Google to Defend Ranking Methods in Court

[slipondajimmy]

Google today will try to convince a judge to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the heart of the company's business: its methods for indexing and ranking Web pages.

In March, Google was sued by KinderStart.com, which alleges it suffered crippling financial harm after its Web site got dropped from the search engine's index.

The case reflects the enormous impact of search engines on the business world at large. It has become crucial for many businesses to rank well in search engine results. An entire industry has sprouted to serve this "search engine optimization" need.
'Devastating Effects'

As the world's most popular search engine, Google wields the strongest influence. Having a Web site that ranks low or disappears altogether from the Google index can have devastating effects for a company. This is what KinderStart.com alleges happened to it.

"It's a very important case for many reasons. Everyone uses search engines, so the question is: Are you seeing true and faithful results?" said Gregory Yu, KinderStart.com's attorney.

"Google shouldn't have completely free range to be able to remove sites or hit them with a zero PageRank," he added, referring to the patented technology at the heart of Google's algorithmic ranking.
Charges

KinderStart.com is charging Google, among other things, with violating its right to free speech; illegally using a monopoly position to harm competitors; engaging in unfair practices and competition; committing defamation and libel; and violating the Federal Communications Act. The Web publisher seeks a class action certification for the lawsuit, damages and injunctive relief, among other things.

In motions filed in May, Google argues that Judge Jeremy Fogel, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, should dismiss the lawsuit, saying that the case boils down to one essential question: Should search engines or should courts determine Web sites' relevancy? "If KinderStart were right... neither Google nor any other search engine could operate, as it would constantly face lawsuits from businesses seeking more favorable positioning," Google's motion reads.

Google also asks the judge to strike three of the suit's counts, alleging they violate Google's exercise of free speech in connection with a public issue. This is prohibited under a California law called the Anti-SLAPP statute, Google argues.

KinderStart.com, based in Norwalk, California, began publishing a Web site for parents of children under 7 years old in May 2000 and in 2003 the site joined Google's AdSense ad network, according to the complaint. Yet, starting in March and April 2005, the Web site suffered a "cataclysmic" fall in traffic of about 70 percent and a drop in AdSense revenue of about 80 percent, from which it hasn't recovered, and which the company blames on its removal from the Google index.

KinderStart.com claims it has never been notified by phone, mail or in person of the reason for its Web site's exclusion. Google states in its Web site that it reserves the right to remove Web sites from its index for various reasons. KinderStart.com states it hasn't knowingly violated any of Google's webmaster guidelines.

In February, Google decided to remove the German Web site of car maker BMW for allegedly trying to deceive its search robot to gain higher placement. Days later Google reincorporated the site to its index, saying BMW had undone the offending changes, although BMW never admitted any wrongdoing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060629/tc_pcworld/126285

 

[Osprey]

Sounds silly to me. They don't pay google to be indexed, imo google have the right to decide what sites they include and which sites they don't. What right do they have to be indexed?

 

[robos]

this is an interesting case, the issue is not so cut an dry,
they don't menation why google drop them.

maybe google should gave siteowner time time to fix the problem instead of just droping them

but i guess if ur big like BMW, they gave u time

 

[Dr. Domaining]

Thank you for sharing the news!

 

[hanz]

KinderStart.com claims it has never been notified by phone, mail or in person of the reason for its Web site's exclusion.

:hehe: wasn't it in their terms that they never notify anyone. One of my sites got banned by them about a year ago and I still have no idea why although I sent them 'some' emails

 

[B33R]

I think it's totally stupid. Google is a company like any other, why should they have to go that extra mile to please someone that wasn't adhering to their TOS. Unless this other site was paying them money and they had an actual contract, Google should be able to do whatever they want (within the law).

The courts should be spending their time prosecuting actual criminals instead of penalising a company for doing nothing wrong.

Waste of time, money and everything else. Google wasn't breaking the law, there is more than one search engine and if you rely on just the one, you're pretty dumb anyway. IMHO.

I've reached the conclusion that this other site/company sucks and should be out of business for being dumb anyway! Don't like it? Then sue me...

 

[slipondajimmy]

Well it doesnt shock me that someone is taking google to court...lol. But come on lets be real. Google does not charge anything to index your site...if you had a rock solid company you would not need to rely on google to bring traffic to it. The other funny one is their right to free speech...lol

 

[Robert Allen]

I cannot decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Google are getting quite annoying these days and i love them to be sued, but i have never heard of this kinderstart company before, it sounds like they are doing it to get in the news to get thier traffic back.

 

[slipondajimmy]

What makes them annoying?

I cannot decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Google are getting quite annoying these days and i love them to be sued, but i have never heard of this kinderstart company before, it sounds like they are doing it to get in the news to get thier traffic back.

 

[Domainate.com]

Let's see here...whose fault is it that KinderStart's business was so dependant on 1 search engine whom they were not paying any money to for most of their traffic and thus most of their revenue? They put most of their eggs in a basket that wasn't even under their control and they think they have the right to sue Google for that? If the lawsuit goes through and KinderStart wins, then it's the beginning of the end for SE's that don't operate by paid placement. Placement on free search engines is ALWAYS going to be subjective.

 

[Dave_Z]

Old news, actually:

http://www.namepros.com/legal-issue...int-against-google.html?highlight=KinderStart

http://www.namepros.com/the-break-r...le-over-lower-page.html?highlight=KinderStart

I wonder what's the update, so far.

 

[Robert Allen]

What makes them annoying?

I cannot decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Google are getting quite annoying these days and i love them to be sued, but i have never heard of this kinderstart company before, it sounds like they are doing it to get in the news to get thier traffic back.

They are hogging too much of the internet and everything revolves around them and i am personally sick of it. They make billions and we see none of it to improve the internet enviroment. If we didnt exist they wouldnt exist, so i personally think that they are abusing thier position and deserve to be sued. On the other hand, the people who are sueing i have no idea who they are, and they could be a group of idiots looking to advertise thier sites the easy way... get into 101 news areas around the world.

Google has done nothing to help me so why should i visit it to search everyday? It is not just Google, Yahoo is another which is a problem. Microsoft on the other hand do play with stolen stuff but they donate 53% of thier company earnings to charity, so i am going pro-ms this time.

Robert

 

[Osprey]

They are hogging too much of the internet and everything revolves around them and i am personally sick of it. They make billions and we see none of it to improve the internet enviroment. If we didnt exist they wouldnt exist, so i personally think that they are abusing thier position and deserve to be sued. On the other hand, the people who are sueing i have no idea who they are, and they could be a group of idiots looking to advertise thier sites the easy way... get into 101 news areas around the world.

Google has done nothing to help me so why should i visit it to search everyday? It is not just Google, Yahoo is another which is a problem. Microsoft on the other hand do play with stolen stuff but they donate 53% of thier company earnings to charity, so i am going pro-ms this time.

Robert

How can they possibly deserve to be sued for trying to make money?! They provide excellent internet services. Google search, Gmail, Analytics and Adsense are just some of their services they use and i can't find alternative services which compare. Google search far beats alternative search engines, as does Analytics in web stats, Adsense in advertising and Gmail in email.

So because Google isn't helping you - You think they deserve to be sued? Right.

It's their billions they can spend it how they like! I don't see the local store spending their revenue improving my town, do they deserve to be sued too? Plus Google provides email, search and analytics for FREE so personally i would argue that they are helping the internet enviroment alot anyway.

Who said you should visit Google search every day anyway?

Edit: And how can you possibly hog too much of the internet?! The fact is Google already provide great services and thats why they have such a large market share. I consider your arguement invalid.

 

[psalzmann]

Google does not charge anything to index your site...if you had a rock solid company you would not need to rely on google to bring traffic to it. The other funny one is their right to free speech...lol

Think about it. You have a web site that has unique content. Google is ripping off everyone's sites, caching them storing them as if they we're the web site themselves. Basically, "search our index and you will find the same site you are looking for right on our search engine."

Are you serious? this is called "Theft" and that company has ever right to sue google. Google cares NOTHING about you, about me or anyone on this forum. They are a company that is stealing everyone's web content for their own financial gain but using the notion of "But if we don't index your site, nobody will ever see it". Is that a catch 22? I think not.

Google is a company like everyone else. Theft is theft. Do you think google would be as RICH as they are if they had to contact every company that owned a web site to list them? no! they are smart, they would rather do it anyways, then pay off the small court fees like they have been doing for the past 5-10 years in business. It's a LOT CHEAPER for google to get sued by a small company than to stick with a regular business practice of contacting each web site to have them agree to be listed on google Besides, they would only have about 10,000 sites indexed if that was the case. Nobody would use them, period.

What about these online books? they are getting sued left right and center for this move but they have tonns of money to pay everyone off. It's simple.

Sneaky, but smart move.

 

[Domainate.com]

Besides, they would only have about 10,000 sites indexed if that was the case. Nobody would use them, period.

Bingo. Question: If you gave a homeless man a dollar each day for a week, should he be able to sue you when you stop giving him money? He was counting on that money to survive and obviously wasn't apt to getting it through any other means!

The Google haters should be saying that the time to sue them is when your page gets indexed in the first place, since Google is forcing you onto their service. The problem is, what would the damages be to that? People actually... *shudder*...find your site?!

 

[domainica]

Google is a company like everyone else. Theft is theft.

Theft because Google indexed this company's website without their permission????

You can't have it both ways. You can't accept all the benefits that Google's high rankings brought this company, then turn around and claim theft when the income begins to dry up.

 

[B33R]

You can't use Google's cache to browse a website anyway. It's not like they're stealing your content. IMHO it is very useful to see older info from a site if a site is down or I need a previous version of it.

If they were keeping whole sites cached so you can browse from page to page like normal, then it would be a bad (and wrong) thing.

If you really don't want Google to index your site then use robots.txt or htaccess, that's what they're there for. Considering that so many people use Google and no other search engines, that'd be a very stupid decision in terms of traffic for your site.

No one is forcing you into being indexed, cached or anything.
Heck, if you're gonna be mad at someone then be mad at archive.org, they DO index and cache sites and let you browse them in their entirety.
Of course they can be blocked too so your argument is redundant.

User-agent: Googlebot
Disallow: /

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} (googlebot) [NC]
RewriteRule .* - [F,L]

Use either of those to say goodbye to Google and the traffic it provides your site. It's simple. No one has a gun to your head.

 

[slipondajimmy]

GIve me a break. They offer a service that you have the option of using or not. Its that simple. If you dont want google indexing your site you have the choice. You are 100% correct that they make billions. The had a idea and ran with it, and now a seeing the fruits of their labor.

They are stealing your unique content by catching the pages? So archive.org is doing the same thing and should be sued correct? Once again if you dont like what they are about or offer dont use them .

 

[Shorty]

I dont even understand this lawsuit. What civil crime have Google supposedly committed here?

The only thing I can almost come close to touching on is negligence. They owed the company a duty of practice (listing them) and took it away. Except they have no contract to say they have to, and they have precise terms of service saying they can penalise listings however they please. They were getting something for free and then complain when they dont.

There is no crime there and I hope this case gets laughed out of court, and this pathetic company has to pay so much in lawyer fees that they go bankrupt.

This anti Google rubbish is getting absolutely pathetic. So they did a good job at organising the internet, boohoo. They've done nothing wrong in the process. Internet should be grateful they continue to provide an excellent service to both webmasters and browsers, rather than cry little babies when it doesnt go their way.

 

[slipondajimmy]

How so? They are not reqiured to list a website. Thats another big problem. There seems to be this belief that because you own a website google, yahoo, msn, etc has to list your site.

The only thing I can almost come close to touching on is negligence. They owed the company a duty of practice (listing them) and took it away

 

[AGS]

Google today will try to convince a judge to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the heart of the company's business: its methods for indexing and ranking Web pages.

In March, Google was sued by KinderStart.com, which alleges it suffered crippling financial harm after its Web site got dropped from the search engine's index.

The case reflects the enormous impact of search engines on the business world at large. It has become crucial for many businesses to rank well in search engine results. An entire industry has sprouted to serve this "search engine optimization" need.
'Devastating Effects'

As the world's most popular search engine, Google wields the strongest influence. Having a Web site that ranks low or disappears altogether from the Google index can have devastating effects for a company. This is what KinderStart.com alleges happened to it.

"It's a very important case for many reasons. Everyone uses search engines, so the question is: Are you seeing true and faithful results?" said Gregory Yu, KinderStart.com's attorney.

"Google shouldn't have completely free range to be able to remove sites or hit them with a zero PageRank," he added, referring to the patented technology at the heart of Google's algorithmic ranking.
Charges

KinderStart.com is charging Google, among other things, with violating its right to free speech; illegally using a monopoly position to harm competitors; engaging in unfair practices and competition; committing defamation and libel; and violating the Federal Communications Act. The Web publisher seeks a class action certification for the lawsuit, damages and injunctive relief, among other things.

In motions filed in May, Google argues that Judge Jeremy Fogel, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, should dismiss the lawsuit, saying that the case boils down to one essential question: Should search engines or should courts determine Web sites' relevancy? "If KinderStart were right... neither Google nor any other search engine could operate, as it would constantly face lawsuits from businesses seeking more favorable positioning," Google's motion reads.

Google also asks the judge to strike three of the suit's counts, alleging they violate Google's exercise of free speech in connection with a public issue. This is prohibited under a California law called the Anti-SLAPP statute, Google argues.

KinderStart.com, based in Norwalk, California, began publishing a Web site for parents of children under 7 years old in May 2000 and in 2003 the site joined Google's AdSense ad network, according to the complaint. Yet, starting in March and April 2005, the Web site suffered a "cataclysmic" fall in traffic of about 70 percent and a drop in AdSense revenue of about 80 percent, from which it hasn't recovered, and which the company blames on its removal from the Google index.

KinderStart.com claims it has never been notified by phone, mail or in person of the reason for its Web site's exclusion. Google states in its Web site that it reserves the right to remove Web sites from its index for various reasons. KinderStart.com states it hasn't knowingly violated any of Google's webmaster guidelines.

In February, Google decided to remove the German Web site of car maker BMW for allegedly trying to deceive its search robot to gain higher placement. Days later Google reincorporated the site to its index, saying BMW had undone the offending changes, although BMW never admitted any wrongdoing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20060629/tc_pcworld/126285

Sounds to me that KinderStart should stop acting like children.

As others have said if Google don't want a site it is in all fairness their choice.

 

[photoshopfreak]

KinderStart's chance of success > 0.000000000000001% out of 100 lol

The law suit is laughable & the owner of KinderStart is an half wit....

 

[AGS]

& the owner of KinderStart is an half wit....

He's no half wit mate. The exposure his site will get will be unbelievable.

 

[labrocca]

Bingo. Question: If you gave a homeless man a dollar each day for a week, should he be able to sue you when you stop giving him money? He was counting on that money to survive and obviously wasn't apt to getting it through any other means!

The Google haters should be saying that the time to sue them is when your page gets indexed in the first place, since Google is forcing you onto their service. The problem is, what would the damages be to that? People actually... *shudder*...find your site?!

Well that's really the point I believe of their lawyers. Let's say you had a business and suddenly because Google indexes you for no reason...you have extra business. So you hire more employees, pay more for servers, and all types of infrastructure is created...then BAM...you are deindexed for no reason and must incur these extra costs that GOOGLE created.

Now I ain't saying that they will win but I believe this is the core of Kinderstarts lawyers. Google creates symbiotic relationships with the webmasters....but when Google decides to break the relationship it gives no notice,warning or reason.

I will give one example of how not having a contract can still create a situation for payment. Let's say my girlfriend has a kid. She says it's mine so I feed it, pay for it...and all that fun stuff. Then at the age of 8 I find out the kid ain't mine. Well guess what...the court has decided that I have taken on the role of parent and must continue to pay child support.

I am sure a good lawyer can come up with other examples too.

 

[wasistdas]

It is Google who decides. Google SE is their machine and they are the only ones who decide to include or exclude sites from being indexed. Site owners can only decide if they wish their site to be indexed or not, if so - then it is up to Google to make further decision. That would be funny if one has a catalog, say about computer manufacturers, and included Microsoft to it, but once decided to remove Mircosoft from the catalog. Can you imagine Microsoft to sue the catalog for that?