March 18, 2006

Google Sued for Downgrading Website's Search Ranking

(San Jose, California) In the 21st Century equivalent to the smoky back room, Google evaluates websites and assigns a page rank which determines the order of Internet search results. I believe this lawsuit seeks to open the doors to the back room and clear the smoke.

From MercuryNews.com:

Google has mysteriously downgraded the search ranking of a Web site geared to help parents care for young children, causing a "cataclysmic fall" in advertising revenue and the number of monthly page views, according to a class-action lawsuit filed Friday.

The civil suit by KinderStart.com of Norwalk seeks financial damages and more information about Google's secret method for ranking sites. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, seeks class-action status for other sites that have seen their rankings drop without warning or explanation from the Mountain View search giant.

A Google spokesman told the Associated Press that the company hadn't seen the suit and had no immediate comment.

Since it launched in May 2000, KinderStart.com had built up its traffic to more than 10 million page views a month, the suit says, with much of the traffic coming from Google search users. But in March 2005, page views plunged 70 percent and advertising revenue fell 80 percent and hasn't recovered. KinderStart.com suspects that Google erected invisible barriers that divert consumers elsewhere when they type in a search but says Google will not explain what happened.

The drop-off was so sudden that the Web site suspects Google has a flawed method or blocks sites subjectively despite Google's pledge to provide objective search results.

It will be interesting to see how this case develops. I'd suspect that Google will act to prevent class-action status.

From Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:16 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.

1 There is no basis for this lawsuit. Google can do whatever they want with their servers.

Posted by: tt@tt.com at March 19, 2006 08:47 AM (YiOKT)

2 Google is a publicly traded company and is bound by the laws of the SEC and is liable for any changes they make that aren't made known to their customers. They can't just 'do whatever they want' without being subjected to scrutiny by shareholders as well as their customers. This is what happens when a far-left company tries to establish itself in the corporate world that they despise.

Posted by: slug at March 19, 2006 10:29 AM (USunv)

3 Google's not the only fishy company. See this for technorati weirdness.

Posted by: rightwingprof at March 19, 2006 11:09 AM (hj1Wx)

4 Google indexes web site without any fee, so web sites in google index are NOT CUSTOMERS. If they index for a fee then you can assert that they have customers.

Posted by: phreaseology at March 19, 2006 12:07 PM (adiYH)

5 Whoa, there! What you are talking about is contract rights. A company (or person) that provides a service for some consideration creates implied contract rights. Obviously, there is no specific contract between Google and KinderStart, or the latter would be alleging actual contract violation. But to say that there is an implied contract — that KinderStart has some kind of right or privilege to the way that they are listed on Google's web site — is to say that Google obtained some consideration in exchange for that listing. Otherwise, there is no cause that would support the suit. From what I can see, this should be thrown out without proceeding to trial.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at March 20, 2006 09:10 PM (4pYF5)

6 Search engines arbitrarily outright censor (completely suppress) access by their users to web sites they don't like. This is not a “ranking” issue. They also refuse to provide any explanation or describe how a particular “offending” site can be reinstated. Search engine arguments regarding their need for secrecy are largely spurious and allow them to conceal the real reasons behind their censoring of any particular site. Legally, the issue is whether a search engine is a “publisher” or a “common carrier”. Currently they enjoy the advantages of both and the responsibilities of neither. See much more extensive discussion of these issues at: http://www.searchenginehonesty.com/

Posted by: Ted at March 26, 2006 02:02 PM (yiL5Y)

7 Great work!

Posted by: Patrick at June 23, 2006 10:45 PM (mhGbV)

8 Great work!

Posted by: Janice at June 23, 2006 10:48 PM (yEQ3O)

9 Good design!

Posted by: Don at June 23, 2006 10:54 PM (iK93d)

10 Great work!

Posted by: Naomi at June 24, 2006 10:15 PM (0Drfi)

11 Good design!

Posted by: Zane at June 24, 2006 10:21 PM (xakOF)

12 Well done!

Posted by: Angie at June 24, 2006 10:24 PM (uTr73)

13 Thank you!

Posted by: Ben at June 25, 2006 10:24 PM (94EEG)

14 Great work!

Posted by: Ron at June 25, 2006 10:39 PM (2xoLT)

15 Good design!

Posted by: Julie at June 25, 2006 10:39 PM (o5L7W)

16 Good design!

Posted by: Luke at June 27, 2006 10:53 PM (xE8Pk)

17 Good design!

Posted by: Ethan at June 28, 2006 01:05 PM (wYrS6)

18 Thank you!

Posted by: Adam at June 28, 2006 08:46 PM (d7x2T)

19 Thank you!

Posted by: William at June 30, 2006 02:29 AM (aMtTL)

20 Thank you!

Posted by: Jody at June 30, 2006 02:36 AM (6xEGd)

21 Thank you!

Posted by: Gloria at June 30, 2006 10:24 PM (cuozG)

22 Thank you!

Posted by: Timothy at June 30, 2006 10:29 PM (vAyAl)

23 Great work!

Posted by: Alice at June 30, 2006 10:31 PM (4LLGj)

24 Well done!

Posted by: Sabrina at July 02, 2006 03:40 AM (ZunY4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
26kb generated in CPU 0.0221, elapsed 0.1449 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1336 seconds, 273 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.