Suit Over Poor Google Ranking May Go Forward

as a lowly peon, i would like to add my two-cents on this one. it seems to me that this lawsuit will only cost kindersmart alot of money. let's face it, google has deep pockets and in the usa, that means power in the courts. would kindersmart be better served to spend the money it's wasting in the court system to feature it's site on alternative search engines? i may be wrong on this who knows, maybe google will lose. not likely.

it seems to me that the power of google is in our hands. the dilemma becomes, how does one organize and take the teeth out of the google bite? i wonder how it would affect google if web communities and users could somehow band together and make a real effort to use msn or yahoo (or any other alternative for that matter) as their se of choice? i know this sounds far-fetched and crazy, but it doesn't hurt to dream ... right?

i think i will start today by making msn search my homepage... they give me more traffic anyway. also, has anyone else noticed that the top google results are loaded with metawebs type spam sites? it seems to me that using the google index is becoming an effort to wade through waist-deep malarkey to try to find what one is looking for.

perhaps i am just rambling here.... but the way i see it the quality of the google search results is google's biggest problem. perhaps someone in the future will come up with an alternative to what exists today.... that would be a search engine that only includes useful, vertical content web sites.

'nuff said.

 

lol....will be waiting to see the result of case....

 

I agree that Kinderstart is not in a position to win. However, I do believe that Google is much more than a free website that lists you and ought to be able to do anything it wants.

Google is a publicly-owned company has come to control a lot of commerce in the United States. With that status comes a lot of responsibility. It is the legal system's job to moderate giants like Google, who can have huge effects on the national economy. Figuring out how to do that without interfering too much in Google's right to operate and earn money is a complicated task that will occur for better or worse over the next decade.

 

True, but couldn't all that apply to Texaco or McDonalds, but I don't see them complaining that they don't have a link on their websites?

The fact of the matter is, if they want their link on the first page of Google they can get it there - try ADWORDS guys.

 

Hey, if nothing else, can you think of better link bait than suing Google?

I mean, I can see it now. Thousands of people will link to them from blogs, newspapers, etc, and suddenly they will skyrocket in the serps. They, not knowing anything about seo, will think "Ha ha! See? We scared em and now they made us rank higher!".

I can just see it now. Of course, explaining this to them after the fact will do no good. So if they do rise, and they do gloat about it, and I miss it, could someone please point them to this post? Thanks.

-Michael

 

That's exactly what it is free PR.

 

agree agree agree.

 

It actually makes sense to me to allow this case to move forward, because if a judge does rule on this and rules in Google's favor (as I expect he will), then it will create case law that will help put this issue to rest. Also as others have observed, Google does have a great deal of power so some extra scrutiny might be warranted for the sake of protecting consumers.

I do think we should all be smart and make sure to not create links to the plaintiffs' website so that we don't help build up their PR.

 

lol... Im up for it thats 2... couple more we could have a class action

 

Ok ... Google got themselves into this mess..

Think about it this way... Google rankings is just as important, if not more, than phone lines.

If you had a business and your phone line provider cut off your phone lines because they felt like it (which is pretty much what google has and can do) then currently you can sue the phone company!

Unfortunately for Google many businesses see its search engine as an important sales channel. There search engine will always be theres but more tranparency is needed when it comes to why sites get banned and sandboxed! As an example take a look at microsoft operating system. Microsoft no longer have full control over what gets distributed on there OS, in the future the same thing will happen to Google and its SE.

Google is now in the same boat as microsoft in that there actions affect economies!

 

Well, nice in theory, but a couple things are missing. First, they didn't "cut them off", KinderStart.com is still listed. They just don't rank. So a closer analogy would be if say there were 15 billion listings in the phone book, all customers of the local phone company, and your bitch was that you were on page 1,908,343,006 instead of on page 1. Good luck trying to sue them over that.

-Michael

 

nice comeback ... but.... atleast phonebooks are in alphabetical order, you know exactly where you are and where you always will be.... The same can't be said for PR and search ranking (under total google control).

If you've worked hard to get to the first couple of pages then suddenly stripped of that ranking(without an explanation), thats what im against and thats what google should be punished for!

 

The judge allowing the plaintiff to ammend the original complaint with more specifics means that Google almost had the case dismissed because they did not even provide enough information to state a prima facie case.

It doesn't mean that this suit will ever see a courtroom. It means that the plaintiff's lawyers are bad or were hoping to gain a little publicity as the only thing they could possibly gain. They'll ammend the complaint and either have it dismissed immediately or maybe it'll go on for a few months before the case is dismissed post-discovery at the summary judgement phase. Google's lawyers have probably spent about 3 hours working the case so far - merely pointing out that the complaint was not enough to warrant a response.

 

Umm... yeah... BUT, if you know the url of the website you can type it in and find it, just like if you know the name of the company you're looking for you can go to the right page in the phonebook. No problem there.

Besides, it's still not the same thing. Google didn't prevent customers from going to the website. The only thing they didn't do was rank them. This is a frivolous lawsuit.

-Michael

 

Kinderstart doesn't have to win, they just have to settle. Google never admits any fault, Kinderstart gets some cash, and the wheel goes round and round. Or google plays hardball, gets a rep for being tough, and the thing drags on forever.

This is just how it is in the US. The lawsuits against google will continue to grow as their profits grow. They can settle'em quick and dirty, or they can play hardball, like Microsoft, and fight every battle to the bloody end.

 

To correct that analogy, it's like paying for a phone line but not advertising the number or paying for a directory listing, and then suing the phone company for not getting any calls. Doesn't make as much sense now does it?

 

They'll definitely play hardball. A settlement will mean opening the floodgates. I can't imagine a scenario where the plaintiff would actually stand a chance at winning this one - or even dragging it to the point of trial.

 

I agree, it is not in Google's best interest to settle. Regardless of cost, Google will want a case law created in their favor. Settling would just invite more problems.

 

Lawsuits against Google are on a rise. First companies fire a lawsuit and later they step back.

Here is a list of lawsuits filed against Google:

http://www.organicspam.com/law_suits_against_google.asp

The article writer very correctly questions - " But, besides this, one question creeps into my mind as to whether do these parties quit by themselves or are they forced to quit under some pressures?"

A thought provoking article.

 

I still havn't heard of any out-of-court scare tactic Google men in black (or men in green, yellow blue and red? ) theories yet. Strange that a company that large hasn't got its own arm twisting division yet.

Although I'm quite glad they're still maintaining a friendly air of attitude, I've never ever had a company respond so quickly to an open email contact form before. I hope this case sets a precedent for more stupid companies that're not happy with their PR 7 :angry: