Suing Google Because Your Google Site Ranking Sucks

from the try-again dept

Fri, Mar 17th 2006 5:50pm — Mike Masnick

A few years back, you may recall the "SearchKing" case, where Google penalized a search engine optimizer for gaming its system -- a fairly common practice in the company's ongoing attempts to keep search engine spammers out, while making searches more relevant. Well, in this case, the guy wasn't too happy (and it certainly didn't reflect well on his optimization technique), and he eventually sued Google. It didn't take long at all for a judge to dismiss the case, noting that Google's ranking was their opinion and, thus, protected free speech. However, with so many sites relying so much on Google, and the constant shifts in rankings, you knew it was only a matter of time before such a case popped up again. Google has now been sued by a firm that is upset at its ranking. While the article isn't entirely clear, it sounds like this was a site that was entirely blacklisted, probably for its own aggressive search engine optimization techniques -- and so they're trying to set up a class action suit on behalf of all sites blacklisted by Google. This seems just as silly (and as likely to succeed) as the original case, but the lawyers this time are trying a slightly different argument. They're suggesting that Google is an "essential facility" and by penalizing sites with no explanation and no recourse, they're unfairly hurting businesses. Of course, proving Google as an "essential facility" may take a bit of work -- and could open up the floodgates. The real issue is that, even though many companies do, relying on a single source as a way of driving business is always a risky position to be in. It's a business decision to rely on Google, and not look for other methods of driving traffic. Google is an outside party and can do what they want. While many people do rely on Google, that doesn't mean they have to do anything for other sites, other than try to keep their index as relevant as possible to keep their users happy.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

151 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Joe Smith, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:02pm

Real goal
The Plaintiff's real goal may be to simply force Google through the discovery process to tell them what the Google ranking algorithm is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andrew Strasser, 19 Mar 2006 @ 10:27am
  
  Re: Real goal
  Interesting idea...
  
  Search functions are easy to find but to figure out someone else's alogrithm is quite the feat.
  
  Though i still believe Google is in the business of making money. My 2 ents. For what it's worth which ain't much it seems.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Spadaccini, 19 Mar 2006 @ 7:30pm
  
  Re: Real goal
  That's an interesting idea...but I am not so sure it will work. I believe that if the plaintiffs, in discovery, were to seek Google's algorithms, Google could easily get an order to disclose the material only under a strong protective order--thereby rendering the information essentially useless.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Spadaccini, 19 Mar 2006 @ 7:30pm
  
  Re: Real goal
  That's an interesting idea...but I am not so sure it will work. I believe that if the plaintiffs, in discovery, were to seek Google's algorithms, Google could easily get an order to disclose the material only under a strong protective order--thereby rendering the information essentially useless.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Neti Pot, 15 Oct 2012 @ 7:19am
  
  Re: Real goal
  Always wash your neti pot with warm water and dish soap and after that rinse it thoroughly. I suppose these neti pot instructions will be really helpful and you�ll become a real neti pot fan.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TJ, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:34pm

Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news at NEVER
Have the Techdirt editors spent any time reading the 160+ comments about the site redesign? If they have, they are ignoring us. Either pay attention to our feedback, or don't accept feedback at all. As it is, they are doing nothing but wasting our time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:41pm
  
  Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news at NE
  Have the Techdirt editors spent any time reading the 160+ comments about the site redesign? If they have, they are ignoring us. Either pay attention to our feedback, or don't accept feedback at all. As it is, they are doing nothing but wasting our time.
  
  This is not the spot for this, but since you asked it here...
  
  We have spent the week gathering all the feedback and have been implementing a number of changes. Please be patient. Many of the changes are already in place and more are coming shortly. However, we want to test things to make sure they work properly.
  
  The VAST majority of the feedback has been positive. There are a few changes that enough people wanted that we will be implementing shortly.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2006 @ 8:14pm
    
    Re: Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news a
    shut the fuck up ass hole if you dont like leave
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nb109, 19 Mar 2006 @ 1:15pm
    
    Re: Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news a
    Who are YOU to tell them how they should run their site. If you don't like it you can:
    A) Leave.
    B) Create your own site that includes whatever ridiculous features that please your bossy, little mind.
    
    Also, why would you complain about your retarded feedback here in the comment section of a story? Does it not seem a bit out of place to you?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Samira Alexandrova, 16 Jun 2016 @ 6:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news at NE
    I appreciate your idea here. Definitely it has a good content. Thank you for imparting more of your own thoughts. Good job!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Saint Jerome, 18 Mar 2006 @ 10:09am
  
  Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news at NE
  Calm down. Who are you to think the the Techdirt editors should listen to your comments on the redesign. This is a private website. If you don't like it, leave.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- srgtick, 18 Mar 2006 @ 11:51am
  
  Re: Techdirt editors ignore visitors... news at NE
  I want what I want now!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Happy User, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:34pm

Google Rankins, #1 or #2 or #3 or even #4,567,890
scenario #1: ok, so when the trial is over, this company gets knowladge of why they were blacklisted from google's usage listing in the first place... and remains off the google's search list. big whoop.

scenario #2: The company gets onto google's search ranking and is #1 for a day - until they get shuffled in a relevancey order, in which case the company will remain #1 or #2 or #3 or even #4,567,890 for a particular term.

scenario #3: The company gets on to google again and no one searches for the company other than to badmouth it for it's low low low attack methods.

scenario #4: The company wins the case and Google has to pay out a class action suit on behalf of all sites blacklisted by from Google. How is any company to claim "lost income" by relevancy of search engines? If that was possible, then wouldn't anyone listed in Google be able to determine their $$$ growth over the upcoming years - based SOLELY upon being listed (i mean "ranked by") Google's search engine... by relevance of end-user's search term.

scenario #5: This is St.Patty's day - and I guess this a weekend-post regarding [GREEN] money... or I'm way off on everything, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jdragon, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:00pm

Wouldn't it cheaper to just use PPC like adword to advertise than say...pay the lawyer fees?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Susheel, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:29pm

They don't have very good lawyers if they argued 'essential facilities'. That doctrine was dismissed with prejudice by the S.Ct. several years ago....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ted, 17 Mar 2006 @ 7:50pm

KinderStart.Com Sues Google
I think you guys are jumping to alot of conclusions here. Try reading the complaint first, then comment away, I read the complaint, and there is more there than meets the eye. These guys do not look like they are out for themselves. Read the complaint then decide. BTW, per the complaint, they never did any optimization. I think it is wise to with-hold judgement to you get more information. The truth will come out, and- yes- there are two sides- KinderStart and Googles and perhaps others;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CE, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:48pm

KinderStart suing Google
KinderStart is suing Google is ridiculous...To rely on Google for people to find your site means that the company does not want to spend any money on marketing. If they market themselves to their target group, then people can find their site. Why not send their link to their customers? That's another way to generate hits on their site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:58pm

violating tos
simple - they probly did what every other company that gets blacklisted did, use seo techniques that violate google's tos for being on their search listing

you break the rules, you pay accordingly, why do they expect to be treated any differenlty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andyware, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:06pm

Americans are funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- yangyang, 6 Oct 2006 @ 2:27pm
  
  Re:
  Or they could never have invented internet in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WhoNu, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:36pm

Demolition Man
Remember the movie Demolition Man? Is google really the Taco Bell of the future?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darknet, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:33pm

Hmm
I hope you mean that it's no longer going to fixed width Mike :)

And with regards to this article, Google has money now, these kinds of cases are going to pop up every couple of weeks..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
icepick314, 18 Mar 2006 @ 2:14am

America RULEZ!!
Welcome to the Land of Freedom and the Frivolous Lawsuits!!

We can sue for hot coffee, bad air, and free search enegines!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- we was free, 19 Mar 2006 @ 4:29am
  
  Re: America RULEZ!!
  Not too long back when i was just a little boy we was free to do as we won't and say what ever we won't too.
  but come too think about it it was a long time a go...........
  i don't think we are free any more????
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guest, 18 Mar 2006 @ 4:20am

May be, he wants advertise by creating a sensation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOCcer, 18 Mar 2006 @ 5:05am

Seems like another case of a company suing for something rediculous for the free advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOCcer, 18 Mar 2006 @ 5:08am

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.

So Google is in the child education business now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pimptology Professor, 18 Mar 2006 @ 6:54am

Again
Wow, google is makin an apalling list of enemie, i guess the unwritte rule about fame: The higher you rise, the faster u fall, is going to apply to google in the near future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nb109, 19 Mar 2006 @ 1:09pm
  
  Re: Again
  Pimptology Professor, you honestly believe that Google is going to fall in the near future?
  I think your rule about fame would more accurately be explained as "The higher you rise, the more people know of you, and so, the more enemies you aquire."
  The reasons that others become your enemy, whether it be jealousy, a belief that you have, in some way, treated them unfairly, or whatever other reason the masses will invent, are irrelevent. There are whiners and complainers that have to throw a big hissy fit whenever they don't get their way. The more people you become exposed to, the more of those ridiculous people you come in contact with.
  You will always have enemies. The more people that know you, the more enemies you have. Unfortunately, it's a simple universal law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
farlane, 18 Mar 2006 @ 7:04am

Uncle Ben says...
Interesting to see this article this morning as I have been trying to detail how the Google rankings and referrals for one of our sites has been plummetting and to figure out how to discuss this with Google (though there seems to be no recourse when you have been found guilty by the court of Google).

It looks as if Kinderstart.com is a database-driven, link-heavy site. Our Absolute Michigan site is as well.

Google seems to be penalizing such sites heavily. The rationale I have heard is that many of these are merely sites created to snare traffic (and reap Adword revenue - how ironic is that?). What that rationale ignores is sites which are truly seeking to become trusted guides to a subject area, something that Google is very poor at.

Don't believe me? Search "Michigan links" and ask if there is any logical reason that the "Militia Links" or "Northport, Michigan: Links" site should have a higher ranking than our Ab Mich site for that query. 6 months ago, we were number one. We have added thousands of more links to REAL web sites and yet our ranking falls.

Google wields enormous power and we all know that means they bear enormous responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ben, 18 Mar 2006 @ 7:52am
  
  Re: Uncle Ben says...
  Your site provides no content per se, you just link to other sites; if you bothered to learn anything about Google's ranking, you'd have known that you're only increasing the rank of sites you link to, and do nothing for your own website.
  
  You want high Google rank? Put up a website with meaningful content, get other people's websites on similar topic to link to your website, and watch your rank climb.
  
  Directory-style sites are passe, we don't need them anymore - we have Google!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 18 Mar 2006 @ 8:27am
  
  Re: Uncle Ben says...
  Sites that are just link junkyards should be blacklisted. It's frustrating to search for something and the top sites are just a bunch of links. I'm not searching to find links, I'm searching to find actualy sites. I don't want to keep going through an endless circle of links...!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Smith, 18 Mar 2006 @ 9:41am
  
  Google's responsibility
  is to its shareholders. It satisfies that responsibility by providing searches that give users what they want. Goolge's ranking algorithms will be driven by the need to satisfy the users doing searches. It has no responsbility to the sites which want to be ranked by Google.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bored, 18 Mar 2006 @ 7:34pm
  
  Re: Uncle Ben says...
  "Google wields enormous power and we all know that means they bear enormous responsibility."
  
  No, actually, they don't. They're a private company. They don't charge for their information. They have a 1st Amendment right to publish their opinion. If you don't like it, tough. If you rely on their opinion for your business model, also tough. Try advertising.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tyshaun, 18 Mar 2006 @ 7:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Uncle Ben says...
    "Google wields enormous power and we all know that means they bear enormous responsibility."
    
    No, actually, they don't. They're a private company. They don't charge for their information. They have a 1st Amendment right to publish their opinion. If you don't like it, tough. If you rely on their opinion for your business model, also tough. Try advertising.
    
    You may be right, I'm not an attorney, however, this resonates to me on the same level as people suing Microsoft or the old Bell Telephone (before the breakup). Even if you are a private company, if your business becomes so ubiquitous or indispensible that people can't do without it, then the the case for anti-trust may be used. There are lots of search engines but one could argue that the popularity and universal acceptance of the google site may have made it the Microsoft of searching. Just a thought.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Avery, 19 Mar 2006 @ 6:12am
  
  Re: Uncle Ben says...
  Don't believe me? Search "Michigan links" and ask if there is any logical reason that the "Militia Links" or "Northport, Michigan: Links" site should have a higher ranking than our Ab Mich site for that query. 6 months ago, we were number one. We have added thousands of more links to REAL web sites and yet our ranking falls.
  One of the key criteria Google uses to rank sites is the sites popularity. There are 1,430 sites in the Google index that link to constitution.org but only 129 sites that link to absolutemichigan.com.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deverill, 18 Mar 2006 @ 7:18am

Evil corporations!
If I pay for a newspaper classified ad they can put it in any order they want and I'm paying for it. How much more right does a free service have to order listings as they wish?

Besides that, Google only promises to do things the way they want to - there is no contract with the listed site's owners to be fair and equitable.

Sounds like this site was reaping benefits from Google's generosity and when it changed they got upset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul -V-, 18 Mar 2006 @ 8:17am

RE: Uncle Ben
Your site is little more than a link farm. No wonder you are not doing well.

Try writing some new content every once in a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- farlane, 18 Mar 2006 @ 8:39am
  
  Re: RE: Uncle Ben
  Hey Paul, try digging a little deeper. Take for example Bill Could Have Grave Implications for Michigan's State Forests. Links to the story and the bill content and provides a summary of the news. You can also click (for example) "Sports & recreation > Parks" from related categories to find a links to parks that might be impacted by this story. And Oh look, there's more articles about parks.
  
  The resources have been reviewed by HUMAN eyes and are all in Michigan - and all authentic sites. Try a google search for "Michigan parks" and see what you get.
  
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a useful service.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anwar, 18 Mar 2006 @ 8:54am
    
    Re: Re: RE: Uncle Ben
    But still google does that it has links to parks that could he impacted by that particular story.
    
    Why should someone include you in their database of records if they dont want you in it?
    to put that another way
    Do you expect a woman who doesnt want to have sex to be forced to have sex?
    
    Gopogle like women, have rights, unfortunately
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - farlane, 18 Mar 2006 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: RE: Uncle Ben
      I completely agree that google has links to parks in Michigan and when I'm looking for a specific park, that's where I go. Like the vast majority of folks on this site, I am versed in google-fu. Everyone in the world is not, however.
      
      My point is that when somebody is looking for "Michigan parks", they are more than likely unsure of anything more than they are looking for a park in Michigan. For that search and state of mind, a site like ours works better than the site for a specific Michigan park.
      
      Our team knows the state of Michigan and spends hours every day weeding through the mass of news and information to distill essential items as we see them. We forge connections between stories and REAL businesses, organizations and individuals. To be artificially penalized for doing this is (in my opinion) wrong.
      
      While you are correct that there is no grounds to force google to include a site in its database, the fact remains that Google wields a vast and largely unchecked power to control what gets seen and what doesn't. I suppose if you agree with their decisions, then it desn't matter who they're censoring.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2006 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Uncle Ben
        Plus, if they really are censoring great sites, we'd all just find a search engine to replace them!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dan, 19 Mar 2006 @ 1:57am
        
        Uncle Ben Says...
        We get that your michigan website has links to all kinds of various other web pages regarding Michigan. But here's the thing, if you type in "Michigan Parks" into google, what you get is a list of links. It's skipping a step. Why go to your website through google to find more links when we've already got 10 million in front of us?
        
        What I'm really trying to grasp here is how this company intends to prove that google owes it because it's been blacklisted. Let's say, for instance, I have a lot of friends--and I do. I go to a resturant and eat, I then judge that the food is horrible or maybe someone who worked there was a prick or something, right? So I tell my friends, about my experience or maybe they ask me if I've been to the resturant, in which case I would then tell them not to go, or simply just say "I wouldn't reccomend it." Can the resturant then sue me because I've somehow damaged their business by not reccomending it to a friend?
        
        What I'm really saying is, how can they blame google for their lack of business? There are plenty of other ways out there to advertise. They don't pay google to advertise their website, google is not the only way to access their website. So how can google owe them anything?
        
        Now, if the internet as a whole just up and decided to not let anyone access that website (which I'm pretty sure is just about impossible). Then maybe they would have a case (just not one against google, though).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        farlane, 19 Mar 2006 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Uncle Ben Says...
        I get it that you get it, Dan & others. Sorry for digressing and for offending you with my sad little tale. The point isn't "Wah - google's not linking to me". I'll deal with that with Google (without lawyers cause I don't like to get beat down by billion dollar legal teams).
        
        The point is that GOOGLE IS UBIQUITOUS. It is a verb. Paying attention to what Google is doing is a good idea since they are building the OS of the future -- today.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dan, 19 Mar 2006 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Uncle Ben Says...
        I don't mean to say that the mighigan website isn't worth going to or anything. If I'm ever thinking about going to Michigan, hell, I'll go check it out. I guess I just really don't understand how it is somehow Google's responsibility to make sure every website on the internet gets fair coverage from the internet's users.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Andrew Strasser, 19 Mar 2006 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Uncle Ben
        "While you are correct that there is no grounds to force google to include a site in its database, the fact remains that Google wields a vast and largely unchecked power to control what gets seen and what doesn't. I suppose if you agree with their decisions, then it desn't matter who they're censoring."
        
        I've found Google doesn't censor things as badly as some other entities out there that shouldn't even censor a thing. Just take a Google-fu toward my direction once. You'll see Google had me a copy of those pages as soon as I needed them even when they disappeard. I don't want a link farm Google finds what is being looked for if you word yourself correctly. That's what i like about the service and you're an idiot if you think that they have total control, because if so then those two ents that started as cents would have most likely been able to do something about what was being seen by not just me everyone around me at times.
        
        Bad Company to be messing with right now. They have a lot of power as they are working with our Govt., our Govt. forgot that a few times and needed to be retold that's the only real problem. Google works as it's supposed to it finds links not links to links to links. Check neurology you'll love that section you idiot link farm owners.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
webmetricsguru, 18 Mar 2006 @ 10:39am

Suing Google Because Your Google Site Ranking Suck
What else is new, everyone wants to sue Google these days. According to an article in Siliconvalley.com 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. I can count on my two hands the number of Google updates that have occured in the last two years and everytime any search engine does an update some results change. 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. Some of this is true - it's hardly new and most of us have accepted it and moved on. 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. This is also true - lots of time sites drop out and it's not clear why that happened or even when it happened. I believe there are plans in the works to notify webmasters when Google discovers a problem in their sites that might end up excluding the site from Google's index - but to my knowledge - it's not a live program yet. 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. I can believe that - many sites traffic have become inflated with traffic from Google - if Google's traffic were, somehow to go away, and nothing were there to replace it with - the economic effect could cripple the world economy in the short term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hazelbyte, 18 Mar 2006 @ 1:59pm

pfffft
It seems a shame to me that people think like this:
> I want what I want now!

Both with regard to the forum and with regard to the case.
Both topics are about folks which solve their problems by demanding louder. Even children learn that this is not appropriate or constructive. In an adult world it means the US leads the world
restricting our freedoms in order to comply with people who
cannot negotiate responsibly. Sometimes you have right of way, sometimes you dont. You are responsible for honoring that in order to have a free society.
A free society is one where you understand that other people need to have right of way, this is the means that you sometimes have right of way. You are responsible for negotiating in ways which
do not reduce the freedoms of others.
Both threads are tantrums. Learn to value your freedom, and that of others, operate your businesses and communications in ways which see things from the perspective of other people, avoid suing people to reduce those freedoms for all of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mekales, 18 Mar 2006 @ 4:15pm
  
  Re: pfffft
  BRAVO!! BRAVO!!
  
  I'm standing and cheering your comment! So many in this "land of the free" believe that the world "owes" them and have no concern of the "cost" to others. That is the trend in our government, right down to the way people behave in the aisles of the supermarket. It's deplorable the "ME, ME, ME" society that we Americans have become. Many other countries are laughing, 'Those FREE Americans don't understand what the term or theory of FREEDOM really means.'
  
  Thank you for stating the simple truth.
  
  Mekales
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2006 @ 3:06pm

I wish a lawsuit
I wish a lawsuit would be filed to keep the annoying pages off of their engines that are nothing more than keyword scares to do nothing more than show you a page with even more ads and adword links. Google doesn't care because they are selling ads to companies who might not show up near the top.

Think about it. Rankings change regularly because sites that are at the top of a search give those site owners a taste of what high traffic can do. What happens when the site then drops off? The site owner gets desparate and possibly gives Google money (via adwords) so they will show up again on the first page of a search.

They MUST protect their algorithm because if people found out that it's quite simplistic and mainly used to drive businesses to their ad programs, even more lawsuits would ensue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DreadedOne509, 18 Mar 2006 @ 6:05pm

It is greed, plain and simple. Our tort laws need to be revamped, rewritten or thrown out and started over. It has become the haves vs. the have-not's-but-will-sue-to-get-it way to get ahead.

If the company can't survive without a good ranking on Google, they probably would not survive anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dean Hougen, 18 Mar 2006 @ 7:46pm
  
  Re: It is greed, plain and simple.
  Our tort laws certainly need to be revamped but if you believe the only problem with them is that the have-not's [sic] sue the haves to get rich, then you've been bamboozled by the haves. Often the problem is that the haves are suing the have-nots.
  
  "But," you ask, "why would the haves sue the have-nots? The have-nots don't have enough money to be worth suing!"
  
  I'm glad you asked. The have-nots don't have much money but they do have voices and often the haves want to silence them. For example, I've seen many cases where have-nots have given open, honest, factual accounts of bad experiences they have had with companies, only to have the companies come after them with lawsuits to shut them up and to shut up anyone else who might be tempted to give an honest account of their bad experiences with the company. The result is often just what the poorly behaving haves want--lots of have-nots who censor themselves and spread the word to each other that they should all censor themselves, lest they be sued by the haves.
  
  So, argue for tort reform all you want but do so with the knowledge that the strong sometimes prey on the weak and our system is set up by the strong to make that possible.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Sherwood, 19 Mar 2006 @ 3:14am

This analayis or lack thereof
This thread was one of the least perceptive and revealing I have EVER read on TechDirt.

I attribute this to the educational background of the typical TECHDIRT contributor.

All "tech", no poli sci, no sociology, very llttle economcs other than Econ 101 knee-jerk "free-market" jingoism.

I charge these contribors with stepping back, taking some time, and really thinking HARD about Google's role in Modern Society and its massive success; and given that role, and that massive success, its attendant substantial SOCIETAL OBLIGATIONS...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Smith, 19 Mar 2006 @ 7:17am
  
  Re: This analayis or lack thereof
  I attribute this to the educational background of the typical TECHDIRT contributor.
  
  Well aren't you special.
  
  If people disagree with you its because they are ignorant. That must be very comforting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Sherwood, 19 Mar 2006 @ 3:28am

Except Tyshaun
Except for Tyshaun Mar 18th, 2006 7:53 p.m.

She or he gets the KEY point.

As well, she or he writes much more fluently, tactfully, and gracefully than the the other contribtors.

These two things go hand-in-hand.

I highly supsect that Tyshaun took a LARGE does of humanities while in college; boy do I wish I could say the same about the rest of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt but definitely not Matt Sherwood, 19 Mar 2006 @ 4:11pm
  
  Re: Except Tyshaun
  Thank you for showing me how un-educated I am. I would have gone the rest of my life without knowing the proper way to spell "dose" or that you can substitute a period with a semi-colon to end a sentence. Maybe if you would have had the wisdom to use spell checker, then your post might have had greater credibility?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WB, 19 Mar 2006 @ 5:49am

Has anyone actually viewed this site, lately..?
To expound a little on CE's comment, above ... their site doesn't appear to be very search-engine crawler friendly; perhaps the KinderStart folks are upset because they built a sloppy site, and want miracles in return..?

Or could it be the link farm they have listings for sale on, built into their front page..?

Just my take..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yoop, 19 Mar 2006 @ 6:01am

What Bored said:
Post: "Google wields enormous power and we all know that means they bear enormous responsibility."

Bored: No, actually, they don't.

Ummm...so having enormous power means not bearing responsiblilty? Well what a beautiful world we'd live in if everyone thought that. Come on. They're a private corp. so they the have no responibility...beautiful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Searchman, 19 Mar 2006 @ 10:24am

Need better ranking in a search engine?
Try the new search engine Xista.com. Its quick and easy to submit a page or site.

www.xista.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alex, 19 Mar 2006 @ 12:04pm

google and there right on sstage.
suing google for some bull shet like this. google is providing the world with information for every one in the us and people acctually find time to do stupid things like this.. without ssearch engins your basiccallly left with people like that.. mother fu**ers. bitched.. oh can I ccursse on here.. well. fu*8 you people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sterling, 19 Mar 2006 @ 1:31pm

Google lawsuit
Yet another reason why frivilous lawsuits clog the courts. Instead of trying to make their business serve people in a better way - THUS attracting more business - they decide to spend their advertising and marketing dollars to lay blame someone else for their poor business model.

Aggressive, pushy - spamming - slamming - pop up windows, can't close them without hitting "control escape" and the like deserve to suffer and should lose business UNTIL they get it right and play the game of good businesses that offer great products and services at a great price - no matter the price! It is up to them to drive up the "perceived" value as ALL pricing is a perception. If they don't change - they deserve to lose business for they are responsible - not Google or anyone else!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bo Allen, 19 Mar 2006 @ 3:26pm

People are idiots, and need to be slapped. Google is a giant, but a good giant, that provides VERY relevant search results, and offers fair game in their rankings. "Cheaters" are penalized, as they should be. GO GOOGLE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yhetheth, 19 Mar 2006 @ 5:52pm

OMG
Google rules. andheartssemicolon SAM THE MAN WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooo ooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

IM NOT HIGH : )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
some guy, 19 Mar 2006 @ 7:07pm

TESIV: Oblivion comes out tomorrow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Wilson, 19 Mar 2006 @ 9:04pm

Frankly, it would be no surprise
if this whole thing were just a rouse to get them to lay the case to rest with a 'settlement'. You know.. Sue for a bajillion dollars (Yes, a bajillion dollars IS a real amount.. in my head), and "let them' settle for like 2 million, rather than fight the case for 5 million in the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gizmo, 20 Mar 2006 @ 12:33am

Kinderstart.com BLOWS
Ok, heres something that just came to my attention, Kinderstart.com has a Google search engine on their site... If they were really pissed off at Google, would they or would they not take this portion of the site out? It also looks like this was made a hippy group of people who think "Saving the world, is righteous"... I think kinderstart.com is only out for money, again for the reason above makes no sense to have both a sue action + a google search engine on your site = $$$.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Sherwood, 20 Mar 2006 @ 4:27am

I am matt, hear me roar
And in addition, I like big sweaty men.

This thread was one of the least perceptive and revealing I have EVER read on TechDirt.

I attribute this to the educational background of the typical TECHDIRT contributor.

All "tech", no poli sci, no sociology, very llttle economcs other than Econ 101 knee-jerk "free-market" jingoism.

I charge these contribors with stepping back, taking some time, and really thinking HARD about Google's role in Modern Society and its massive success; and given that role, and that massive success, its attendant substantial SOCIETAL OBLIGATIONS...

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 20 Mar 2006 @ 6:30am

I'm gonna sue kinderstart
because they don't have my site ranked very well (hell they don't have it ranked at all) among thier listings on thier link farm section. Kinderstart must have blacklisted my site from thier results. Isn't that roughly equivelent of what they are doing with Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel, 20 Mar 2006 @ 8:16am

This article really ranked up there!
Did anybody notice that the Google Ranking for this article was 0/10? Guess they didn't think too highly of someone trashing their ranking system... "Oh yeah, you think our ranking system sucks. Well, we'll just rank your little article a 0 out of 10! How do you like them apples?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Charlie Yeoh, 16 Sep 2006 @ 11:22pm
  
  Re: This article really ranked up there!
  Well, actually this article now has a Google PageRank of 5/10. Must have gone up since your post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Julie, 27 Sep 2006 @ 10:23am

How about DMOZ
I'd like to see someone sue DMOZ. I think it is a big scam. Try getting listed in any category where your competition is choosing whether to list you or not - knowing that your rank in Google will be affected by it. If Google really cares about the relevancy of their results, they should do something about the way DMOZ operates to make it more useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kman, 24 Oct 2006 @ 5:50pm
  
  Re: How about DMOZ
  I agree 100%. With so much at stake in terms of Google Rank, I wouldn't be surprised if some companies were able to basically bribe a "independent editor" into listing their website, and quickly at that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rhys, 26 Apr 2007 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: How about DMOZ
  I agree with Julie.
  
  It transpires that the editor for where I am endeavouring to submit is friends with the main competition - the incestuous links between their websites gives it away just a bit.
  
  20,000 copied webpages on the comptetitions website provides a bit more salt for the wound.
  
  Reported the abuse, however it now appears that the meta editor know the editor....
  
  Grrrrr
  
  Maybe a small group of people ought to provide an alternative and actually strive for the best directory on the web
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 21 Apr 2007 @ 2:24pm

How many things will Google penalize your site for that they do on their own site? Sites that promote affiliate programs are penalized, yet Google runs one of the largest affiliate programs in the industry on their site. How many top ten results on Google are nothing but Ad-Words sites trying to collect a buck directing you to another site through the same listings you just saw on Google. Wake up people, Google now SUCKS - big time. If you think otherwise you're a simplistic ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 10 May 2008 @ 12:37pm

Hmmm...
For those of you asking about an alternative to AdSense - try Chitika. Over the last year I compiled some statistics of my earnings and I actually earned twice as much with Chitika compared to AdSense. You can check out this Chitika review for more info and some cool screenshots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fence, 9 Apr 2009 @ 8:48pm

Google
If someone wins a suit against Google, can you imagine the changes in SEO? Right now we are constantly guessing, keeps it competitive, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DK2, 22 Jan 2010 @ 2:06pm

Searchking higher rankings?
The real question is: Do Searchking get higher search engine rankings after the controversy?

That said, I kind of agree with Google overall. Aggressive SEO is rough on the little guys and not what the Internet should be about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 23 Jan 2010 @ 7:31am

Searchking was basking in backlinks afterwards
@DK2
Not directly from google I don't think, but because of the "buzz" he got from the lawsuit, many thousands of sites linked to Searchking, resulting in heavy traffic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
promotional products, 20 Feb 2010 @ 5:09am

are you kiding?
Hey internet tips above - are you kidding - sue them for their unprofessional behaviour? I think this case is a lot of fluff, and while google can influence a company's success of failure, it has no duty of care to them as there is no contract in place (different for adwords advertising) so anyone complaining is kidding themselves as I see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ren, 29 Mar 2010 @ 5:38pm

searches
this is a big deal for page optimizers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
victorypie.com, 18 Apr 2010 @ 9:31pm

Another case that is more about publicity than the actual issue. It is a case of trying to force a cash settlement to avoid Google looking bad to the public. I don't think it will work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
StarKiller2010, 25 Apr 2010 @ 3:50pm

Not so bad
Good article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frank, 5 May 2010 @ 6:40pm

sued google
i cant believe it happend! american are really unpredictable!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hosting india, 15 Jun 2010 @ 3:13pm

Amazing stuff
how can u sue Google there technology there search engine its like saying give me only this place in your house lol you are just a guest be happy what ever place you get
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jane Clemson, 17 Jun 2010 @ 9:00am

LOL that is crazy
I can understand being upset that they were blacklisted by Google with no explanation, but I'm sure they knew in their hearts exactly why they were blacklisted... With SEO, slow and steady wins the race and the rabbit get's marked as SPAM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GuitarTabGuy, 3 Jul 2010 @ 10:06pm

I have heard in a lot of situations companies would much rather settle out of court then get involved in an expensive law suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Randy, 9 Sep 2010 @ 5:32pm

Wow!
Haha I am sometimes very frustrated with Google but I never though to sue them, even though I am a lawyer! Its very unlikely the second case will get further than the first, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blank DVD, 26 Oct 2010 @ 10:34am

Good publicity
WHat a way to get free publicity against google, I bet the rankings shot up for that site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jacks, 13 Nov 2010 @ 1:08pm

Its quite funny. Websites trying to sue Google for getting blacklisted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jacks, 13 Nov 2010 @ 1:09pm

Its quite funny. Websites trying to sue Google for getting blacklisted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Acuate, 13 Nov 2010 @ 1:18pm

Am bot sure if you really can. But if any did, I would not be surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Web Hosting India, 1 Dec 2010 @ 3:35pm

Funny reading
I hope you are not kidding - I know in USA you can sue for anything that is not legal.
Sometimes it is funny to read these things.
Web Hosting India
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Covenant California, 27 Sep 2013 @ 5:02am
  
  Re: Funny reading
  I believe you can sue not only in US. There are many other countries with a developed law system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nopalea The Nopal Cactus Juice Guy, 6 Feb 2011 @ 9:38pm

Quick to sue..
Basically the bottom line is Google can do what they want and we have to work in their guidelines..
It doesn't look like it will change soon. It is funnt that they tried to sue though..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ricky, 21 Feb 2011 @ 12:34pm

new
google is fun lcd monitor getlcdmonitor.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing Albury, 27 Feb 2011 @ 8:17pm

This didn't got anywhere
This article is 4 years old, and the case never went anywhere.... so any comments now that are actually related to the article are commenting on something thats basically no longer relevant - Google is not an essential service, and we can't claim otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Air Fresh Chem Dry, 1 Apr 2011 @ 4:59pm

Be White Hat
There is always a way to market and out do competition with white hat strategies. Our moral has always been- be on the up and up. Lets make a spam free Google Community!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conversational Hypnosis, 4 Apr 2011 @ 2:09pm

Welcome to USA!
It's funny how in USA you can virtually sue anyone for anything. In my home country things are done way differently, you could not even imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Essay Help, 30 Apr 2011 @ 3:38pm

That's an interesting case. Let's see how it goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tenerife Apartments, 4 May 2011 @ 11:41am

It'll never work
Google is a free service how the hell can you sue them for not giving you good results? Just work harder at SEO!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
r, 9 May 2011 @ 4:25am

it's an interesting subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
r, 9 May 2011 @ 4:27am

it's an interesting subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carpet Cleaning, 21 May 2011 @ 11:12am

I Hope My Site Doesn't Get Removed
Wow that would really suck if my carpet cleaning site would get removed from google... I would most likely lose all my business. But on the other hand, why would they remove sites like mine or others unless they were violating google policy? Google is such a giant that it's not worth their time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gravity, 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:48am

hahahaha... that was such a cool read, i think i should do this aswell... should get some popularity :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
justinsmithbond (profile), 1 Jul 2011 @ 11:03am

Nice
I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic.
Help With Dissertation | uk dissertations | dissertation topics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CVMCo., 13 Jul 2011 @ 11:55pm

Wicked!!
Power to anyone who takes google to court! I would too if I could find a lawyer to do it pro-bono, or share of the case winnings;-] I refuse to waste any money on them - let alone use adwords or adsense...{ is NON$EN$E

Had my share of un-just google slaps - and this comming from a guy who used their search engine long before they were ever heard of faithfully, and my high ranking sites were wrongly penalized more than once unjustly!

Might have to post a continuance of this topic on my google blog...I feel a slap comming on...LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mortgage Broker Adelaide, 28 Aug 2011 @ 11:28pm

Good luck to them...they're gona need it!
I can't see them getting too far against a giant like Google. I personally love Google!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iphone repair mississauga, 12 Sep 2011 @ 8:50am

This is my first opportunity to visit this website. I found some interesting things and I will apply to the development of my blog. Thanks for sharing useful information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
list of article directory, 22 Dec 2011 @ 11:51pm

list of article directory
Appropriate a great way of Being Introduced to this subject matter. It was great catching up is this. Thank you kindly For the introduction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Como Quitar Las Espinillas, 27 Dec 2011 @ 12:12am

sr
I would most likely lose all my business. But on the other hand, why would they remove sites
armarios baratos|
Frases de superacion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RevPlace, 2 Jan 2012 @ 5:24pm

Don't Rely on Google
The company's biggest problem is that their marketing was all centered on Google. If you rely on Google (or any search engine) for all of your traffic, all it takes is for some engineer to tweak a few parameters and your site could be totally off the map. That is a terrible marketing strategy, and for that reason, I don't understand all the hype about SEO. It makes far more sense to get concrete links from numerous sources like blogs, forums, and writing useful content. Then, if Google decides to find you, great, but you are not dependent on them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
exchange rates calculator, 7 Jan 2012 @ 7:13pm

Playing with Fire!
Man, It is just too risky in my opinion to challenge Google. In most cases it would end in absolute disaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
creditos economicos, 8 Jan 2012 @ 3:28pm

Google with no explanation, but I'm sure they knew in their hearts exactly why they were blacklisted... With SEO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
creditos economicos, 8 Jan 2012 @ 3:29pm

Google with no explanation, but I'm sure they knew in their hearts exactly why they were blacklisted... With SEO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
coban, 15 Jan 2012 @ 5:46am

that's great..
This is just great I got to read. Thank you guys for putting your great efforts that made this page more informative and interesting..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://the-term-papers.com/, 29 Jan 2012 @ 9:47am

sdfasds
Very Useful information, this is both good reading for, have quite a few good key points and I learn some new stuff from it too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
preuniversitarios en Santiago, 7 Feb 2012 @ 7:43pm

sr
I refuse to waste any money on them - let alone use adwords or adsense...{ is NON$EN$E

Had my share of un-just google slaps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Feb 2012 @ 1:24am

stormai.com Storm TV Canada 1-888-908-7621
My site doesn't have a good rating either. it should by now because its been up for 7 weeks, already got over 7500 usage sessions..
stormai.com Storm TV Canada 1-888-908-7621
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BrianM, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:22pm

Suing Google
I hate o sue anyone but it's true, if google doesn't give you the traffic you're done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Http://Koolagan.com, 6 Mar 2012 @ 5:25pm

Google rots
I do not like the Monopoly they have. It rots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anony, 7 Mar 2012 @ 11:40am

Google seems to be penalizing such sites heavily. The rationale I have heard is that many of these are merely sites created to snare traffic (and reap Adword revenue - how ironic is that?). What that rationale ignores is sites which are truly seeking to become trusted guides to a subject area, something that Google is very poor at.

Don't believe me? Search "Michigan links" and ask if there is any logical reason that the "Militia Links" or "Northport, Michigan: Links" site should have a higher ranking than our Ab Mich site for that query. 6 months ago, we were number one. We have added thousands of more links to REAL web sites and yet our ranking falls.

forfait mobile - forfait sans engagement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ayush, 10 Mar 2012 @ 6:26am

Apple
I think apple will sue the crap out of Google one of these days. "To be the best you have to 'get rid of the best using technicality and suing them'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
List of article directories, 8 May 2012 @ 2:41am

wonderful
wonderful issues altogether, you simply won a new reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
List of article directories, 8 May 2012 @ 2:42am

wonderful
wonderful issues altogether, you simply won a new reader.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
apacms, 13 May 2012 @ 6:27am

site ranking in Google is too hard
I�ve tried to rank my site www.apacms.com in Google but it's so hard. We are an It Networking company in Sydney and to have our site ranked well compared to all the other IT Support sites in Sydney, there�s just too much competition.

Sometimes I wonder why bother or maybe Google would rather you pay for the add-words instead.

A little about our company if there is anyone interested in receiving quality IT services.

APACMS offers a large range of IT services including Managed IT Services, Flexible IT Support, IT Consulting & Project Management, Network Design & Installation, Disaster Recovery & High Availability, Hardware & Software Procurement, Network Security and 24x7 Network Monitoring.

We can provide your company with a fully functional outsourced IT Department without the associated high costs. Managed IT Services can include Unlimited Technical Support, Guaranteed Response Times, 24x7 Network Monitoring & Maintenance and Pro-Active Technical Resolution.
Technical Support services include:
Managed IT Services
Flexible IT Support
Network Design and Installation
Disaster Recovery & High Availability
Network Monitoring
Virtualisation

Security solutions Services
Network security
Endpoint security
Web content filtering
Anti-Virus & Anti-Spam

Other IT services
IT Consulting & Project Management
Hardware & Software Procurement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Computerz101, 3 Sep 2012 @ 10:15pm

Computerz101
This is hilarious I couldn't actually believe that somebody would sue Google for blacklisting them. People get blacklisted all the time. Maybe people should re-think there strategy and go about things the right way and naturally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jessica, 24 Sep 2012 @ 7:43pm

My rank went down because I think I temporarily had some advertiser network hooked up that sold links. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sandy, 22 Oct 2012 @ 1:23am

Dissertation writing Services
NiceOne :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Company Register, 31 Jan 2013 @ 3:33am

Great
If you haven't found it yet, keep looking. Don't settle. As with all matters of the heart, you'll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
daniel zimerman, 28 Feb 2013 @ 6:27pm

I attribute this to the educational background of the typical TECHDIRT contributor.
Well aren't you special.
If people disagree with you its because they are ignorant. That must be very comforting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
puffandpie, 14 May 2013 @ 2:52am

Google
Not directly from google I don't think, but because of the "buzz!!" he got from the lawsuit, many thousands of sites linked to Search-king, resulting in heavy traffic!

But its not so special. Black hate SEO not long for longer. Google come to know. And new Panda and Penguin update, put all stop.

how u think?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Covenant California, 27 Sep 2013 @ 5:06am

re
Well, as far as I know Google rolls out Penguin updates every two weeks since August.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Writer, 5 Mar 2014 @ 3:10am

In genuineness prosperous content and very helpful in sequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
topstyle, 25 Apr 2014 @ 1:12pm

topstyle
best website for fashion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Austin Ruflo, 10 Jul 2014 @ 10:53pm

WHY?
is it really google's fault that our ranking is too low or maybe our seo sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frank, 9 Mar 2015 @ 11:09am

Good
wonderful issues, i like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.papers-writings.com, 11 Nov 2015 @ 11:26pm

Hmmm..
I suppose if SEO is good then it is not a problem, google is not guilty.
So, good luck)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Latest Govt Jobs, 21 Jan 2016 @ 9:49pm

great Article Ever Like This
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony Sarmiento, 24 Feb 2016 @ 8:38pm

I don't have a lawyer
Please let me have a lawyer. lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some times, 12 Mar 2016 @ 5:16pm

Hilarious
That was hell ofstory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron, 9 May 2016 @ 5:10pm

Not sure
Hey its a great article but I am not sure whether to blame google. May be there is something wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Style Sheets, 19 May 2016 @ 6:57am

Great post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remote Control, 2 May 2017 @ 1:19am

Stunning Idea, Thanks for sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charlotte, 8 Feb 2018 @ 6:45am

Nice Post
I totally agree with this writer,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mark, 18 Mar 2018 @ 2:22am

Good subject
I wish i could also sue google. Sometimes they really suck. So much effort and the site is not ranking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SSLC Result 2018 Kerala, 9 Apr 2018 @ 2:18am

keralaresults
The education of every student’s life class, 10th results were first public results, like as everyone in Kerala also. The SSLC Result is the first important step in the life of the student

https://keralaresultsnicinn.in/sslc-result-2018-kerala/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
marina, 21 Apr 2018 @ 4:05am

Very helpful post. Thanks for sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
flavia, 26 Jun 2018 @ 4:13am

very interesting and informative article keep sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
arun (profile), 28 Nov 2019 @ 3:45am

good idea
it's a good idea. but I have a doubt that if it will work. I will check it on my site. Search functions are easy to find but to figure out someone http://organizetechnologies.com/ else's algorithm is quite the feat.thanks for the knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nikhil Bajaj (profile), 9 Dec 2020 @ 7:05pm

Wonderful blog
I read your article thanks for sharing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David Wallace (profile), 18 Nov 2021 @ 11:56pm

React Development
At the core of any fundamental site are HTML records. Internet browsers read these archives and show them on your PC, tablet, or telephone as pages. During this cycle, programs make something many refer to as a Document Object Model (DOM), an illustrative tree of how the website page is orchestrated. Designers would then be able to add dynamic substance to their ventures by adjusting the DOM with dialects like JavaScript. React Development Outsourcing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]