Forum Moderators: goodroi
[washingtonpost.com...]
Too early to say if this attempt will make any progress. It is interesting to notice the increasing number of lawsuits against the search engines as the Internet has become mainstream and people better understand the online economics.
it is not their right -- as the acknowledged dominant player -- to "punish" without explanation.
Actually, it's their right to do just that, according to the judge in the SearchKing case. But why debate the First Amendment when--as Dayo_uk and TheBear have pointed out--the problem is likely to be a "www vs. non-www" technical glitch?
One could argue quite reasonably that the glitch isn't at Google's end because, technically speaking, www.mysite.com is not the same as mysite.com. (Liberal-arts types, including me, might prefer a less literal interpretation of URLs, but that doesn't mean we're right or that Google is wrong.)
Chances are, the plaintiff in this lawsuit just screwed up (as I did before my Google referrals dropped by 70-90% for two months last year), and it needs to get its ducks in a row instead of letting its technical staff duck their responsibilities.
Then explain to me how it is an *illegal* monopoly?
Then explain to me how, even if it was an illegal monopoly, how anyone would be able to file a lawsuit against them other than another search engine or an AG?
What would be the legal remedy?
My prediction, summary judgement quoting the searchking case.
You honestly don't see a need to regulate that? You don't see a potential for abuse there? And now that Google is public and their growth as slowed a bit, I can guarantee you there will be pressure to capitalize on their position more and more - and issue like this become more and more of a real threat.
Yes, although the algo does not deal with this situation well and it seems that Google agree that this part of the algo does need improving - but this is far from Google delibrately penalizing sites.
The thing is this site could possibly come back - as this is what Big Daddy is supposed to all be about - I wonder if the site owners will probably then say it only came back due to the possibility of a class action.
Some people are creating businesses that are based on free search engine results rankings, which is very risky, because it's the search engines that decide how they rank web sites. So, Google doesn't destroy businesses, it's the people who destroy themselves by creating risky businesses. When you start a business you should know the risks beforehand and not whine afterwards for making unwise decisions that you are responsible of yourself.
Google is not the monopoly, because you can switch to any search engine you want.
Google doesn't have the obligation to tell personally using a telephone or via email or by other means why a site is banned, because it would also help spammers reverse-engineer spam detection algorithms and it's impossible to know who has spammed intentionally and/or who was just too lazy to read the webmaster guidelines and/or check their own site they are responsible of and/or read even one SEO guide before publishing a new site.
Also, contacting web site owners takes time and time costs money and if you don't pay for getting listed by a search engine, you shouldn't deserve to get listed at all. So, because no-one deserves to get listed because no-one pays to get listed, you can only see it as a gift if your site happens to get indexed or even rank better than your competitors who also try to rank high for various keywords for free.
It's the web site owner's responsibility to find out what is against search engine's terms of service, and Google does give the reasons for getting banned on the webmaster guidelines pages. Google also offers Google Sitemaps service, and it's for free, which means Google does care about its public relations.
Even if you get banned, you can use AdWords. When you use AdWords your web site deserves to be shown in search results page, because you pay for it.
If you do something criminal, it's your responsibility. If you troll in a forum, it's your responsibility. If you do something unethical, it's your decision.
If you start a businesses and it depends on free search engine results and/or you spam search engines and/or don't read the SE TOS, it's your decision and you deserve to face the consequences.
The obvious step forward, IMVHO, is that Google should have to ask permission to use people's website content (and automated email would suffice), or for sites only to be included if they have specifically submitted it (and removed when requested - I am still waiting reams of pages to be removed after requesting it), since it is now a commercial product, and then we can talk about the limitations of their obligations to webmasters and terms and conditions.
If people and search engines treat website content as free-for-distribution material, then what else can we expect other than what we have now?
The scenery has changed - what was once a free-for-all for mutual benefit has become a commercial relationship, and should therefore have some standing in law. For those in doubt, consider the matter that Google has been ordered to turn over the URL's of websites to the US government. Now tell me that that information is not valuable commercial property which should be treated as such, and that Google has no obligation of responsibility?
My prediction, summary judgement quoting the searchking case.
Man oh man, the folks at MSN have GOT to be loving this....
ps. Very interesting point of view Miop -- an angle I had never considered.
.....................................
I don't see how this is really all that different from the regulation of Ma Bell some years ago.
It's completely different, but perhaps this isn't the best forum for explaining the history of the Bell System, AT&T, and the changes in the U.S. telephone system that occurred in 1984.
Suffice it to say that, last I heard, Google wasn't the sole supplier of search for large portions of the United States and wasn't requiring that users rent equipment made by a Google subsidiary. :-)
it wouldn't be tollerated for a private entity to single-handedly contol Main Street like that.
The equivalent of streets would be the Internet connection providers. Google does not provide the means to get to the store. You can't blame a yellow pages for rejecting an ad because it doesn't meet the standards.
I'm not sure if we are on different sides of the same coin, but perhaps different edges of the same side. :)
C
[mercurynews.com...]
..................................................
All this in US district court, where you would think that the judge would know at least a little constitutional law.
For those of you that don't know, the first amendment does not guarantee free speech, it guarantees that congress cannot pass laws that restrict your speech. Other parties are not bound by it.
There is so much wrong with their complaint so far, and I have just read a few pages. I hope they are already working on their first amended complaint, because this one ain't gunna fly.
Sad.
Consider:
Have you ever declined to link to another site that has requested a link? Have you ever failed to disclose your reasons for declining the link?
If the requesting website onwer hits you with a writ demanding compensation and quoting the Google Verdict in justification, have you got the resources to fight that?
Or must we all cave in and give links on request?
Who would you choose as your lawyer? A one man lawfirm? One that also runs a software company out of his office where he is listed as Marketing Director and Cheif Legal Officer? How about a lawyer who is a CPA and seems to be versed mostly in financial law?
He must be pretty impressive to fight off all those giant firms who must have wanted the contingency on this class action case.
Summary Judgement.
Maybe a bit more time working on the site might have helped!
Or must we all cave in and give links on request?
Yes you must, if you consistently claim that you are in the business of indexing/organising the entire web and that your algo is fully democratic with no special preferences to any site, a fully machine driven ranking system. You floated your company on these claims not to mention built your entire brand along these lines and became the most powerfull/popular online search provider, world wide....when these claims are mostly false and misleading and you are actively blocking millions of businesses from appearing on your SERPs for no reason other then pushing harder your Adwords agenda.
What you are doing is very misleading otherwise and you will need to provide proper answer sooner or later, if not to these businesses then to the regulator.
Google should counter with claims of nusiance and make the site and lawyer pay dearly.
Google doesn't just give links - it harvests ones entire website and reproduces it (and all your internal links along with that). Not the same thing IMV.
What's more they specifically state in their terms 'You may not take the results from a Google search and reformat and display them, or mirror the Google home page or results pages on your Web site', but that is what they are doing with our sites. There is no reciprocality here. Something for nothing for G which they would not allow vice versa.
I would say that if Google is not willing to give you a website 'link' for free, then it has no business 'linking' to (or actually, reproducing) websites for free.
Of course you don't give any old 'link', but then it would be sane for G to advise sites why they have not been admitted or have been dropped (or penalised).
Can anyone give a rational argument as to why this should not be the case, apart from 'Google doesn't owe anyone anything' (when in fact it does, since it has used non-Google material to gain wealth)?
Why is Google not expected to pay in some way for this material, which it didn't even ask the owner for?
This is funny. A lawsuit seeking class action is filed against one of the largest companies in the united states.
Who would you choose as your lawyer? A one man lawfirm? One that also runs a software company out of his office where he is listed as Marketing Director and Cheif Legal Officer? How about a lawyer who is a CPA and seems to be versed mostly in financial law?He must be pretty impressive to fight off all those giant firms who must have wanted the contingency on this class action case.
Summary Judgement.
If they even got to summary judgement it would be a win for the plaintiff. The complaint is written purely for propaganda and pr ie. 20 pages too long and the causes of action are odd then throw in canonization issues to boot. I'd say this attorney picked the wrong client as there are a lot of people out there with legitimate beefs.
Expect a major if not all out win from G when the court rules on their eventual 12(b) motion.
This is laughable. Google has not banned the site. However, if they did drop it from its index, then they are doing us all a favor! Its a link directory - why would Google want to list such a site anyway? How often do we see threads complaining about sites like this coming up in the rankings!
Because google lists and rank high millions of other similar sites that have adsense on and many more millions of MFA's that pay for advertising. You can't brand the advertiser legit and the directory as a spammer for no reason other then exercising the power of your monopoly.
Dmoz is a link directory, and so are most of the specialised sites e.g. trade organisations with links to its members sites.
From my own POV these sites are only annoying when they are mirrored many times, which they seem to be in certain sectors like insurance and real estate (or are just collections of pages with adwords links on them and are obviously only there to generate revenue for AW advertisers!).
I believe the right to serve a customer has always been up to the business, not the customer. Pure publicity stunt.
Stupidity is no substitute for a thought process which has a foundation, walls and ceiling. These people are nuts if they think they will win. Google's lawyers will blow their doors off in no time and rightfully so!
Stupid stuff which doesn't even warrant the attention this thread has given them already IMHO.
