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.
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!
Google explains it as well:
http://www.google.com/technology/index.html
PageRank Explained
PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important."
Important, high-quality sites receive a higher PageRank, which Google remembers each time it conducts a search. Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don't match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines all aspects of the page's content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it's a good match for your query.
- what is the definition of simultanagnosia?! I've been meaning to look it up!
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.
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
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.