Slashdot Mirror


Google Sued over Page Ranking

OrangeHairMan writes "Google.com is being sued by SearchKing.com because Google "purposefully devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites, causing his business to suffer financially." There's a page on SearchKing.com's site too." Does anyone besides me find this hilarious? My favorite part is that the name of the site is "Search King".

52 of 592 comments (clear)

  1. Too Easy by BoBaBrain · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    I am a Karma Library.
    1. Re:Too Easy by BoBaBrain · · 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.
    2. Re:Too Easy by LinuxWoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      Geez. If I really wanted to just go to the site that paid the most in advertising I'd stick with watching TV so I could just get my info from commercials. We all know how honest and accurate THAT system is.

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


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

      --

      ...phil
      "For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
    4. Re:Too Easy by tiedyejeremy · · 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"
    5. Re:Too Easy by xmutex · · 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
    6. Re:Too Easy by Ichijo · · 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.
    7. Re:Too Easy by DavidTC · · 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?
  2. they just have... by silicon1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    search envy..

    1. Re:they just have... by Midnight+Thunder · · 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.
  3. Google's PageRanking algorythm by WittyName · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    FOAD..

    --
    The law is a weapon of the government, not a protection for the likes of you. Surely you understand that.
    1. Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm by CheapshotOverkill · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

  4. PlowKing? by RobL3 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:PlowKing? by poopsie · · 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

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

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

    --
    Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
  6. Unbiased reporting.. by larien · · 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? :)

    1. Re:Unbiased reporting.. by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Eh, they're both biased, and that's fine. If you think any printed phrase is unbiased, you're just reading something that happens to match your own bias.

      Gads, I went through this on K5 on a regular basis - I got sick of the meta-discussion about 'bias' and stopped visiting. Suddenly /.'s policy of only reporting news and not accepting stories about Slashdot itself look nice.

      --
      Evan "flashbacks with sound suck even more..."

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  7. Why on earth... by LordKariya · · 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
  8. PageRank.c by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:PageRank.c by Skirwan · · Score: 5, Funny
      if(q[i]="Searchking") {
      0 error(s), 1 warning(s):
      On line 2 of post 4495094: Possible unwanted assignment.
    2. Re:PageRank.c by micromoog · · 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.

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

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

    --
    "Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
    1. Re:His customers? by Quixotic+Raindrop · · 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)
  10. Searchking by seanmeister · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Searchking by Gudlyf · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
  11. If it gets to court... by surprise_audit · · 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.

  12. LawMeme sums it up best by Kusanagi · · 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
  13. Baseless claim by Drizzten · · 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
  14. Blackmailing Google? by Hayzeus · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Maybe the point of all this is twofold:

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  15. SearchKing... of ads by Diclophis · · 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.

    1. Re:SearchKing... of ads by scott1853 · · 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

  16. Hillarious? by FreeLinux · · 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?

  17. Fuckers! by mosch · · 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!

  18. Maybe Google Should Sue SearchKing .... by mustangdavis · · 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!!!

  19. Re:Maybe I Am Missing the Point by cfulmer · · 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."

  20. Spamming Google for $$$ by KjetilK · · 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
  21. Hey look! by FreeLinux · · 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      So not even your link spamming buddies are willing to support you. You know you've got it bad when even the pr0n sites and casinos that googlebomb look down on you.

  22. Tosh by Dusabre · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this a subtle troll or just rubbish?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  24. Re:and page rank goes up by darksaber · · 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.

  25. Doesn't seem like a search engine to me... by WebMasterJoe · · 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.
  26. Truth in advertising by ClarkEvans · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

  27. "Devalued"? *snort* by Charles+Kerr · · 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. :)

  28. And the rest are stolen by wirefarm · · 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.
  29. Google becoming a monopoly? This may be legit soo by blastedtokyo · · 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.

  30. Does Google recognize link farms yet? by Animats · · 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.

  31. google owns you by mstyne · · 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
  32. Re:The banned site is Searchking.com by dipipanone · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --

    7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.