28 replies to this topic

[Hyperformance]

Hey all -

Another interesting take -

http://news.yahoo.co...ogle_lawsuit_dc

I would like to wait a bit for my own comment - as I have seen Google have their reasons, and I want to see how those reasons stack up - not their algorithm (which I do not believe will have to be disclosed).

Embarrassing will be the announcement of what exactly the Plaintiff has done (on their site) if it was truly a bad technique or abused guideline. Because then Google will be able to justify the drop off or drop according to their published guidelines. Also - Did Google ever guarantee my listing? Of course not - were they praising Google when it made their business?! Sending them a check maybe? I doubt it.

- Scott

[qwerty]

The complaint accuses Google, as the dominant provider of Web searches, of violating KinderStart's constitutional right to free speech by blocking search engine results showing Web site content and other communications.

I will never understand how people can make such a claim. They can put whatever they want on their site, so how is their right to free speech being infringed? Google can put whatever they want on their site, and to say that Google is required to display your site is, if anything, an attempt to violate their right to free speech.

What I don't get about this particular case is that the only thing I see that's unusual is that the site doesn't come up on a search for its name. Apart from that, tens of thousands of pages are indexed (albeit mostly supplemental), and my toolbar shows a PR7 for the home page.

[Jill]

Because then Google will be able to justify the drop off or drop according to their published guidelines.

Google doesn't have to justify anything.

It's their search engine. Period.

Perhaps they don't like any site that is yellow (or whatever). So be it.

I hope that this company will have to pay for all Google's legal fees associated with this frivolous law suit when they lose. Perhaps they should be made to pay triple damages or something to stop this kind of crap in the future.

[train99]

My site doesn't come up for my name. Maybe I should sue someone. Google has more money than the pop star so they are the natural target.

I think this is just a publicity ploy. For the filing fee they will get some publicity.

Here's something weird. That site loaded a second window with an alert telling me my computer had errors in it's operating system and trying to get me to buy a program to fix it. I looked at the source code, but cannot see how it was done. The only other sites I have open are this one - probably didn't serve the ad, and Yahoo which has never served ads like that before. I use firefox and have pop ups blocked.

It's no wonder my freinds with kids always have problems with their computers.

Terry

[Jill]

I think this is just a publicity ploy. For the filing fee they will get some publicity.

Absolutely. And that is what sucks. And that is why they need to pay triple attorney's fees when they lose.

It's the only way our courts can rid of these awful frivolous law suits.

[davidfromraleigh]

Absolutely. And that is what sucks. And that is why they need to pay triple attorney's fees when they lose.

It's the only way our courts can rid of these awful frivolous law suits.

Amen!

[ewc21]

Just because search engine has become more and more attached to daily life it seems apparent that it is a necessity to appear on results. Too bad it's the search engine who gets blamed for some mishaps done by webmasters.

"The civil lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, on Friday by KinderStart.com seeks financial damages along with information on how Google ranks Internet sites when users conduct a Web-based search."

Financial damages? Since when did Google become financially liable for a business's downfall? If Google shuts down do we all file suit against Google because people who use that search engine can't find our sites? They're getting some Adsense ads there.

"Google does not generally inform Web sites that they have been penalized nor does it explain in detail why the Web site was penalized," the lawsuit said.

There are site guidelines set and published and spread around.

Definitely sounds like a publicity ploy to me.

Edited by ewc21, 20 March 2006 - 12:54 AM.

[Jill]

The sick part is they're getting publicity. So let's stop talking about it.

[sweepthelegnate]

can't.................stop..............talking..................about................it.

[Hyperformance]

Jill quote;

"Google doesn't have to justify anything."

versus; "would be able to..." and not "have to"

(Ouch) O.K., bad choice of words "defend" would have been a better choice. When you are attacked, you defend yourself.

I guess I was just stating that the court will not be hearing the case as the filing seems to cover, it will quickly be about other facts.

...triple the penalty?

How about everyone who wrote about "it" has to do a follow-up story on the outcome? This serves as the same publicity (albeit negative) and should have the same result (if that is - huge losses and a verdict of wasting the court's time plus huge fines) - the market will get the message.

(We have been requested to cease discussion on this publicity topic... I felt there was at least some educational value in the story...)

[torka]

There was plenty of publicity on the Search King case (in which, IIRC, the courts have already ruled that Google is free to include or not include anybody they darn well please and that they're not required to reveal anything at all about their algos), and that doesn't seem to have stopped these other

My : As long as Google is wildly profitable, and as long as there are people who think the world owes them a living (and lawyers who are eager to enrich themselves at these peoples' expense), there will continue to be frivolous lawsuits like this.

--Torka

[eomedia]

Okay, just want to play devil's advocate here.

It's true that Google should not have to disclose how they do business, and if they decide to lower someones rankings for whatever reason (legit or not) one can make an argument that this is their right as it is their site.

However, when a company reaches a certain point in their market dominance (Ma Bell, Microsoft, etc.) do they go from simply another company doing their business or a business that starts affecting other businesses?

If over 50% of the public uses Google as it's primary source of web searches and Google decides that they no longer like you and ban you from their search listings is that just fair business or stepping over the line?

If we asked a hundred people we would probably get a hundred different reasons about what would constitute stepping over the line. I just wanted to make the point that Google is the big boy on the block, and that they do in many cases represent a huge source of business/traffic for companies.

If Google decided tomorrow that my internet radio site shouldn't be listed in their search engine anymore, and wouldn't give me a reason why, and wouldn't explain what I could do to change that I would be pretty ticked. Google is not just another search engine - it is the dominant search engine and part of the "public infrastructure". It is a conduit of the web and not a end point in most cases.

The government determined that airlines were a critical part of our national infrastructure, aren't search engines the critical infrastructure of the web? Of course if you want to have this discussion in regards to Dogpile or Metacrawler I'm sure I would have a different take on the subject.

In any case, just a point I wanted to raise as I believe there is always more than one side to an argument.

[chrishirst]

If Google decided tomorrow that my internet radio site shouldn't be listed in their search engine anymore, and wouldn't give me a reason why, and wouldn't explain what I could do to change that I would be pretty ticked

You probably would, but why would google have to explain anything to you. It's like Coca-Cola's "secret" recipe or KFC's "special" coating, It's their property. They can choose to make it public or not just as they wish.

Of course if you want to have this discussion in regards to Dogpile or Metacrawler I'm sure I would have a different take on the subject.

Exactly !!!!!

Google is NOT part of the public infrastructure, it is a private endeavour that is assumed to be.

In actual fact very little (relatively) of the internet (as we know it) is any kind of "public" property. All of the backbone systems, the network switches and routers, DNS servers (even to the "root" servers), the local pipes and everything else that makes up the internet as we know it, are all owned by private companies. In most countries the local loops, PBX's and switches, DSLAMS, phone cabling etc, are owned by private companies.

[ewc21]

Can I use this example?

You have a friend who owns an outdoor ad space. While looking for advertisers, he decides to let you use it and post your laundry shop services on that space. People then flock to your laundry shop and you are overwhelmed with first time customers who are all refered to by the ad. But they are not coming back after trying your service once.

One night the ad you posted was toppled by a violent storm and could not be restored.

Are you gonna blame your friend for the loss potential customers in your business?

Google was just there to help people to find what they are looking for on the web. If for some reason your site fell down the rankings it could be due to your wrongdoing. But even if not, it is still Google's prerogative unfortunately. You never paid to get organic listings right? And Google does not ask for 1% of every sale you generate out of those high organic rankings.

[Randy]

I know why they tanked.

It's that search box on the site that lists choices like Lycos, GO, Looksmart etc. The bad choices there are showing a general acceptance of lack of quality.

[Disclaimer: I'm joking!!! Maybe...]