Slashdot Mirror
Google Responds to SearchKing's Lawsuit
The Importance of writes "Back in October, SearchKing sued Google for reducing SearchKing's pagerank, as previously reported. Now, Google has filed a reply and a motion to dismiss. LawMeme has both documents as well as analysis."
I'd just remove them completely from the search enginge. Google is a private company and has the right to exclude anyone they choose.
Previous LawMeme Coverage here, including a nasty reply from the SearchKing himself.
Google didn't reduce SearchKing's page rank, Google changed the page rank formula.
Heh, where I live it would be laughed out of court.
In fact I'd doubt you'd find a lawyer willing to take the case.
Sounds like another dot bomb in the making.
This is the same as sueing the "A" group in highschool for not deeming you cool and because of that your self esteem suffered and you became a computer science major.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Who goes to a search engine to search for other search engines anyway? That's like me training a dog to find other dogs that are trained to find dogs. I don't see how search king could possibly even claim to have a case here.
to think they can win a case like this. these people are probably only doing this to get some free press (and it seems to be working). my advice to anyone would be; don't talk about it, don't write about it, and if you have to, don't mention there name.
Acts@core.mailboks.com Acrux@core.mailboks.com Adam@core.mailboks.com Adar@core.mailboks.com Ada@core.mailboks.com
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.
Can I start up "Slashdot King"?
This SearchKing fool actually claimed monetary damages. What a dumbass, if I've ever seen one!
[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
searchking has no case whatsoever. oh well, their only hope is to demote Google in their page-ranking system, and then no one will EVER go to Google. RIIIIIIIIIGGGHT
Google has the right to enforce any formula they wish, including a modified one or even an outright fudged one. They're a private company. They can choose to link to whatever sites they wish. They also provide the courtesy of delisting sites that wish to remain anonymous.
Not only is SearchKing suing google, they are also selling (oh, sorry, they call it "making a donation") the legal documents. In order to get into the password protected site, you have to give them $20!
"Men lie."
"Yeah, about sleeping with other women, but never about bioluminescent plankton."
-Dan Brown
On search king's site you can access the (as searchking puts it) confession by google. When I saw confession, I wanted to see what it was all about, but it is just the document that we already have in .pdf format.
But if you want to donate 20 dollars to searchking(required to view the document), then you can hop over to their site.
II. Table of Authorities
United States Statutes and Other Authority
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
485 U.S. 46, 53 (1988)
Sweet! Larry Flynt will set me straight. So happily did I turn on to page 10, for those playing along at home.
and it read: which is totally not what I was looking for. I even checked under the staples.
For one thing, Microsoft violated the law and was declared an illegal monopoly.
From SearchKing's Google case site:
In these documents, you will find answers, (according to google), to questions like:
DID GOOGLE DO IT INTENTIONALLY?
CAN GOOGLE DO IT TO YOU?
WHAT CAN YOU DO IF THEY DO?
HOW IMPORTANT IS PAGE RANK TO PLACEMENT?
ARE THEY WORRIED ABOUT OTHER LAWSUITS?
You can learn answers to these questions and more ---- but not for free. It's going to cost you $20 to see the documents. The $20 for the password to view these papers is not a sale. It is a donation to the SearchKing legal fund.
I imagine their legal defense fund totals will be enough to hire My Cousin Vinny.
Why would I need to search for another search engine ON A SEARCH ENGINE?
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
Google should countersue for screwing with their algorithm.
That'll fix their wagon, but good!
Seriously, who gave the monkeys the mod points? Ooop, ooop!
SearchKing has a posting of Google's response, presumably with commentary. The link can be found here but you have to pay $20 to the "Legal Defense Fund" to view the entire documentation.
Fortunately, my curiousity is outweighed by me desire to NOT give SearchKing money.
"However," replied the universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation."
Searchking is now
<a href=http://gooogle.searchking.com/>charging money to access information about their lawsuit with google</a>
Shows how legitimate they are...
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.
Yes but was it against SearchKing specifically or any site that did what SearchKing did?
"Jono Craig: One expected response from Google is that people should be careful what they pay for. They don't always get what they expect. That Google prefer algorithms to fight 'spam' but are happy to investigate claims of abuse manually if they need to. To me this would imply some form of intervention; both through public advice and possibly through filters or penalties to sites such as www.pradnetwork.com & www.searchking.com
Robert Massa: To me, it only illustrates the reason Google has become as successful as it has. They run a good search engine at least in part because they care enough to investigate. I'm not asking for or expecting any special consideration. "
So, he WAS all in favour of google doing what they like. Until it turned out to be something he didn't like. Uh huh.
People like searchking should be lined up and shot next to all the spammers.
[sig]www.masterslate.org[/sig]
Has anti google propaganda all over it! It even has a lame soviet russia joke as the site title. It looks like a typical spammer/scammer site anyway.
... that must be because Google reduced SearchKing's pagerank, I think searchking should sue them.
... Well I certainly hope that Search King wins. If my company decides to block Slashdot because I post too much at work, I'll be able to sue them!
has an old buggy, insecure XMB 1.6 - Magic Lantern board if anyone wants a board to "test"
http://gooogle.searchking.com/googleBcool/
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
Helloooooo?!?!??!! McFly!!!!!
AC comments get piped to
Maybe this is more up your alley.
Now, I might have this all wrong, but to me it seems that SearchKings way of increasing it's customer's page ranking is just another form of electronic spam. It exposes Google users to information they do not require and furthermore may obscure the *real* information they are looking for.
This is exactly the same behaviour I see with email-based spamming. Any of the spammers tried to sue the manufacturers of spam-filter software yet?
I asked for a refund - and got my monkey back.
Searchking's Web Site has a page of News about their lawsuit and Searchking's Comments on Google's Response to the Court and their attempt to get the public to pay $20 for more details. I wasn't that impressed with it, but maybe you'd have a different opinion....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"the first time LawMeme has seen a legal document with a "your ad here" banner attached"
Wait a minute aren't *they* suing Google?
It should be a "Legal Attack Fund".
We should sue them for false representation!
"In Soviet Russia, search engine files motion to dismiss YOU!"
Well, if you can't reuse, then recycle.
Actually, I think there's a decent case that needs to be talked about here...
Google should not have the right to decide what it "doesn't like" and have a "Google doesn't like these sites" list that has a negative PageRank impact. Simply put, PageRank should be unbiased, and apply all rules equally to all sites.
I think the big question here is if SearchKing was punished specifically by Google, or if SearchKing's behavior resulted in a tweak to the formula that'd punish a metaphoric SearchQueen, or any other site that tries to do what SearchKing did, the same way without any further changes to the system.
That's Just a Burglar Alarm -- Ignore It!
Another example was the Microsoft and "go to hell" incident which dissappeared from Google rather quickly once it became public.
Incidentally, searching for "SearchKing" on SearchKing doesn't even come up with SearchKing's front page, and the first result that is even close is number 7.
Looks like searchking deleted the post listed as exhibit B in Google's response
"This is the same as sueing the "A" group in highschool for not deeming you cool and because of that your self esteem suffered and you became a computer science major."
Now why didn't *I* think of that?
KFG
He'll give 'em a good, solid, bitchslapping and mod down every link in their entire database that even has the word "google" on the page.
But it won't be censorship.
-MM
That's my name.
That name again is Mr. Plow!
Google's terms states a jurisdiction of California? Why didn't they not argue that?
And what about a counterclaim for fraud because they are ursuping the page ranking system and for adding pages for commercial purpose.
Fight Spammers!
Actually, it's pretty standard, as are most of the other moves mentioned by the reviewer, and which I read in the filings. No, I'm not a lawyer, but I've worked on lots of cases, including many tort cases, and that's my opinion.
That's Just a Burglar Alarm -- Ignore It!
Why in the name of Thor's hammer Mjolnir was this modded up as funny, whereas every other "IN SOVIET RUSSIA" post gets modded down as Offtopic or Troll?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
SearchKing is circumventing the aim of google's page rank, by artificially inflating the value of their google rank.
They know partly how google's algorith works and they are abusing that. Google knows what they are doing and compensated for this.
It isn't just about crunching numbers and pushing the algorith about... the idea was to logically weight pages... not drop a lead brick on the scale.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
Google should not have the right to decide what it "doesn't like" and have a "Google doesn't like these sites" list that has a negative PageRank impact. Simply put, PageRank should be unbiased, and apply all rules equally to all sites.
You may have a point philosophically but there is no law that will support you. Google can censor their site any way they feel necessary to protect the integrity of their search services.
i disagree. the reason we like google (besides the simple interface and no pop-ups) is because it gives us relevant results. do you think that people who pay link farms to up their pagerank are the most relevant sites? i don't think so. so if the google people make the connection that searchking is bad, then it's up to them to lower searchking's pagerank. it up to google to decide what makes the most relevant results show up first, that's what keeps google the #1 search engine. if they screw up and the most relevant results are no longer the top results, then we'll find a new search engine.
America Home of the Braiv. Land of teh Fere!
That's not exactly acurate. It would be more accurate to say that Microsoft knowingly corrupted Java while under license with Sun and as part of the relief Microsoft has to include Java.
I don't think this search deal is anything like the MS / Sun case. Except for the president of search king and Bill gates are both idiots.
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
He's defending his lawsuit with a speech about the evils of human meddling with the ordering of pages on a search engine to serve a goal!
Not that that's a bad thing ---> it's not a bad thing
It's not exactly censorship. Google created algorithms to rank pages based on several factors. They found that the algorithms were flawed and could be exploited by people like SearchKing. They fixed the algorithms. The fact that SearchKing or other link farms don't rank so highly anymore points more to effective changes to the algorithm than to censorship.
Until Google comes right out and says "We look for SearchKing specifically and downrank them!" It's not censorship nor is it wrong IMNSHO
For more background check out the links at the top of Searchking.com, in particular 'Google confesses' (!)
---- scrm
Let me try to understand this: some spammer is charging money from other spammers to exploit and devalue Google's search service, and annoy Google's users at the same time with irrelevant results. When Google takes appropriate action against this, the spammer sues?!
Yeah, right. Next, I'll be sued by spammers for deleting their junk mail without reading it, and depriving them from their principal source of income.
Did anyone see the little dot in the lower left hand corner of the above page? It's a link to some "eXTReMe Tracking" page. That page is labeled "Google Confesses". I wonder what that's all about...
Even for Slashdot.
When the clicks starts a-falling
There's a man you should be calling
That's KL5-4796
Let it ring!
The Search King is a loser
And I think he is a boozer
So, you'd better make that call to the lawyer
Granted, I'm not an expert on lawsuits, but this one seems more complicated than most people see it.
I don't think SearchKing is trying to get Google to undo the changes it made to its PageRank algorithm. I think SearchKing is trying to use the fact that Google changed its PageRank in order to get a massive settlement out of court.
The CEO of SearchKing is trying to force Google into a position where they will either have to give him a huge stack of cash or they will have to reveal more detailed secrets about the workings of PageRank in court. Google's entire business depends on PageRank remaining a trade secret. If I were Google, I'd fork over the cash if it looked like it might come down to that.
There is a law behind that. Google claims to present the unbiased results of its secret PageRank formula... if in fact they're presenting what the formula said plus the modifying decisions of their human editors, they're committing a basic fraud, promising one thing then doing another.
Well the reason Google is so important is that so many people use it, and the reason so many people use it instead of Yahoo or Altavista or Northernlights or Hotbot or LongDefunct.Com or Excite.com or Teoma or some of the other search engines out there is that they do a really excellent job. I used to use Altavista, who were not only the original big search engine, they were one of the best in terms of coverage, as opposed to Yahoo who had much better indexing but nowhere near as many pages. If you wanted to find something obscure, you'd use Altavista, but if you wanted to find something common, it might be hard because Altavista would get 50,000 references that you could look through 10 at a time. I switched to using Google because their search engine did a really good job of usually having the information I wanted in the first page or two, often in the first one or two references, as well as because their pages were lean and mean and not cluttered with dancing broken Javascript ads, and I've occasionally found the cache to be valuable for finding information that was once on the web but isn't any more.
As far as Daniel Brandt's rants about how the government ought to be regulating Google and PageRank because so many people use it, that's purely backwards. The government could accomplish any positive aspects of his goals by building their own search engines with their own page ranking algorithms, but if they go messing with Google, they're not only likely to censor some content and artificially inflate things they want to propagandize, but they're likely to make it less likely to have the material I want near the top, destroying the Pagerank in order to save it.
Some search engines have tried to make money by letting people pay for good placement - the pundits yell at them for it, and the public tends to use those engines less because they're better at finding advertising drivel than interesting content. Lots of web sites try to game the page ranking systems on all the major search engines, typically by including relevant keywords many many times in comments or meta-things, or by including them in small print at the bottom of the page, and the main reason the system doesn't get swamped by this is that the better algorithms try to detect this manipulation and neutralize it or seriously downrate for it. Otherwise the search engines would have a high proportion of uninteresting material near the top, mostly pages that are really just spam. If Google's PageRank didn't protect itself against whatever techniques SearchKing is using, he'd be doing the same thing, making it much easier to find pages people pay to promote than pages that are rated high because they're actually interesting. (I've got slightly mixed feelings about that, because his stuff seems to look less obnoxious than banner ads or dancing javascipts, and is usually on pages I don't ever read...)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Did you read the article?
The point is that Google DOES have the right to decide what it does and doesn't like, and DOES have the right to a "Google doesn't like these sites" list.
What Google does is publish their opinion. How they form their opinion is their business.
They are entitled to an opinion... aren't they?
The bit at the end about Google having grown large and important enough to be a special case is, in my opinion (Hurrah! I have one too!), stupid. Did the author think the same thing about AltaVista five years ago? Will he think the same about whoever replaces Google?
Unlike, for example, Yakovisms such as
"In Soviet Russia, Trolls mod you!"
Come to think of it, that's true here, as well.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/skgoogle 101702cmp.pdf
e 101702pimot.pdf
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/skgoogl
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
A rare Slashdot moment of clarity.
Exhibit "C"
:o
www://pradnetwork.com/rules.htm (website page)
'page can not be found'
www is not a registered protocol.
there goes the defence
Privacy is terrorism.
Well if they're defrauding you then why don't you ask for your money back?
I could sure use a good explanation of the page rank system.
Falwell sued and won a $200,000 judgment for emotional distress. However, the Supreme Court sent him home with nothing. A key factor was that Falwell is a "public figure," and so is more limited in damages he can recover. A rare 8-0 slam dunk on a controversial topic, this odd little case was considered a major victory for free speech and satire.
Anyway, a far cry from anything here. I can't see how this case would survive the motion to dismiss.
Look at this. Pay special attention to the part about speech.
fraud: "intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right"
Care to change your argument?
I am merely stating that Google can censor if they want to. Censoring is not necessarily a "bad" thing. It just means to eliminate something you find objectionable. Most parents censor what their children watch. In this case Google may not have censored Search King but they have every right to if they want. Just like network television can choose not to run condom ads during cartoons.
Fair enough. I agree that google can cencor anything they want to, of course I'm glad they choose not to (except where required by law).
Google search for: web search gives the following ranks:
- google
- yahoo
- lycos
- altavista
- AlltheWeb.com
- msn search
- msn
- altavista (@digital.com)
- metacrawler
- webcrawler
and no searchking on the next TEN pages
am i missing something?
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
It isnt neccessarily MY money, it is the money they made by having me visit their site. It has happened with radio before. A radio station ran a series of too-good-to-be-true bogus contests which inflated their ratings and listener base to insanely high levels, which made them oodles of cash from their advertising customers. You dont have to make the money off the person youre lying to to have commited fraud. My time and patronage is worth exactly as much money as you make off of it, and if you lie to me to get it then you owe SOMEONE their money back.
The paragraph that got me rolling was:
"In these documents, you will find answers, (according to google), to questions like:
DID GOOGLE DO IT INTENTIONALLY?
CAN GOOGLE DO IT TO YOU?
WHAT CAN YOU DO IF THEY DO?
HOW IMPORTANT IS PAGE RANK TO PLACEMENT?
ARE THEY WORRIED ABOUT OTHER LAWSUITS?
You can learn answers to these questions and more ---- but not for free. It's going to cost you $20 to see the documents. The $20 for the password to view these papers is not a sale. It is a donation to the SearchKing legal fund. "
W * O * W
That's so stupid it's just simply impressive. I have this morbid curiosity to find out just how many people would spend $20 to read this moron's "insights." Me thinks I've learned more from my cats.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry!
Google is a site designed to be a resource for US. That is their mission. They don't give a flying fsck about providing a profit center to some other company--nor should it be considered their responsibility to support.
Gads.
The apocalypse must certainly be arriving Monday. Or, at least, I hope it is.
-buf
That's an important point. According to other posts, Google changed the formula to specifically downgrade SearchKing, if not other link farms as well.
That's got to be a major performance hit, since they'd have to add a check for a [list of] site[s!]. And when you're doing millions of searches daily, that adds up. Unless, of course, they've already got a hitlist that they check against. In that case, they'd already have a streamlined system to handle those checks.
They'd have to have some seriously advantageous result in mind if they're going to slow their searches any. (Granted, their searches have been so fast, I probably wouldn't notice.)
What's this Submit thingy do?
Let's Google bomb them. Everyone add a link to their website/blog extolling the virtues of this internet moron whose actions are big fucking waste of time and money.
Heck, add an entire page of our favorite google bombs for our favorite sites like Scientology and the evil empire.
I went to altavista and type
+ozzy +osbourne -searchking
I am hurting their business.
All this news might not be a good thing for them. Potential and current subscribers to their linkfarming services may stop paying search king when they learn that google has downgraded searchkings pagerank. They would not want to continue paying the same price for a service diminishing in value rapidly. Also, if Searchking is publically traided, investors may not want to touch a company that looks like its in a idiotic lawsuit with google.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal, Clerks
But Google doesn't claim PageRank to be an expression of their opinion. PageRank is a hard-to-bias formula that, in their opinion, is the best way to sort web pages.
If they are making human decisions about what's a good or a bad webpage, then they should be disclosing that fact on their site.
Why not? It's a free country. Google is a private business. They have a right to their opinions, just like anybody else. Or are you saying that for some reason Google doesn't have the same right to call a scumbag a scumbag that I have? What rationale do you have for that statement?
Sounds to me like you don't like freedom of speech and freedom of opinion. That's a dangerous attitude, in my book.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
for an injunction preventing the Slashdot "Karma" system from modding this post down.
In addition I want Slashdot to post all source code related.... Oh wait, never mind.
Uh oh.. Now they're gonna sue you for taking away their right to a revenue stream! You must stop your anticompetitive behavior immediately and let them sell their public domain documents for $20.
The obvious answer to this "larger question" is this: if Google becomes an arbitrary dictator, giving popular sites low rankings, they will quickly lose their dictatorship. Imagine if a search for "apache" gave apache.org a PageRank of 346. Google wouldn't last long.
But if Google gives SearchKing sites a low rank? Well, nobody seems to be complaining but SearchKing.Their entire sit is built on gimmicks, and looks like it was designed with a very old version of frontpage.
FUCK THEM ALL.
Google, put down your foot, don't let them make you out to be a little bitch.
Questions from their site and my answers:
DID GOOGLE DO IT INTENTIONALLY? Who cares besides you!
CAN GOOGLE DO IT TO YOU? You bet, and it shouldn't be possible to file a lawsuit because of it!
WHAT CAN YOU DO IF THEY DO? Not a damned thing you fucking tools.
ARE THEY WORRIED ABOUT OTHER LAWSUITS? I hope they are not, if they do worry, it could harm the great results they provide.
What in the hell is wrong with the world? Why has their case made it this far?
I hope SearchKing realizes that they look like fools for doing this. What a bunch of babies.
And for google's search results later on... I suggest we all add this to our comments for the next couple days...
FUCK SearchKing
SearchKing Sucks
You don't recall correctly. Google doesn't publish its algorithm; any statements as to what they actually are are speculation.
SearchKings manipulations of Google degraded Google's result integrity.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
> fraud: "intentional perversion of truth in
> order to induce another to part with something
> of value or to surrender a legal right"
By that definition, SearchKing in guilty of fraud by creating link farms to artificially increase their customers' apparent relevance - like salting a gold mine with a 12-bore or ballot stuffing.
You too, YOU just reprinted, republished & used the part of SearchKing's page that contained the bit that says you can't do that. You didn't even post anonymously - boy are you in trouble now.
You're saying that PageRank itself isn't an expression of opinion, but that it is an aid to expressing an opinion. Of course they're making human decisions about what's good or bad - that's the function of their algorithm. That's why they modified it. As the lawmeme article says, there's no way to 'objectively' determine where SearchKing should be - 8, 4, 2. All any search engine can be is an expression of opinion. "We reckon that if you're searching for a water lily then this is the 'best' site for you.
Alister
The SearchKing website looks no differen't than those web-portals for squatted urls. But they promise such good results! So here are some query response:
Search: "Fuck You"
-1. Get Paid To Surf The Internet!
-2. Where to find music CDs, DVDs, select MP3 music tracks, free music download
-3. Never Be Sued Again!
-4. Get Paid to Surf
-5. Kudos and Compliments for You and for Those Who Bring You Happiness
-6. (see 5)
-7. How To Start A Money Brokerage Business
and I think you get the point. Perhaps a more 'relevant' search query could yield better results:
Search: Car
-1. 765469
-2. License Plates - Vanity License Plates
-3. Next Honda of New England
-4. Ramsfield.com Auto Parts
Hmm. Better results than the search for "Fuck You". But I still wanna know the logic that went into making "765469" the number one result. Oh, and another nice feature is that the linked pages come complete with a SearchKing adbar in a differen't frame.
/There are 10 types of people in this world; those who steal sigs and those don't
Jesus. Quit being such a dumbass. The PageRank formula is the best way to sort pages partly because it biases away SearchKing. Who gives a flying fuck whether they "disclose" that or not?
Quit trying to sound smart. It aint workin.
Goggle does claim that PageRank is an expression of opinion and hence "free speech." It is one of the major claims of Goggle's motion to dismiss. You should RTFA.
I had copied Exhibit A from the PDF, and didn't pay attention to the URL I got from Acrobat
http://w.qooqle.com/technolouv/index. html
Anyway, this was qooqle's (not google's) response to my request
http://paradise.qooqle.com/404.html
"Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pron surfed weak and weary.
Over many a strange and spurious pronsite of 'hot XXX galore'.
While I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning.
And my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour.
"'Tis not possible", I muttered, "give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server,
404
OCR wins again.
Maybe they can sue google for taking that away from them too.
No sig, sorry.
Plus, since when is exploiting loopholes protected by law ?!
- A law has a "hole" that allows one to avoid taxes;
- Company X is createad to sell this service for a profit;
- Congress fixes the law and closes the loophole;
- Company X feels its business model has been depreciated by the lawmakers and sues them.
Same works for say, software bugs that are exploited in a profitable way by other software makers. Can McAffee sue Microsoft because Windows 5000 (let's be realistic here) made even the notion of a virus unthinkable ?
I find this lawsuit to be more than ridiculous. I find it disgusting.
/.'ers, I propose we take an active role in this
wretched little saga: I propose we write to EVERY SINGLE CLIENT
displayed on SearchKing's site and tell them that we despise the
SearchKing lawsuit against Google and that we will NOT visit, support,
recommend or in any way help them until they have moved to another
hosting service or convinced SearchKing to desist in their legal
efforts. The same treatment should be directed at SearchKing's
advertisers, even if one of them is, sadly, Penguin Computing.
/. had over half a million subscribers. I think
that should get their attention. Don't you?
To sue Google for acting in its best interest and with a view to retain its effectiveness and credibility is nothing short of despicable. Whether SearchKing did it because it truly believes it is right or because it seeks publicity is irrelevant. Its actions are illogical:
a) SearchKing has come to depend on Google (as it stated) because Google can be trusted.
b) Google can be trusted because its algorithms are pretty accurate.
c) SearchKing tried to interfere with those algorithms, seeking INACCURATE results from Google.
d) Google modified said algorithms to counterbalance the interference, seeking its much-valued accuracy.
e) SearchKing sues Google.
I've read the LawMeme analysis and SearchKing's opinions and all I see is another unscrupulous dotcom trying to discredit a very respectable service to serve its own needs, regardless of the damage it may cause. So, fellow
Last time I checked,
Cheers,
Morel
Which isn't much in such a case.
The "I feel lucky" button goes a long way to prove this.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
"SearchKing - Building a Better Internet"
Hah! Only a market droid could believe that spamming search engines and paying for unmarked higher ranks (thus polluting accuracy) make the Internet a better place.
What is it about their name that make me think of Barney Gumble? Perhaps Google should consult the legal advice of Mr. Search - "Call Mr. Search, that's my name, that name again is Mr. Search"
Hmmmm, perhaps this Internet King can provide faster nudity....
They can do what ever they want as long as they don't break the criminal code, contractural responsabilities & labour 'n enviromental laws, etc.
Seeing as Google & Search King haven't signed a contracted then fuck em.
Really, lets be honest, frivilous law suit style standover tactics are becoming the norm in the IT industry, so maybe its about time the big American IT companies, particularly virtual web based ones like Google, relocate overseas to places where frivilous law suits are instantly thrown out.
Did you use Google to find them ? ;)
Thanks for the linkage
To places where frivilous law suits are instantly rejected
The fact is Google's a private company. As such they can do what ever they want as long as they don't break the criminal code, contractural responsabilities & labour 'n enviromental laws, etc.
Seeing as Google & Search King haven't signed a contracted then fuck em.
Really, lets be honest, frivilous law suit style standover tactics are becoming the norm in the IT industry, so maybe its about time the big American IT companies, particularly virtual web based ones like Google, relocate overseas to places where frivilous law suits are instantly thrown out.
As a professional programmer, I refuse to let someone else's politics dictate how I feed my family
I'm afraid I fail to see how being a professional programmer brings you to the conclusion to refuse to let someone else's politics dictate how you feed your family.
Perhaps it is some other part of your being that brings you to that conclusion.
I am also curious about the question of whether or not you actually do let someone else's politics dictate how you feed your family. After all, other people's politics contribute to the desirability of programming as a means to feed your family, as opposed to say, hard science.
There's also Daniel Brandt, the Google-watch guy, who thinks that Google ought to be regulated
Google should be regulated because so many people use it? Well, before you regulate this why doesn't anyone regulate the OS landspace?
I hear there is an OS maker who owns 95% of the market, yet laughs at 'regulatory bodies' & stuffs their pockets with money. Fuck google, if there is anything that needs regulation, it's OS Makers and their monopolizing tactics.
Google Cache of SearchKing's Google Page
I don't suppose this violates SearchKing's Terms of Use?
I'm a 2000 man.
So if SearchKing wins and gets their previous Google status restored then everybody else has a precendent to do the same. So company A has a right to be before company B, company B before company C, and company C before company A ... ! Wait, this could get messy.
A "link farm" more than likely would be a large series of pages that link to each other. Like a very thick web right?
Lets just say a certain search engine decided to give a sort of diminishing returns for repeat links. In a nutshell, the PR would be based on the number of unique links that it pulled..for example..it would look at links from pages that did not have links to the other pages that also linked to that page. Kinda confusing sounding...
If Google made a change like this (why wouldn't they?) that would kill SearchKing. SearchKing does not have a leg to stand on. They were abusing a system that got fixed. They have no legal or moral basis.
Besides, if they wanted to, they could just remove these guy's from their listing. I can't belive the audactiy of these guys (fucking sueing for crying out loud) to begin with!
If your intent as a search engine is to provide relevant results, you have to tweak your algorithm to remove the irrevelant ones. Since searchking is indeed irrevelant, it would be extremely susceptible to falling on its face for this. To be honest, I'm almost aghast that they had the gall to get mad about this.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
SearchKing was trying to "fix" the results and infact was not trying to affect them in anyway.
Here's the deal: SearchKing found all the sites that ranked high on Google and sold ad space on those sites. For example, if I searched for sprockets Spacely's Sprockets might come up first. SK would then contact Spacely's and sell ads to other people. Because Spacely's is he #1 result for a search on sprockets the ad space is worth money. Google didn't like this so any company that sells ad space through SK gets demoted, which makes the ads SK wants to sell worthless.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
NOTICE.
THIS IS NOT A SALE. YOU ARE MAKING A $20 DONATION TO SEARCHKING, INC. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE MONEY IS TO BE USED TO PAY LEGAL EXPENSES IN A LAWSUIT WITH GOOGLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
IN EXCHANGE FOR YOUR $20 DONATION, WE WILL SEND YOU A PASSWORD THAT WILL ALLOW YOU ACCESS TO ALL AREAS OF THIS WEBSITE.
THIS IS NOT A SALE. THERE IS NO REFUND OR CHARGEBACKS. BY FILLING OUT THIS FORM AND TYPING IN YOUR NAME AS IT APPEARS ON YOUR CHECK OR CREDIT CARD, YOU ARE AGREEING THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS NOT A SALE BUT RATHER A DONATION THAT IS TAX DEDUCTIBLE.
(emphasis mine)
Snickersnee3: Build your own 3-watt Luxeon Star headlamp from scratch
Interestingly enough, no other major search engine used THAT strategy yet
Ever heard of alltheweb?
They even have a google based skin you can use.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Sorry, you lose!
Nice sig tho.
Well, if you really have a comercial intrest in a search term, why not buy an ad for that keyword? When I actualy want to buy something, I usualy click the ads that show up on google.
An even better analogy is the broadcast industry. There are regulations that say that a single company cannot own so many local affiliates so it reaches more than XX% of the total population.
Actualy, a lot of these restrictions were lifted or removed in 1996. And now we have the scorge of clearchannel and the like...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I found a pic of this guy - maybe he should search for something better than MS Paint:
r tm assabig.html
http://www.internetmarketingconference.com/robe
Yug.
I wonder if SearchKing's knight is Sir Searchalot. Hmmm...
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
The construct makes me believe the poster uses a latin-derived language.
The slightly mocking anti-american bias points at Europe.
So I'd pick France, Spain or Italy, in that order.
Your post is also horribly imprecise.
Does the "STUPID FUCK" rule still apply if the country is not english-speaking?
On the other hand, you obviously realized that using "fuck" 4 times in your post would make you look like an ass, so you posted anonymously.
There is however a reasonable doubt that your anger came from the content of the post more than its form.
If so, it is telling that you chose to attack the post based on its spelling and grammar.
Oh, and as your lack of addressing the over-suing issue hints, the poster IS right on all counts.
Frivolous US lawsuits are a common topic for lunch-time jokes in many places.
Get used to it.
If you want to know how the folks at Google feel about Scientology, try a Google search for "goatse". No, really! Look at the suggested category...
:-)
Nice hack
Except the change that killed search king largley killed the 'google bomb'
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
even when a speaker is motivated by hatred or ill will his expression [is] protected by the First Amendment
But it will not be protected from the moderators.
Is this lawsuit just a big advertisement? I'd never heard of searchking until the slashdot story. I count 75 occurrances of "SearchKing" on this page, and I'm sure theyre getting a ton of word-of-mouth from this elsewhere as well.
It's not good word of mouth, but if the spammers will gladly piss off a few thousand people for a couple bucks, why not a search engine broker?
------ hi mom
Not to mention the whole issue of property rights. The ranking (and the algorithm for producing it) is property of Google. It seems to me that you are saying that Google can't do with their property whatever they please. Feh. It is true that "your right to throw your fist stops at the tip of my nose", but Google didn't throw any fists -- they just changed some numbers displayed on their own web site, available only if you explicitly asked Google for those numbers. This makes them no different than any other publisher of information.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
If the mythical "reasonable user" would have used and continued using Google even if he had known that an advertising claim was inflated via "puffery", we have over a hundred years of jurisprudence that says that there is no fraud claim here. Fraud is when someone tricks you into buying a product that you would not otherwise have bought. But nobody tricked you into using Google. You use Google because it works better, not because Google engaged in some harmless puffery about how they arrived at their better results.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Where fraud comes in is when false claims are used to deceive someone into buying a product. For example, if the claim on that soap was "Cures Athlete's Foot" and you have athlete's foot, but it doesn't really cure athlete's foot, you would have been defrauded because you relied on the stated claim as a material part of your purchasing decision. But harmless puffery like "Our results are better because of our patented PageRank(tm) algorithm!" are no more fraud than "perfect for all of your 2000 parts!" on this box of Lever 2000 soap. You use Google because it works better, not because of harmless puffery that makes no material difference in your decision to use it or not.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
In these documents, you will find answers, (according to google), to questions like:
DID GOOGLE DO IT INTENTIONALLY?
CAN GOOGLE DO IT TO YOU?
WHAT CAN YOU DO IF THEY DO?
HOW IMPORTANT IS PAGE RANK TO PLACEMENT?
ARE THEY WORRIED ABOUT OTHER LAWSUITS?
You can learn answers to these questions and more ---- but not for free. It's going to cost you $20 to see the documents. The $20 for the password to view these papers is not a sale. It is a donation to the SearchKing legal fund.
http://gooogle.searchking.com/
Any disclosure of the trade secret of the page rank algorithm will be under a protective order. These are extremely common under Rule 26.
So answer the question: Would you have still used Google if you'd known that Google's page ranking was mostly objective, but wasn't ALWAYS objective?
If you answer "Well, yes, because it gives me better results", BINGO! No fraud. Google could tell you "Our results are produced by 5,000 hamsters madly churning their hamster wheels in the basement of the Lawrence Livermore Labs" and if that had no effect upon whether the mythical "reasonable person" would have bought their product or not, there's no fraud involved. Even though, as far as I know, no hamsters were harnessed to wheels for the production of Google :-).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
They want $20 to see the documents?
...
Now is the time to get out those MOD 10 credit card number generators and an infinite loop in Perl
IRC section 501(c)(3) technically has nothing to do with the deductibility of contributions. That is governed by section 170, which merely happens to cover almost, but not quite, exactly the same entities as sec. 501(c)(3).
It is conceivable, but just barely, that the "contribution" could be deductible for some other reason -- if it's just an ordinary and necessary business expense, and for some reason exempt from capitalization, say -- but not for most "contributors." I'm fairly certain it is a crime for SearchKing to falsely claim these contributions are deductible.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
I'm a... for lack of a better term, professional computer guy. I have a client who had a gorgeous website designed by a local printer. Problem was the designer didn't like arial or any of the common fonts and every bit of text on the site was a gif without an alt tags. The site had no meta tags either. The typical "I'm a designer so I'll start designing websites" mentality (as opposed to the "I'm a computer guy so I'll design websites mentality").
The client asked me why her site didn't show up in any search engines. She had this outfit redo the site with real live text and eventually was able to find herself on web.
Some database driven sites have the computer guy designing website problem. The site is chalked full of usefull information but you have to fill out some form to query the database to get the info out, thereby locking Google etc. out. Imagine another search engine indexing Google.... they wouldn't find many useful terms since they can't perform a search and press the button. Granted there are ways around that but not any that a search engine would probably try. Search King should still crawl back under a rock.
G
Google has consistently stated that it will not bow to industry pressure to include so-called "paid" placement in their normal search results. To do so would betray the trust which they have built among their users and undermine the principles upon which their business success is founded. SearchKing should realize that Google's TRUST among users and advertisers is their biggest asset and that they will fight to the end to preserve the principles and technologies upon which that trust is founded. However, if that is not enough to dissuade SearchKing, then I sincerely hope the courts will strike down this frivolous claim and consign them to the scrapheap of history. Experience has shown that the practice of payola, which is essentially what SearchKing is attempting to engage in, is ultimately self defeating because it undermines the pretense of authority that makes a search engine result, a music promotion, or any professional recommendation trustworthy.
If Google reduces Slashdot's PageRank from an 8 to a zero and keeps it there, I'll take down my Google Watch site.
Google's reply to SearchKing claims they have the right to do this to SearchKing -- or anyone else -- for no reason whatsover, because it's their opinion protected by the First Amendment. Are you listening Google? Rid yourself of a pesky critic and raise the IQ of the Web in one simple step!
The Snow King is suing Google!? Say it ain't so, Barney.
The strength of Google's case here (as described in the analysis) is also good news for DNS-based blacklists, such as SPEWS. While it seems obvious that publishing such a list should be protected on free speech grounds, it is nice that such a close analogy is being tested.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
The entire merit of the case seems to be that searchking could lose business because they are unfavored by google, someone who's a hell of a lot better at doing what they do than searchking is. This kinda makes me want to sue all the popular kids in high school who disliked me and thus made others dislike me as well...
Oh well, I read Google's filed motions, they do a pretty good job of troucing every single one of searchking's complaints. They basically did everything but actually call Bob Massa a raging idiot (which would be amusing in court documents). This case shouldn't even have had the paper wasted to print up the memorandums.
Well, for only a $5 contribution to the search king defense fund, he will tell you just how many people were stupid enough to pay the $20!
Prior to spamming google with false links he spammed ordinary netizens email boxes.
It's time again for the golden words:
Here, go read The Myths of Internet Legal "Experts"
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Google works. Google is good. Their page ranking system quite effectively filters out junk. A lowly scamster like the Search King moron don't deserve all this attention he's getting and no doubt wanted.
Remember those wacky Scienos? A while back they tried to inflate search engine page ranks for 'official' sites, by fabricating thousands of nearly-identical fake 'personal homepages' for their members, with alike-sounding 'success stories'. These were hosted on a bunch of camouflaged Scientology domains like www.our-home.org and many others. The pages were stuffed with official links, and it was quite clear that the primary purpose was to trick Google and other search engines into pushing all anti-Scientology sites out of the first page of returned hits.
At first, they nearly succeeded. There was other mischief about. You may recall that Google for a while didn't cache Operation Clambake (www.clambake.org) due to legal action by Scieno lawyer scum. Anyway, now Clambake is ranked a solid #2 hit on "Scientology" searches, clearly evidence of intelligent filtering going on at Google, for which we should be thankful.
"SearchKings? We don't need no stinkin' SearchKings?" "Here SearchKing, put this lawyer to good use!" "Google, Mongo like google!"
If we all mention SearchKing enough in our replies. And a great number of us reply. Maybe we can outrank SearchKing in a Google search of searchking.
Someone hates these cans.
// New fomula
while(!finished_searching){
if (string == "search engine"){
rank_url(1, "google");
rank_url(9999999, "searchking");
}
if (string == "searchking"){
display_result("Sorry no matches found");
}
}
http://www.internetmarketingconference.com/robertm assabig.html
I dunno, I was looking at the kennel.
Free Java games for your phone: Tontie, Sokoban
The searchengine "market" can not be closed down easily like the OS market. Here you can really just come up with something better and have a chance for success. Before google other searchengines were the favourite ones who got used the most. Then along came google, they were better and now most people are using it. So, if you don't like google for whatever reason, make your own, be better and your site will be the most used.
"We tried to reply to them directly, but after fixing our service so those bastards could not cheat on page references we did what everyone does and looked in google but we couldnt find them anymore"
I mean if Google would not downgrade SearchKing's rankings, that would mean that all other webpages get a lower (relative) rating on Google search results. So, the whole world should sue SearchKing, if they were allowed to `improve' their raiting in this way.
Why would SearchKing sue, when the case is so thin?
Well, the press coverage and discussions that the suit will generate will be worth many times SearchKing's legal costs. Clearly this is a PR stunt. A good idea (from a business point of view) - I would probably have done the same in their shoes.
For Google, it's not too bad a deal either. By choosing them for this suit, SearchKing reinforce the perception of Google as the predominant search engine. Furthermore, Google's legal costs will be covered by SearchKing, either in a settlement, or through the court ruling.
In other words, everybody wins. And the lawyers get rich, as usual...
LawMeme needs to learn how to format stuff so it requires NO page scrolling. Niggers!!!!!!!!!! Shitassed nappy headed niggers!
...it's now the first result.
Until Google comes right out and says "We look for SearchKing specifically and downrank them!" It's not censorship nor is it wrong IMNSHO
Google's system has never been 100% automated. It has always relied on some manual weighting.
For example, when they signed a deal with Yahoo, Yahoo directory pages shot to the top of the list, probably because someone manually gave yahoo.com a higher weight value.
If they find a spam 'linkfarm', it's their right to manually lower the weighting -- it's a better plan than 'fixing' algorithms that work well for the rest of the web.
Search on Google for "Altavista"
The first result is altavista.com
Search on search.msn.com for "Linux"
The first result is "buy Linux software on Amazon." The second is "Alternatives to Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP" on Microsoft.com. Linux.org is down in the double digits.
Of course, we would expect someone's Internet search engine to reflect their preferences, so this is neither shocking nor bad. It would only be a problem if MS somehow tied IE to their search engine and their search engine only.
All's true that is mistrusted
Will help champion your cause.
Especially if you sit on his lap while you tell him your high school woes.
The guy needs OJ's team if he's going to get a penny, let alone an injunction.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
for maximum effect, the preceding post should be read monotone and at a steady cadence
SearchKing entered into contracts where they promised other people they could provide Google's good opinion of a web page. Then, Google refused to give SearchKing its good opinion (high pagerank). Now SearchKing is suing on the basis that Google interfered with SearchKing's right to make contracts with other people.
Yeah, right. SearchKing brought this on themselves. Their business is built on promising to manipulate and deceive Google into ranking certain pages high. The court is going to laugh these guys right out the door. SearchKing has no hope of getting this injunction, much less getting to trial.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Can you explain what searchking was doing, and how they were linkfarming, or whatever? How were they distoring pagerank values?
My impression is that they were simply looking for sites with high pageranks, then brokering between those sites and advertisers. Then google decided to demote any sites that searchking is using.
What searchking is saying is that google is completely destroying his business by saying "You can't sell ads on sites that have a high pagerank, because any site you place an ad for one of your clients on will have it's pagerank demoted."
If that IS what's going on.. I can't help but think.. what does the fact that a site has a searchking brokered advertisement on it have to do with the quality of the site? It IS dishonest. If the site was demoted for other reasons, fine.. but blanket demotign all sites searchking uses doesn't seem right.
The guy might have a point.
Then again, I might be missing something.
If he's linkfarming, demonstrate how.
I agree with what Google is doing, but I have a worry in the back of my mind. What if the issue was: that Google was upping the page rank of Nazi sites, or the Democratic Pary, or the Baptist church, or the health benefits of Vitamin E. or whatever. I don't believe Google is doing this or has intention of doing this, but small changes in page rank would influence the ordering of sites, and what users, particularly children, would look at.
I've talked to a guy from there. He was wigging out over someone having mailed him, telling him not to spider their site, and went on as to why search king was bad. The guy who phoned was a complete waste of skin, real hyped up, complete whiny wanker, he's probably one of those sue happy people that'll go after anybody they can.
I believe Mr. Massa would be interested in fine offers from Columbia House, BMG, and Visa. I do not have a mailing address at this time to allow him to peruse their fine subscriptive literature. Can anyone help me?
No don't... really... you'll be scared for life...
Counterfeit ring sues Treasury Department for redesigning federal reserve notes with new security features. Unfair discrimination against forged currency claimed.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
How about soliciting contributions in the name of "Legal Defense" when you're actually suing rather than defending - is that legal?
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
Until Google comes right out and says "We look for SearchKing specifically and downrank them!" It's not censorship nor is it wrong IMNSHO
Even if Google comes right out and says exactly that, so what. They are in the business of giving their opinion of websites. If that's their opinion then that to me looks like a perfectly valid adjustment to their algorithm. It is to be avoided wherever practical of course but I've certainly written algorithms with clauses specifically for special cases. I suspect most of /. has as well.
It is of course a whatsit if you're the one affected but to play spot the quote - personal isn't the same as important.
A Prayer to the Omnipotent FSM
Google claims to present the unbiased results of its secret PageRank formula
Unless you want to say that they are never allowed to change that formula then why can Google not have as part of that formula, 'We don't think SearchKing is particularly good'?
A Prayer to the Omnipotent FSM
I've grown indifferent to the normal goatse picture. However the fourth link down almost had me throwing up - http://www.hektik.org/various/various/goatse/
Why do I click these links?
Webmasterworld also has a discussion on this - link
is the way how its jurisdiction has
perverted from a tool to maintain
justice into a tool kit to extort
money from the weak.
Instead of warranting legal security
and protecting its citicens from
injustice, the legal system is
turning into a tool of extortion.
Another topic would be those famous
software patents...
Going back in time the Roman
Empire showed similar signs of
degeneration. Finally it went
down the gutter.
Dude's demanding a "donation" to get what he calls the "full story" and whatnot.
This just went from incredibly humorous to absofuckinglutely disgusting.
I personally hope he sues me now that I've used information on said page to form an opinion on the situation and concluding that he's an ass-clown.
xScruffx