KinderStart Sues Google Over PageRank

[rich_ord]

Update: I've received an email from KinderStart's attorney Greg Yu. I expect that we will be interviewing him on this Monday. Look for articles on this topic published at WebProNews.com.

----

KinderStart filed suit yesterday in U.S. District Court in San Jose alleging that Google improperly "blacklisted" its website.

We have not yet obtained a copy of the legal filing but news reports confusingly use the term "blacklisted". An AP wire story states that KinderStart claims Google blacklisted its website which would mean the site would not be found in Google. However, KinderStart.com has over 43,000 pages in Google.

The legal issue probably centers on PageRank because all 43,000 KinderStart.com pages have a rank of zero. Google famously uses PageRank to help determine results for web searches. A rank of zero would likely mean KinderStart would rarely show up in the top ten results for any search.

The civil complaint asks the court to be certified as a class action "representing the owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google since January 2001".

The argument KinderStart makes is based on antitrust principles that Google has grown so big and powerful that it must abide by fairness standards not normally required of business. These new standards might include publishing specific rules for websites to follow in order not to be blacklisted or have PageRank removed. Google could also be required to notify websites with reasons for blacklisting. They may also have to offer specific ways to remedy blacklisting.

Interestingly, the KinderStart.com website features Google Adwords.

From AP reports:

"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.

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.

... 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.

[janeth]

It would be nice to get a little more information from Google when a site is banned.

While I agree that Google has become big and powerful anyone or just about anyone can use PPC to get traffic.

If this goes through people will be sueing because they are not on page one.

[eggman]

Google could also be required to notify websites with reasons for blacklisting. They may also have to offer specific ways to remedy blacklisting.

...the suit alleges the banished sites can't determine how they can restore their standings because the company doesn't explain its actions.

Wouldn't that be nice...

Does this remind anybody of that well known site that got boxed a few years ago for having the wrong redirect? I remember the incident I just don't remember the name.

[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?).

Ask yourself - if you were searching for something related to this site, what do you want in your search results? This site of links or the content on the site you are actually looking for? How often in forums to we hear endless complaints about sites like this one coming up in the search results? If google bans this site, they are actually doing us a favour as it will improve the quality of the search results!

While it would be nice for google to notify webmasters re blacklisting, but at the end of the day they owe webmasters nothing. Its a free listing!!!!

Google should file suit against them for being a nusiance.

Interestingly, the KinderStart.com website features Google Adwords.

Thats make them look even sillier!!!

CBP

[scanmonkey]

I looked at their links and they have a lot of links with images. So I would question how much pr value a jpg logo has? Additionally what are their keywords and do they have them in the anchor text?

<A HREF="http://www.kinderstart.com/">[img]kinder.gif[/img]

They may have have a duplicate content penalty as both the KinderStart.com and www.KinderStart.com are live

Originally Posted by cbp

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?).

CBP

Before hiring an attorney, I would consult with a SEO firm on this one.

[p5gal5]

What is even more amusing is that the AP reporters don't know the difference between blacklist and the hypothetical sandbox...

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/tic...Symbol=US:GOOG

"In the worst cases, Google exiles the manipulative Web sites, a practice that has become known as being sent to "the sandbox" for the equivalent of a children's time out."

I realize the reporter is attempting to appear witty, but it would help if he actually knew what the sandbox theory consisted of. According to whois, kinderstart was registered in November 1999. That's not a sandbox; that's a desert.

[WebTone1]

The best one is their link to kindertoday.com their "news site" kindertoday.com is a parked godaddy.com domain and all they do here is an 8080 port redirect. Its not even to that domain name. If I were Google I would "blacklist" them simply for the incompetence of their webmaster.

[RegDCP]

This is a hoot.
When I saw the Yahoo news article I responded in the "Discuss" area with:
I am a web designer and somewhat of a white hat SEO. I took a look at their website and there is NO WAY it was receiving that kind of traffic without some kind of cheat. (Which is probably why Google banned them).
Their site just does not have the content to attract the visitors they claim to have lost.

With 43,000 zero value pages it seems my suspicions are confirmed.

[incrediblehelp]

This is a dumb lawsuit.

Sure I will agree (and so will probably everyone) that in a ideal would webmasters would get some feedback when Google does this to a website, but that is not the way it is at the moment.

Why does everyone feel Google owes us something?

[megahertz28]

I think what Google does and gets away with sometimes is bizarre. Take for example the percentage it pays advertisers in its adwords program? If this type of non-disclosure were implemented in the "real world" instead of online, the response would certainly be interesting. How about them freely publishing and distributing materials with clearly written copyrights? Equally curious is their secrecy concerning what to do in order to avoid being banned. I think this lawsuit is an exercise in futility but I'm eager to see what happens. It probably is healthy for this power house be checked & balanced every once in a while, even if some of the law suits seem suspect.

[TheGarty]

The most interesting fact about this website is that since this potential lawsuit started, its traffic has gone through the roof!!!!

Check Out: www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.kinderstart.com

This isn't about Google at all... the site is just crappy spam anyway. If they get anywhere with the lawsuit, who cares ... thats just a bonus!

I want to hire their marketing people!! Genius

[hadoggo]

I'm not a fan of lawsuits in any shape or form but I am rooting for Kinderstart on this one 100%.

I hope it opens the floodgates wide open where other sites come in and go after "G" as well.

Let's look at how barbaric search actually "is."

There is no workable definition of "quality."
Page Rank is the biggest joke online.
There are only arbitrary and ambiguos guidelines and incredible propaganda dished out by a very sophisticated public relations department.

Can you imagine the chaos that would exist in the offline world if there were no rules of order?
The Search Engines set themselves up as authorities and stewards of the web when it is not their web.

I would love to see a workable definition of quality from Google. I can honestly say that although their search results are better than Yahoo or MSN they still stink! Look at any keyword that you have an expertise in and try to convince me that those are the top ten sites on the web!

No way!

Search engines can only define quality in quantitative terms and although Google does better than Y and MSN they are still barbaric!

Google is not a search engine. They are an advertising agency impersonating a search engine.
They will make 10+ billion this year from adwords and not one penny from search. On this planet we define ourselves by how we earn a living.

Furthermore, for all of the search engines to be able to crawl our sites and STEAL our content and then arbitrarily serve up what they feel is a joke.

I'll be tuned in to this lawsuit.
Suing over page rank is a joke.
Get a real lawyer and sue over a conflict of interest of having adwords on one side of the ledger and the most powerful search engine on the other side of the ledger. Now you're talking!

Does anybody doubt that with that formula you make money with any niche my simply shaking up the index?
Google would never do that would they? Making it only possible for a small web owner to drive traffic to their sites by having to pay for it.

Ain't no $ in page rank.
Go for the adwords angle...that is where the money is.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by TheGarty

The most interesting fact about this website is that since this potential lawsuit started, its traffic has gone through the roof!!!!

Check Out: www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=www.kinderstart.com

This isn't about Google at all... the site is just crappy spam anyway. If they get anywhere with the lawsuit, who cares ... thats just a bonus!

I want to hire their marketing people!! Genius

Sure traffic is through the roof, but do you think they are making anymore money on this traffic?

I am still failing to see what Google did wrong here. Google basically choose to display more relevant results above this "cookie-cutter" directory and KinderSmart is crying foul. Huh?

Are we forgetting what search is about? Finding RESULTS, websites with CONTENT. Not more search results or directory results. I have always though it was like picking a scab when search engines rank directories above websites with content.

[DrTandem1]

My first thoughts regarding this was that they are suing for something they have not had to pay to receive, PR. However, they have a legal issue which I think has merit.

Although, the details supplied were vague, I think KinderStart's point is that Google, a publically traded company, has positioned itself as an authority source for internet listings. 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.

This will, in my opinion, be settled out of court. Google does not want to reveal its methods in open court.

Whether a site has been removed from their SERPs or placed so they can not be found by reasonable searches that return results of their competitors is irrelevant. The result for KinderStart is the same, less traffic from Google than their competitors.

Now, one might think that Google should be able to present their SERPs any way they want. Maybe, but if they are presenting their SERPs as somehow impartial and they are not, then they may need to disclose that fact not only to users of their site, but to investors as well.

[MekhongKurt]

While I sometimes wonder about Google's secrecy, a link farm is a link farm, and doesn't deserve much credit, if any at all. It's one thing to have a links page on a content-containing website, but an entirely different matter for the site to be nothing BUT links.

As others have observed, it would be nice indeed if Google spelled out clear guidelines for webmasters. In my own case, I really am an amateur (and not ashamed to admit it) though I try to educate myself along the way. If I had clear guidelines, I would try my best to follow them, even were I to have to seek help from someone else to teach me how to comply.

In a way, this reminds me of the company that nailed Blackberry recently. Seems like a frivolous lawsuit to me, at least on the face of it. But I guess I'll have to wait until the actual suit becomes known.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Whether a site has been removed from their SERPs or placed so they can not be found by reasonable searches that return results of their competitors is irrelevant. The result for KinderStart is the same, less traffic from Google than their competitors.

Your joking right? Listen I know (I think most of us know) how you feel about Google, but to say Google owes KinderStart SERP positions in some way or form flips the whole weighted algorithm idea upside down.

One month Google felt KinderSmart was relevant, the next month Google changed their mind as to what they thought was relevant and KinderSmart rankings dropped. Now if your saying Google deliberately dropped KinderSmart "by hand" that would be awfully hard to prove in court.

[incrediblehelp]

Jennifer Laycock has a funny article on Entitlement Mentality on the Web

Industry watchers claim that it's nothing more than a glorified link farm, but even that is beside the point.

This is one of the key points that many others within the industry have made. Rather than being thankful for all that free traffic that Google has been sending, and moving on when it's gone, companies get used to the extra traffic that gets sent by a search engines vote of confidence

Why in the world people think that they can put all of their eggs in one basket and then be upset when that basket gets dropped and all of their eggs break is beyond me. It seems that because many companies were able (no matter how unwisely) to build their businesses on the backs of free traffic, everyone and their brother decided that the search engines owed them a living.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Your joking right? Listen I know (I think most of us know) how you feel about Google, but to say Google owes KinderStart SERP positions in some way or form flips the whole weighted algorithm idea upside down.

One month Google felt KinderSmart was relevant, the next month Google changed their mind as to what they thought was relevant and KinderSmart rankings dropped. Now if your saying Google deliberately dropped KinderSmart "by hand" that would be awfully hard to prove in court.

Sorry, that is not what I'm saying at all. Re-read my entire post. The paragraph you captured above has nothing to do with your comment. It was a simple statement of fact: If you're not found on Google, you will receive less traffic from Google than your competitors that can be found on Google via a reasonable search that should turn up either.

In other words, Google has eliminated certain sites from being found using certain search terms without removing them from their index. What good is it to be in their index, if you can't be found?

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.

Does the word "antitrust" have any meaning for you? I think you need to look at this from a legal standpoint and not how you "feel."

[DrTandem1]

Regarding Jennifer Laycock:

On Free Speech
She confuses Google stifiling Free Speech with one's personal right not to listen. Sorry, Google stepped into this one. Just because you're an 800 pound gorilla doesn't mean you get to decide who is heard.

On Failure to Accept Responsibility for One's Actions.
How is one to know which actions will anger the Google Gods? They don't follow their own guidelines and I think China is a good example of that.

On Failure to Appreciate a Good Thing While it Lasts
Maybe. However, I think this simply displays how important Google has become to internet business. If they're going to ban a site, they should at least have the courtesy to tell them why. I know, it's that pesky "fair business practices" thing. Gosh, remember the good old days when they weren't on the NYSE?

On The Entitlement Mentality on the Web
Basically, this is the same argument as the previous one. Sorry, Google created the dependence and actually marketed itself as such. They are now responsible for it.

It's kind of like the guy who owned a property and for years let people cross over it to get where they are going. Then, one day he decides to put up a fence and block people from going that way. Sorry, Mr. property owner, the law says otherwise. You should have exercised that right before you allowed a dependence to be created.

[colr]

Originally Posted by scanmonkey

They may have have a duplicate content penalty as both the KinderStart.com and www.KinderStart.com are live

I think you'll find this to be incorrect, you wont get a duplicate penalization for having your A records correctly setup to allow www or not. This is a DNS accessibility trick, not duplicate content!

I am very surprised that anybody on this forum thinks that kinderstart have a case here. It makes my blood boil reading about another crazy American who wants to sue the world and his dog for something so ridiculous.

The kind of lawsuits being filed against Google these days would be enough to deter any would-be starts ups. Why would anyone want to provide a free community service if they are just going to be sued by the people using it because it doesn’t fit into their own marketing agenda?

I say give Google a break. Stop whining and get on with business instead of trying to shift your crappy business plan blame onto someone else.

colr__

[pagetta]

i coudln't agree more that there are issues with Google that need to be addressed - not only as a public company but as a source of majority of traffic for so many people it has an obligation to play fair.

However I think this law suit is nuts - kinderstart is just pages of links for a start - their content does not justify a top ten ranking for many subjects that their links cover.

Also it was mentioned that this sort of thing doens't happen in offline advertising (as in google weilding so much power to pick and choose who gets custom) - of course not - where do you get so much custom for FREE with offline advertising? PAID ADVERTISING - like Pay-per-click - has VERY clear guidelines, if your ad is banned you are told exactly why and how to rectify it. You pay to advertise and it is structured and fair.

However KinderSmart is arguing about FREE traffic. Why DO people feel that google owes them something? This free traffic is a bonus and yes, due to its nature it is natural that there will be discrepancies and mistakes.

Finally, if google told us all exactly how to optimise a site and then if we went wrong exactly how to correct it, how would it then rank these sites that are all correctly optimised, totally relevant to the search?

I will be interested to see how this case pans out - lots of interesting points raised here that have made me pause for thoguht.

[MeanSEO]

Let’s say today Google decides to be a pay for inclusion engine only and drops all natural search results.

Would this give the right for anyone to sue them?

NO.

This issue is not about spam, bad tags, duplicate content and the like. It is about a non government entity who serves up recommendations in an order it wishes to do so (where it feels the SURFER has the most value). They have the right to do this anyway they wish to.

No promises by google were made to KinderSmart and as a matter of fact it was free traffic, so what the heck gives them the right to sue? Nothing.

I wonder if when KinderSmart got all that free productive traffic if they decided to send money to Google as a “thanks for the help”. That would be just as logical as asking Google for money when they no longer received as much free traffic.

[cryptblade]

I personally do not, in the grand scheme of things, understand how this is a legitimate suit.

Perhaps this isn't meant to be a winning suit, but to expose Google and put Google on the stand - some more. That's the only reason I can see that lends this suit to any usefulness.

While I am no Google lover, business is business. And any intelligent SEO marketer will tell people to never ever rely entirely or even mostly on natural rankings.

But, the thing that gets to me is - what kind of precedence does this set? First of all, Google owes this Kindersue nothing. The search rankings, the SERP, is Google's property. Kinderspot didn't pay for lick for their visibility. Google can rank and dump anyone at their will. They currently do that anyway. But they "try" to be fair. I

This is like saying - a critic gave me a bad review which led to my destructive drinking and my failed acting career. So now I'm going to sue. That's absurd.

Second of all, should this move forward, nearly any publisher - both online and offline - can be sued for a bad review, a bad op-ed, etc. I don't care what antitrust laws they are using - the precedence set can be applied to other online/offline publishers.

Third, how can Google be a monopoly? Yahoo and MSN work very hard to prevent that. Google may be dominant, but a monopoly it is not. And plenty of SEOs here know that if Google wont play, there's still Yahoo and MSN that will.

[I picture it as Destiny's Child: Beyonce is the finest of them all and most coveted - but Kelly and Michelle are pretty fine and 2 of them is still just as good as 1 Beyonce]

Are there lawyers here who can grab some of the SEOs here who can testify that Kinderdummies are absolutely worth banning forever and ever? I noticed several posts with analyses of Kindefools already.

Didn't a while back in one of the threads, we criticized some dude who claimed he was an SEO expert and could be hired as an SEO expert witness? We should get some of the folks here to contact both sides lawyers.

sugar...

[OneMoreBite]

Originally Posted by TheGarty

The most interesting fact about this website is that since this potential lawsuit started, its traffic has gone through the roof!!!! ... I want to hire their marketing people!! Genius

I'd agree that while some may believe they have a "right" to page rank, others in their company probably felt this would be a great way to get tons of publicity, and apparently they were right.

What's interesting to me is there is another business with the name Kinderstart in the UK and Kinderstart in Newfoundland. That would be a bigger concern to me if I'm getting 10 million page views a month as they claim.

I never thought Google was required to list any site and as someone else pointed out, Kinderstart is not paying them so unless they can prove entitlement, they need to grow up. If they want top placement, buy an ad.

Kathryn

[DrTandem1]

Regarding the last few posts. you clearly are missing the (legal) points. Please read my last two posts.

I think what you fail to take into consideration are antitrust laws with regards to publicly held companies. For instance, just because I make widgets doesn't legally allow me to sell them below my cost simply to drive my competitors out of the business. Similarly, I must afford my customers equal opportunity (paying or not). If some customer believes they have been wronged and brings suit against me, I will need to provide evidence that counters their claims. In a class-action suit, potentially hundreds or thousands of people are being represented as claimants.

For the question regarding "what if" Google eliminated all of its free/organic SERPs: Then, from that point forward, the question would be moot as all were treated equally. I also suspect Google would quickly be out of business. They depend on the organic searcher to bring in customers of their paid offerings.

As for Google owning the SERPs, the SERPs are made from content of other sites. Google is now made up of public investors to whom they must provide certain information.

Whether this lawsuit will succeed is anyone's guess. I suspect it will be settled out of court quietly. Google will put their best spin on it as they did after quietly capitulating to the DOJ subpoena's major requests.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by OneMoreBite

I never thought Google was required to list any site and as someone else pointed out, Kinderstart is not paying them so unless they can prove entitlement, they need to grow up. If they want top placement, buy an ad.

Kathryn

This seems to be a common thread to many of the opinions here. As I mentioned, it was my first knee-jerk reaction, too. The debate is far deeper than this and as far as I read, had to do with the virtual banning of a site, not its placement.

Maybe, if I put this in a different perspective, you will start to understand. Just because you are not charging a fee does not allow you to engage in unfair business practices.

Google's dilemma is this: To fight KinderStart's claim they will have to divulge the reason KinderStart was sandbagged in their SERPs. KinderStart will then only have to cite one example of another site doing the same thing and not being banned. Google realizes that KinderStart probably already has literally thousands of such examples ready.

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.

Google claims they have formulas or "rules" that determine the organic SERPs. I would find this an interesting position to litigate against. Google has in essence created a contest with different winners and losers. Some losers are banned from the contest. Unfortunately for Google, you must legally detail the official rules of the contest and treat ALL contestants accordingly.

Just because the entry is free does not allow for unfair bias, which is what KinderStart is claiming.

For those of you who think you could just get some SEO "experts" to testify in the defense of Google, think again. Unless you have specific, proprietary knowledge as to how Google operates, your guess is as good as anyone else's. After three or four questions on the witness stand, it would be clear to all that you know nothing about Google's proprietary workings.

[cryptblade]

Interesting postion from DrTandem1 - but I would argue that Google is private property and that a free listing is a privilege afforded by Google to Kinderstart. KS is completely at the whim of Google.

However, as I said before, this seems like a smarter tactic or rather, fiendish tactic, upon closer inspection.

It also seems convenient for me that the site is about children and the company's strategy and argument is decidely childish.

All of this makes me wonder if this is actually a ploy to put Google on the defensive, force Google to disclose even more information about how they work, and also generate publicity.

How many new links has this company gained - if for no other reason than to be showcased as a crybaby?

Maybe this is the new "Blackhat SEO"...."blackHATE SEO"...

[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.

Isn't the reverse was true? What if I had a children's website appearing on Kinderstart directory. I was getting some great clicks from their pages and then one day, they redesigned the website and during this process removed some directory entries because they felt it didn't work in the new design. Could I cry foul and sue KinderStart because I am no longer appearing on the directory even through my business became "dependant" on it. Yes I could sue them, but I would not get much from it.

[RJ95]

According to Google and all the SEO gurus out there, it looks like KinderStart deserves a top ranking:

94,500 in-bound links as found by AllTheWeb.com:

http://alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&...&_sb_lang=pref

Interesting that the "authority" Google (in typical Google fashion) only shows 222:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Just what exactly is so "spammy" about a niche directory site like KinderStart anyway? Can a Google search produce an organized source of relevant info such as KinderStart is providing?

[dmcghie]

Speaking as a mother here I need to defend the Kinder site. It seems like a great directory for kids to find websites which are safe for them to visit.

I don't find it spammy at all and there are worse sites dressed up as directories on Google with high rankings but all they are is pure farm links.

This site is not a link farm as it only has sites listed that are for kids or their parents. If a link/site does not work then the webmaster needs to be sorted out, but I don't think that this site is a bad site and I hope they will win or at least get some changes going.

I am not a Google fan like I used to be. The minute they went IPO and started bagging all that money they crossed the line of being a pure search engine.

I feel that sites should not be sand-boxed unless there is something seriously wrong with them.

What right does it give to Google to decide who is allowed in or not. The same goes for DMOZ who are so slow to get sites listed and who's editors egos decide on this. Google decided to be the biggest search engine, offering their service for free, however they are now so part of the online and offline culture that they have also a responsibility towards society. Free or not free does not cut the mustard. There are sites at the top from a search which just makes one cringe, but then some of those sites are also the ones paying big bucks to be listed at the top. That is no longer a natural search, but who has the deepest pockets.

If I were asked which search engine is better:
A completely un-manipulated search result or sponsored result I would always go for the natural clean result any day. I wish Google could do both search types, but they already know that people get fed up with all the ads. I make it a point to hardly ever click on any advert as it has yet to happen for me to find what I am looking for in the advertised sites.

I personally think one gets better search results from Ask.com or Yahoo. Google is too doctored for my liking.

The internet was supposed to be a free medium to connect people. Its becoming more and more a restrictive world with businesses holding their palm open wanting payment for everything. The net has become boring in my opinion, the buzz is no longer there like at the beginning of the 90's (gosh showing my age here), but that is how I feel.

[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.

[greg watson]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Maybe, if I put this in a different perspective, you will start to understand. Just because you are not charging a fee does not allow you to engage in unfair business practices.

There is no unfair business practice here ...

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

If you're a publicly traded company that controls a major portion of a market, you can't be so discriminatory.

Google claims they have formulas or "rules" that determine the organic SERPs. I would find this an interesting position to litigate against. Google has in essence created a contest with different winners and losers. Some losers are banned from the contest. Unfortunately for Google, you must legally detail the official rules of the contest and treat ALL contestants accordingly.

This fanciful notion that a business must disclose its trade secrets is simply that ... fanciful at best.

Stock analysts publish their stock ratings all the time. Companies get added and deleted from those listings all the time.

Do you think a company likes to be added to the DOW index? Yes ...

Do you think a company likes to be added to the S&P 500 index? Yes ...

Do you think a company likes to be removed from one of these indices? No ...

Can any rational intelligent company sue because they got added or deleted from any of the thousands of variations of stock indexes, stock rankings, stock lists? Absolutely not ...

Greg

[scanmonkey]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

This seems to be a common thread to many of the opinions here. As I mentioned, it was my first knee-jerk reaction, too. The debate is far deeper than this and as far as I read, had to do with the virtual banning of a site, not its placement.

Maybe, if I put this in a different perspective, you will start to understand. Just because you are not charging a fee does not allow you to engage in unfair business practices.

Google's dilemma is this: To fight KinderStart's claim they will have to divulge the reason KinderStart was sandbagged in their SERPs. KinderStart will then only have to cite one example of another site doing the same thing and not being banned. Google realizes that KinderStart probably already has literally thousands of such examples ready.

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.

Google claims they have formulas or "rules" that determine the organic SERPs. I would find this an interesting position to litigate against. Google has in essence created a contest with different winners and losers. Some losers are banned from the contest. Unfortunately for Google, you must legally detail the official rules of the contest and treat ALL contestants accordingly.

Just because the entry is free does not allow for unfair bias, which is what KinderStart is claiming.

For those of you who think you could just get some SEO "experts" to testify in the defense of Google, think again. Unless you have specific, proprietary knowledge as to how Google operates, your guess is as good as anyone else's. After three or four questions on the witness stand, it would be clear to all that you know nothing about Google's proprietary workings.

DrTandem1 is correct that google dominates the market and needs to better explain their rules and policies. It would be nice if they issued a warning to the contact email found in the whois prior to removal from the serps.

On the other hand, Kinderstart is SOL due to lower quality seo practices.

And HaHa they run adsense!

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by cryptblade

Interesting postion from DrTandem1 - but I would argue that Google is private property...

I have to stop you right there. This is a major point many of you are missing. Google is not private property, anymore. It is publicly traded and must answer to a whole slew of regulations. As soon as a company goes public with an IPO, the rules change drastically.

[DrTandem1]

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.

Isn't the reverse was true? What if I had a children's website appearing on Kinderstart directory. I was getting some great clicks from their pages and then one day, they redesigned the website and during this process removed some directory entries because they felt it didn't work in the new design. Could I cry foul and sue KinderStart because I am no longer appearing on the directory even through my business became "dependant" on it. Yes I could sue them, but I would not get much from it.

I think that stranger things have happened in American courts, even recently. Look at non-citizens that were here in the US illegally and were awarded the private property of an American citizen who used too much force in defending his property rights to trespassers!

As to Google doing what it wants on its web site, maybe you should re-examine what Microsoft is forced to do with their own OS for their competitors. Again, fair business practices limit Google. We'll just have to wait to see what happens.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

We'll just have to wait to see what happens.

I will agree with you there.

[dburdon]

This is just another example of why you shouldn't rely entirely on Google.

[incrediblehelp]

Especially a directory based website in which it serves as the destination itself and not a source of actually content. You dont see DMOZ, Yahoo Directory, etc crying foul for not appearing in the search engines.

[tinobuntic]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Sure traffic is through the roof, but do you think they are making anymore money on this traffic?

I am still failing to see what Google did wrong here. Google basically choose to display more relevant results above this "cookie-cutter" directory and KinderSmart is crying foul. Huh?

Are we forgetting what search is about? Finding RESULTS, websites with CONTENT. Not more search results or directory results. I have always though it was like picking a scab when search engines rank directories above websites with content.

Yes, traffic IS through the roof. And, I would bet that they are making money off of this. See the Google AdWords at the top of the page? More impressions = more clicks = more revenue.

Doesn't anybody find the AdWords on this site to be ironic? They are sueing the company responsible for their only source of revenue!

[keywordguy]

I'll be the first to admit that there are short-comings with Google and the other top 3 search engines, but Google has been great for my customer's sites and my personal sites.

I've also found that Google's SERP's to be the best.

The search engines make no guarantees as to placement or inclusion. While there are some good things that could come from this suit like better guidelines on how to get your site off a blacklist, etc. I think the basis of this law suit is a joke.

If you want to pick on a search engine with poor SERP's and chaotic search take a closer look at Yahoo. I consistently find that Google produces better SERP's than Yahoo on nearly every comparison.

If Google did blacklist a site with 43,000 pages I'm sure there was a good reason....especially since someone mentioned that KinderStart runs Google Ads.

Let's see how this one plays out.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by tinobuntic

Doesn't anybody find the AdWords on this site to be ironic? They are sueing the company responsible for their only source of revenue!

I just cant believe the disconnect at Google, not to turn this account off. Then again why would they. They are making money from it, but I am sure the AdWords advertiser conversions rates from this website are sucking balls. Lots of non-children oriented visitors there right now.

If I advertised using children oriented keywords and I heard about this I would definitely block my ads from appearing on KinderStart.

[greeneagle]

It's a shame that US Tort Laws haven't adopted some of the UK's model features. Correct me if I am wrong but, doesn't the losing party pay for all court and legal costs for both parties there?

What happened to "Tort Reform" here anyway. It was high on the "political agenda" a while back?

Ken

[williamc]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

I have to stop you right there. This is a major point many of you are missing. Google is not private property, anymore. It is publicly traded and must answer to a whole slew of regulations. As soon as a company goes public with an IPO, the rules change drastically.

There I have to disagree. The ONLY people google has to anwer to besides itself are its shareholders, and as I recall the way the IPO is setup, they dontreally even have to do that except to the absolute largest shareholders.

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.

As for regulations, give me some of what you are smoking. There is not a single regulation in any country that states a search engine MUST provide us a damn thing.

[KeithO]

I posted this in a similar topic a few threads down and being an egomaniac, I thought I'd repost it here.

There is something that is being overlooked, Google is a business. Their results are their product. Think about it as if Google was a department store like Wal-Mart. We know Wal-Mart will sell most anything. This would be comparable to Yahoo's claim a few months ago of having 20 billion entries in its index. Then think about Macy's. They have higher quality products at a higher price. Products need to be at a certain level before Macy's will sell them on their shelves. This would be comparable to Google with their smaller (12 billion?) index.

So using this example, say I sell crappy diamonds that are horribly cut and lack certification, who am I to tell Macy's they are required to stock it since they are deemed to be the best? Its just passing the blame rather than fixing my own product.

Its the same thing with that People's Cube site that claimed they were censored a couple weeks back when Matt Cutts publicly showed them what they were doing contrary to Google's quality standards. They weren't censored, they weren't playing by the rules.

Google could care less about what you are selling or saying. As long as you aren't violating their Quality Guidelines, they will list you. They only want to provide the most relevant results to their users and hopefully those users will click on an ad.

[KeithO]

Originally Posted by greeneagle

It's a shame that US Tort Laws haven't adopted some of the UK's model features. Correct me if I am wrong but, doesn't the losing party pay for all court and legal costs for both parties there?

What happened to "Tort Reform" here anyway. It was high on the "political agenda" a while back?

Ken

It helps get them elected. But most of them are lawyers and alot of their friends are lawyers. So do you really think they will do anything that would cause financial harm to their friends?

[KeithO]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

I just cant believe the disconnect at Google, not to turn this account off. Then again why would they. They are making money from it, but I am sure the AdWords advertiser conversions rates from this website are sucking balls. Lots of non-children oriented visitors there right now.

If I advertised using children oriented keywords and I heard about this I would definitely block my ads from appearing on KinderStart.

Google deactivating their adsense would just be perceived as petty and retalitory. The only reason they could do that would be if there was a legitimate policy violation occuring at which point kinderstart could only kick themselves in the butt for since they brought people's attention to their site.

[links2see]

They have the right to run their search engine anyway they would like. I would hate to have someone tell me how to run my site. I do agree they are a very big company and don't give out a lot of information (if any) about their practices, but it is still Their site.

[Papadoc]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Just because you are not charging a fee does not allow you to engage in unfair business practices.

Darned right it does, and it doesn’t matter if you are charging a fee or not. Unless you can base your case on an accepted legal theory, “unfair” is a matter of opinion (yours), not the law. For Unfair Trade Practices, the legal theories that can be asserted include claims such as trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, false advertising, palming-off, dilution and disparagement. The only other “fairness” obligation is that businesses don’t make business decisions against protected classes and for the purposes of discrimination against gender, race, religion, or handicap, etc, but then these fall under a different set of laws. If you claim unfair trade practice, you had better base it on one of the above theories. Otherwise, they can be unfair to you all day long. People need to get over the idea that the law requires everyone to be fair and be able to PROVE that they are.

The uninformed might go after the “unfair competition” theory above, but only because they don’t understand it. Unfair competition requires that both companies be competitors (hence “competition”), and that the company uses its position or dominance to damage you to their own future financial gain. It does NOT require you to do business with them in order to keep them in business, to grant them favors by which they can financially gain, and it would be one heck of an argument for this company to say that Google was their competition.

Nevertheless, I don't buy your premise that it’s unfair business practice (even if that was illegal), or that Google will have to prove a thing. Last I checked, the charging party has to prove THEIR case, and in the world of the web, there are millions of sites that don’t show up in the SERPS and very few people show up in the SERPS where they think they should. This is one such company that thinks they should be doing better and they aren’t. Yeah, me too! That doesn’t mean I have grounds for a lawsuit. It means there is a difference of opinion.

Google's dilemma is this: To fight KinderStart's claim they will have to divulge the reason KinderStart was sandbagged in their SERPs. KinderStart will then only have to cite one example of another site doing the same thing and not being banned. Google realizes that KinderStart probably already has literally thousands of such examples ready.

Google has no such dilemma. Google has to divulge nothing including why the company lost ranking in the SERPS. Even IF Google were obliged to treat any and all businesses fairly (and they aren’t), the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, not the defendant. This is not kindergarten where everyone gets the same number of M&M’s as a treat. What’s more, even if the charges might have theoretical merit, no court is going to force Google to divulge their proprietary information to defend themselves because of some lawsuit where there is no prima fascia case that a law was broken.

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.

What if you were? Unless you decided to stop doing it based on race, religion, gender, handicap, you are perfectly within your rights. You could refuse to give widgets to ugly people, to children, or to people with blue eyes, or you could just pick and choose for no reason whatsoever. It might just interest you to know that any business can also fire any person for any reason as well other than as mentioned above and in the absence of a contract (and adding in "age" as an illegal reason). They can fire you because you have hair or not, because you are ugly or too pretty, because you have a big nose or face hair. Companies are NOT required to be fair to anyone except for certain circumstances. You are talking out of the top of your head about something that you have absolutely no knowledge of. You have no idea what a publicly traded company must or must not do. Most certainly, they don’t have to hand out treats to everyone equally. Filing with the SEC does not change a thing about who you must do business with let alone who or who you must do favors for. It changes the accounting and reporting factors and then there are requirements as to things that you could do that would affect the price of your stock (insider trading). That’s all.

If you are a monopoly or a government sanctioned monopoly like your local power company, then there are additional regulations about whom you must serve, but even they don’t have to do it for free. Your contention is that all large companies must measure out what is fair to every company they must deal with and must be able to defend it in court whenever and wherever challenged. That is ridiculous. If I think you are selling me widgets at a greater price than my competition, does that give me the right to force you to open your books so that I can see every one of your clients and determine who buys how much of what and for what price and make sure you are doing it fairly? Heck no!

Google claims they have formulas or "rules" that determine the organic SERPs. I would find this an interesting position to litigate against. Google has in essence created a contest with different winners and losers. Some losers are banned from the contest. Unfortunately for Google, you must legally detail the official rules of the contest and treat ALL contestants accordingly.

An interesting twist, but completely off target, irrelevant, and just plain wrong. Google has not created a contest and even if they had, many contests are based on subjective and objective opinions, and opinions are just that and not subject to challenge. Contests also have once and for all winners. No search engine promises this.

However, this is irrelevant because you are confusing contests with competition and these are two very different things. Two businesses might be competing with each other to do business with you. The fact that they are doesn’t oblige you to post your rules for who you will give the order to you next week, or the following week, and it certainly doesn’t oblige you to explain yourself or open your books and your selection criteria to those who don’t get the favor of your good will, much less to PROVE that you did it fairly.

For those of you who think you could just get some SEO "experts" to testify in the defense of Google, think again. Unless you have specific, proprietary knowledge as to how Google operates, your guess is as good as anyone else's. After three or four questions on the witness stand, it would be clear to all that you know nothing about Google's proprietary workings.

Again, irrelevant. Google needs no SEO to defend itself. The fact that this site has gone down in the SERPS is only that. Just because an allegation is made does not require the defendant to PROVE that the allegation is wrong or legal. The plaintiff must prove that the allegation is both correct and illegal in order to prevail.

This is nothing more than a case of going after deep pockets and hoping for a settlement, hoping that the threat of class action will scare Google and that maybe they will get a bit of free press in the process. If I were on Google’s legal team, I’d be laughing at this one. Frankly, I think Google is being incredibly magnanimous by not just red-tagging and removing the entire site and removing them from AdSense. They’d be perfectly in their rights to do so and even more so because no law forces you to do any favors or remain in business with an at-will agreement with a company that is suing you.

[incrediblehelp]

Nice post papadoc!

[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/