Google Sued over Page Ranking 596
OrangeHairMan writes "Google.com is being sued by SearchKing.com because Google "purposefully devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites, causing his business to suffer financially." There's a page on SearchKing.com's site too." Does anyone besides me find this hilarious? My favorite part is that the name of the site is "Search King".
Google's PageRanking algorythm (Score:5, Insightful)
They expect google to never change it? In return for what? Do they have ANY business relationship with google, other than the obviously parasitic one?!?
FOAD..
Not so hillarious (Score:4, Insightful)
How stupid do you have to be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait, this is the same company that sold placement on a site they didnt have any rights to..I think I just answered my question
and page rank goes up (Score:4, Insightful)
SearchKing will then be able to say, "ha we complained and google fixed it!"
His customers? (Score:5, Insightful)
hmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they were only after publicity to begin with?
how rich is Google? (Score:4, Insightful)
Blackmailing Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Make sure Google is faced with the possibility that it might have to reveal the details of its page ranking algorithm in open court. Might make for a quick settlement.
2) Quick publicity for Search King! They consider themselves a publicity company, after all.
Makes perfect sense to me, especially if you can get an attorney willing to take the gamble. Given the current glut of attorneys, this wouldn't seem to be much of an obstacle.
Re:Hilarious (Score:2, Insightful)
btw, i'm a canadian, but you can assume that all disparaging statements about the US apply to my country as well(unless they're about drug legislation or health care).
Re:Unbiased reporting.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Gads, I went through this on K5 on a regular basis - I got sick of the meta-discussion about 'bias' and stopped visiting. Suddenly /.'s policy of only reporting news and not accepting stories about Slashdot itself look nice.
--
Evan "flashbacks with sound suck even more..."
Re:Quote from their page (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blackmailing Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and page rank goes up (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure SearchKing will get its "more evil than satan" 15 minutes of fame over this. Because I feel they are evil, whoring search trolls. (can they sue me over this too?)
Google: Single Point of Failure (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too Easy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:and page rank goes up (Score:3, Insightful)
"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."
Right. That's like saying an autobody shop competes with Ford and then has the right to sue when Ford switches from sheet metal to plastic or that a used Ford dealer is a competitor to Ford that can sue Ford if they starts discounting new cars or discontinuing models. What an idiot.
Publicity stunt... (Score:2, Insightful)
What an ego! (Score:4, Insightful)
If SearchKing had been the only site whose pagerank changed, I might say they had a case. Unfortunately, several sites [slashdot.org] had their rankings changed by the new algorithm. It doesn't appear to have been a systematic attack directed only at him.
The following quote made me burst out laughing:
Massa explained [...], "High PageRanks don't come easily. The webmaster had to do a lot of work to get enough people linking to him to give him that ranking. They deserve to be paid for that effort."
They found a way to cheat the system and cause google to give results that overvalue their pagerank, and it took effort to implement it for new pages. Because cheating the system isn't easy, they deserve to be paid? I just don't get it.
pioneer? (Score:2, Insightful)
SearchKing is one of the pioneers in developing portal and search engine software and services.
Which might mean something if they didn't also say
SearchKing began business as an Internet search engine and web hosting company in 1997.
Sorry, if you ask me, all the pioneering work was done prior to 1997.
Re:Too Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
The second link on the google search for searchking says it all "PageRank For Sale -- Exclusive interview with SearchKing / PR Ad
/ PR Ad Network's Robert Massa.
Description: SearchKing has started selling text ads on its network of independent portals, with prices based on..."
Geez. If I really wanted to just go to the site that paid the most in advertising I'd stick with watching TV so I could just get my info from commercials. We all know how honest and accurate THAT system is.
Re:How stupid do you have to be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that what the DOJ did to Microsoft?
Trolls aside, Search King is claiming that Google used their dominant market position (in web searches) to shut down a competitor (Search King) in a different market (advertising).
Their actual case is absurdly weak, but it isn't nearly as crazy as some people are suggesting.
What needs to happen here.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
SearchKing doesn't have a point anyway, unless there's a contract between the two obligating Google to do something to benefit Searchking (in exchange for Searchking benefitting Google in return). If SearchKing doesn't have a contract, Google doesn't have an obligation, therefore SearchKing doesn't have a basis to file a suit (and the suit should get tossed relatively quickly).
Tosh (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has viewers because it has integrity and quality. If it abuses its position, it first loses integrity and quality and then loses viewers. No government intervention needed.
This isn't comparable with monopoly cases, hell, this isn't even a market liquidity case (i.e. Ebay is dominant because it is dominant, it doesn't pay to auction elsewhere because everybody auctions at Ebay...). Anybody clever enough can set up a server farm and get viewers if they have a Google beating engine quality.
On the legal side, this might be an unfair competition case but its difficult for a competitor (A) to claim that a company's (B) actions within B's business are unfair as they stop A's manipulation of B's business... You have to have clean hands as well to succeed with unfair competition claims.
Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm (Score:3, Insightful)
You expect Microsoft to adhere to any sort of standard? Not to change them in the way that best benefits them financially?
Now wait a minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
Google has a big responsibilty on the net. If they start to downgrade web pages for strategic or political reasons, then we should begin to look for another search engine, as it's no longer doing its job.
Re:Too Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers,
Ian
Arbitrary vs Purposefully (Score:5, Insightful)
Bob Massa, president of SearchKing., Inc. and PR Ad Network, filed a lawsuit today against Google on the grounds the organization arbitrarily and purposefully devalued his companies' and his customers' web sites, causing his business to suffer financially. Massa is asking that the court grant preliminary and permanent injunctions against Google.
from dictionary.com:
arbitrary - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
purposeful - Having a purpose; intentional
From what I can tell, it's pretty tough to do something arbitrarily and purposefully.
I wanted to go back and read more of the page.. but it seems that this web hosting site has been
"[...] causing his business to suffer financially" (Score:3, Insightful)
Thus Search King is suing Google for manipulation, because Google is protecting their own business against Search King's manipulation. Where can I place a bet on the outcome of this lawsuit? :-)
cheap plublicity stunt (Score:4, Insightful)
The search engine optimisation industry (Score:4, Insightful)
It's sad to see that a technology which started out as such a revolutionary way for users to find information is being so corrupted by those who don't care about the primary reason people use search engines, which is to find the information most relevant to them.
Google is leading the way in providing the high quality results, in contrast to the majority of the other major search engines who willingly compromose the quality of their service for advertising purposes, and for that I respect google highly. I can only hope that they will continue to fight these sorts of activies by improving their technology to effectively prevent search engine spamming becoming a more serious problem, and they are certainly doing a great job of this so far.
The whole search engine optimization industry sickens me. I wish these people would put their efforts towards more useful endevours such as improving the quality of content on sites, or making them better organised/easier to navigate/more accessible. These are the real problems that need to be solved, and will be of actual benefit to end-users.
Re:you're missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
The only problem is that before Bob could have bought PageRank, Google would have had to have been selling it. They don't sell PageRank. They sell ad placements in other areas, but PageRank isn't something you can buy from them any more than you can buy a good review on a book from a reliable critic. All Google did was downgrade their estimate of the worth of references from him after they determined he was in the business of inflating the worth of pages he listed.
Yes, it's going to hurt his business. It's going to hurt the business of a book critic to have it advertised that you can buy a good review from him. The fault for the damage no more lies with Google than it does with the papers and shows that no longer rely on the critic's bought-and-paid-for reviews.
Truth in advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
If domain is 'pageking' Then
PageRank = 0
End If
Truth in advertising is a good thing. Now, for those claiming government intervention is bad (or that it is Google's algorithem and they can do with it as they please) there are two facts: (a) Google claims that it is a unbiased algorithem, (b) People depend upon this claim when using the service. Thus, while Google is free to change their algoirhtem, they should be constrained to do so in accordance with what they have advertised. Just like when I order a product I expect it to operate as advertised.
So, I'm hopeful that the court case goes forward and that it can set a precident that on-line services can be challenged if someone thinks that it operates with a different spirit than as advertised. That said, I also hope the Judge awards Google appropriate attorney fees after Google wins.
not that I htink P
Re:How stupid do you have to be? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are saying that the thrust of their claim is antitrust. I think this is correct (NOT their claim itself; merely the divination of what their claim is) and they are attempting to argue that Google is an "essential facility." They can't claim breach of contract since they don't have one (although I'm sure Google is going to argue, if it comes to that, that SearchKing is in breach of the toolbar TOS). They do not appear to be claiming tortious interference. Their argument appears to boil down to "something happened at Google that changed our Page Rank and that's unfair so make them stop." This is sort of an "essential facility" argument. But to have even a small chance of prevailing it must first be established that Google is a monopoly. I think this is going to get tossed on a 12(b)(6) motion.
Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey look! (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit. Mr. King is even stupider than I originally thought. I'll let him speak for himself.
It's called robots.txt. Learn it. Use it.
Oh, so now you want to destroy search engines themselves. Except for yours. Yeah... um... riiiiiight...
So not even your link spamming buddies are willing to support you. You know you've got it bad when even the pr0n sites and casinos that googlebomb look down on you.
Re:Google actions cry out for government control (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is but one example of a technology that got to be the dominant force in its market because it's the best.
To that end, one of the primary advantages of Google is the unbiased approach to page rankings (by Google themselves). Companies quickly came to realize that it does them no good to have their site returned first for a number of queries if the visitors don't click through on the grounds that the returned link is irrelevant.
Google's statement of integrity clearly spells out the fact that they strive to make human tampering with their results difficult, and if that is the only basis of SearchKing's lawsuit, then I hope it's thrown out of court before a judge even has to waste time sitting in a court room.
There could be something here below the surface... (Score:2, Insightful)
From his own forums section. [searchking.com]
Your search engine is very good at detecting things like link farms and hidden tricks. I'm certainly not asking for any special treatment. If I, or anyone in my network, tries to take advantage by lying, cheating or stealing, I would expect them to have to suffer the consequences the same as anyone else. I'm only asking that you look beyond the webmaster world posts and see that these niche sites need the respect and the income that a high PR deserves. They work hard and the reason they have those high PR's is that they don't spam. Please don't penalize them for trying to capitalize on the fact that Google rewarded their efforts.
He is certainly trying to imply by this post and others, that Google is unfairly targeting him because he has chosen to use their page ranking system to help set the prices he charges for ad space on the web sites that he hosts for his customers.
His most recent post tries to explain some of the reasons for his suit. [searchking.com]
He claims to not be inflating rankings at all and just using the rankings to set his ad fees. If that is the case, he may have a claim but I guess that is for the lawyers to decide.
If he is manipulating rankings, he deserves to go down in flames. If Google is 'picking' on him cause he is trying to earn more from Google's rankings but he is not 'cooking' the numbers, he may have a case. Read the posts. The web site operators appear to benefit from the higher rankings by getting more for the hosted ads. Just compensation for good work building good sites. Hard to say this is clear-cut without seeing Google's response.
Unscrupulous PR 101 (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, SearchKing has just publicly admitted that they've violated Google's TOS [google.com] ("You may not use the Google Search Services to sell a product or service, or to increase traffic to your Web site for commercial reasons, such as advertising sales."). Considering how much of their business is built on exploiting Google's PageRank feature, I predict a sudden decrease in the ability to deliver what has been sold. Sweet, sweet justice.
--
Re:Google's PageRanking algorythm (Score:4, Insightful)
There are people that don't use Google??? (Score:2, Insightful)
SearchKing should pay ;-) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Truth in advertising (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, as far as I can tell Search King started an arms race by gaming the ranking system. They were succesful for a while, but google corrected for the abuse.
No sympathy.
-Peter
Re:Why on earth... (Score:4, Insightful)
1) MS is a monopoly, so no, it can't do whatever the hell it wants with its own OS. Google is not a monopoly, so it can.
2) MS has a history of strong-arming companies who use alternative OSs. Google hasn't, as I recall, blocked the site of any PC company that by default shipped with their browsers linked to AltaVista. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter, because Google isn't a monopoly and Microsoft is! Once you commit certain crimes (using monopoly position to hurt your competitors) you lose certain rights.
3) Google isn't a platform. It takes very little effort to switch to another search engine. Same thing with Ford cars or Charmin toilet paper. Not only does it take a non-trivial amount of effort, but Microsoft actively uses it's monopoly power to make it difficult for users to switch, by locking people into proprietory file formats and closing services off to people using alternative OSs.
Re:Spamming Google for $$$ (Score:2, Insightful)
Business's such as SearchKing.com (and other similar sites, including others who have also sued Google) seem to believe that it is their right to make money off the Internet. When they talk about how Google's PageRank system affects the ability of people to search the web and link to who they want to link to, what they really mean is that it affects their ability to make money off of people searching the web.
The Internet was never intended to be simply a giant online marketplace, where information and products can be bought and sold. So if other people can provide a better service than you, that produces better results and more accurate information, and that affects your ability to make money...well, tough luck.
Re:The banned site is Searchking.com (Score:5, Insightful)
What nonsense. They have no power at all to ban your site. You have an absolute right to put whatever you like on your website, and they have an absolute right (within the limits of the law, of course) to put whatever they want on theirs. If you don't like how Google works, use another search engine.
Why not try searchking.com, for example? Bwahahahahahah.
Re:Too Easy (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the fact that both the terms 'search' and 'king' are pretty common, it's not suprising that lots of sites come up. Since almost nobody has heard of SearchKing, most people are likely looking for something else (why the hell would ANYONE be looking for some fourth-string search engine if they already know about Google?). The higher number of clicks on the other sites will naturally raise their ranking above SearchKing, no evil plot on Google's part is needed.
If there is some sneaky stuff going on here, I think it'd have to be coming from SearchKing - anyone wanna bet that after the normal slashdotting dies down SearchKing has been clicked on enough to raise it's Google ranking?
SearchKing - irony a'plenty (Score:1, Insightful)
Does anyone else here besides me not find it surprising that SearchKing can't return a *single* relevant search result on *anything* I tried to look up?
All it spits out is MMF sites and the remainder of the dregs of the Web.
With a search engine like that, I can see why they want to sue Google -- to stay afloat.
Re:Too Easy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Too Easy (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the preliminary injunction [searchking.com] pretty much argues that Google already has this monopoly power. For example, look at these quotes:
"...page ranking ... has become the identifiable measure of credibility"
"Google, as the provider of a ranking system upon which the internet community relies, must apply the system in a manner that is not arbitrary, nor aimed at restraint of trade"
My feeling is that SearchKing is a little early to the party. Give it a couple of years and they might have a case though.
How lame. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not at all. (Score:5, Insightful)
What this is about is someone taking advantage of the google system and google doing an error correction. Google is of use because it works as a ranking engine, and these people are intentionally trying to throw off the rankings.
This isn't trying to stomp on people, it is manually tweeking an algorythm. And it is a GOOD thing.
Re:Not at all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey look! (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference here is that by choosing to post content on the public internet, one can argue that a webmaster gives implicit permission for the world to view that content. If you put something on the Web, you can expect it to be viewed--it's the nature of the beast. If you want to limit access to your information to people with "express permission" to do so, then password protect part of your site, or keep it on your local intranet and accept emailed requests.
robots.txt provides an option for a webmaster to publically disseminate information but avoid having it indexed. It strikes me as an excellent compromise.
Complaining that Google indexes sites without express permission is like complaining that someone took a picture of a billboard by the highway without express permission.
Re:Too Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
Google: Webmaster Dos and Don'ts (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He may have a good argument (Score:2, Insightful)
And, anway, it's not illegal to stop someone, even if you are a monopoly, from interferring with your stuff. Google was attempting to rank the most relevant sites, SearchKing was screwing that up on Google, Google fixed it. This is not an abuse of monopoly.
Re:Too Easy (Score:2, Insightful)
According to Webster's, a monopoly is "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service." While Google has a large market share, and it continues to grow, there are stark differences between them and Microsoft. Google actually inovates freely, and puts out (IMHO) the best product on the market. Their technology is second to few if any. I don't think you can make this arguement about M$. You are comparing apples to oranges. Microsoft does have an unhealthy monopoly over the desktop o/s. There are few reasonable alternative choices for the average user. Even though I don't use M$ on the desktop, a huge percentage of people do! On the same token, Google is a great product, yet there are many feasable and widely availble alternatives. A large market share does not a monopoly make.
Experiment (Score:2, Insightful)