KinderStart Sues Google Over PageRank

[scanmonkey]

I just saw this article referenced in another thread by FreeHits Forbes.com Gets a Handjob?

So the question is: "was it a handjob, or could this be an algorithmic tweak?"

According to Google, "Google's complex, automated methods make human tampering with our results extremely difficult. And though we do run relevant ads above and next to our results, Google does not sell placement within the results themselves (i.e., no one can buy a higher PageRank)."

See http://www.google.com/technology/

Ultimately Google's business is to make a living out of selling advertisements. That's fine. They can even offer paid inclusion or entirely provide PPC results. Again, that's fine.

But if google is giving handjobs, they really should make that clear. Restrictive business practices and abuse of dominance is illegal.

[scanmonkey]

Originally Posted by williamc

Google owes the general public nothing. It does not owe any of us a listing or a single ranking in any organic serp. It does not owe us any pagerank at all.

I agree with this 100%. Google owes the public nothing.

[KeithO]

Originally Posted by sirius77

Quote:

"What if I were a business and I was giving away "free" widgets. Then I started to deny free widgets to certain people. "After all, they're my widgets and I can give them to anyone I want." If you're a publicly traded company that controls a major portion of a market, you can't be so discriminatory. "


I think this is a key point. To extend this idea, Google is the way the majority of people "connect" to web sites. It is therefore like a telephone company. If the phone company could arbitrarily deny access to certain people for no stated reason they would be running the country. There are therefore rules to the effect that the phone company can not deny access except for specific, publicly stated reasons. They can not refuse to say why they are denying access. Should Google be allowed to, for example, block access to sites about Republicans while allowing access to sites about Democrats?

See long discussion at: http://www.searchenginehonesty.com/

Google isn't "allowing access" to anyone. They are a search engine. They display what they believe to be relevant to what the user was searching for. If a site is not of quality, it is not factored into that. Kinderstart was spamming and got caught. Look at it this way, say a kid vandalizes his school and gets suspended for 2 weeks then turns around and sues the school because they didn't teach him better. its just passing the buck and a self generated sense of entitlement. Truman would be disappointed.

[Chris]

i'm amazed that some actually think kinderstart has a gripe. they spammed and got caught. how in (insert deity)'s name is google in the wrong here?

[williamc]

Very simply, they are not.

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by sirius77

Quote:

"What if I were a business and I was giving away "free" widgets. Then I started to deny free widgets to certain people. "After all, they're my widgets and I can give them to anyone I want." If you're a publicly traded company that controls a major portion of a market, you can't be so discriminatory. "


I think this is a key point. To extend this idea, Google is the way the majority of people "connect" to web sites. It is therefore like a telephone company. If the phone company could arbitrarily deny access to certain people for no stated reason they would be running the country. There are therefore rules to the effect that the phone company can not deny access except for specific, publicly stated reasons. They can not refuse to say why they are denying access. Should Google be allowed to, for example, block access to sites about Republicans while allowing access to sites about Democrats?

See long discussion at: http://www.searchenginehonesty.com/

So if you're saying they can't deny anyone a top ranking as you implied, we no longer have 10 blue links, we have 10 number one ranked blue links, and then another page of number one ranked blue links, and another... and another... everyone gets to be #1. That's just stupid.

I don't buy your phone analogy either. Phone service is paid for, so in the Google sense they would still allow this site to buy ads, but the free listings aren't there.

But even if we ignore that part, the phone company doesn't give everyone equal exposure for their phone listing. Those who pay more get bigger ads, etc. Some numbers are unlisted. Others aren't yet published because they are too new (sandbox anyone?) Just because my business has a phone doesn't mean that I should wait for the phone company to make it ring. Business is about attracting people by all available means, not relying on someone else to send the business to you.

Brian.

[ACross]

It seems to me that folks are overlooking a very important point regarding Google Search:

Google's goal is to provide the most relevant results to the person doing the search! Period.

Google does not exist to drive free traffic to our websites. As website owners, we are not Google's target market, paid advertising aside.

Every decision Google makes, right or wrong, is intended to be in the best interest of the searchers. Even sponsored results displayed are relevant to the search query. Search results are Google's "product". To keep their "customers", they strive to provide the best product.

If they fail, their "customers" will go to their competitors: Yahoo, MSN, and so on.

Your site, or mine, showing up in the search results--in any search engine--is a secondary effect of their primary goal. The fact it's beneficial to us is essentially irrelevant.

Google doesn't owe you or me a damn thing for free.

(And that includes KinderStart.)

Except, of course, when we're the person doing the search.

-ACross

Note: For the record, several posts were submitted while I was composing my rant above...

[cbp]

Except, of course, when we're the person doing the search

I would disagree with that. The only people Google owe anything to are customers (and maybe shareholders). Customers are those that pay the bills (ie the advertiser). Google wants people to use its search engine (by serving good results to searchers) so the advertisments from the customer can be exposed to searchers.

Same with televsion - its sole person is to get viewers to servce paid adverst up to from thei customers.

CBP

[DrTandem1]

I think all you emotionally charged and factually wrong may want to ask Microsoft about what they've been forced to do, whether their product or service was free or for sale. You also may want to look to the Bell operating companies and how they (publicly traded, by the way) have been forced not only to buy goods and services from certain companies, but must sell below cost to their competitors.

I have made no judgments that Google has or has not engaged in unfair or anti-competitive business practices. I simply said that they may have to prove that they did not and in doing so may need to divulge things that they rather not divulge.

By the way, I am aware that a few of you would have still disagreed with me, if I had stated the exact opposite. Try thinking instead of feeling.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

By the way, I am aware that a few of you would have still disagreed with me, if I had stated the exact opposite. Try thinking instead of feeling.

There is no "feeling" about what anyone has posted here. Everyone has shown their opinions and much common sense.

You opened your mouth in another post similarto this one and said that because google was now publicly traded, meaning people can buy shares, that they are somehow forced into certain obligations via some unknown regulations.

Please clarify that statement, because as far as anyone else in the known galaxy knows, there are no regulations governing search engines anywhere but in china to date :)

I think everyone here knows your views on google, which is fine, but please back your statements up when you start calling people factually wrong, and saying google is now governed by some imaginary regulations.

Everyone else seems to realize that google is its own entity and can do as it peases as far as whether it lists our sites or refuses to. And that google owes us nothing at all.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by cbp

This is laughable. The site is indexed in Google.They have no idea what the real PR is, so how can they sue for it? I hope they are not relying on the toolbar?

Besides, it just a spammy directory of other sites, so why would Google want to index it anyway? What obligation does Google have to index every site anyway? (DMOZ does not think them worthy of a listing - are they going to file action against DMOZ too?).

Spammy directory of other sites? Aren't you, Google and I sitting in a glass house?

Google is a SE. ODP (dmoz) is the worlds biggest human made directory. I know the financial industry best. If I should rank financial companies, I would not use Google, dmoz or any other directory etc. but tools like the top links on my Advice site

If you got the knife on your throat, do you have a better minimalistic "ranking" of financial sites than this? That is a link collection.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Now, on to your actual comment. Google is now a publicly traded company. With that comes certain obligations. Fair trade being one of them. You may not like what I think or have written about Google, but everything I predicted some seven months ago has come to pass.

About the price of GOOG too?

What is your time horizon?

[kgun]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Tandem,
I completely understand your points and analogies set forth here, but in all honesty are any of these going to stand up in a American court against Google?

Isn't the true bottom-line that Google is a website and can what they want on this website, whenever they want.

The day "Coke" starts producing brown water without the coke taste ...

They may be bigh enough to fight even that. I think Warren Buffett said something like this:

"If I had USD 100 billion (not sure of the exact figure, but it was huge), I would not be able to destroy the logo of Coca Cola".

In the end the customer is the boss and the shareholder below him. But Google is far from the position of Coca Cola (IMO).

[kgun]

Originally Posted by brian.mark

My opinion is that the randomness of the ads is probably partially to blame. If you hit refresh a few times, one of the ads that pops up installs a virus (I had to disable adblock to see it, and only on a windows system). I know Google has been hitting any infected sites pretty hard over the last year or so, and this may be where the problem lies and not with the other issues discussed.

Personally, I feel that any sites installing spyware or viruses should be totally eliminated from the SERPs as well as from the face of the net. They've got no business attracting a lot of traffic.

Brian.

Completely agree even if installed by hackers via back doors.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by williamc

Everyone else seems to realize that google is its own entity and can do as it peases as far as whether it lists our sites or refuses to. And that google owes us nothing at all.

Everyone? Everyone except the SEC, courts, the DOJ, China, Europe...

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by kgun

About the price of GOOG too?

What is your time horizon?

Especially the price of GOOG. A few made a lot of money. More have lost a lot of money. Currently, it is in an upswing mode. If you made $30 a share in the last week, sell. It's better than losing the $150/share or more that people lost a few weeks ago. Remember, the way to make money in the stock market is by selling too soon.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Remember, the way to make money in the stock market is by selling too soon.

Yes I agree to that. But there are investors / traders with very different horizons (operating on very different frequencies). The last time you gave an advice, if I do not remeber wrong, the price was at 290.

Financial price moves are seldom (never) lienear and they are assymmetrical. Large declines are more frequent that large increases.

So when you give a sell advice, you have to say something about your horizon (trading, short, medium or long time). But in my view it is better to give a sell than a buy advice. If you buy on rumours in the financial press, do you sell on the same advice (if any exists?).

[Papadoc]

Originally Posted by sirius77

Quote:

I think this is a key point. To extend this idea, Google is the way the majority of people "connect" to web sites. It is therefore like a telephone company. If the phone company could arbitrarily deny access to certain people for no stated reason they would be running the country. There are therefore rules to the effect that the phone company can not deny access except for specific, publicly stated reasons. They can not refuse to say why they are denying access.

What are you talking about... denying access? Without a phone, nobody calls you (oh, but you pay for that too). I can get to the site just fine and I see nowhere does it say Google has bought their host and shut down their site. THAT would be denying access.

Or is it that you implying that phone companies will give your company a real nice big ad in the telephone directory if you don't pay for it. You may as well have analogized it to a fish market denying you fish. There's no correlation.

[urknighterrent]

I have an idea for a new business.

KennysWebOfCoolness.com

I'm going to list websites for free. Any and all websites (provided they don't WANT to be listed, of course) and I'm going to put them in order with my favorites at the top and the ones I think suck, the porn and the spammers and the scammers, I'm not going to list at all.

I'll make my money on ads.

Now in order to do this I need to quit my job, so I'm going to incorporate and sell shares to my family and freinds so I can give myself a small salary.

Are you honestly suggesting that because my uncle Joe owns 20% of the company BabesInChains.com can sue me because I and my corporate officesrs (Mom, aunt Dorothy, and some guy that agreed to be our treasurer)dont want to list them?

Ludicrous.

It is an equally absurd interpritation that because they are publicly traded they have to turn over their ranking algorythm to us. I'm not linking babesinchains.com because I and my officers DON'T WANT TO.

This is not a stockholder complaining, it's some crybaby without a single share. I hope googles duly elected officers have the chutspa to stand up and say "Because We Say So".

As to anti trust, that requires a monopoly. Google may have the lions share of the market... but there's no case for callinig it a monopoly.

It would cripple the search industry if webmasters could sue for position, and if google was forced to turn over their algo the search results would quickly evolve into a sea of basically identical pages.

[ACross]

Originally Posted by cbp

The only people Google owe anything to are customers (and maybe shareholders). Customers are those that pay the bills (ie the advertiser). Google wants people to use its search engine (by serving good results to searchers) so the advertisments from the customer can be exposed to searchers.
CBP

Actually, I agree with you completely when discussing Google as a whole.

I was referring only to the free search service of Google, which is the target of KinderStart's law suit.

Google does not exist to drive free traffic to our websites. As website owners, we are not Google's target market, paid advertising aside.

And I stand by my statement that "Google does not exist to drive free traffic to our websites."

But I'm sure happy for all the free traffic they do send my way.

Cheers,
ACross

[DrTandem1]

Kgun,

With the forums not being real-time, I am only giving out generalizations regarding Google. If you bought at the IPO ($85 ?) and hung on to it, you would be making money today and for some time to come. However, most who buy dot coms are day traders which is a euphemism for gambler. Therefore, they are trying to make the quick buck, hence my advice, "sell too soon."

It really doesn't matter now whether it's price is $250/share or $450/share. It is highly volatile and unless you are planning to stay in for the long haul, selling as soon as you have made some money is sound advice. If you're planning for the long haul, which is better investment advice (if you think Google will be around for the next 20 or so years), then wait for its next crash and then buy and hold it.

[Papadoc]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

I think all you emotionally charged and factually wrong may want to ask Microsoft about what they've been forced to do, whether their product or service was free or for sale.

So anyone who disagrees with you is emotionally charged. LOL It sounds to me more like you have your opinions so entrenched in your hatred for the company that you resort to actually making up facts and completely distorting other events to bolster them. What does MS and Internet Explorer have to do with anything? MS was using their FREE IE to block competitors from their consumers and insulate Windows and MS from competitive products. What competitive product does KS own? Is KS a competitor? How do you suppose Google financially benefited from KS getting bumped? If you are going to use a precedent, at least try to make something relevant to the Google case. What you cannot seem to grasp is that there is a difference (legal and functional) between blocking a competitor, and just not giving someone (who isn't even a competitor) free advertising anymore. Unfair trade practice requires that you purposefully act to damage your competitor and put them out of business so that you can profit from it later. That’s legal fact and your hatred for the company isn’t going to change that.

As for being factually wrong, I haven't seen you come up with a correct fact yet nor challenge anyone else with anything but your emotionally charged opinion. How about you show us again where Securities Law requires publicly traded companies to be fair to everyone. I missed that one in law school. Let me make one more correction to a completely WRONG post you completely blew me away with where you stated that “Google is not private property, anymore.” Good grief! Publicly traded companies and public property are NOT synonymous with each other. At least try to understand basic definitions.

You also may want to look to the Bell operating companies and how they (publicly traded, by the way) have been forced not only to buy goods and services from certain companies, but must sell below cost to their competitors. (Emphasis mine)

Nah, I will let you keep looking at them because they have nothing to do with this.

Ahem! Buy - Sell - Competitors And where do these rather important issues fall into the Google case? There's no buying, they haven't refused to sell them AdWords, and again, please tell me you aren’t calling KS a Google competitor. At least try to make your precedents have something to do with the case you are applying it to. As far as I can see the only thing you have in common here is that they are publicly traded companies.

Oh, and by the way, the Bell Company deals that you reference have nothing to do with being publicly traded, as you said. In the legal profession that you seem to think you have some area of expertise, you are referring to antitrust law which has nothing to do with whether stock is traded on the big boards, off the boards, or not at all. It’s one thing to misunderstand a law, but at least try to use the correct body of law when you are trying to make your irrelevant case. And for whatever reason, your phone companies haven’t supplied my business with free phone service yet. How about you call them on that for me cuz me and my mom think they must be blocking me [/whine]. So with the phone company example, you’ve taken an antitrust issue and applied securities law to it to fit your purpose. What’s next, Divorce Law, Maritime Law? Or shall we go straight for the Laws of Physics? I bet claiming Google is violating the laws of gravity will work, dontcha think? Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Last I checked, a person had to actually make a choice to go to Google and search for something. As long as that is the case, Google will never have a monopoly. They will at best have a better product that customers, other than those that hate them so much, will continue to use. Few people have that luxury with phone companies.

I have made no judgments that Google has or has not engaged in unfair or anti-competitive business practices. I simply said that they may have to prove that they did not and in doing so may need to divulge things that they rather not divulge.

That’s not true either. You have stated it, inferred it and intended to infer it. “If they are manipulating these listings, which I think we all know they are, then they may be engaged in anti-competitive tactics and unfair business practices.” (Emphasis mine.) And of course, “Google's dilemma is this: To fight KinderStart's claim they will have to divulge the reason KinderStart was sandbagged in their SERPs.” You have most definitely inferred that to “sandbag” them, as you put it, would be an unfair trade practice. Neither do I see anywhere in there that you said “may have to divulge” as you now claim. You most definitely said they “will have to divulge”, and of course the only reason the would HAVE to is if they were otherwise guilty of unfair trade.

You seem to have the judicial system completely backwards. Plaintiffs have to prove their claim to be correct. Defendants have nothing to prove other than in tax law and in libel cases. Take you for example where you claim earlier that you know that Google is manipulating these listings and implicate them with criminal wrongdoing. Now THAT would be libel, and then YOU would have to prove YOUR case. Before you go making any more charges of corruption against Google, I’d consider that fact.

Try thinking instead of feeling

Try keeping on point, using proper precedent, and understanding which body of law you are discussing as well as some of the fundamental principles and definitions instead of what you think mighta, shoulda , oughta, woulda, and of course the ever so infamous… coulda, just because you cannot stand the company. My suggestion, take your own advice. Just because nobody agrees with you doesn't mean they aren't thinking. It just means they aren't swayed by your emotional, erroneous, and factless arguments and willing to side with a whiney spammy company, just because you don’t like Google.

The funny thing in all of this is that KS probably could have had their problem fixed by now if they’d just concentrated on fixing the problem instead of suing Google.

[DrTandem1]

urknighterrent, you logic is missing the key ingredient to the lawsuit. Your hypothetical site is not positioned in the marketplace as the arbiter of search listings. In other words, you have not yet "cornered the market."

Simply being publicly traded does not transform your company into a monopoly. However, being publicly traded, you would have to file some very important information.

Now, should your hypothetical company actually become powerful enough to be able to cause businesses you list on your web site to lose or make money depending on whether they are listed on your mythical site, AND you happen to own shares of those businesses and you and your extended family buy or sell WITH the inside knowledge that you are going to list or de-list those businesses BEFORE that knowledge is public, you will not just be sued, you will be charged with insider trading.

Back to reality, basically, Google is being sued because a company is claiming that Google is in a position of affecting their business by not listing their site along with their competitors. I think we all will agree that this is a true statement for most on-line businesses. The question now becomes whether Google is in effect a monopoly on the order of Microsoft in the PC world.

Microsoft was successfully sued because they didn't allow their competitors access to their OS. Is Microsoft a monopoly to the point of being the only OS? No. Is Google a monopoly to the point of being the only SE? No. It is now up to the court to decide if the claimant's case has merit.

I think if we look at much of the SEO world, Google is the number 1 topic. Almost everyone wants to be the #1 SERP for their search term(s) in Google and are not happy if they are #1 in both Yahoo and MSN, but not found in Google.

I think the case has merit and could open a real can of worms for Google, if they are deemed a monopoly of search.

Papadoc: My statements regarding Google contained the qualifier "if." I didn't claim that they were guilty of anything. Also, the BOCs are here because the DOJ brought anti-trust suits against the old AT&T for stifling competition, the same claim being made by KinderStart of Google, so they are directly related in concept.

As for everyone disagreeing with me is being emotional, no, that was aimed at one person who identified with it and responded to it immediately after my post, thus proving my point. Thank you very much.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Back to reality, basically, Google is being sued because a company is claiming that Google is in a position of affecting their business by not listing their site along with their competitors. I think we all will agree that this is a true statement for most on-line businesses. The question now becomes whether Google is in effect a monopoly on the order of Microsoft in the PC world.

See these are the kind of statements Tandem that really makes your arguments fail miserably. Google has no effect on their business. How can you say they do?

When creating a company from scratch or writing a business plan do you include traffic from Google specifically as as revenue source? No. I agree with a few on the forums. For whatever reason you hate Google and it is clearly clouding your judgment on this specific case.

[DrTandem1]

incrediblehelp, please specifiy what "judgment" I have made. Are you actually saying that Google advertising your competitors while banning your business will have no effect to your on-line business?

[DrTandem1]

Just for the record, I do not hate Google. The problem I have with them is that so many smart people can come together and be so stupid. From disclosing proprietary information on-line to losing sight of their core business and then not being able to comprehend why they are losing revenue growth and then stating it publicly.

[KeithO]

Originally Posted by ACross

Actually, I agree with you completely when discussing Google as a whole.

I was referring only to the free search service of Google, which is the target of KinderStart's law suit.

Cheers,
ACross

this is the key point here. google initially sending them the traffic was for free. kinderstart did not pay Google for the referrals. but now that google isn't sending the free traffic, kinderstart believes they are entitled to it without interruption. there was no obligation on google's part to do anything.

also with kinderstart saying they lost some 70% of their traffic leads me to believe they weren't doing anything to keep people coming back on their own.

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Just for the record, I do not hate Google. The problem I have with them is that so many smart people can come together and be so stupid. From disclosing proprietary information on-line to losing sight of their core business and then not being able to comprehend why they are losing revenue growth and then stating it publicly.

i don't see how they are losing focus of their core. did you expect them to stay a one trick pony forever? would their stock be as high as it is if they were only doing search and ppc?

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Just for the record, I do not hate Google. The problem I have with them is that so many smart people can come together and be so stupid. From disclosing proprietary information on-line to losing sight of their core business and then not being able to comprehend why they are losing revenue growth and then stating it publicly.

OK then, but don't simple state we are "stupid". I criticize Google plenty, but this case has no legs to stand on and anyone looking from the outside in, can clearly see that.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

incrediblehelp, please specifiy what "judgment" I have made. Are you actually saying that Google advertising your competitors while banning your business will have no effect to your on-line business?

LOL, WOW. I am speechless.

Google is a search engine. Google is a search engine. Google is a search engine. Google is a search engine. Google is a search engine. Google is a search engine. Google is a search engine. Google is a search engine.

OK is that clear to you now?

Tandem if you create a search engine do you have to list all websites relevant to the query? No. Do you have to list your results in a fair order? No. Can you do what the f*ck you want with your search engine? Yes.

Like I have said way before in the thread, in concept you may have some points, but in realty they wont hold any water.

[williamc]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Everyone? Everyone except the SEC, courts, the DOJ, China, Europe...

I dont see an SEC issue, if you have please share the source.

The courts? You mean like the courts who upheld googles stance to not share their data with the US Govt.? Seems contradictory to your arguement to me.

The DOJ, they asked for some data, were told no, the courts upheld the no answer. That sure seems to me to make our point, but kills yours completely.

China is its own country and can tell any foriegners in its space what IT wants its people to see and not see. Google has no control over that. It is not a regulation that affects them as an entity. but while you brought this topic up, let's discuss it a bit further. Google had a choice whether to censor results or not. They chose to be seen there in whatever minimalist capacity that they could. Once again, google made its own decision. There was no regulation that "forced" them to do what they did.

The above applies to eu as well.

The only people google MAY have to make happy are its surfers, and its shareholders. And the shareholders could even be argued if you even read the IPO terms. The shareholders have no voting power at all from what I understand of it. The way google laid out the IPO was to make sure they still had FULL control over how things went.

When you argue a point, please at least make informed arguements, rather than just blindly spitting out nonsense.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

OK then, but don't simple state we are "stupid". I criticize Google plenty, but this case has no legs to stand on and anyone looking from the outside in, can clearly see that.

I didn't say you were stupid, unless you are one of the people currently managing Google.

The case has very good merit, if they prove Google has positioned itself as a virtual monopoly. I think you may want to read through the complaint a little more closely. Most are having a knee-jerk reaction and not investigating it with a legal understanding.

[DrTandem1]

No matter how Google spins it, the courts ordered compliance with the main demand of the DOJ subpoena by turning over 50,000 URLs. Google was not forced to report the inquiries that resulted in those URLs. The data base was what the government wanted and what they got. They always ask for far more than they want. Negotiation 101.

Google does whatever it wants as long as the SEC and respective governments allow it. In this country, the courts decide those matters in dispute by interpreting the laws and regulations by which Google is legally bound.

[Jade456]

Exactly. Google can list or remove a site as it sees fit. There is no rule that requires them to "list" anyone.