Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Searchking Loses Suit Against Google

Posted by michael on from the master-of-your-own-domain dept.

An anonymous reader submits this story that Searchking has lost its suit against Google for lowering search rankings. Silly lawsuit, good riddance. See our original story.

14 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. If Google purposely changed pageranks... by fobbman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...do you think that this would happen?

    1. Re:If Google purposely changed pageranks... by jesser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But how do you explain university?

      Other good searches:

      real browser

      nerds

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    2. Re:If Google purposely changed pageranks... by fredrikj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In regards to the "nerds" search, Slashdot comes up early for all the words in its tagline:

      news: 20
      for: 12
      nerds: 1
      stuff: 2
      that: 2
      matters: 1

  2. Manipulation of stats by Trollificus · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the CEO of Search King:

    "SearchKing never broke a law, yet was accused, judged and executed without so much as a notice of intent. This affected thousands of innocent people without just cause."

    There's no dispute that they didn't break any laws. But if I recall, didn't Search King manipulate the Google page rank system to artificially inflate their own rank? Google must have a ToS clause for that sort of thing.

    --

    "People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
    - Gov. Jesse Ventura

    1. Re:Manipulation of stats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      From the article:

      "The Web-hosting company operated an ad network that sold text links on popular Web sites to get them a better listing in Google results."

      Yes, they did.

    2. Re:Manipulation of stats by DickBreath · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually they can't. The thing is that they're providing a service to their customers (ie. us using it and "paying" for it by seeing the ads). And like all products and services provided by companies they are legally bound to live up to some standards (and reversed ranking would be too poor standards).

      I don't think this argument holds water.

      You watch television to be entertained. You are seeing their opinion of what is entertaining. You "pay" for it by watching ads. They can put on anything they think is entertaining. if you don't like it, then don't tune in.

      Google is providing their opinion as to what are good search results. Just their opinion. There is no obligation for those results to conform to anyone else's opinion. They could have any opinion they wanted as to search results. If you don't like that they turn the results completely upside down, then go somewhere else. Even by running ads, Google has no obligation to you whatsoever. Just because Google's site is run by a publicly traded company doesn't change this fact.

      TV in fact has some regulations as to what can and must be shown (i.e. certian amount of news, public service ads, etc. required) because the airwaves is a limited resource.

      Since the Internet is an unlimited resource, there are in fact NO FCC restrictions as to what Google or anyone else can put on their own website. Unlike with the limited airwaves, anyone can build an internet search engine in their basement. If it has really good technology or is favored for other reasons, you grow it like a business. All you need to build a search engine is the resources, either minimal, or funded by investors. Of course, the investors could come later if you have a fresh new search technology concept.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  3. Question by Iron+Monkey543 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange on Tuesday denied a motion for a preliminary injunction

    I assume that both parties did not incur any legal fees since there was no actual trial right (is that what an injunction is)? if they did incur legal fees, is SearchKing obligated to pay for Google? I sure do hope so!

  4. Re:Have you noticed? by kzinti · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Google had to restore (voluntarily) the Searchking rankings.

    Had to? Voluntarily? Those two are contradictory.

    Google probably restored the SearchKing rankings as a temporary measure until the matter was settled. Now that it's been established that Google is within their First Amendment rights to rank sites any way they choose, they should return to the version of PageRank that rightfully discredits rankings manipulated by the likes of SearchKing.

  5. Ha! by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Make sure you check out the response from the CEO of SearchKing (and probably the only employee):
    http://gooogle.searchking.com

    Juicy tidbits:
    "Of course we are dissappointed with the judge's decision to dismiss the preliminary injunction, but it was not unexpected. We knew this was a case of a highly technical nature and that educating the court with only the short filings allowed would be very difficult."

    "It was about the abuse of power. SearchKing never broke a law, yet was accused, judged and executed without so much as a notice of intent. This affected thousands of innocent people without just cause."

    And then, the letter, the whole thing is so good that you just HAVE to read it in its entirety.

  6. Re:Actualy, Mr. Searchkign has 1 good point.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    > Instead, if you identify a problem, send an email to the webmaster alerting them to your findings and intentions and give the webmaster a minimum of 30 days to either correct the problem or contact information of someone to work something out."

    Horseshit. 7 days, maybe. This is not that hard, and such blatant manipulators don't deserve a month's worth of free ride.

  7. Thanks to the Stanford-Berkeley rivalry by jfern · · Score: 2, Interesting

    UC Berkeley is 16th place.

  8. Maybe google will catch these A-holes by westyvw · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This site:

    http://www.traffic-power.com

    will get caught, and their sites moved down.

    They manipulate content in web sites to link to thier own servers which then link back to the site, artificially increasing their rank.

    check this "secret" page for sites, go to one and look at the source.

    http://www.traffic-power.com/r

    Bastards

    1. Re:Maybe google will catch these A-holes by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 3, Interesting

      *coff*MSN*coff*redirect*coff*from microsoft.com*coff*every friggin update*coff*.

      /clears throat

      Ahem.

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  9. Bozos like SearchKing should have been countersued by klui · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does it bother anyone else that these guys can come up with self-serving stupid lawsuits? I think Google should have countersued those guys for the hassle they caused. Resources and money that could have been used to improve Google basically went to a law firm for Google's defense. It sickens me what these guys did, much like what SCO is currently doing.