March 20, 2006

this is utterly appalling:

Kin­ders­tart sues Goo­gle over lower page ran­king.

SAN FRANCISCO, March 18 (Reuters) — A paren­tal advice Inter­net site has sued Goo­gle Inc., 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.
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.

So peo­ple have a cons­ti­tu­tio­nal right to Goo­gle­juice? So Goo­gle­juice = Free Speech? That to me seems an insult to the notion of Liberty.
Can some­body more consitution-savvy than me help me out with this? I’m con­fu­sed.
[From Talkshop:] “That said, I also think it’s fair to say that if an 80% reve­nue dec­line can be attri­bu­ted solely to your Goo­gle rank, you’ve pretty much lost con­trol of your business.”

23 Responses to “this is utterly appalling:”

  1. This shows the dan­ger of rel­ying too much on one type of mar­ke­ting. The irony is that if they’d wai­ted another week or so, their search results might have been bet­ter than before. I think it’s a basic lack of unders­tan­ding about how the engi­nes work, they’re dumb machi­nes that pro­cess infor­ma­tion, not evil doers out to get anyone. Agreed it’s an ill-judged law­suit. Even if there are human edi­tors at the search engi­nes, there’s no pos­si­ble way they could cen­sor every sin­gle com­pany in google’s index. That would be con­trol frea­king on a superhu­man scale!

  2. IANAL.
    As far as I can tell, the argu­ment is that Goo­gle is an “essen­tial ser­vice” and the­re­fore should be regu­la­ted. It is para­llel to saying that the only ele­tri­city com­pany in town has no right not to serve you.
    This fails on a num­ber of levels, of course. It is highly ques­tio­na­ble if you could con­si­der an online search ser­vice to be an essen­tial ser­vice.
    Even if you could, there are many other search ser­vi­ces, such as MSN and Yahoo. So they would have to prove a mono­poly.
    But if a company’s entire busi­ness relies solely on Goo­gle, then it is a poor busi­ness. That’s not really Google’s fault. They are still a pri­vate com­pany and could in theory go ban­krupt and cease ope­ra­tions at any time.
    FWIW, a simi­lar law­suit was tried about a year ago and fai­led.
    Yehuda

  3. I believe that in the US it is much easier to sue someone than in Canada or the UK. The­re­fore, if in doubt, sue; even if it’s spurious.

  4. Brian Clark says:

    From a legal stand­point, the suit has no merit. It’s a publi­city stunt by Kin­derS­tart to try to get some traf­fic after they stu­pidly put all their eggs in the search engine bas­ket.
    Unlike across the pond, we Ame­ri­cans can file a law­suit just to get attention.

  5. Jesse says:

    This is a good exam­ple of one of the core pro­blems with the US court sys­tems. You can basi­cally file suit against anyone, for anything, almost regard­less of merit. This one seems to have made a lar­ger blip on the radar because it tar­gets goo­gle, but there’s thou­sands of simi­lar fri­vi­lous law­suits was­ting the courts time all over the country. It usually comes down to who has the best law­yers, and in this case, I don’t think goo­gle will have anything to worry about.
    It’s a shame that the kin­ders­tart peo­ple didn’t hire a decent design team to fix up their shoddy web­site, and perhaps get an SEO guru on board.

  6. Scotty says:

    Jesse nai­led it. This is a clas­sic exam­ple of typi­cal Ame­ri­can “I suck, so I’m going to blame someone else for my short­co­mings by suing their asses.”
    kinderstart.com is coded like it was 1994. Mul­ti­ple nes­ted table tags, no use of search-engine-friendly hea­der tags, no alt attri­bu­tes on ima­ges, etc. No won­der their Goo­gle ran­king plum­me­ted.
    Maybe they should take the money they’re spen­ding on a law­suit and hire me to rebuild it, ins­tead. That way, ever­yone wins.

  7. Shoc­ker! Bla­tant PR Stunt Pose as Ela­bo­rate Goo­gle Lawsuit

    Paren­tal advice site Kinderstart.com filed a law­suit against Goo­gle ear­lier this week (coin­ci­den­tally the same day of the US govern­ment vs. Goo­gle trial) on the back­ground of their Goo­gle Page­rank having drop­ped unex­pec­tedly and without war­ning. The re…

  8. Well, now kin­ders­tart can be sure of a bet­ter ran­king in goo­gle with all the searches that will be trig­ge­red by the news :)
    PR via the court sys­tem. Why not? Don’t get me started!

  9. Haarball says:

    Yep, this is pretty bla­tant PR who­ring.
    It could also be an attempt at extor­ting Goo­gle to reveal some of their algo­rithms, whcih would of course be disas­trous. A court may want Goo­gle to show their algo­rithms in order to prove that the drop­ping of Kinderstart.com was in fact an auto­ma­ted one based on their algo­rithms and not a sub­jec­tive, manual change made by the com­pany — which could clas­sify as disc­ri­mi­na­tions.
    This is how they could be thin­king, I don’t know. The case is not strong enough for this to hap­pen, though, for the rea­sons that have been poin­ted out here and elsewhere on the blogsphere.
    Easy Goo­gle win now, although I don’t like the look of it. What if the situa­tion I desc­ribe above could actually hold up some time in the future? A com­pany saying, “pay up or reveal your technology”.

  10. Jesse says:

    I think that goo­gle could skate around the attempt at dis­co­ve­ring algo­rithms pretty easily. They wouldn’t necis­sa­rily have to prove that the algo­rithm lowe­red the page rank, all they would have to prove is that no sin­gle emplo­yee did it. For kin­ders­tart to claim dama­ges against action taken directly by goo­gle, they should have to be able to prove that it was done inten­tio­nally, and pro­baly prove that that intent was mali­cious.
    My per­so­nal opi­nion is that this is just a com­ple­tely merit­less case. Goo­gle page rank is merely and indi­ca­tor of a sites worth, much like the NYSE is an indi­ca­tor of a com­pa­nies worth. If DOW che­mi­cal saw their share price drop by 80%, it cer­tainly wouldn’t be bla­med on the NYSE mali­ciously deva­luing it.

  11. john t unger says:

    Kin­derS­tart should pro­bably have just hired me (or anyone) to make them a blog if they wan­ted more goo­gle juice.
    But, hey, if they’d rather become world rek­now­ned for acting like whiny, self-important losers with a chip on their shoul­der I can see how the ideas cen­tral to blog­ging wouldn’t be as appea­ling as just sic­cing a law­yer on someone. Obviously, they’d have a hard time with diplo­macy, trans­pa­rency, inte­grity, authen­ti­city, etc.
    I don’t think I’d want to work for peo­ple like that. Glad I’m not a law­yer. My clients tend to behave a lot more like adults than these people.

  12. john says:

    They have, if not a cons­ti­tu­tio­nal right, then a legal right to equal treat­ment. If and it’s a big if, Goo­gle staff or its algo­rithms can be shown to be disc­ri­mi­na­tory then there is a case.
    To adjust Jesse’s ana­logy — if NYSE somehow indi­ca­ted over­night that Dow stock was not rea­dily tra­dea­ble then Dow could blame NYSE for the sub­se­quent price fall.
    A low Goo­gle ran­king will adver­sely affect a comany’s through­put of poten­tial cus­to­mers — if that ran­king is not achie­ved in a scru­pu­lously equi­ta­ble man­ner (on both sides) then sadly I think there might be an argu­ment for discrimination.

  13. That the attack is bor­de­ring stu­pi­dity is evi­dent, but you have to ask your­self what kind of peo­ple would think Goo­gle is out to get them? I mean, out of all the com­pa­nies, ins­ti­tu­tions or govern­ments on the pla­net you take on the one that has “Don’t be evil” as it’s motto. It has disas­ter writ­ten all over it.

  14. Jesse says:

    I can’t help but to be amu­sed by the out­come of thise com­pa­nies action. Rather than having peo­ple stand behind them and cham­pion their cause, they’ve effec­tiv­ley become the laughing stock of the blo­gosphere. What little dig­nity and brand recog­ni­tion they might have had will be per­ma­nently soi­led by these esca­pa­des.
    I don’t see how the kin­ders­tart peo­ple can emerge from this vic­to­rious in any way, but if anything good comes of it, it will be that other com­pa­nies have a won­der­ful case in point of what not to do.

  15. Robert Bruce says:

    Yes the coding reveals that whoe­ver did this knows nowt about today’s Search Engine requir­ment.
    Kin­derS­tart — Because Kids Don’t Come With Ins­truc­tions!
    Pathe­tic. Shall we offer our coding services?

  16. James Omdahl says:

    This is a straight up, bla­tant, move to get links, visi­bi­lity and visi­tors to their low-quality site.
    And it is wor­king bri­lliantly (in a low-brow kinda way) From the looks of things this com­pany has little to lose any­way.
    More bad blogs on the net, more spam emails, more fri­vo­lous law­suits in the court sys­tems — wel­come to our world fair citi­zens :)

  17. 寒境 says:

    i’m han­jing, from china.
    i dis­co­ver ur blog unde­sig­nedly and i very like ur pic­tu­res…
    now i going there every­day
    p.s.my english tooo bad … sorry

  18. Goo­gle sued over page rank

    This is inte­res­ting.  From the article:
    SAN FRANCISCO, March 18 (Reuters) — A paren­tal advice Inter­net site has sued Goo­gle Inc., char­ging it unfairly depri­ved the com­pany of cus­to­mers by down­gra­ding its search-result ran­king without rea­son or warning…

  19. Jack Yan says:

    Dis­tur­bing to me today is that we New Zea­lan­ders are moving toward a more liti­gious society, bypas­sing civi­lity for clog­ging up the courts

  20. Martin says:

    I can’t help but won­der what Ayn Rand would’ve had to say about this…

  21. Elisa says:

    I work for an Inter­net com­pany, and can tell you that all our clients go abso­lu­tely crazy for Goo­gle page rank, no mat­ter if it brings cus­to­mers to their web­site or not. We even got sued by one of our clients, clai­ming we “gua­ran­teed” the highest posi­tion in Goo­gle for some key­words.
    Why are peo­ple get­ting so crazy about it — couldn’t it be our (us=web peo­ple) fault?