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."
Previous LawMeme Coverage here, including a nasty reply from the SearchKing himself.
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.
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
If I recall correctly, Google changed its page rank formula in one simple way: It severely downrated any site that linked to SearchKing. Therefore, the link farms developed to pump up SearchKing's results were considered unimportant and did not boost its pages as they had previously. This was very much a move taken directly against SearchKing and only SearchKing.
Not that that's a bad thing.
You like splinters in your crotch? -Jon Caldara
Very poor analogy, actually. Microsoft is in a very special class of companies: monopolies. Those companies have to play by a whole new set of laws that don't apply to other companies. Especially when said monopoly infringes those laws with regards to competing companies. Not to mention Microsoft is a publicly-traded company, whereas Google is privately held, though that fact has less bearing on pointing out the fallacy of your comment than the monopoly issue.
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...
Funny you should mention that, there's a post at Lawmeme :
We can save Bob Massa's bullet and have two for Alan Ralsky
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
Are you sure only SearchKing? I'm sure there must be other link farms and even geocities and other sources of noise that are penalized by google's formula.
That's the service they provide, seperating the wheat from the chaff.
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!
I could sure use a good explanation of the page rank system.
If I recall correctly, Google changed its page rank formula in one simple way: It severely downrated any site that linked to SearchKing.
No, what they did was more general, everything that resembled a link farm was ranked down. For example, many blogs were also hit by the change.
You don't recall correctly. Google doesn't publish its algorithm; any statements as to what they actually are are speculation.
Maybe they can sue google for taking that away from them too.
No sig, sorry.
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
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
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.
"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. "
From: - http://www.searchking.com/news/sknews.htm