Kinderstart files suit against google:

[lorien1973]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/17/D8GDKG900.html

KinderStart said its traffic plunged by 70 percent after Google dropped it. At its peak, KinderStart's visitors viewed more than 10 million Web pages per month, according to the suit.

Most of the pages have no content and its complaining about rankings in google?

[cpvr]

They won't win, so why try to file suit? xD

[LGRComp]

Interesting read. I can't see them winning, but they can always try.

[danephillips]

Google Inc. (GOOG)'s mysterious methods for ranking Web sites came under attack Friday in a lawsuit accusing the online search engine leader of ruining scores of Internet businesses that have been wrongfully banished from its index.

The civil complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose by KinderStart.com, seeks to be certified as a class action representing the owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's Internet-leading search engine since January 2001.


More On story (it's about time too )
http://www.textlinkpopularity.com/fo...editpost&p=116

[adolix]

interresting way to get traffic.... too bad that you put a wrong link, so we see a login box...

the article:
=========================================
Google Inc. (GOOG)'s mysterious methods for ranking Web sites came under attack Friday in a lawsuit accusing the online search engine leader of ruining scores of Internet businesses that have been wrongfully banished from its index.

The civil complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose by KinderStart.com, seeks to be certified as a class action representing the owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's Internet-leading search engine since January 2001.

KinderStart, a Norwalk-based Web site devoted to information about children, says it was dropped from Google's index a year ago without warning.

"The world is becoming increasingly 'Googlized,'" said Gregory Yu, a lawyer for KinderStart. "For most people, that has been a good thing, but not for everyone."


A Google spokesman said the company hadn't seen the suit and had no immediate comment.

KinderStart alleges Google has engaged in anticompetitive behavior and misled the public by positioning its search engine as an objective source for finding Internet content. The suit seeks unspecified financial damages and a court order that would require Google to change its ways.

The case aims at Google's heart - its tightly guarded formula for ranking Web sites.

Google's system strives to elevate in search results the Web sites with content most relevant to a request. Because Google handles far more search requests than its rivals, its ranking system can make or break Web sites without a well-known domain name.

With the stakes so high, Web sites assigned a low Google ranking are constantly trying to elevate their standing, and an entire cottage industry has formed surrounding search engine optimization. Some sites resort to dirty tricks, hoping the shenanigans will fool Google into highlighting their Web links.

Google regularly tweaks its search formula to weed out the mischief makers - sometimes called "Black Hats." In the worst cases, Google exiles the manipulative Web sites, a practice that has become known as being sent to "the sandbox" for the equivalent of a children's time out.

KinderStart's lawsuit alleges Google's policing efforts have penalized Web sites that have done nothing wrong. To make matters worse, the suit alleges the banished sites can't determine how they can restore their standings because the company doesn't explain its actions.

Mountain View-based Google has previously defended its right to revise its search formula however it sees fit.

In 2003, Google persuaded a federal judge to dismiss a case filed by Oklahoma City-based Search King Inc. after its search ranking abruptly fell. Google argued its search ranking formula represented an opinion protected by the First Amendment, and U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange agreed.

This time, KinderStart is the one making accusations of free-speech violations - in Google's case, by reducing the traffic sent to Web sites that have been wrongfully punished.

KinderStart said its traffic plunged by 70 percent after Google dropped it. At its peak, KinderStart's visitors viewed more than 10 million Web pages per month, according to the suit.

Yu hopes to prove Google has become an "essential facility" that should be required to warn Web sites before dropping them from the index. "We don't really feel there is enough transparency and openness in a service that has become so important," Yu said.

Google has always been tightlipped about how its search engine's works, maintaining the secrecy is essential to its success.

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE

[maldives]

Originally Posted by danephillips

http://www.textlinkpopularity.com/fo...editpost&p=116

Do you want us to register just read the article You must be joking

[BarryG]

I love how people think by strong arming us into registering at their sites we will somehow grow to love it and return often...

[DPFan]

Originally Posted by maldives

Do you want us to register just read the article You must be joking

...LOLz...

[Nintendo]

Wouldn't this be just like some one trying to sue Shawn for banning them for spamming??!!!

I should sue Google for banning one of my Redscowl Bluesingsky sites for doing black-hat, giving the site a billion back-links during the last two weeks of the contest.

[YoungSmeagol]

The fact that google caved on the adwords lawsuit means that they will probably get a few more people looking to cash in.

[Crusader]

Looks like everyone is trying to get onboard the "Sue Google" bandwagon. What webmasters don't realize is that a listing in a SE is a privilage, not a right. You need to consider SE generated traffic as something on the top, but still need to be able to get people to your site without listing in the search engines.

That's where good quality content, good link exchanges and good branding comes into play.

[YoungSmeagol]

Originally Posted by Umberto Tassoni

Google's strategies are all geared towards forcing businesses to use Adwords. Google has made itself a commodity which we just cant do without. In such circumstanes it must be held accountable and not be allowed to dictate and ruin legitiamte businesses at will.

Umberto Tassoni
MyWebSite

I agree, they should have some sort of fail safe for legitimate sites that are banned. I think they have started penalizing sites instead of banning them and stripping them of their pagerank. They still need to have some type of dialouge with legit sites.

However, the adwords lawsuit really wasn't merited. I know from experience that once I get a Click thru on an ad the ad doesn't show up any more on my site. So I can't see how one person doing click fraud could so adversely effect one awords account. Not even mentioning all the other stuff they do to prevent fraud.

[Mong]

IMO its good development to make some balance with google's mysterious algo and rude behavior.
btw i love google.

[mehbooba]

more complete article here :

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/17/D8GDKG900.html


I agree that google should actually warn the website before sand boxing them..... to give them the chance to make rectifications. Its a bit harsh when a genuine website makes accidental mistakes in their SEO and has their website banished from google having dire consequences.

by the way.. http://www.kinderstart.com/

is a directory if i am not mistaken. pretty good going if what they say about getting 10 million web page views per month is to be believed...

[ohcnetwork]

Originally Posted by Crusader

Looks like everyone is trying to get onboard the "Sue Google" bandwagon. What webmasters don't realize is that a listing in a SE is a privilage, not a right. You need to consider SE generated traffic as something on the top, but still need to be able to get people to your site without listing in the search engines.

That's where good quality content, good link exchanges and good branding comes into play.

90% of internet users use SE to go to a page they look for, and roughly 50% of queries are ran from Google, so Google has a huge market share. Given that, IF Google intentionally de-indexes a certain site(s), then it's an anticompetitive behavior, and it is an illegal behavior. But this "IF" is a big "IF." Only insiders know for sure. Even if de-indexing occurs accidentally, IF Google intentionally does not fix the bug, then it is an anticompetitive behavior, but is it really what's happening?

With regard to the lawsuit, I kind of hope that this won't end up as just a publicity stunt. I think this can be a pretty interesting case ...

[maha]

Technically.. does anyone see why should KinderStart.com be banned from the Google Index? You guys see any blackhat SEO techniques used? I don't..

[pkchukiss]

This lawsuit sounds communistic.

Does that mean that when everything becomes an essential commodity, the government has to take over and run the show? That would mean the end of Microsoft!

[ahkip]

wow, google bring them 70% of traffic?
Anyway, it is google's database...they can do what they want to do..i don't see any chance for KinderStart

[Crusader]

In any case, Kinderstart doesn't seem to have been banned at all. I still get their pages and site if I search for it in Google, so banning doesn't seem to be the problem here.

I guess they must have lost quite a bit of keyword listings after the previous update. We all know that that's more or less a rollercoaster ride and comes with the territory.

The fact remains, Google listings in top pages is a privilege not a right.

[browntwn]

Substory, the site you linked from. . . .

Did anyone wonder what the heck BREITBART was?

www.breitbart.com

It went from nothing to Alexa rank: Traffic Rank for breitbart.com: 671 overnight.

HOW. . .



He was Matt Drudge's assistant. Now, he has that site, just runs AP stories like hundreds of other sites. The difference, Druge links to his stories everyday from Drudgereport.com.

Pretty nice flood of traffic that Drudge controls.