Blogcritics Comments on Lawsuit Seeks Google Pagerank Secrets

Comment by Justene

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:35:49 EST

For those of us who read lawsuits in our spare time, here is the actual complaint.

Comment by vladimirallen

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:46:39 EST

Google is public, it no longer is a private company. Unfortunately, the Goo-Gurls still embellish their high-school mentality, frame of mind. Fortunately, Google Inc. has a more mature CEO. Unfortunately, Kinderstart may be approaching the(ir) issue in the wrong (legal) manner. Time will tell. Regardless whether Google can be considered a monopoly, regardless whether Kinderstart 'paid' for services, the moment Google accesses (crawls) Kinderstart, regardless if Kinderstart used any of the available technologies to prohibit Google's crawl, Google partners with Kinderstart. If Kinderstart did NOT request services (by submission of their URL to Google) Kinderstart has a better claim, IF they approach the issue smartly. At the same time, it is wise business NOT to lay their egg in one basket, that of the Goo-Gurls, which is now evident to Kinderstart. The STATS on Kinderstart give us some insight: Kinderstart's website DOES NOT VALIDATE 5 errors, 276 warnings ... BAD BOYS! However, this is true of over 99% of the over 10 billion web pages on the W.W.W. All crap! Google SERPS do not VALIDATE. Bill Gate's MSN SERPS DO VALIDATE, surprisingly! Their top (meta) keywords are "kids" and "children". The number of competing web pages are 1,440,000,000 and 1,840,000,000 respectively on Goo. Whoa! G-allinurl: 16,400 G-pagerank: 0 (heh, heh - no 'uman intervention?) Alexa: 247,703 Gsite: = 30,200 Ysite: = 118,000<-Kinderstart should lookie-here MSNsite: = 972 Glinks: = 222 Ylinks: = 101,000 <- Lookie-here! MNSlinks: = 16,000+ It is a political (legal) battle that many will be watching, for sure.

Comment by kamikazeken

Mon, 20 Mar 2006 03:09:16 EST

well, the point seems to be that google may be giving preferential treatment to some websites, without disclosing to the public that the websites ranked on the first page may not actually be the most relevant search results. sort of like back when radio stations used to charge record labels money to play their song, so that more people would buy the album. radio was free, but it was in the public interest to force them to disclose how they selected what songs got top billing.. anyway, in the california court system, google may very well lose this one.

Comment by Tandex

Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:08:21 EST

That IS BS Google is a free service how can they be sued for not putting someones site high WOW

Comment by mark

Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:46:34 EST

Kinderstart will NEVER pry open the secret of the algorithm. If people know it, Google will be a terrible search engine. Let Kinderstart waste more of thier money by suing Google who has tons of $ to waste on legal fees! :D

Comment by panda

Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:26:56 EST

Google should strike back by removing Kinderstart entirely from their search engine.

Comment by Whitepaint

Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:25:53 EST

Google is still just a website. I do not know how a person expects to be able to sue something which is located in the ether of the internet. I guess everyone has to complain about something. I like the fact that the site tries to blame an unaffiliated company for their problems.

Comment by filthy

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:50:24 EST

lol that seems like bullshit, its a free search engine and shit, and they probably arent paying google, so they are jus greedy faggots.

Comment by Justene

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:34:33 EST

Blogcritics extreme tracker: Google 81% Yahoo 14% MSN 3%

Comment by Matthew T. Sussman

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:15:50 EST

Aaman, I went to my Extreme Tracking counter to see the breakdown of visits per search engines: Google: 49% MSN: 45% Yahoo: 4% Dogpile: 1% Conclusion: Not a monopoly. Circle gets the square.

Comment by Justene

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:58:06 EST

I do not think the suit wins. I do wonder if there is enough to show that Google is a monopoly. After all, Microsoft got into antitrust trouble despite Mac and Linux. It's been at least a decade since I've looked at how much market share you need before there's an issue. They did say they were ranked highly in another search engine and the drop by google dropped traffic 70% and ad revenue 80%, suggesting that google drives most of the net traffic. Again, I doubt that it wins but if it gets past the pleading stage, it may reveal some interesting things.

Comment by Aaman

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:24:50 EST

Anyone who thinks Google is a monopoly needs to only visit yahoo.com, msn.com or a9.com

Comment by Matthew T. Sussman

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:57:28 EST

In my professional opinion, Google ought to write Kinderstart with a note that simply says "TOUGH TITTIES."

Comment by Paul

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:12:46 EST

This is ridiculous. If google wants to completely stop displaying someone's website in THEIR search engine then they can. It's their site. If Kinderstart wins this case [doubtful] then I should be able to sue Kinderstart for not linking back to MY site. [same thing] They're just crying because they're not making their ad revenue. Google is a free service, you can't sue for something you dont pay for. They should be grateful for all of the ad revenue they've made thus far BECAUSE of the search engine, without it they'd still be living in their mobile homes.

Comment by Justene

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:02:28 EST

I haven't found a copy of the lawsuit yet. From a single sentence I read in all the coverage, I *think* the argument is trying to rest on the premise that Google is a monopoly and is hiding behind a trade secret to violate antitrust laws.

Comment by Aaman

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:00:17 EST

This is specious, would a lawsuit for Coke's formula get anywhere? Why should a company reveal it's trade secrets?

Comment by Google-Yuck

Sun, 19 Mar 2006 14:35:35 EST

Google has been crooked for a long time. Its about time something gets done about them.