Site sues Google over search rankings - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**Sterling** · 03-20-2006, 05:17 PM

Parental advice Web site claims its page views plummeted after Google's secretive search system penalized it.
March 19, 2006: 8:00 AM EST

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A parental advice Internet site has sued Google Inc., charging it unfairly deprived the company of customers by downgrading its search-result ranking without reason or warning.

The civil lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, Friday by KinderStart.com seeks financial damages along with information on how Google ranks Internet sites when users conduct a Web-based search.

Google could not immediately be reached for comment but the company aggressively defends the secrecy of its patented search ranking system and asserts its right to adapt it to give customers what it determines to be the best results.

KinderStart charges that Google without warning in March 2005 penalized the site in its search rankings, sparking a "cataclysmic" 70 percent fall in its audience -- and a resulting 80 percent decline in revenue.

At its height, KinderStart counted 10 million page views per month, the lawsuit said. Web site page views are a basic way of measuring audience and are used to set advertising rates.

"Google does not generally inform Web sites that they have been penalized nor does it explain in detail why the Web site was penalized," the lawsuit said.

While an entire sub-industry exists to help Web sites feature prominently in Google results, the company is known to punish those who try to trick the system into boosting their search rankings.

The lawsuit notes that rival search systems from Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Yahoo Inc. feature KinderStart.com at the top of their rankings when the name "KinderStart" is typed in.

The complaint accuses Google, as the dominant provider of Web searches, of violating KinderStart's constitutional right to free speech by blocking search engine results showing Web site content and other communications.

KinderStart contends that once a company has been penalized, it is difficult to contact Google to regain good standing and impossible to get a report on whether or why the search leader took such action.

The suit was filed the same day a federal judge denied a U.S. government request that Google be ordered to hand over a sample of keywords customers use to search the Internet while requiring the company to produce some Web addresses indexed in its system.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/18/tech..._lawsuit.reut/

**007** · 03-20-2006, 05:50 PM

Part of me likes this, but really I think it's one of the dumbest lawsuits I've heard of. It would be nice if Google had to explain why they dropped your position, HOWEVER, it's their site, their service, and their rules. Free speech constitutes that you are speaking in a place that you have access to. By not being on the first page of search results, this has nothing to do with Google violating your free speech.

Sure you get less traffic, but are they PAYING Google for their position? I doubt it. Hence, they can't sue Google for damages.

I don't even know why this is news at all. There are things that I don't like about Google either, but I have to side with them on this one.

**Rarethings** · 03-20-2006, 06:56 PM

This case is most certainly in favor of google. This would be like me saying (in the brick and mortar world), that my house didn;t get enough exposure for a sale from the town, and suing the town for the location of my house, rather than taking out classifieds, working with prospects, etc. It never fails to amaze me what some people are willing to sue for.

**JMJ** · 03-20-2006, 07:43 PM

I hate to say it but Google seems to be shooting themselves in the foot right and left. While I do agree the lawsuit if silly Google needs to quit trying to be judge and jury themselves and get back to being a search engine or they might get knocked off their high horse. They seem to want to do everything they possibly can to try and keep a website and webmaster from succeeding. I can tell you I've more than quadrupled my earnings by redirecting focuss outside of google.

**joeny** · 03-20-2006, 07:50 PM

Well.......see most people are missing the point on this......

Like most trends- this happens to be another its called,

"google wont add my links - But the media will"

There have been dozens of people now suing google, WHY?

It makes the NEWS, and what is better to gain attention the a whole bunch of PR7 and higher news site like cnn, and such to go pumping your site,

I bet now with all the media attention - they have gained tons of traffic,

But I do bet - they are well known now,

The media picked it up and BAM!

Traffic - traffic - Traffic

Point is people are starting to make the media work for them............

**jimmy** · 03-22-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 007

Part of me likes this, but really I think it's one of the dumbest lawsuits I've heard of. It would be nice if Google had to explain why they dropped your position, HOWEVER, it's their site, their service, and their rules. Free speech constitutes that you are speaking in a place that you have access to. By not being on the first page of search results, this has nothing to do with Google violating your free speech.

Sure you get less traffic, but are they PAYING Google for their position? I doubt it. Hence, they can't sue Google for damages.

I don't even know why this is news at all. There are things that I don't like about Google either, but I have to side with them on this one.

OK But Google today is the web itself. And if you are not indexed in Google you simply do not exist. I believe this company has a point...

**007** · 03-22-2006, 06:50 PM

But Google's terms clearly state that being listed is not guaranteed.

Quote:

We do not add all submitted URLs to our index, and we cannot make any predictions or guarantees about when or if they will appear.

Google has every right to delete any site they want from their index. Fair or not, it's still their website and we don't want the government telling companies that they HAVE to include links to certain sites on their site. I mean how stupid can this company be to think that somehow they have a right to be listed high on Google. It's a privilege, and regardless of anything they may or may not have done to justify the drop in rank, their rank is not guaranteed, not should it be.

They are not paying Google, so they have absolutely nothing on them.

Gritgrat · 03-22-2006, 07:08 PM

Yeah google states that they dont guarantee any links put on there search. I agree with the above if your not on google your certainly guna struggle( might as well not exists), but at the end of the day its there site there rules when you join up you know what your getting into from the start. Luckily i managed to get out site on google with 190+ pages.

Theres no such thing as bad publicity both parties will probably of had a few million clicks after the press put that report out. What i cant understand is why they would try sue google. Its way to big both financially and as an organization surely they dont think its really guna go anywhere.

**Dave Zan** · 03-22-2006, 07:44 PM

He he he, I knew I should've posted it here instead. Just thought I'd put it in
the SE section:

http://www.dnforum.com/f73/web-site-...ad-139773.html

Funny thing is that kidstart's in google's search results. :-D

**Cool_dude_prav** · 03-24-2006, 07:17 PM

it is extremely right of google to do this...

as someone mentioned... they are NOT PAYING for the service... They are making use of something that is free... its as good as telling that ur Linux box crashed and that ur gonna file cases against them...

**IDNebook.com** · 03-24-2006, 07:44 PM

I wonder if they have hard evidence to prove google in the wrong