I found an interesting statement which the owner of searchking made while the google, searchking case was going on. Searchking owner Bob Massa says full article is at http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=2165111 I like the point he makes. Pagerank is an evaluation, just like school report card. Belongs to the page. Wonder if this creates the demand of an alternate ranking system beyond googles pagerank. [FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
An evaluation by definition belongs to the evaluator. It is an opinion - a form of speech. In essence, PageRank is no different than a restaurant review or other opinion article. Searchking's contention is misleading here because there are actually two evaluations at issue. The first is the evaluation made by the webmaster who posted the link. The second is Google's incorporation of that link into its own overall evaluation in the form of a PageRank score and ultimately Google's search results, and no other party has a right to control or alter that evaluation so long as it meets any reasonable standard that prohibits slander or libel. It doesn't even have to be fair in how it determines its search results because it is an opinion and there is no legal obligation by Google toward the sites being evaluated. The New York Times drama critics and book reviews are famous for being able to make or break a play or book, but they don't legally owe the producers anything in making their judgements. One point that is often overlooked in these discussions is that the value of Google's rankings is determined by searchers. Since Google has a reputation for reliable results, its "opinions" are popular with users. If that reputation deteriorates, so will the size of its audience and therefore the value of its opinions. So like any opinion-based publication, it must have the freedom to make its own judgements in order to best serve its audience and, in the end, continue to succeed in the marketplace.
Look at it this way. Ur gpa in school is a 3.2. Does that belong to the school or u. Ok, but if they make a wrong judgment, they could end up in court as well. Plus, with google's pagerank, there is hidden criteria. Other evaluations lets take for example when I got my java certification from Sun, clearly outlined the criteria in what is needed to pass the exam, or be 'Titled' as a certified programmer from sun. I'm sure there will be more lawsuits to follow or another system of ranking will pop up. Also, I dont know what searchkings finances looked like, but with the right kind of money, he could have taken that case much further. Do u remember people vs O.J. Simpson. Johnny Cochran got him out based on benefit of doupt.
Another thing which popped into mind is this. Does the New York Times review ALL BOOKS & PLAYS?????? You see where I'm getting at.
The method used to calculate it belongs to the school. The work you did to achieve it belongs to you. The judgment of the merits of your work is theirs to make. Whats a wrong judgment? If an editor thinks a book sucked then he writes what he thinks. If that tanks sales of the book then so be it. But were getting off topic. Google Owns the ranking, true. But I own a website and can sell links too whoever wants to pay the right price. The market sets the price. It just so happens that Google PR created a proxy currency that the market freely converts into $ values. If Google decides to hide PR numbers entirely then the other Page Strength type calculators that are floating out there now will take over as the proxy currency to decide the value of a link. The market will decide which of those tools is most relevant, accurate, and reliable. If there were such a tool today that was more reliable and accurate than Google PR then PR would quickly become irrelevant.
Again, an evaluation is an opinion which is the property of the evaluator and does not belong to the object of the evaluation. Even the GPA is a form of opinion since it is the results of the evaluations of the school system which is in charge of determining the criteria in assigning grades. The only difference is that there is often a financial or legal relationship between the school and the student (or his parents) which would give the student some rights in the matter. Here again, the value of the GPA from any school comes from the marketplace's opinion of the quality of their grading system just as the value of Google's rankings comes from searchers' opinion of the quality of Google's results. But in the case of The New York Times and Google, there is no such legal or financial relationship, and no obligation whatsoever to the subjects of the evaluations. Both deserve to be free to set their own criteria for their evaluations and how they choose to express those evaluations within the limits of any other commercial speech which would prohibit slander and libel. There is a vast difference between a search engine ranking one site over another or excluding a site altogether because it doesn't meet the search engine's quality standards and saying something libelous like a particular site is operated by thieves. Its just like when the restaurant reviewer says Joe's Hash House has lousy coffee, and that's why courts have always rejected these lawsuits - it comes down to the right of a commercial entity to express their opinion.
The gpa belongs to the student. Can never be taken away from him. In the United States, atleast in our school, a student can go as far as to challenge the professor which grades a final exam, if he feels he did was not graded fairly. a wrong judgement is basically a judgement which is not right. the point i'm trying to make is that when ur showing millions of people this unit of measure called pagerank, people are going to try to put it to their advantage. Nothing wrong with that. Otherwise, u just keep it to urself internally and don't show any type of pagerank to the people
gpa and PR are not similar enough to make a comparison. As a student, paying thousands of dollars in tuition, you are in a contractual relationship with the school. They do OWN THEIR ranking (grading) methods. You simply have purchased the right to use it and the right to challenge it. You may have earned it and can always say you got a 3.0 gpa this past semester, but you do not OWN it. There is no ownership there. Google is under no form of contractual relationship with anybody regarding PR. No money has changed hands here. They dole out PR as they like. And if your not happy with your sites PR you have no recourse to make them change it, and never will. They are free to adjust how its calculated at any time, and they do. (probably at each and every PR update). They are free to include your site in their index (at whatever ranking level it happens to land) or intentionally exclude your site from their index. They kick spammers out regularly. BMW did no sue when they got the boot. They just stopped using black hat SEO and asked to be allowed back in, with promises of playing by Google's rules. As soon as Google stops publishing PR numbers, something else will take its place, as long as link popularity remains a function of search engine algorithms.
Ok, so it's ASSIGNED to me, if u wanna get technical. But im sure u got the point. This is not allowed in the United States and we have strict laws governing against it. Basically Anti Trust and Class Action. Searchking went from Pagerank 8 to Pagerank 0 in a matter of months. For 4 years it stayed at 0. I don't see anything on google's tos saying we will kill ur pagerank for 4 years of i do something wrong. The only reason in my opinion that searchking couldn't win the case is because google probably had a team of top notch lawyers. What do u think the outcome would have been if it was yahoo or microsoft in court against google.
Another comparison- How is this any different than the NHTSA and automobile safety ratings? The manufacturers challenge the NHTSA rankings all the time, typically to no avail. Yet, these rankings have a direct impact on how well a car sells. Should the NHTSA be held accountable for perhaps a flawed ranking system (as many have alleged)? I say yes, no different for Google.
I just don't see how this can fall under anti-trust. Unless Google specifically targeted Searchking and artificially deflated their PR. But there is no actual evidence of that. Outside of direct collusion to devalue the PR of a specific site, Google is free to change its ranking algorithm as it sees fit. If in doing so some sites loose PR while others gain, then thats just the way it goes.
That was pretty much the whole case. Searchking was targeted and the case was dismissed over a year later based on one of the amendments which gives the the right to chose. Did u follow up on the article I have in the opening thread. What I think is if searchking had more financial strength, the outcome may of been different. Have you read on the nissan.com lawsuit, where nissan.com does not belong to the Nissan Motor company and they will rip that guys throat out to get that domain.
Here's another to watch. Google vs Kindercare. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=google+and+kindercare+lawsuit&btnG=Google+Search I think this one is still in the battleroom. I'm too busy to follow it, but Kindercare got its pr back. They got money to represent themselves. I read somewhere google may lose this one. Who knows, maybe its already over with. But I repeat. When you DOLE out pr's as u wish, then unhappy organizations will take you to court. There is due process, open to all.
Let's say he does win the lawsuit, does that mean that google can't update the ranking because people are going to sue. In the end it just is going to hurt the user or until they go into a private PR calculation.
I think the toolbar PR was meant for the public to know Google's opinion on the content of a particular page, i.e. importance/trust. It wasn't meant for webmasters to use it for SEO purposes.