Slashdot Log In
Suing Google Over Pagerank
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:22 AM
from the this-can't-be-the-first-time dept.
from the this-can't-be-the-first-time dept.
Yardboy wrote in to tell us about a story from Reuters describing a lawsuit by parental advice company Kinderstart.com against Google for 'charging it unfairly deprived the company of customers by downgrading its search-result ranking without reason or warning.' Kinderssart claims Google is responsible for 'a "cataclysmic" 70 percent fall in its audience -- and a resulting 80 percent decline in revenue.' I guess the courts will now decide: Can google taketh what they giveth?
Related Stories
[+]
Google PageRank Suit Dismissed 97 comments
idobi writes to mention a C|Net article covering the dismissal of the Google page ranking case. Despite the loss, KinderStart also saw the ruling as a victory. The judge left the door open for a refiling, and the company is seeking to bring the suit to class-action status. Assistant professor of law at Marquette University Law School Eric Goldman comments in the article: "Frankly, there are very few novel or surprising aspects of this ruling. For example, the judge rejected the claim that Google was a state actor, but this ruling is entirely consistent with the dozen or so precedents involving private Internet companies ... The other rulings seemed very sensible and fairly predictable from the complaint. It's pretty clear that the judge thinks that some of KinderStart's claims have no chance even with repleading, but the judge apparently has decided to give KinderStart that chance rather than just shutting the door."
[+]
Your Rights Online: Lawsuit Against Google Dismissed 89 comments
Weather Storm writes in with news from PCWorld that a US District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Google by a company that accused them of manipulating search results for political and religious reasons and skewing results in favor of companies that compensate Google financially. The lawsuit (discussed on Slashdot last year) was filed by KinderStart, a parenting information Web site that claims it was illegally blocked from Google search results. The judge not only dismissed the lawsuit but granted a motion by Google to sanction KinderStart and one of its lawyers. Google can now seek "reasonable compensation" for attorney fees because KinderStart's lawyer filed claims that were factually baseless and did not perform an adequate investigation before filing the lawsuit.
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.
Well, they are spammed with traffic now... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, they are spammed with traffic now... (Score:5, Informative)
If I wanted to find some information on what they do it would be tough navigating through that. Good website design skills: provide information as quickly as possible, seem to have been misplaced.
But they don't really do anything, other than linking other sites. They're a link site, plain and simple. Probably harvesting click through revenue and add little value to the internet. And on a wild guess here, since a year ago, using the same search parameters, I have had many less 'link sites' coming up in Google searches which I see as only a good thing. Ironically they may well find the sites they link to through Google.
Parent
Re:Well, they are spammed with traffic now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone else find it funny they're running Google Ads? THAT's why they're pissed off ... 80% decline in ad revenue from google.
Parent
Re:Well, they are spammed with traffic now... (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like one of those sites you get when you mispell the name of a website and you end up with some random search. If I hadn't gone there from slashdot, I would have quickly hit the back button for fear of spyware.
Parent
Re:Well, they are spammed with traffic now... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Well, they are spammed with traffic now... (Score:5, Funny)
... and Kinderstart sues slashdot a week later ...
In retaliation, slashdot "mis-links" a "story" mis-titled "SCO Files for Bankruptcy" to Kinderstart and Kinderstarts' resultant server bandwidth overcharges put them out of business.
Parent
So which is it... (Score:5, Insightful)
"aggressively defends the secrecy of its patented search ranking system"
Is it patented or secret? I mean it can't be both.
Re:So which is it... (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Parent
A little of both (Score:5, Informative)
But Google's results are much more than page rank. It also involves other algorithms relating to the search keys for a particular search. And there are tuning factors to the particular PageRank implementation. Google's proprietary tweaks keep ahead of the people who try to artificially inflate their page rank (like, apparently, these guys). Those are secret, and search engine optimizers would dearly love to know them so that they could fake out Google.
Parent
PageRank (Score:3, Informative)
They are just a search engine? (Score:5, Informative)
They advertise themselves as a search engine.
Google still indexes over 25000 pages by them, and from my initial examination, theres no content.
They appear to be just a linkfarm
Google aren't wrong, this kind of thing is what we have been asking them to do for ages (clear out the crap)
They seem to have articles too (Score:5, Informative)
The funny thing is, it looks like they are using slash!
Parent
Re:They seem to have articles too (Score:3, Informative)
No, they aren't running Slash, they are running Squishdot [squishdot.org], which is a Slash clone built on top of Zope [zope.org].
Uh... Google can do whatever it wants... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Uh... Google can do whatever it wants... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. If the courts say there must be a "fair" system to decide pagerank, then who decides? Do we want Google and Yahoo to
Human index isn't the solution (Score:4, Insightful)
That's definitely the solution. I can always find exactly what I'm looking for with Open Directory, but not with Google.
Give me a break. Maybe you just need to learn how to search? Or maybe you should click the little link at the bottom of your bad search results that says "Dissatisfied? Help us improve." You won't find that at Yahoo.
Parent
Re:mod parent up (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft = MONOPOLY
Google = _not_ a monopoly
These are two completely different situations. Microsoft has legal restrictions put upon it becuase of it's position in the market (a Monopoly). They are _forced_ by law to play nice with others, because they have so much power.
Google isn't in this position (yet!). There are still several _large_ competitors (Yahoo and MSN) and Google is no where near a monopoly. Because of this they don't have any legal restric
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, pagerank is explained here [iprcom.com] and here [google.com]. Finally, if 70% of their audience and 80% of their revenue SOLELY relies on Google, then they need to change the way they advertise their site and profit from it. Looking at their site, they look just like a plain directory of links; they probably make money from advertising.
You reap what you sow (Score:5, Informative)
So don't whine if you get back slapped
Merely a First Measure (Score:5, Funny)
traffic (Score:3, Informative)
whinny babies (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think they have a leg to stand on (Score:4, Informative)
If my opinion is that your site sucks, you can't sue me for that.
Isnt it their page? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are they going after google? This seems more like the web designers fault, and not google's problem.
Being as vague as possible, I once did some work for a company who loved the results I was getting them in their page ranking. Then, one of the 'managers' came up and said that one person was complaining about the design of the site. I tried for a week to explain that any changes would result in a drastic drop in our page rank. I've actually studied the google patent filing, and was able to learn some important details that were used in the site constructively to help the ranking.
Since it wasnt my company, all I could do was explain what I thought the results of this decision would be. I ended up 'changing' the page layout to satisfy the clueless management, onlt to see a 15% drop in traffic and a fall from 6/10 to 4/10 in page ranking on google. Did I try to say it was google's fault? Hell no! I knew exactly where the blame was to be placed, and I vocally explained what was going on, why it was going on, and whos decision it was to make this change.
Suprisingly, they no longer question my ability to do my job. And that was shortly followed by a raise after I pointed out that I was very disapointed that I had to associate my name with such crappy performance, that was a result of poor decisions I warned against. And yes, it is VERY difficult to regain page ranking. But not impossible, unless of course your page uses every nasty trick in the book for optimization.
But the part about this company filing a lawsuit against google based on free speech? Is that a joke? It sounds like the lawyers this company hired are about as incompetent as their web designers.
Free services becoming core infrastructure (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Private company freely provides service
2) It is found useful by individuals and companies for finding one another
3) Its use becomes wide-spread and significant in the success of companies (maybe)
4) One particular company sues provider of this free service for not catering to them
Not that this is the first one to bite the hand that feeds.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Google should help them out... (Score:3, Funny)
Shoot Your Lawyer (Score:5, Insightful)
This site deserves it (Score:3, Interesting)
The site looks like the last time it was updated was 2000, the year on their site copyright. Most of the links don't even work.
I've built sites for these types of companies (back when I was starting out). Its probably just one or two people working out of their garage, fully expecting that the 10,000 domain names they purchased entitle them to millions of dollars. Quite sad, really.
Google has no obligation to pay their rent, and the Internet has no use for this trash. Get a real fucking job.
Re:This site deserves it (Score:3, Informative)
Funnily enough http://www.kinderstart.co.uk/ [kinderstart.co.uk]seems to be a valid site promoting a chain of nursery schools in the UK. It comes at the very top of google.co.uk's list when you search for "kinderstart". Google just seem to have downranked the US site because it's a junk link, providing no-one with any useful information, which is exactly what they should have done! Hope the suit gets thrown out and the judge orders them to pay Google's costs.
And in further news... (Score:5, Funny)
Pluto is suing the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York City for depriving it of attention by school children by downgrading its status from "planet" to "biggest object in the Kuiper belt," without reason or warning...
and Texas is suing Alaska for unfairly depriving it of bragging rights by downgrading its rank among states listed by area, without reason or warning.
In Other News... (Score:4, Funny)
Mod Me Up! (Score:4, Funny)
Publicity stunt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:fp (Score:5, Insightful)
If they want to be shown they should pay for advertising. My lastname.com is on page 3 if I search for mylastname. So should I sue google? Maybe I should "advertise" since that is how they exist.
I hate bullshit like this, if you base your business model on a high google ranking you should do what others are to maintain it. Salma Hayek pics are hard to find since those site purveyors have the first 1000 links or so going to some scam *nude stars* sites. lol... maybe that is what i wanted after all
Parent
Try the 'in-your-shoes' test (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine Microsoft says it has the definitive authoritative search engine, and then blocks Oracle from the results. Now when you search for anything related to databases you don't get Oracle, even searches directly related to do with Oracle databases.
Are you OK with that now?
Google owes Kinderstart *nothing*, other than a good authoritative search result, because thats what they've promised to deliver. So anytime they end up in court it will come down to this 'can it be argued
Re:Try the 'in-your-shoes' test (Score:5, Informative)
I think Google should sue them though. If I type "google" into their search engine all I get is:
Home : Search Results
_________________________________________________
Results for 'google' (0 matches found).
Page 1 of 1
Parent
Re:fp (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a bullshit suit. I'm sorry you don't have a constitutional right to have your message/voice broadcast/printed/served/displayed by others.
Parent
Re:fp (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:fp (Score:5, Informative)
Here it was I thought they were producing something, or selling something (hence the terms 'customers' and 'revenue').
Nope. Just a big-ass referral site, sucking down affiliate fees for driving real customers to real sites that sell real stuff.
Now I understand why Google k-lined them.
Parent
Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Google is a private company. It has no obligation to endorse Kinderstart's company than any others.
Like I have said before, the constituion gives you a right to freedom of speech, it does not guarentee you an audience. Saying Google should be forced to index Kinderstart *at all*, let alone that it should enfoce some ranking formula, would be akin to saying that a library should be forced to hold a certain book, or that a televsion station be forced to air a certain show.
Don't like the shows on a network? Change the channel. Don't like the results Google provides? Use another engine. It's not like they have a monopoly on web searching.
Parent
Re:Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
In principle, of course, you're absolutely right -- but the difference is that Microsoft broke the law (and mostly got away with it, grumblings on
Whether Google actually constitutes a search engine monopoly is an interesting question; given Yahoo's position as a pretty strong number two, I'm inclined to say not, but it might be worthy of a court test one of these days. I really doubt Kinderstart are going to be the ones to make this happen, though.
Parent
Even traded companies are still private (Score:5, Informative)
No, Google is a public company. You see there's this obscure institution called the "stock market"...
No, Google offered some shares to be exchanged on a particular market, making them a publically traded company, but they are in fact, a private entity all the same. In this short review of high school level Social Studies, the public sector is the Government, and the private sector is everything else. The unrelated term "publically traded" simply means that there are no buyer restrictions on who may own or trade their stocks. There is such a thing as stocks that are not publically traded as well.
Regardless of the trading of their stock certificates in the marketplace, Google does not gain some new requirement to rank companies/sites according to anyone elses wishes on how they should be ranked.
~Rebecca
Parent
Re:fp (Score:5, Interesting)
If Google opened its pagerank, then the order of search results would be the cleverness of the webmasters to craft their webpage to exploit Google's methods, instead of actual relevence to the search involved. You'd prefer that situation? Google would effectively denigrate into a giant billboard, and you'd then have to search through dozens of useless 'advertising' false links to get to the information you really want.
Parent
Re:fp (Score:3, Interesting)
"Google does not generally inform Web sites that they have been penalized nor does it explain in detail why the Web site was penalized,"
Sometimes they do [slashdot.org] and sometimes then dont [slashdot.org]
Re:fp (Score:3, Insightful)
If I say "I recommend these sites: " and then I remove one from my list, am I obliged to *explain* myself?
I am not, no more than anyone is obliged to listen to me.
In general, I think corporations *should* be answerable for the broader consequences of their business motivated decisions (even though, as a matter of law, they generally are not). However, in this case, that is absolute hogwash.
They should be free to make whatever recommendations they wan
Re:fp (Score:5, Informative)
SearchKing sued Google over the same thing a couple of years ago [slashdot.org], and lost the suit. [slashdot.org] The judge's comment was:
KinderStart will lose. Case closed.
Parent
Re:fp (Score:5, Interesting)
Google chooses not to reveal its pagerank algorithms precisely to prevent the kind of link-bombing in which Kinderstart was almost certainly engaged. And why should they? This is one of the few cases where "security through obscurity" kinda works -- unlike with, say, encryption algorithms, which depend for security on a secret number, and which generally get stronger when they're open for public scrutiny, the security of Google's page rankings depends on the secrecy of the algorithm itself. They have no obligation to reveal their algorithm to Kinderstart or anyone else.
Now, as a generally pro-F/OSS guy, I personally think it would be great if Google came up with "public key pagerank" -- i.e., a pagerank algorithm that could be released as open source without compromising its effectiveness for a specific application -- but apparently that hasn't happened yet.
If anyone has a case here, it's Google; they could sue Kinderstart and everyone else who tries to manipulate the rankings, and probably under the DMCA they could press criminal charges as well. They don't, for two reasons: it would interfere with the warm'n'fuzzy "don't be evil" vibe they're still trying to project, and it would be a waste of time and money, in that they'd probably spend a lot more trying to track down the thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? millions?) of sites that try to do this crap than they would collect in damages. But personally I hope they turn around and grind Kinderstart.com into the dust.
BTW, the first search result that comes up on Google when you search for "Kinderstart" now is this [kinderstart.co.uk], which seems like a legitimate business rather than a badly designed wannabe portal. How is this a bad thing?
Parent
Re:fp (Score:3, Funny)
Re:fp (Score:5, Informative)
This is known as a "clicktrap" and (imho) is the most annoying thing in the world to happen upon.
People use Google because your chances of finding what you want, quickly are good. I.e. being taken directly to the "end of the line" , either right to a store itself, or to an article, or something else related to your search. Not to one of the stupid internet polluting man in the middle wastes of disk space.
You can go to a site like shitlance [scriptlance.com] and pay someone from India a few hundred bucks to arrange hundreds of lasting (and good) backlinks. Search that site for "SEO" and you'll see what I mean.
Off my soapbox
Parent