!!!

--
HallmarkOrnaments.Com

Re:Maybe Google Should Sue SearchKing .... by tomhudson · 2002-10-21 03:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by Salamanders · 2002-10-21 02:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

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...)

Learning is fun by Sunkist · 2002-10-21 02:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

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!

--
No, Vern. They just let him in.

Spamming Google for $$$ by KjetilK · 2002-10-21 02:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

Well, Searchking's business model consists of making people pay them to spam google for them, by making non-paid documents coming up lower. What Searchking doesn't get is that I'm not interested in being spammed by their customers, I'm interested in good search results. It is comforting to see that Google penalizes sites that tries such tactics, because it means that I get better search results. Go Google!

--
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid

What an ego! by Ibag · 2002-10-21 02:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Due to the high value associated with PR, Massa claims in his lawsuit that the purposeful reduction of SearchKing and its related web sites' rankings has damaged the company's reputation and diminished its value.

If SearchKing had been the only site whose pagerank changed, I might say they had a case. Unfortunately, several sites had their rankings changed by the new algorithm. It doesn't appear to have been a systematic attack directed only at him.

The following quote made me burst out laughing:
Massa explained [...], "High PageRanks don't come easily. The webmaster had to do a lot of work to get enough people linking to him to give him that ranking. They deserve to be paid for that effort."

They found a way to cheat the system and cause google to give results that overvalue their pagerank, and it took effort to implement it for new pages. Because cheating the system isn't easy, they deserve to be paid? I just don't get it.

Hey look! by FreeLinux · 2002-10-21 02:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

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! by leviramsey · 2002-10-21 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

So not even your link spamming buddies are willing to support you. You know you've got it bad when even the pr0n sites and casinos that googlebomb look down on you.
Re:Hey look! by theduck · 2002-10-21 04:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

--
How can we afford to ever sleep
So sound again
--ebtg
Re:Hey look! by Idarubicin · 2002-10-21 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
~Idarubicin

Internet King by Lothar+0 · 2002-10-21 02:54 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
"Anonymous Coward" is for whistleblowers, not unpopular opinions.

In a related Simpsons reference by saider · 2002-10-21 02:55 · Score: 4, Funny

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]

--

Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.

Tosh by Dusabre · 2002-10-21 02:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

Is this a subtle troll or just rubbish?

Google has viewers because it has integrity and quality. If it abuses its position, it first loses integrity and quality and then loses viewers. No government intervention needed.

This isn't comparable with monopoly cases, hell, this isn't even a market liquidity case (i.e. Ebay is dominant because it is dominant, it doesn't pay to auction elsewhere because everybody auctions at Ebay...). Anybody clever enough can set up a server farm and get viewers if they have a Google beating engine quality.

On the legal side, this might be an unfair competition case but its difficult for a competitor (A) to claim that a company's (B) actions within B's business are unfair as they stop A's manipulation of B's business... You have to have clean hands as well to succeed with unfair competition claims.

Help them by blogging their rank up by phorm · 2002-10-21 03:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?"

The King is Screwed by forged · 2002-10-21 03:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by WEFUNK · 2002-10-21 03:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Sorry to reply to my own comment, but I feel like I gave this guy way too much credit.

An even better analogy to the description he uses in his own press release is that of a car thief that specializes in stealing and stripping Hondas announcing that he's one of Honda's few competitors, and that he has the right to sue Honda if they improve their alarms and anti-theft devices.

--
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!

Time for the wayback machine by Ektanoor · 2002-10-21 03:05 · Score: 3, Informative

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 by XaXXon · 2002-10-21 03:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Bob Massa, president of SearchKing., Inc. and PR Ad Network, filed a lawsuit today against Google on the grounds the organization arbitrarily and purposefully devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites, causing his business to suffer financially. Massa is asking that the court grant preliminary and permanent injunctions against Google.

from dictionary.com:
arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
purposeful - Having a purpose; intentional

From what I can tell, it's pretty tough to do something arbitrarily and purposefully.

I wanted to go back and read more of the page.. but it seems that this web hosting site has been /.'d.. I think that's about my daily recommended dose of irony for the day...

Re:Error 18437: Joke Failure by iCEBaLM · 2002-10-21 03:08 · Score: 4, Funny

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

Next they'll sue us by AaronStJ · 2002-10-21 03:09 · Score: 4, Funny

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.

--
Stupid like a fox!

you're missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-21 03:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by Todd+Knarr · 2002-10-21 03:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Diffrent market? by Bastian · 2002-10-21 03:10 · Score: 3, Funny

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" by vinsci · 2002-10-21 03:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

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? :-)

--

Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!

Must ... resist ... Simpsons ... Joke ... by ctid · 2002-10-21 03:13 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room

Doesn't seem like a search engine to me... by WebMasterJoe · 2002-10-21 03:16 · Score: 5, Funny

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?"

--
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.

One has to wonder... by Xformer · 2002-10-21 03:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

...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.

--
All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.

Where's google on search king? by phorm · 2002-10-21 03:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-21 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

The search engine optimisation industry by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-21 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sadly, there are plenty of other companies like SearchKing out there practicing a wide variety of techniques to achieve higher search listings purely for marketing purposes. The whole attitude of the search engine optimisation industry is that the only thing that matters is how high their own sites (or those of their customers) rank.... quality search results are irrelevant.

It's sad to see that a technology which started out as such a revolutionary way for users to find information is being so corrupted by those who don't care about the primary reason people use search engines, which is to find the information most relevant to them.

Google is leading the way in providing the high quality results, in contrast to the majority of the other major search engines who willingly compromose the quality of their service for advertising purposes, and for that I respect google highly. I can only hope that they will continue to fight these sorts of activies by improving their technology to effectively prevent search engine spamming becoming a more serious problem, and they are certainly doing a great job of this so far.

The whole search engine optimization industry sickens me. I wish these people would put their efforts towards more useful endevours such as improving the quality of content on sites, or making them better organised/easier to navigate/more accessible. These are the real problems that need to be solved, and will be of actual benefit to end-users.

Truth in advertising by ClarkEvans · 2002-10-21 03:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not that I think PageKing has any ground to stand on, but I do think that it would be great if there was some sort of court certification that Google's ranking mechanism is in fact unbiased as it is claimed by their Marketing and PR. That is, that there isn't code like:

If domain is 'pageking' Then
PageRank = 0
End If

Truth in advertising is a good thing. Now, for those claiming government intervention is bad (or that it is Google's algorithem and they can do with it as they please) there are two facts: (a) Google claims that it is a unbiased algorithem, (b) People depend upon this claim when using the service. Thus, while Google is free to change their algoirhtem, they should be constrained to do so in accordance with what they have advertised. Just like when I order a product I expect it to operate as advertised.

So, I'm hopeful that the court case goes forward and that it can set a precident that on-line services can be challenged if someone thinks that it operates with a different spirit than as advertised. That said, I also hope the Judge awards Google appropriate attorney fees after Google wins.
not that I htink P

Re:Truth in advertising by Frobnicator · 2002-10-21 03:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Re:Truth in advertising by CvD · 2002-10-21 04:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

--
The Official Steve Ballmer Webpage
Re:Truth in advertising by pete-classic · 2002-10-21 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Search King JINGLE by Ashurbanipal · 2002-10-21 03:22 · Score: 4, Funny

"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? by LaserBeams · 2002-10-21 03:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

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

This one is beyond my comprehension...

--
Karma: \Kar"ma\, n. [Skr.] (Buddhism) One's acts considered as fixing one's lot in the future existence.

"Devalued"? *snort* by Charles+Kerr · 2002-10-21 03:32 · Score: 5, Interesting

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. :)

Google is a monopoly and should be watched! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-10-21 03:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

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! by Sodium+Attack · 2002-10-22 03:12 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.

And the rest are stolen by wirefarm · 2002-10-21 03:45 · Score: 5, Informative

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

--
-- My Weblog.

A little background on searchking's owner by Charles+Kerr · 2002-10-21 03:52 · Score: 4, Informative

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 by blastedtokyo · 2002-10-21 03:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Does Google recognize link farms yet? by Animats · 2002-10-21 03:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

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:Google actions cry out for government control by Blkdeath · 2002-10-21 04:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
BD Phone Home!

Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

Context is fun by Blkdeath · 2002-10-21 04:07 · Score: 3, Informative

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"

--
BD Phone Home!

Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

Not at all. by registro · 2002-10-21 04:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

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. by JudasBlue · 2002-10-21 08:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Bull. This is not about "companys who dare to sell what Google may only Google has the right to do: put you on top of the result search" or google trying to squash competition.

What this is about is someone taking advantage of the google system and google doing an error correction. Google is of use because it works as a ranking engine, and these people are intentionally trying to throw off the rankings.

This isn't trying to stomp on people, it is manually tweeking an algorythm. And it is a GOOD thing.

--
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Re:Not at all. by adamjaskie · 2002-10-21 08:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Google AdWords ads are those ads in the bar to the right of the search results. Google does not allow people to pay for placement in the actual search results, only for placement in the ad bar to the right of the results. Google's page-rank system relies on the number of links to a page from various other pages. SearchKing seems to be abusing this system by creating hundreds of dummy pages with links to each other to inflate the page-rank of those pages. They then sell pages to companies, who pay a lot of money for a page with an artificially inflated page-rank. SearchKing is intentionally tricking the page-rank system for their own profit. Google has a right to reduce the page-rank of a site that is intentionally taking advantage of their system they have put in place to provide accurate results. SearchKing has no right to sell a page-rank. A page-rank is for Google to determine, not an advertising company. This case will likely be thrown out of court, or SearchKing will end up paying Google's legal fees.

--
/usr/games/fortune

google is #3 in a Search King search, SK #4 haha by asscroft · 2002-10-21 04:38 · Score: 3, Informative

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

--
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre

google owns you by mstyne · 2002-10-21 04:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Did a search at SearchKing for 'google owns you'

The first result is ... er, interesting

here are the results

--
mstyne: real name, no gimmicks

The Internet King by MillionthMonkey · 2002-10-21 05:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

hah by Iamthefallen · 2002-10-21 05:28 · Score: 3, Funny

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?

--
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues

Re:The banned site is Searchking.com by dipipanone · 2002-10-21 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

But I also think we should be more aware of who the Google Guys realy are: agressive advertising dealers, who may think are the only guys arround entitle to put a price to who important our sites are, with the power to ban your site.

What nonsense. They have no power at all to ban your site. You have an absolute right to put whatever you like on your website, and they have an absolute right (within the limits of the law, of course) to put whatever they want on theirs. If you don't like how Google works, use another search engine.

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

Two sides to every beef. by crucini · 2002-10-21 08:14 · Score: 4, Informative

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:

Claim to be automated and objective, while manually manipulating the listings.
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.
Had predecessors (MAPS, AV) that were were easily abused.
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. by DavidTC · 2002-10-21 13:55 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?

Re:Whine Back To Bob... by matrix29 · 2002-10-21 08:55 · Score: 4, Informative

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."

--
"Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.

Google: Webmaster Dos and Don'ts by minesweeper · 2002-10-21 12:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:The banned site is Searchking.com by CySurflex · 2002-10-21 18:08 · Score: 3, Funny

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

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

now THAT'S funny.

Slashdot Mirror

Google Sued over Page Ranking

128 of 592 comments (clear)