Posted on 03/19/2006 7:27:00 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
Kinderstart sues Google over lower page ranking
Sat Mar 18, 2006 09:09 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO, March 18 (Reuters) - A parental advice Internet site has sued Google Inc. (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research) , charging it unfairly deprived the company of customers by downgrading its search-result ranking without reason or warning. The civil lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, on Friday by KinderStart.com seeks financial damages along with information on how Google ranks Internet sites when users conduct a Web-based search.
Google could not immediately be reached for comment but the company aggressively defends the secrecy of its patented search ranking system and asserts its right to adapt it to give customers what it determines to be the best results.
KinderStart charges that Google without warning in March 2005 penalized the site in its search rankings, sparking a "cataclysmic" 70 percent fall in its audience -- and a resulting 80 percent decline in revenue.
At its height, KinderStart counted 10 million page views per month, the lawsuit said. Web site page views are a basic way of measuring audience and are used to set advertising rates.
"Google does not generally inform Web sites that they have been penalized nor does it explain in detail why the Web site was penalized," the lawsuit said.
While an entire sub-industry exists to help Web sites feature prominently in Google results, the company is known to punish those who try to trick the system into boosting their search rankings.
The lawsuit notes that rival search systems from Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) MSN and Yahoo Inc. (YHOO.O: Quote, Profile, Research) feature Kinderstart.com at the top of their rankings when the name "Kinderstart" is typed in.
The complaint accuses Google, as the dominant provider of Web searches, of violating KinderStart's constitutional right to free speech by blocking search engine results showing Web site content and other communications.
KinderStart contends that once a company has been penalized, it is difficult to contact Google to regain good standing and impossible to get a report on whether or why the search leader took such action.
The suit was filed the same day a federal judge denied a U.S. government request that Google be ordered to hand over a sample of keywords customers use to search the Internet while requiring the company to produce some Web addresses indexed in its system.
Oh, well, lawyers are catching up, I guess. I can envision a new specialty in law, "search engine litigation." Maybe esteemed Alan Dershwitz can lead the charge, or is he too old to embark such a new field? Then who? Lani Guniere? Hitery? The ghost of Vince Foster?
If Google is a publication, First Amendment law might apply. The only thing they could say is that the page rankings are libellous.
I can picture tangled semantic web lawyers of both side will weave, to the point that you do not know what the publication is anymore.:)
I read an article on this and Goggle was protected in an earlier lawsuit because the rankings were their opinion, and so they were protected, this new group of shysters is trying to get around the opinion deal somehow.
Google is a business, not a government, and is no way obligated to provide a forum for "free speech." Further, this company has no apparent business relationship with Google (aside from leeching on Google's search engine).
New pockets to rob, new crop of "victims".
The article does not state whether this was a paying customer (paid ad ranking) or a whining leach using up Google's server bandwidth.
The idea that the ranking is a "free speech" issue is absurd. Google is central to commerce. Legally, the U.S. government can regulate it to make sure there is a level paying field.
I suppose you would support the Federal Government set standards for resturaunt reviewers, just to level the playing field, because commerce is involved.
Regulating commercial speech is just communistic. Saying commercial speech is different than any other speech is just a power grabbing ploy, and I don't buy it for one red second.
Google is not an expression of commercial "speech" any more than is the yellow pages.
This lawsuit springs from the plaintiff's entitlement mentality.
I don't think the lawsuit has merit, but it can sometimes be very frustrating finding things like this Kinderstart site on Google. Didn't used to be this way when I started using Google some five or six years ago. I find myself using other search engines more and more frequently.
What others do you use?
I use Teoma (now called Ask.com), WebCrawler (which uses Google, MSN, and other sites), AltaVista. I like the AltaVista Babel Fish translator but you can get some strange results on it. Try translating something from English into another language using the site, then translate it back into English.
I do like the Google Local and Google Maps features. Google News seems to feature articles by the New York Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post, ABC, etc., more often than conservative sites such as the Washington Times or Fox News.
But this company has no problem violating Google's right to rank websites in any order they wish.
A fairy tale is written to be published and sold. So what? Are fairy tales now to be regulated because they are sold, and are now considered (by the commies) as commercial speech?
There should be no regulation of Google nor of fairy tales. Yet you call for regulation of one's opinion, when you shill for the regulation of Google.
"I do like the Google Local and Google Maps features. "
You should try the Microsoft site http://local.live.com
It has a feature called "birds eye view" for certain areas that is really amazing.
Maybe this lawsuit will help establish once and for all that
some of our nation's best attorneys had a kindergarten education before they went out to practice law.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.