Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Online Store to Sue Blogger Over Google Ranking?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:32 PM
from the all-this-effort-could-have-gone-to-fixing-his-site dept.
Businesses Google The Internet IT
An anonymous reader writes "An online business owner is threatening to sue blog owner Dean Hunt (DeanHunt.com) because he is upset that the blog owner is doing better than his business in the Google search rankings. After an initial threat, Dean received a follow-up threatening to take legal action against him. So far Dean has elected not to name and shame this business owner."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Online Store to Sue Blogger Over Google Ranking? 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Ranking.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BWJones (18351) * on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:34PM (#17225092) Homepage Journal
    Yeah, well there are lots of blogs that do better than a number of businesses and organizations for whatever reasons Google assigns ranking. I get a number of amused emails from people that find Google ranks my blog [utah.edu] higher than their dedicated sites for a shocking number of items. They want to know how I've engineered it, and I have to say I honestly don't know. But if they want to pay Google to increase their ranking above mine, go for it.

    I suspect part of the reason is my selective use of links in articles I post to supplement the content I post with targeted information, as well as my hosting it from my office in an educational institution. Occasionally getting linked from places like Slashdot, BoingBoing and Digg can't hurt either....

    • Re:Ranking.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OrangeTide (124937) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:36PM (#17225122) Homepage Journal
      google likes those who link and get linked. If your online store is poorly connected on the WWW then your ranking will be based on other factors that don't seem to be quite as important to google.

      My resume is better ranked on google than some (minor) online stores.

      • Re:Ranking.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cayenne8 (626475) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:18PM (#17225794) Homepage Journal
        " If your online store is poorly connected on the WWW then your ranking will be based on other factors that don't seem to be quite as important to google."

        What I find even more amusing...that so many people thing the internet was constructed primarily for commerce...when in fact, that is only a fairly recent by-product.

        • Re:Ranking.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by grahammm (9083) * <graham@gmurray.org.uk> on Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:54PM (#17230148)
          I have often wished that stores would not get such a high google rank. Many a time I have used google to try and find information about a product only to find the first few pages of response to be filled with stores selling the product and (even worse) price comparison sites.

    • Re:Ranking.... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by garcia (6573) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:46PM (#17225256) Homepage
      They want to know how I've engineered it, and I have to say I honestly don't know. But if they want to pay Google to increase their ranking above mine, go for it.

      I routinely outrank local businesses that I write about on my site. Generally these businesses are unknown to Google and if I don't link to their actual site (it may not exist prior to me posting about them and them subsequently finding out that I gave them an unfavorable review).

      I have watched local businesses like Divinci's Pizza [lazylightning.org] go in and out of business while trying to gain top Google ranking. I have also had pissed off business owners post to my site trying to prove that they aren't as bad as I said they were.

      Why am I ranked higher? Probably because of Slashdot and the various other blogs that link back to me (I'm somewhere around 270 links). Other than that, who the fuck knows.
    • The part I find bizarre is this:

      Exactly how does the online business owner figure that the blog owner, Dean Hunt, bears any responsibility for how Google ranks his blog with respect to the online store? Only Google is responsible for how it ranks pages. I suppose the business owner can sue Google, but somehow I doubt he'd get very far, considering that Google doesn't owe the shop owner anything in terms of pageranking unless he entered into some sort of contract with Google, but that's all between him and Google, right?

    • THIS IS FAKE, HE MADE THIS UP! PLEASE READ. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Sir Homer (549339) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:18PM (#17225792)
      This man owns a search optimization business, with its only purpose to increase the PageRank of other sites. There is no threatening letters. Mr. Dean Hunt fabricated them himself. He even writes in his website:
      Over the coming weeks I am going to be attempting my very first viral campaign. A viral campaign is something that has interested me for a long time, and if done properly it can be one of the most powerful tools any webmaster has.
      There is NO evidence this guy is telling the truth, but there is ALOT of evidence this guy is lying his ass off. Don't believe this Slashdot readers!

    • Here's my secret (Score:4, Interesting)

      by shaneh0 (624603) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:19PM (#17225802)
      And I'll share it for free:

      A rich internal link structure.

      Blog software creates this by default, but you can do it manually. A recent website I was hired to optimize will illustrate this. The site is customSiliconeBracelets.com. When I was hired they were on the 30th page for their two desired phrases: Silicone Bracelets & Custom Silicone Bracelets. Now, they're number 1 in both of those.

      To accomplish this, I did two main things:

      1. Add a bunch of text. It's mostly nonsensical. It's not meant for human consumption. It's there for keyword density.

      2. Add a shitload of intra-site links. Every keyword in that nonsensical text is linked to other pages in the site. If you tried to navigate the site by following such links (instead of using the sites navigation) you'd go in circles for hours. Which, when you look at the logs, is essentially what Googlebot does.

      Of course, there was all the "standard" stuff like page titles, H tags, links with titles, alt text on images, etc. But those only get you so far. The real beef is in the link structures, friends.

      • Re:Here's my secret (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mccoma (64578) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @02:00PM (#17226440)
        great.... "nonsensical" content - no wonder Google is becoming so polluted with crap. I do hope the search engines adapt to this crud.

      • Re:Here's my secret (Score:5, Funny)

        by Nasarius (593729) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @02:12PM (#17226684)
        3. Get removed from Google once they realize you're trying to game the system.

                  • Re:Get a Clue. (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by anagama (611277) <thepotter@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Wednesday December 13 2006, @09:13PM (#17231882) Homepage
                    "5 - Is telemarketing good business? Junk mail? Sure, the rules are level, it's a tool that can be used. But it's a detriment. It's a drain. "

                    This is your thinking, and this is why you're wrong.

                    What is a drain about Junk Mail? It GIVES PEOPLE JOBS. It MAKES PEOPLE MONEY.

                    It's a needless waste of natural resources, trees and oil come to mind immediately but there must be others. It does nothing but cause me frustration and increase waste. And you can be sure the junk mailers aren't contributing to even the financial costs of landfill space, let alone the environmental costs of their actions. It is a "tragedy of the commons" situation.

                    As for "job creation" -- so would roving bands of rock throwing hoodlums. Think of all the glass companies and installers that would employ. Now, breaking people's windows is illegal because it wrongfully deprives the window owners of their personal resources. The distinction with junk mail is that sadly, junk mail is still legal because people haven't figured out that junk mailers are wrongfully depriving us of our resources (money to clean up after the bastards, and environmental destruction to make the crap). So from a moral rather than legal perspective, where "moral" includes the notion that depriving people of their personal resources is wrong, junk mail is just as immoral as property damage. It's just sadly legal.

        • Re:Ranking.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by megaditto (982598) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @03:37PM (#17228222)
          No it isn't. Robots.txt does not include "article.pl" [slashdot.org] which is the article front page that shows all the comments.

          As long as your post is modded up and thus visible via article.pl, all your links get counted!

          In particular, all +5 Comments' links are registered by google.

  • Perhaps Its the Lawyer (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:34PM (#17225106) Homepage Journal
    So far Dean has elected not to name and shame this business owner.
    Maybe it's the Texan lawyer by the same name [findlaw.com] whose practice has been so far 100% litigation? The letter sure sounds like the author has found something in his books of law that give him just enough edge to use his firm in forcing this guy to settle out of court.

    Who ever is doing this, I'll bet there's some stupid law they can leverage that says that Top Level Domains (TLDs) should only be used for what they stand for. Afterall, the .com TLD [wikipedia.org] is short for 'commercial' or 'commerce.' I know it claims to be 'open' but a blog isn't anything commercial so maybe these are just beginning petty threats that will lead to a domain squatting lawsuit? Either way, if the guy's so concerned, why hasn't he registered deanhunt.biz [deanhunt.biz]? If you think I'm out of my mind, you've never encountered a lawyer before.

    When I search for Dean Hunt, the blog beats any references to that lawyer's firm by a long shot but the links referring to the lawyer follow the blog immediately after it's #1 slot.

    Anyone else find it hilarious that all these news articles are going to Google bomb the blog into a no-way-beatable #1 position for at least a few months? And what's this guy supposed to do? Check Google daily to ensure that he hasn't offended this ranking implication that the online store claims should be in place superseding Google's pagerank?

  • Cry me a river... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Marton (24416) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:36PM (#17225124)
    An undisclosed somebody is threatening to sue a poor little blogger over something. Come on. This is not news. Where are the facts?

  • Dump him to page 4 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by totallygeek (263191) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:42PM (#17225196) Homepage
    It would be funny to duplicate the content and massively interlink sites to drop the business page ranking even worse. Does anyone know if this approach has been successfully attempted in the past?

  • Simple (Score:4, Interesting)

    by torstenvl (769732) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:43PM (#17225202)
    FRCP 12(b)(6) the thing. Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Then you're done.

  • Reminds me of.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperStretchy (1018064) <acatzr800@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:49PM (#17225310)
    A quite I heard:
    Fighting on the internet is like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

    While not necessarily the most tactful of quotes, it does ring true.

  • MY BLOG WAS SUED BY MICROSOFT (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Shihar (153932) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:55PM (#17225396)
    I am totally serious. My blog was SUED BY MICRO$OFT because I made some software that was so much more awesome then theirs. I even have the letters they sent me to prove it!!11!!! Now, if the Slashdot editors will kindly accept my claim without any sort of validation and post me on a Slashdot front page...

    Seriously. Show an ounce of journalistic integrity and don't give a podium to utterly baseless claims. He doesn't even say what company is suing him so we can't even bother to ask that company if this is real. Any idiot could have made this up for the singular purpose of driving up hits. I am not saying that the guy is liar (he very well could be telling the truth), just he shouldn't get a free stage to advertise until there is at least the semblance of a claim that can be fact checked.

  • 30 Comments and nobody asking about Mike? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:56PM (#17225434) Journal
    Wouldn't every body here want to see a blog by Mike Hunt?

    Laugh. It's funny.

    Okay, it isn't. It's tired and overused. And oddly enough, MikeHunt.com is safe for work. Whoddathunkit?

  • Never underestimate the subtle stuff. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:57PM (#17225448)
    On a site I run, I've got articles I've written about other businesses (typically complimentary) that invariably rank higher than the businesses' own web sites, especially on slightly odd-ball searches, but often on something as simple as the business's name. And the only thing I'm doing is using better grammar, and generally carrying on in a more conservative way. Google seems to reward restraint. Breathless promotional material always seems to take a back seat to lucid, well-constructed information.

    Sure, Google ranks plenty of blatant trash higher than it sometimes should, but it's not always that way. My own experience is that actual, real content remains king. Small businesses frequently don't take the time to actually write any real meat for their own web sites. Hell, a lot my older stuff still isn't even all that standards-compliant (I swear I'll get around that CSS stuff one of these days), but it usually exceeds the sites about which I'm writing. And, of course, it's a feedback loop. The more credible some of my pages appear, the higher the new ones rank, too. No witchcraft, no magic sauce: just careful writing and resisting the urge to run content from the slimier ad engines.

  • My response (Score:5, Funny)

    by DebianDog (472284) <dan@[ ]slagle.com ['dan' in gap]> on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:01PM (#17225498) Homepage
    Dear [edited]

    Since your business [edited].com is doing rather well and top ranking is important to your business. Please transfer $[edited] in U.S. dollars to this [edited] account. When that happens I will gladly remove any and all references to [edited].com.

    Thanks and bite me

  • Not convinced this guy is truthful (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sir Homer (549339) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:02PM (#17225514)
    I saw a link to this on his website: http://www.deanhunt.com/services/index.html [deanhunt.com]

    It raises some suspicion as this guy's business seems to be googlebombing. Perhaps he fabricated this story in order to get his website up in PageRank by people linking to him.

      • Re:Not convinced this guy is truthful (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Sir Homer (549339) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:12PM (#17225692)
        Not true. From his his website he seems to really want people to blog about it. He thanks people for blogging about it and puts "easy to blog" links. He says on website before this "event" occurs that he will attempt a "viral campaign".
        Over the coming weeks I am going to be attempting my very first viral campaign. A viral campaign is something that has interested me for a long time, and if done properly it can be one of the most powerful tools any webmaster has.

  • SEO slashvertisement - viral campaign (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:04PM (#17225570)
    Yes great. He posts a truly funny e-mail exchange on his site. And now he even gets slashdot exposure.

    He even wrote: I will make a viral campaign!
    http://deanhunt.com/category/seo/ [deanhunt.com]

    This is it and you have fallen for it. Stupidos.

  • Tuttle Award nominee (Score:5, Funny)

    by DrJimbo (594231) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:07PM (#17225622)
    I nominate the anonymous businessman for the first annual Tuttle Award.

    See Misconfigured Webserver, Threats to Call FBI [slashdot.org].

      • Re:Tuttle Award nominee (Score:5, Informative)

        by LWATCDR (28044) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @02:42PM (#17227252) Homepage Journal
        Nope his is still city manger of Tuttle last time I checked.
        Tuttleing:
        When a person or group make an ass of themselves on the Internet by threatening legal action without just cause.
        Usually involving some abuse of power or position all they while displaying a large degree of arrogance and stupidity.

  • SEO Viral Campaign (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zegnar (704768) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:25PM (#17225908)
    Is this not in fact the Viral Campaign [deanhunt.com] he talks about starting on his blog? Seems to be working, since he's on Slashdot already, plus all the links go to his site and none to the other (ostensibly undisclosed) address.

  • fake news, viral marketing (Score:5, Informative)

    by ukyoCE (106879) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:30PM (#17225992) Journal
    Just to reiterate what someone else tracked down in hopes of getting this (wholly ambiguous and suspect to begin with) story checked out:

    http://deanhunt.com/category/seo/ [deanhunt.com]

    Basically this guy has a side job of helping companies up their pageranks, and made all this up as an "experiment in viral marketing". Nothing to see here...and sure explains why he's keeping the company name and search terms secret.

    • Check out how he is doing it! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sr. taquito (996805) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @02:30PM (#17227018) Homepage
      Oh my, if you hover over the people's names who have submitted responses, seems like each person's web site that the name links to is a business. I tried to submit a response, but it was rejected! He's a sneaky devil. That is how those sites are getting higher rankings, his blog links to their sites through the fake comments.

  • this is crazy (Score:4, Informative)

    by JustNiz (692889) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:34PM (#17226048)
    The person doing the suing is totally misguided and obviously trying to extort money through fear rather than having an actual case.

    How could someone sue another site owner over his google ranking? He has no control over how google rank his site, unless he paid google, which is perfectly legal anyway. At least they should be suing google, but probably decided they'd be destined to lose.

    Anyway google don't hide the fact that they sell search ranking order as a product/service.

  • I'm Still Waiting To Be Extorted... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bones3D_mac (324952) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @01:41PM (#17226134)
    My online identity of nearly 10 years (Bones3D) is probably starting to look awfully tasty to some enterprising 3D modeling/animation software developer, since it sounds like it'd be a high end inverse kinematics system of some sort. In my case though, it's more of an amalgam of a high school nickname and the field I was trained in several years later. So the two parts are virtually unrelated.

    Another fun one, would be my real name itself (James Meade), which actually is a popular clothing manufacturer out in the U.K., similar to what Levi Strauss is here in the U.S. I'm not real worried about them though, since I rarely use my real name online more than I have to.

    At any rate, it helps to be aware of how your identity could be taken out of it's original context and used for commercial purposes.

    Needless to say, it does bring up an important question... how much is your online identity worth to you? And on what terms would you be willing to part with it?

  • Why is this even on Slashdot? (Score:5, Informative)

    by goldcd (587052) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @02:29PM (#17226990) Homepage
    1) Anybody who runs a website with a reasonable number of users gets shit-loads of this sortof email every day. You ignore it and just accept that the world is full of nuts and we've allowed them to send emails
    2) This guy is quite clearly interested in fiddling with Google rankings - indulging him by linking and quoting his blog is really really not very helpful.

    • Re:please counter-sue (Score:5, Funny)

      by LurkerXXX (667952) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:45PM (#17225254)
      The lawsuit isn't needed anymore. By posting the story to /. as an anonymous coward, the store owner just blasted the bloggers website off the net. Now google'ers will bypass the downed blog website, and go on to the store.

      Brilliant!

    • Re:The blogger's problem? (Score:4, Funny)

      by ScentCone (795499) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @12:59PM (#17225480)
      What's the point of suing the blogger? If Google is the one that creates the page rankings, and is the reason why that blog is ranked higher than his website, how is it the blogger's fault?

      I'm sorry, sir, but we won't be needing you and your fancy rational thinking on the jury. Have a nice day!

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Overzeetop (214511)
      No, offer him advertising space on your website, and threaten to add more websites above him on Google if he doesn't! Dean should tell him that he intends to play hardball, and will have Google strike his entry entirely if necessary.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.