homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.72.86
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
Forum Library, Charter, Moderator: open

Google News Archive Forum

This 108 message thread spans 4 pages: 108 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >     
Google Responds to SearchKing Complaint
djgreg




msg:123502
 7:19 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hi ,

I just noticed, that Searcjking has received an answer from Google and now there are selling password to see the documents for $20 each. Are they crazy?
What do you think about that?

 

rcjordan




msg:123503
 7:25 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

>What do you think about that?

Heh! Heh! Heh! Massa, you've got brass.

Powdork




msg:123504
 7:35 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I like the way the inset tries to play on everyone greed and paranoia keys. Perhaps Mr Massa could file a class action lawsuit against Inktomi to get our share of that check.;)

djgreg




msg:123505
 7:45 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Nice idea Powdork,

born2drv , I'm absolutely the same opinion! ;).

Laisha




msg:123506
 7:45 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Oh, Bob! Please let us know if this strategy works.

cornwall




msg:123507
 7:58 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Somehow I do not see many WebmasterWorld readers subscribing $20 to the fund!

chaitan




msg:123508
 8:15 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

I guess the joker is trying to do something stupid to attract some stupid media

Jane_Doe




msg:123509
 8:17 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Doesn't that violate copyright laws?

WebGuerrilla




msg:123510
 11:12 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)


I gave him 20 bucks.

grnidone




msg:123511
 12:56 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

>Doesn't that violate copyright laws?

I would think this falls under public domain.

I am surprised you all are chiding the man who dared to take on the giant. Not many people would be brave enough to do that.

Brett_Tabke




msg:123512
 1:26 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

The docs will be on public record shortly.

egomaniac




msg:123513
 1:29 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Hey WebG, was the $20.00 worth it?

EquityMind




msg:123514
 2:55 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

So Greg - Are you going to give us the scoop or what? (not willing to give Bob $20.00)

WebGuerrilla




msg:123515
 7:36 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)


Nothing real exciting. Google is arguing that PR is a representation of their opinion of the importance of a given web page. And since it is a subjective opinion, it is protected under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

EquityMind




msg:123516
 7:50 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Sounds good to me. I'll buy that.

percentages




msg:123517
 7:54 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yup, the Google "dream team" are no bunch of 1st year law students. What a great and simplistic solution!

Bob should have charged $10,000 for a copy of that document, his GP would probably have been much higher :)

(5 x $10,000 = $50,000, Vs 5 x $20 = $100....laid it out simple just incase the $$$$$ recipient comes along) :)

$50K would only have left the coffers a few million short to put up a decent case.

When MS go to court they have $40 billion in cash with which to scare the opposition, I wonder how much Bob is planning to raise from that document?

salson




msg:123518
 6:55 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

gooogle.searchking.com is broken

Try:
216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:Ud77eMsaBqIJ:gooogle.searchking.com/+gooogle.searchking&hl=es&ie=UTF-8

salson




msg:123519
 7:03 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

I'm not able to see the URL.

adamas




msg:123520
 8:51 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Uh oh. I'm of the opinion that I derive far greater benefit from Google spidering my site and using that information than it costs me in bandwidth.

How long do you think it will take before Google invoices me?

Brett_Tabke




msg:123521
 9:15 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

As a marketing lesson. it's brilliant .

Yidaki




msg:123522
 9:19 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

>it's brillant.

Are you refering to the 20$ fact? I'd say it's bulls*** ... you optimist, you! ;)

figment88




msg:123523
 9:50 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Is it really subjective though?

My understanding is that searchking used to be a solid PR8 and becuase Google didn't like bob's pradnetwork they dumped him to a PR4.

Can a movie critic give good reviews to a film, find out the producer holds contrary political views, then turn around and pan the movie?

EquityMind




msg:123524
 9:55 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Google has stated publicly that they have not messed with the results. Personally, I feel that because of the bad publicity Search King was getting, that people stopped linking to him (and removed links) which resulted in a lower PR after the following update.

hutcheson




msg:123525
 10:06 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Can a movie critic give good reviews to a film, find out the producer holds contrary political views, then turn around and pan the movie?

Well, the movie PR industry works differently. A PC movie critic is expected to know the producer's political views before writing the first review. So your question is sort of like "Can a National Review editor publish an article one week, and then go back and check the spelling of the main words and republish if they were misspelled?" -- It's part of the basic research.

Google recalculates the PR each month. Think of it more as Clintonian democracy in action, and ask instead, "Can a politician claim to give a factual description of an event one month, poll to find out the electorate holds different views, and express a contradictory set of proclaimed facts about the same event the next month?"

Think of Google as the website-review version of Clinton: it doesn't HAVE its own personal view, it just runs the polls to see what comes up. But Clinton doesn't therefore lose his copyright to his own words (or even the words his copywriter wrote for hire for him).

Google's poll results, since they do respresent an enormous amount of data collection, aggregation, and processing (involving proprietary and probably patented techniques extending far beyond the borderline test cases involving phone directories), are surely copyrightable.

djgreg




msg:123526
 10:10 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

I belive that there was a human edit in the PR of Searchking. But it not is not more than a normal penalty, I think. If everybody would complain about a penalty in that manner thinks would get a little complicated, wouldn't they? By the way, I found a new way to get rid of a penalty. This is no joke, before the last update the site had a PR0 penalty since about 14 months, and now it has PR4. Look at the site in my profile to see what I have done. ;)

julinho




msg:123527
 12:39 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Can a movie critic give good reviews to a film, find out the producer holds contrary political views, then turn around and pan the movie?

Yes, he/she can (1st. Ammendment).

His/her credibility may suffer or not, but thatīs another point.

Just MHO.

jk3210




msg:123528
 1:08 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

>>Can a movie critic give good reviews to a film, find out the producer holds contrary political views, then turn around and pan the movie?<<

That's not my understanding of what occurred. I feel the situation is more along the lines of:

If the critic found out that the movie's producer made false claims that the movie was directed by ###, when in actuallity ###'s name was merely placed on the credits to increase the movie's appeal/status in the press, then the critic not only CAN, but SHOULD expose that fact.

Actually, the critic has a DUTY to expose that sort of behavior.

djgreg




msg:123529
 2:41 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

I think this is not a very good example.
It is difficult to find a good comparison to the things happend.
IMHO fact is, that SearchKing has given PR to sites, who bought it from SearchKing, if they hadn't bought it they would never become a so high ranking, because the are commercial sites, or whatever. Now Google got to the bottom of their actions and has decided that they are falsificating the Serps and so the took away the PR. Search King has absolutely no rights in the PR things, it is a Google invented thing and they can give PR to whom they want and take it away from who the want.

greg

Beachboy




msg:123530
 5:53 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

<<Can a movie critic give good reviews to a film, find out the producer holds contrary political views, then turn around and pan the movie?>>

Back when Gene Siskel was teamed with critic Roger Ebert, they panned some movie. As a result, the studio (I forget which one) told the duo they would no longer be allowed to see their movies prior to their release. But that didn't last long at all. :)

grnidone




msg:123531
 10:14 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

And since it is a subjective opinion, it is protected under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Subjective? Doesn't that mean that Google would have to give PR on a site by site basis?

So does this mean that Google is publically admitting to hand edits?

This 108 message thread spans 4 pages: 108 ( [1] 2 3 4 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google News Archive
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved