Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.224.160.42

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google Responds to SearchKing Complaint

     
7:19 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 5, 2002
posts:400
votes: 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?

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

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rcjordan is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 22, 2000
posts:9138
votes: 0


>What do you think about that?

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

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

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member powdork is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 13, 2002
posts:3346
votes: 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.;)
7:45 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 5, 2002
posts:400
votes: 0


Nice idea Powdork,

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

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

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 30, 2000
posts:800
votes: 0


Oh, Bob! Please let us know if this strategy works.
7:58 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 5, 2002
posts:1713
votes: 0


Somehow I do not see many WebmasterWorld readers subscribing $20 to the fund!
8:15 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 9, 2002
posts:41
votes: 0


I guess the joker is trying to do something stupid to attract some stupid media
8:17 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jane_doe is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:July 7, 2002
posts:2892
votes: 0


Doesn't that violate copyright laws?
11:12 pm on Jan 6, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 26, 2000
posts:2176
votes: 0



I gave him 20 bucks.
12:56 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:June 27, 2000
posts:1548
votes: 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.

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

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38061
votes: 13


The docs will be on public record shortly.
1:29 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 9, 2001
posts:417
votes: 0


Hey WebG, was the $20.00 worth it?
2:55 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

joined:Oct 23, 2002
posts:449
votes: 0


So Greg - Are you going to give us the scoop or what? (not willing to give Bob $20.00)
7:36 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 26, 2000
posts:2176
votes: 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.
7:50 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

joined:Oct 23, 2002
posts:449
votes: 0


Sounds good to me. I'll buy that.
7:54 am on Jan 7, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 1, 2002
posts:1580
votes: 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?

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

Junior Member

joined:Nov 30, 2002
posts:77
votes: 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

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

Junior Member

joined:Nov 30, 2002
posts:77
votes: 0


I'm not able to see the URL.
8:51 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 30, 2002
posts:152
votes: 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?

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

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38061
votes: 13


As a marketing lesson. it's brilliant .
9:19 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 8, 2002
posts:2012
votes: 0


>it's brillant.

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

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

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 25, 2002
posts:776
votes: 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?

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

Preferred Member

joined:Oct 23, 2002
posts:449
votes: 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.
10:06 pm on Jan 8, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 30, 2001
posts:1739
votes: 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.

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

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 5, 2002
posts:400
votes: 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. ;)
12:39 pm on Jan 9, 2003 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 2, 2002
posts:262
votes: 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.

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

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 12, 2001
posts:1150
votes: 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.

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

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:July 5, 2002
posts:400
votes: 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

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

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 4, 2002
posts:1068
votes: 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. :)

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

Senior Member

joined:June 27, 2000
posts:1548
votes: 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