Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Web Site Files Complaint Against Google

  • Subject: Re: Web Site Files Complaint Against Google
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 07:29:09 +0000
  • Newsgroups: alt.www.webmaster
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <v6io12h9m9mr03qbao4qr2h4gpbgve59ij@4ax.com> <op.s6mm5waqm9g4qz-wnt@tbdata.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ William Tasso ] on Saturday 18 March 2006 20:57 \__

> Fleeing from the madness of the Posted via Supernews,
> http://www.supernews.com jungle
> Ed Jay <edMbj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> stumbled into news:alt.www.webmaster
> and said:
>> Web Site Files Complaint Against Google
>> Mar 17
>> AP Business Writer
>> Google Inc.'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 world is becoming increasingly 'Googlized,'"
> fads come, fads go

Why blame Google though? As someone in AISE point out, shouldn't the
*Webmaster* be the target of the lawsuit, rather than the search engine
which makes (typically automated) selections among the millions of existing
Web sites?

>> ...
>> KinderStart alleges Google has engaged in anticompetitive behavior
> isn't that the point of being in business?

No. Not anticompetitive behavior. The definition I go by is is that which
interprets "anticompetitive behavior" as perilling the opponent directly
(e.g. data lockins) rather than doing well. But I don't think this story
exemplifies anticompetitive behavior...

>> and
>> misled the public by positioning its search engine as an objective source
>> for finding Internet content.
> Can't say I ever noticed that - and it's fairly dumb to assume a private
> company has anything but self interest at its core.

I agree. However, Google should make it even clearer that some 'results' are
sponsored links (e.g. microsoft.com at top of 'linux' SERP). Moreover, in
China they could point out that manual filters had been applied.

>> Mountain View-based Google has previously defended its right to revise
>> its
>> search formula however it sees fit.
> and they would have my moral support on that.

To some extent, at least in my perception.

>> ...
>> Yu hopes to prove Google has become an "essential facility" that should
>> be
>> required to warn Web sites before dropping them from the index.
> nice idea - if one is a resident of dreamland.
>> ...
>> < http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/17/D8GDKG900.html >
> so it goes.

They already give warnings to some of the more prominent sites. This would
prove impractical when handling millions of them.

Best wishes,


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    "Signature pending approval"
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux     ¦     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
  7:20am  up 10 days 23:57,  10 users,  load average: 1.02, 1.06, 0.95
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index