What is Digg?25 Comments
- Erinyes75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21So now, simply because a company publishes a low opinion about a website they can be sued? So will any magazine that shows a rank of anything be open for litigation?
They harp on the fact that it might have been manual and this might validate the claimants case but any ranking is manual at some level. There's still an opinion of worth injected into an algorithm!
So what about publishing a guide to stocks? If you are a company that values one less than the other and happen to have a large following then wont you bring down stock prices? Wouldn't that be "unfair"?
Now kindergarten logic is a valid reason to sue. (How'd that joke go about a buss load of lawyers?) - darkecho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I am sure, google is now checking the click status of the ads for any "click fraud", to ban them from the google search engine. So basically they are suing google over the site index for them. Well maybe people just got tired of their bull *****, took the link backs they had going on down, and badda bing badda boom 0. Hell if I was google, I would give them -5 now. Another retarded lawsuit from Corprate America.
- urbanitefury, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11You can be sued for anything. The question is whether or not they can win.
- d3m3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9This was all simply a lame way to get their name out. Google won't do *****, and isn't and shouldn't be required to.
- upfrontfanatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Because everyone is entitled to top ranks!
Nevermind -finding- anything useful on google when you search. - cmw72, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you're gonna spam, at least get it right the first time!
- curtvdh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Lawsuits against Google based on Pagerank will always fail, because a) Google is not a government entity and as such their Pagerank, whether generated by algorithm or by manual intervention amounts to an *opinion* of the site in question. Opinions cannot be litigated against. b) Google is not a convicted monopolist, so any suit based on anti-trust precedent will be dismissed, and c) Google does not in any way contractually guarantee any site a high Pagerank or any revenue - that is left up to the site operators.
- keitho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This kind of issue has hounded Google and all search engines forever. I do not understand where the sense of entitlement to top rankings for web sites comes from but the quicker people understand that google is free to rank things how it feels best, the courts will be that much less clogged with garbage litigation (except from the RIAA/MPAA of course).
- keitho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ot12
Google's terms of service are readily available to webmasters. If your web site doesn't meet their standards or violate their trust, they are perfectly within their right to remove your listings. KinderStart was caught violating these rules and suffered.
http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35769 - op12, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There are two different issues. The first of entitlement to top rankings is true...sites shouldn't just expect to be at the top of the list because they exist. But the other issue - the one in this case - is when a page was ranked and generating revenue, and then the pagerank suddenly dropped and drastically affected revenue. I think that's a fuzzier area, as some change led to reduction in profits. That said, I'd be wary of a business model that relies on another company whose processes (i.e. search ranking algorithm) is constantly changing for profits in the first place.
- gd007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i want to sue google too for a low pagerank of 4 on my website.
http://www.funnydomainnames.com/ - quokkapox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh no. Now everybody who used google to find KinderStart to find, uhhhh, web pages for raising kids, will have nowhere to turn. Oh no.
- Protonz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Exactly, notice how the c|net article links to KinderStart. Although the c|net article has a google rank of 0 as well. Perhaps KinderStart will sue c|net for not linking to them on a higher ranking page...
- mcbesq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1and you're missing the underlying point. any business whose overarching source of revenue comes from a third-party with whom there is no contractual relationship and subject to the highly volatile nature of the internet is an inherently shaky business.
kinderstart is a role model for why a business needs diverse revenue streams. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem Google faces is that it has become so popular, people treat it like a natural-right or something, or even a government-provided service, instead of the private corporation that it is.
- Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good for this judge for throwing out this crock lawsuit. We need more like him.
- inactive, on 07/30/2008, -0/+1Google is a private company that offers a free service, they can decide to give you whatever results they like. If they wish, they could just spew paid advertisements every time you search, but they would risk losing their credibility. Nevertheless, google has the right to remove any page they like from their search engine, they have absolutely no responsibility towards KinderStart.
- i440, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I find it hilarious that a feature of Google's site pisses them off enough to sue them. If they were not popular this wouldn't even be close to an issue.
- Chtiwi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0voici une bonne explication en détail http://www.xcess.info/fr/comprendre_le_google_pagerank_en_detail_afr.aspx
- phucku2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Indeed. And more generally rankings would change from 'most relevant' to 'most litigious'. And obviously Google is not a monopoly.
- mikkaworkscom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0yeah my site is only pagerank 2, maybe this will help: www.mikkaworks.com ^^
- hansamurai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I was looking over their website and it's a pretty decent directory of child bearing and raising information. I might have to bookmark this for a year or two down the road.
- mikkaworkscom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0sorry meant http://www.mikkaworks.com
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think you guys are missing the point. Kinderstart was a SEARCH ENGINE. It just happened to focus on stuff for kids and new parents, etc.
The reason they got basically booted out was because Google doesn't like any competition, and they didnt want people to know there was a search engine just for kids. That would translate down the road to less searches on Google for those particular people.
Google has done the same thing for other niche search engines as well. - mikkaworkscom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Btw, its a organic clothing company in China
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is