2by4 - 6:00 am on Nov 11, 2005 (gmt 0)

LegalAlien, I wasn't talking to only you, it was a more general observation - "statement of their failure"

If you haven't noticed, all update threads are filled with dire warnings of google failing, and of course google has not failed. That's what I'm talking about.

That's not an opinion, it's an empirical observation, I read the posts, and I look at google market share. Try to read what I said and not assume it's all talking about you. Or don't, makes no difference to me.

You can think what you want, as you noted, anyone is entitled to an opinion. But don't mistake your opinion about how you would like things to be with how things are.

I'm not going to get into details about how far you are wrong about New York Times being liable for misreporting of facts, it would violate TOS. Only in very limited cases is this true, lets leave it at that, where they misreport in a malicious way about an individual or corporate entity who has access to a good attorney. Any larger misreporting is handled by at best an apology for getting the story wrong, and at worst... well, again, I can't go there due to TOS.

If I remember right, Google has also been forced by legal action to remove certain things that fall into a similar area.

And besides, you really seem to be confused about this: why is any site deserving of any position in an absolute sense? Where do you get this idea from? What algorithm did you use to determine that a certain site had a right to a certain serp position? Can you show it to me? Is it published anywhere? Why does noone have access to this superior method? Would you be kind enough to publish it so we can all see it?

How can moving site a from position x to position y be in any way shape or form be considered in the same league as libel? It is not a misreporting of fact, it's just deciding that site b is a better fit, or that site a is no longer a good fit, for whatever reason. And it's not even that specific, it's just site a satisfying some algo component, or not, and site b satisfying it.

If you don't like this situation, as I noted, feel free to actually work to change it by lobbying for a public search engine that would replace these private for profit ones. That would be a much better use of your time if you want actual change in this arena.

Anyway, back to work, can't argue about stuff that has no affect on anything in the real world.

[edited by: 2by4 at 6:03 am (utc) on Nov. 11, 2005]