Suing Google Because Your Google Site Ranking Sucks
from the try-again dept
A few years back, you may recall the "SearchKing" case, where Google penalized a search engine optimizer for gaming its system -- a fairly common practice in the company's ongoing attempts to keep search engine spammers out, while making searches more relevant. Well, in this case, the guy wasn't too happy (and it certainly didn't reflect well on his optimization technique), and he eventually sued Google. It didn't take long at all for a judge to dismiss the case, noting that Google's ranking was their opinion and, thus, protected free speech. However, with so many sites relying so much on Google, and the constant shifts in rankings, you knew it was only a matter of time before such a case popped up again. Google has now been sued by a firm that is upset at its ranking. While the article isn't entirely clear, it sounds like this was a site that was entirely blacklisted, probably for its own aggressive search engine optimization techniques -- and so they're trying to set up a class action suit on behalf of all sites blacklisted by Google. This seems just as silly (and as likely to succeed) as the original case, but the lawyers this time are trying a slightly different argument. They're suggesting that Google is an "essential facility" and by penalizing sites with no explanation and no recourse, they're unfairly hurting businesses. Of course, proving Google as an "essential facility" may take a bit of work -- and could open up the floodgates. The real issue is that, even though many companies do, relying on a single source as a way of driving business is always a risky position to be in. It's a business decision to rely on Google, and not look for other methods of driving traffic. Google is an outside party and can do what they want. While many people do rely on Google, that doesn't mean they have to do anything for other sites, other than try to keep their index as relevant as possible to keep their users happy.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Real goal by Joe Smith on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 6:02pm
The Plaintiff's real goal may be to simply force Google through the discovery process to tell them what the Google ranking algorithm is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news at NEVER by TJ on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 6:34pm
Have the Techdirt editors spent any time reading the 160+ comments about the site redesign? If they have, they are ignoring us. Either pay attention to our feedback, or don't accept feedback at all. As it is, they are doing nothing but wasting our time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google Rankins, #1 or #2 or #3 or even #4,567,890 by Happy User on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 6:34pm
scenario #1: ok, so when the trial is over, this company gets knowladge of why they were blacklisted from google's usage listing in the first place... and remains off the google's search list. big whoop.
scenario #2: The company gets onto google's search ranking and is #1 for a day - until they get shuffled in a relevancey order, in which case the company will remain #1 or #2 or #3 or even #4,567,890 for a particular term.
scenario #3: The company gets on to google again and no one searches for the company other than to badmouth it for it's low low low attack methods.
scenario #4: The company wins the case and Google has to pay out a class action suit on behalf of all sites blacklisted by from Google. How is any company to claim "lost income" by relevancy of search engines? If that was possible, then wouldn't anyone listed in Google be able to determine their $$$ growth over the upcoming years - based SOLELY upon being listed (i mean "ranked by") Google's search engine... by relevance of end-user's search term.
scenario #5: This is St.Patty's day - and I guess this a weekend-post regarding [GREEN] money... or I'm way off on everything, eh?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news at NE by Mike on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 6:41pm
Have the Techdirt editors spent any time reading the 160+ comments about the site redesign? If they have, they are ignoring us. Either pay attention to our feedback, or don't accept feedback at all. As it is, they are doing nothing but wasting our time.
This is not the spot for this, but since you asked it here...
We have spent the week gathering all the feedback and have been implementing a number of changes. Please be patient. Many of the changes are already in place and more are coming shortly. However, we want to test things to make sure they work properly.
The VAST majority of the feedback has been positive. There are a few changes that enough people wanted that we will be implementing shortly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by jdragon on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 7:00pm
Wouldn't it cheaper to just use PPC like adword to advertise than say...pay the lawyer fees?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Susheel on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 7:29pm
They don't have very good lawyers if they argued 'essential facilities'. That doctrine was dismissed with prejudice by the S.Ct. several years ago....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
KinderStart.Com Sues Google by Ted on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 7:50pm
I think you guys are jumping to alot of conclusions here. Try reading the complaint first, then comment away, I read the complaint, and there is more there than meets the eye. These guys do not look like they are out for themselves. Read the complaint then decide. BTW, per the complaint, they never did any optimization. I think it is wise to with-hold judgement to you get more information. The truth will come out, and- yes- there are two sides- KinderStart and Googles and perhaps others;)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
KinderStart suing Google by CE on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 8:48pm
KinderStart is suing Google is ridiculous...To rely on Google for people to find your site means that the company does not want to spend any money on marketing. If they market themselves to their target group, then people can find their site. Why not send their link to their customers? That's another way to generate hits on their site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
violating tos by Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 8:58pm
simple - they probly did what every other company that gets blacklisted did, use seo techniques that violate google's tos for being on their search listing
you break the rules, you pay accordingly, why do they expect to be treated any differenlty?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Andyware on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 9:06pm
Americans are funny!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Demolition Man by WhoNu on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 9:36pm
Remember the movie Demolition Man? Is google really the Taco Bell of the future?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmm by Darknet on Mar 17th, 2006 @ 10:33pm
I hope you mean that it's no longer going to fixed width Mike :)
And with regards to this article, Google has money now, these kinds of cases are going to pop up every couple of weeks..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
America RULEZ!! by icepick314 on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 2:14am
Welcome to the Land of Freedom and the Frivolous Lawsuits!!
We can sue for hot coffee, bad air, and free search enegines!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Guest on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 4:20am
May be, he wants advertise by creating a sensation
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by NOCcer on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 5:05am
Seems like another case of a company suing for something rediculous for the free advertising.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by NOCcer on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 5:08am
KinderStart alleges Google has engaged in anticompetitive behavior and misled the public by positioning its search engine as an objective source for finding Internet content. The suit seeks unspecified financial damages and a court order that would require Google to change its ways.
So Google is in the child education business now?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Again by Pimptology Professor on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 6:54am
Wow, google is makin an apalling list of enemie, i guess the unwritte rule about fame: The higher you rise, the faster u fall, is going to apply to google in the near future.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Uncle Ben says... by farlane on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 7:04am
Interesting to see this article this morning as I have been trying to detail how the Google rankings and referrals for one of our sites has been plummetting and to figure out how to discuss this with Google (though there seems to be no recourse when you have been found guilty by the court of Google).
It looks as if Kinderstart.com is a database-driven, link-heavy site. Our Absolute Michigan site is as well.
Google seems to be penalizing such sites heavily. The rationale I have heard is that many of these are merely sites created to snare traffic (and reap Adword revenue - how ironic is that?). What that rationale ignores is sites which are truly seeking to become trusted guides to a subject area, something that Google is very poor at.
Don't believe me? Search "Michigan links" and ask if there is any logical reason that the "Militia Links" or "Northport, Michigan: Links" site should have a higher ranking than our Ab Mich site for that query. 6 months ago, we were number one. We have added thousands of more links to REAL web sites and yet our ranking falls.
Google wields enormous power and we all know that means they bear enormous responsibility.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Evil corporations! by Deverill on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 7:18am
If I pay for a newspaper classified ad they can put it in any order they want and I'm paying for it. How much more right does a free service have to order listings as they wish?
Besides that, Google only promises to do things the way they want to - there is no contract with the listed site's owners to be fair and equitable.
Sounds like this site was reaping benefits from Google's generosity and when it changed they got upset.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Uncle Ben says... by ben on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 7:52am
Your site provides no content per se, you just link to other sites; if you bothered to learn anything about Google's ranking, you'd have known that you're only increasing the rank of sites you link to, and do nothing for your own website.
You want high Google rank? Put up a website with meaningful content, get other people's websites on similar topic to link to your website, and watch your rank climb.
Directory-style sites are passe, we don't need them anymore - we have Google!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
RE: Uncle Ben by Paul -V- on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 8:17am
Your site is little more than a link farm. No wonder you are not doing well.
Try writing some new content every once in a while.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Uncle Ben says... by Greg on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 8:27am
Sites that are just link junkyards should be blacklisted. It's frustrating to search for something and the top sites are just a bunch of links. I'm not searching to find links, I'm searching to find actualy sites. I don't want to keep going through an endless circle of links...!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: RE: Uncle Ben by farlane on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 8:39am
Hey Paul, try digging a little deeper. Take for example Bill Could Have Grave Implications for Michigan's State Forests. Links to the story and the bill content and provides a summary of the news. You can also click (for example) "Sports & recreation > Parks" from related categories to find a links to parks that might be impacted by this story. And Oh look, there's more articles about parks.
The resources have been reviewed by HUMAN eyes and are all in Michigan - and all authentic sites. Try a google search for "Michigan parks" and see what you get.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a useful service.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: RE: Uncle Ben by Anwar on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 8:54am
But still google does that it has links to parks that could he impacted by that particular story.
Why should someone include you in their database of records if they dont want you in it?
to put that another way
Do you expect a woman who doesnt want to have sex to be forced to have sex?
Gopogle like women, have rights, unfortunately
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: RE: Uncle Ben by farlane on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 9:16am
I completely agree that google has links to parks in Michigan and when I'm looking for a specific park, that's where I go. Like the vast majority of folks on this site, I am versed in google-fu. Everyone in the world is not, however.
My point is that when somebody is looking for "Michigan parks", they are more than likely unsure of anything more than they are looking for a park in Michigan. For that search and state of mind, a site like ours works better than the site for a specific Michigan park.
Our team knows the state of Michigan and spends hours every day weeding through the mass of news and information to distill essential items as we see them. We forge connections between stories and REAL businesses, organizations and individuals. To be artificially penalized for doing this is (in my opinion) wrong.
While you are correct that there is no grounds to force google to include a site in its database, the fact remains that Google wields a vast and largely unchecked power to control what gets seen and what doesn't. I suppose if you agree with their decisions, then it desn't matter who they're censoring.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google's responsibility by Joe Smith on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 9:41am
is to its shareholders. It satisfies that responsibility by providing searches that give users what they want. Goolge's ranking algorithms will be driven by the need to satisfy the users doing searches. It has no responsbility to the sites which want to be ranked by Google.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Uncle Ben by Anonymous Coward on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 9:45am
Plus, if they really are censoring great sites, we'd all just find a search engine to replace them!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news at NE by Saint Jerome on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 10:09am
Calm down. Who are you to think the the Techdirt editors should listen to your comments on the redesign. This is a private website. If you don't like it, leave.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Suing Google Because Your Google Site Ranking Suck by webmetricsguru on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 10:39am
What else is new, everyone wants to sue Google these days. According to an article in Siliconvalley.com Google Inc.'s mysterious methods for ranking Web sites came under attack Friday in a lawsuit accusing the online search engine leader of ruining scores of Internet businesses that have been wrongfully banished from its index. I can count on my two hands the number of Google updates that have occured in the last two years and everytime any search engine does an update some results change. The civil complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose by KinderStart.com, seeks to be certified as a class action representing the owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's Internet-leading search engine since January 2001. KinderStart, a Norwalk-based Web site devoted to information about children, says it was dropped from Google's index a year ago without warning. "The world is becoming increasingly 'Googlized,'" said Gregory Yu, a lawyer for KinderStart. "For most people, that has been a good thing, but not for everyone." A Google spokesman said the company hadn't seen the suit and had no immediate comment. Some of this is true - it's hardly new and most of us have accepted it and moved on. KinderStart's lawsuit alleges Google's policing efforts have penalized Web sites that have done nothing wrong. To make matters worse, the suit alleges the banished sites can't determine how they can restore their standings because the company doesn't explain its actions. This is also true - lots of time sites drop out and it's not clear why that happened or even when it happened. I believe there are plans in the works to notify webmasters when Google discovers a problem in their sites that might end up excluding the site from Google's index - but to my knowledge - it's not a live program yet. KinderStart said its traffic plunged by 70 percent after Google dropped it. At its peak, KinderStart's visitors viewed more than 10 million Web pages per month, according to the suit. I can believe that - many sites traffic have become inflated with traffic from Google - if Google's traffic were, somehow to go away, and nothing were there to replace it with - the economic effect could cripple the world economy in the short term.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news at NE by srgtick on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 11:51am
I want what I want now!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
pfffft by hazelbyte on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 1:59pm
It seems a shame to me that people think like this:
> I want what I want now!
Both with regard to the forum and with regard to the case.
Both topics are about folks which solve their problems by demanding louder. Even children learn that this is not appropriate or constructive. In an adult world it means the US leads the world
restricting our freedoms in order to comply with people who
cannot negotiate responsibly. Sometimes you have right of way, sometimes you dont. You are responsible for honoring that in order to have a free society.
A free society is one where you understand that other people need to have right of way, this is the means that you sometimes have right of way. You are responsible for negotiating in ways which
do not reduce the freedoms of others.
Both threads are tantrums. Learn to value your freedom, and that of others, operate your businesses and communications in ways which see things from the perspective of other people, avoid suing people to reduce those freedoms for all of us.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I wish a lawsuit by Anonymous Coward on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 3:06pm
I wish a lawsuit would be filed to keep the annoying pages off of their engines that are nothing more than keyword scares to do nothing more than show you a page with even more ads and adword links. Google doesn't care because they are selling ads to companies who might not show up near the top.
Think about it. Rankings change regularly because sites that are at the top of a search give those site owners a taste of what high traffic can do. What happens when the site then drops off? The site owner gets desparate and possibly gives Google money (via adwords) so they will show up again on the first page of a search.
They MUST protect their algorithm because if people found out that it's quite simplistic and mainly used to drive businesses to their ad programs, even more lawsuits would ensue.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: pfffft by Mekales on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 4:15pm
BRAVO!! BRAVO!!
I'm standing and cheering your comment! So many in this "land of the free" believe that the world "owes" them and have no concern of the "cost" to others. That is the trend in our government, right down to the way people behave in the aisles of the supermarket. It's deplorable the "ME, ME, ME" society that we Americans have become. Many other countries are laughing, 'Those FREE Americans don't understand what the term or theory of FREEDOM really means.'
Thank you for stating the simple truth.
Mekales
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by DreadedOne509 on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 6:05pm
It is greed, plain and simple. Our tort laws need to be revamped, rewritten or thrown out and started over. It has become the haves vs. the have-not's-but-will-sue-to-get-it way to get ahead.
If the company can't survive without a good ranking on Google, they probably would not survive anyway.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Uncle Ben says... by Bored on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 7:34pm
"Google wields enormous power and we all know that means they bear enormous responsibility."
No, actually, they don't. They're a private company. They don't charge for their information. They have a 1st Amendment right to publish their opinion. If you don't like it, tough. If you rely on their opinion for your business model, also tough. Try advertising.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It is greed, plain and simple. by Dean Hougen on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 7:46pm
Our tort laws certainly need to be revamped but if you believe the only problem with them is that the have-not's [sic] sue the haves to get rich, then you've been bamboozled by the haves. Often the problem is that the haves are suing the have-nots.
"But," you ask, "why would the haves sue the have-nots? The have-nots don't have enough money to be worth suing!"
I'm glad you asked. The have-nots don't have much money but they do have voices and often the haves want to silence them. For example, I've seen many cases where have-nots have given open, honest, factual accounts of bad experiences they have had with companies, only to have the companies come after them with lawsuits to shut them up and to shut up anyone else who might be tempted to give an honest account of their bad experiences with the company. The result is often just what the poorly behaving haves want--lots of have-nots who censor themselves and spread the word to each other that they should all censor themselves, lest they be sued by the haves.
So, argue for tort reform all you want but do so with the knowledge that the strong sometimes prey on the weak and our system is set up by the strong to make that possible.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Uncle Ben says... by Tyshaun on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 7:53pm
You may be right, I'm not an attorney, however, this resonates to me on the same level as people suing Microsoft or the old Bell Telephone (before the breakup). Even if you are a private company, if your business becomes so ubiquitous or indispensible that people can't do without it, then the the case for anti-trust may be used. There are lots of search engines but one could argue that the popularity and universal acceptance of the google site may have made it the Microsoft of searching. Just a thought.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news a by Anonymous Coward on Mar 18th, 2006 @ 8:14pm
shut the fuck up ass hole if you dont like leave
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Uncle Ben Says... by Dan on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 1:57am
We get that your michigan website has links to all kinds of various other web pages regarding Michigan. But here's the thing, if you type in "Michigan Parks" into google, what you get is a list of links. It's skipping a step. Why go to your website through google to find more links when we've already got 10 million in front of us?
What I'm really trying to grasp here is how this company intends to prove that google owes it because it's been blacklisted. Let's say, for instance, I have a lot of friends--and I do. I go to a resturant and eat, I then judge that the food is horrible or maybe someone who worked there was a prick or something, right? So I tell my friends, about my experience or maybe they ask me if I've been to the resturant, in which case I would then tell them not to go, or simply just say "I wouldn't reccomend it." Can the resturant then sue me because I've somehow damaged their business by not reccomending it to a friend?
What I'm really saying is, how can they blame google for their lack of business? There are plenty of other ways out there to advertise. They don't pay google to advertise their website, google is not the only way to access their website. So how can google owe them anything?
Now, if the internet as a whole just up and decided to not let anyone access that website (which I'm pretty sure is just about impossible). Then maybe they would have a case (just not one against google, though).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This analayis or lack thereof by Matt Sherwood on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 3:14am
This thread was one of the least perceptive and revealing I have EVER read on TechDirt.
I attribute this to the educational background of the typical TECHDIRT contributor.
All "tech", no poli sci, no sociology, very llttle economcs other than Econ 101 knee-jerk "free-market" jingoism.
I charge these contribors with stepping back, taking some time, and really thinking HARD about Google's role in Modern Society and its massive success; and given that role, and that massive success, its attendant substantial SOCIETAL OBLIGATIONS...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Except Tyshaun by Matt Sherwood on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 3:28am
Except for Tyshaun Mar 18th, 2006 7:53 p.m.
She or he gets the KEY point.
As well, she or he writes much more fluently, tactfully, and gracefully than the the other contribtors.
These two things go hand-in-hand.
I highly supsect that Tyshaun took a LARGE does of humanities while in college; boy do I wish I could say the same about the rest of you.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: America RULEZ!! by we was free on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 4:29am
Not too long back when i was just a little boy we was free to do as we won't and say what ever we won't too.
but come too think about it it was a long time a go...........
i don't think we are free any more????
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Has anyone actually viewed this site, lately..? by WB on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 5:49am
To expound a little on CE's comment, above ... their site doesn't appear to be very search-engine crawler friendly; perhaps the KinderStart folks are upset because they built a sloppy site, and want miracles in return..?
Or could it be the link farm they have listings for sale on, built into their front page..?
Just my take..
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What Bored said: by Yoop on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 6:01am
Post: "Google wields enormous power and we all know that means they bear enormous responsibility."
Bored: No, actually, they don't.
Ummm...so having enormous power means not bearing responsiblilty? Well what a beautiful world we'd live in if everyone thought that. Come on. They're a private corp. so they the have no responibility...beautiful.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Uncle Ben says... by Avery on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 6:12am
One of the key criteria Google uses to rank sites is the sites popularity. There are 1,430 sites in the Google index that link to constitution.org but only 129 sites that link to absolutemichigan.com.(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: This analayis or lack thereof by Joe Smith on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 7:17am
I attribute this to the educational background of the typical TECHDIRT contributor.
Well aren't you special.
If people disagree with you its because they are ignorant. That must be very comforting.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Need better ranking in a search engine? by Searchman on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 10:24am
Try the new search engine Xista.com. Its quick and easy to submit a page or site.
www.xista.com
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Real goal by Andrew Strasser on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 10:27am
Interesting idea...
Search functions are easy to find but to figure out someone else's alogrithm is quite the feat.
Though i still believe Google is in the business of making money. My 2 ents. For what it's worth which ain't much it seems.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Uncle Ben by Andrew Strasser on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 10:44am
"While you are correct that there is no grounds to force google to include a site in its database, the fact remains that Google wields a vast and largely unchecked power to control what gets seen and what doesn't. I suppose if you agree with their decisions, then it desn't matter who they're censoring."
I've found Google doesn't censor things as badly as some other entities out there that shouldn't even censor a thing. Just take a Google-fu toward my direction once. You'll see Google had me a copy of those pages as soon as I needed them even when they disappeard. I don't want a link farm Google finds what is being looked for if you word yourself correctly. That's what i like about the service and you're an idiot if you think that they have total control, because if so then those two ents that started as cents would have most likely been able to do something about what was being seen by not just me everyone around me at times.
Bad Company to be messing with right now. They have a lot of power as they are working with our Govt., our Govt. forgot that a few times and needed to be retold that's the only real problem. Google works as it's supposed to it finds links not links to links to links. Check neurology you'll love that section you idiot link farm owners.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
google and there right on sstage. by Alex on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 12:04pm
suing google for some bull shet like this. google is providing the world with information for every one in the us and people acctually find time to do stupid things like this.. without ssearch engins your basiccallly left with people like that.. mother fu**ers. bitched.. oh can I ccursse on here.. well. fu*8 you people.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Uncle Ben Says... by farlane on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 12:35pm
I get it that you get it, Dan & others. Sorry for digressing and for offending you with my sad little tale. The point isn't "Wah - google's not linking to me". I'll deal with that with Google (without lawyers cause I don't like to get beat down by billion dollar legal teams).
The point is that GOOGLE IS UBIQUITOUS. It is a verb. Paying attention to what Google is doing is a good idea since they are building the OS of the future -- today.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Again by nb109 on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 1:09pm
Pimptology Professor, you honestly believe that Google is going to fall in the near future?
I think your rule about fame would more accurately be explained as "The higher you rise, the more people know of you, and so, the more enemies you aquire."
The reasons that others become your enemy, whether it be jealousy, a belief that you have, in some way, treated them unfairly, or whatever other reason the masses will invent, are irrelevent. There are whiners and complainers that have to throw a big hissy fit whenever they don't get their way. The more people you become exposed to, the more of those ridiculous people you come in contact with.
You will always have enemies. The more people that know you, the more enemies you have. Unfortunately, it's a simple universal law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Uncle Ben Says... by Dan on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 1:14pm
I don't mean to say that the mighigan website isn't worth going to or anything. If I'm ever thinking about going to Michigan, hell, I'll go check it out. I guess I just really don't understand how it is somehow Google's responsibility to make sure every website on the internet gets fair coverage from the internet's users.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news a by nb109 on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 1:15pm
Who are YOU to tell them how they should run their site. If you don't like it you can:
A) Leave.
B) Create your own site that includes whatever ridiculous features that please your bossy, little mind.
Also, why would you complain about your retarded feedback here in the comment section of a story? Does it not seem a bit out of place to you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google lawsuit by Sterling on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 1:31pm
Yet another reason why frivilous lawsuits clog the courts. Instead of trying to make their business serve people in a better way - THUS attracting more business - they decide to spend their advertising and marketing dollars to lay blame someone else for their poor business model.
Aggressive, pushy - spamming - slamming - pop up windows, can't close them without hitting "control escape" and the like deserve to suffer and should lose business UNTIL they get it right and play the game of good businesses that offer great products and services at a great price - no matter the price! It is up to them to drive up the "perceived" value as ALL pricing is a perception. If they don't change - they deserve to lose business for they are responsible - not Google or anyone else!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Bo Allen on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 3:26pm
People are idiots, and need to be slapped. Google is a giant, but a good giant, that provides VERY relevant search results, and offers fair game in their rankings. "Cheaters" are penalized, as they should be. GO GOOGLE!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Except Tyshaun by Matt but definitely not Matt Sherwood on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 4:11pm
Thank you for showing me how un-educated I am. I would have gone the rest of my life without knowing the proper way to spell "dose" or that you can substitute a period with a semi-colon to end a sentence. Maybe if you would have had the wisdom to use spell checker, then your post might have had greater credibility?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
OMG by yhetheth on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 5:52pm
Google rules. andheartssemicolon SAM THE MAN WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo ooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO
IM NOT HIGH : )
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by some guy on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 7:07pm
TESIV: Oblivion comes out tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Real goal by Michael Spadaccini on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 7:30pm
That's an interesting idea...but I am not so sure it will work. I believe that if the plaintiffs, in discovery, were to seek Google's algorithms, Google could easily get an order to disclose the material only under a strong protective order--thereby rendering the information essentially useless.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Real goal by Michael Spadaccini on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 7:30pm
That's an interesting idea...but I am not so sure it will work. I believe that if the plaintiffs, in discovery, were to seek Google's algorithms, Google could easily get an order to disclose the material only under a strong protective order--thereby rendering the information essentially useless.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Frankly, it would be no surprise by Bill Wilson on Mar 19th, 2006 @ 9:04pm
if this whole thing were just a rouse to get them to lay the case to rest with a 'settlement'. You know.. Sue for a bajillion dollars (Yes, a bajillion dollars IS a real amount.. in my head), and "let them' settle for like 2 million, rather than fight the case for 5 million in the courts.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Kinderstart.com BLOWS by Gizmo on Mar 20th, 2006 @ 12:33am
Ok, heres something that just came to my attention, Kinderstart.com has a Google search engine on their site... If they were really pissed off at Google, would they or would they not take this portion of the site out? It also looks like this was made a hippy group of people who think "Saving the world, is righteous"... I think kinderstart.com is only out for money, again for the reason above makes no sense to have both a sue action + a google search engine on your site = $$$.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I am matt, hear me roar by Matt Sherwood on Mar 20th, 2006 @ 4:27am
And in addition, I like big sweaty men.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm gonna sue kinderstart by Mike on Mar 20th, 2006 @ 6:30am
because they don't have my site ranked very well (hell they don't have it ranked at all) among thier listings on thier link farm section. Kinderstart must have blacklisted my site from thier results. Isn't that roughly equivelent of what they are doing with Google?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This article really ranked up there! by Joel on Mar 20th, 2006 @ 8:16am
Did anybody notice that the Google Ranking for this article was 0/10? Guess they didn't think too highly of someone trashing their ranking system... "Oh yeah, you think our ranking system sucks. Well, we'll just rank your little article a 0 out of 10! How do you like them apples?"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: This article really ranked up there! by Charlie Yeoh on Sep 16th, 2006 @ 11:22pm
Well, actually this article now has a Google PageRank of 5/10. Must have gone up since your post.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How about DMOZ by Julie on Sep 27th, 2006 @ 10:23am
I'd like to see someone sue DMOZ. I think it is a big scam. Try getting listed in any category where your competition is choosing whether to list you or not - knowing that your rank in Google will be affected by it. If Google really cares about the relevancy of their results, they should do something about the way DMOZ operates to make it more useful.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by yangyang on Oct 6th, 2006 @ 2:27pm
Or they could never have invented internet in the first place.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Apalling list of enemie by Trading on Oct 22nd, 2006 @ 7:01am
Wow - google is making an apalling list of enemie, I guess the unwritte rule about fame:the higher you rise, the faster you fall, is going to apply to google in the near future.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How about DMOZ by Kman on Oct 24th, 2006 @ 5:50pm
I agree 100%. With so much at stake in terms of Google Rank, I wouldn't be surprised if some companies were able to basically bribe a "independent editor" into listing their website, and quickly at that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hot Heads or Brave Bucks? by Jenna Ryan on Dec 16th, 2006 @ 9:49pm
I think it's pretty brave. Who would do anything but kiss Google's butt? They have the world by the ___ (you know what). Like, even the judge can be bribed by Google's force, man. All hail, Google!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i like google by matrimonial on Dec 18th, 2006 @ 11:19am
i like google, they are playing big brother here but i feel they are playing it right
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Msn Is Better Than Google In few cases by Finance Guide 101 on Jan 17th, 2007 @ 11:12pm
In some cases MSN is better than google, well in future MSN can be a a good search engine for users.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Strange... by Alex on Apr 11th, 2007 @ 5:05pm
Very strange Situations! I Think its Probably only in America :) Many freedom is many promblems anywhere. The time of Madnesses is not far :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Steve on Apr 21st, 2007 @ 2:24pm
How many things will Google penalize your site for that they do on their own site? Sites that promote affiliate programs are penalized, yet Google runs one of the largest affiliate programs in the industry on their site. How many top ten results on Google are nothing but Ad-Words sites trying to collect a buck directing you to another site through the same listings you just saw on Google. Wake up people, Google now SUCKS - big time. If you think otherwise you're a simplistic ass.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: How about DMOZ by Rhys on Apr 26th, 2007 @ 9:26am
I agree with Julie.
It transpires that the editor for where I am endeavouring to submit is friends with the main competition - the incestuous links between their websites gives it away just a bit.
20,000 copied webpages on the comptetitions website provides a bit more salt for the wound.
Reported the abuse, however it now appears that the meta editor know the editor....
Grrrrr
Maybe a small group of people ought to provide an alternative and actually strive for the best directory on the web
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Freedom by Filippo Biasini on Jun 5th, 2007 @ 4:34pm
My freedom finishes where starts other people freedom
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Madness by Andrew Payne on Jul 12th, 2007 @ 11:01pm
When people or companies get caught trying to scam or fast track something just to make them money, they get upset and always try to sue. We need to promote a class on business/personal ethics.
Andrew Payne
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Lawsuit Google by Sonny on Jul 16th, 2007 @ 1:22pm
Need Help, cause i seriously found cheat by Google.
How to file a law suit again google? cause recently i encounter some problem with google.
Story like below :
I use to own Google adsense account since year 2006 (keep good fate on it), late 2006 my account reach USD 100 but i din't withdraw it cause i understand is not worth to withdraw USD 100 for foreigner like me (bank charges, currency exchange) .....
This year (2007) April i add another web site in my account and it do generate good profit (i happy with it), then at late Jun i bought over a website (7 year history with good traffic/pageview) then i add adsense in ....
But today 17/07/2007 my account get disable and all my money gone .......
So below is my question :
1. How come google take away all my money ? (from 2006 till now).
2. If there is afraud click or illegal activity, you surppose to ban the URL not my account. why ban (extra profit for google adsense) ?
3.Google adsense how do you return all the money to the publisher since early year 2006 (i know cause i use adword) ?
4. If i have illegal activity, taking out google adsense is the only solution, then why not taking out google search Bar ? (Goolge are not paying me, why should i advertis for google ? ).
I need a clear answer from Google ....
I found google Policy is not fair for user with low page view and do believe that is million user like me facing this problem .....
Thanks god internet exit and i can search for more help.
Thanks
wish to hear your reply soon.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
great by Ivo on Dec 17th, 2007 @ 12:38pm
i think i should do it as well)))
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
don't sue google by vito on Jan 25th, 2008 @ 10:44pm
start your own! mine is going to be called www.Ploose.com and its the world's first comprehensive global nightlife directory!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hot Heads or Brave Bucks? by Stephen on Mar 17th, 2008 @ 7:39am
Interesting take on the article. Beware of Jenna Ryan
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Suing Google by Jay Skinner on Apr 15th, 2008 @ 7:13am
Well, I didn't realized that people were suing Google because they didn't agree with their page rank. Many companies are depending of their search engine position to stay in business.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmmm... by Tom on May 10th, 2008 @ 12:37pm
For those of you asking about an alternative to AdSense - try Chitika. Over the last year I compiled some statistics of my earnings and I actually earned twice as much with Chitika compared to AdSense. You can check out this Chitika review for more info and some cool screenshots.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
google doing what it wants by John Meshna on May 14th, 2008 @ 6:32pm
Google may be it's own entity and no one is forced to use it but, once a company gets an iron grip on and industry they warrant watching and as was the case with the phone company years ago, they need to be broken up so some competition can get into the market place. furthermore, if they take your money and charge you for displaying your advertising they should be required to show the advertising they're taking the money for. I say this because, as of last week they have stopped showing all of my advertising but they continue to charge me for clicks. We have been typing in our key words all day for days now and none of our advertising is showing up in the paid areas. they are stealing and getting away with it because there is no outside auditing of this company. there is no independent way of verifying that anyone is getting one they are paying for with google. Google has become the mafia of the internet. They make the rules. they decide what the payolla will cost and you have no recourse but to pay and be shut up and out. This is organized crime.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
google doing what it wants by hdtvman on May 21st, 2008 @ 11:46am
I think we as webmasters fail to realize that google ultimately has to answer to users who want relevant results.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Google is King by adam freelance on May 21st, 2008 @ 9:08pm
save your time unless you have a ton of money to go after Google. Google has the best lawyers, and if you are thinking of suing them, then you better have a ton of money or a rock solid case.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Suing Google by Anna on Jun 25th, 2008 @ 3:56pm
I personally think it's ridiculous. What next - Google will say that we actually owe them money for all those years we were ranked in their SERPs? (After all, we made money because of Google and we didn't pay them a thing!) I don't think so.
Google is it's own website. I mean - nobody sues me for not listing their link on my blog! Anyway fine. I like Google. I think Google is fantastic.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment