Searchking Update

[Dan0]

There has been a bit of movement on the legal front. The judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction, but did not rule on Google's motion to dismiss.

Among the findings of fact:
1. PageRank is a mathematical algorithm.
2. PageRank has value.
3. Google knowingly and intentionally decreased the PageRank assigned to SearchKing and PRAN.

In terms of the request for injunction, the court found the following with respect to the "4 tests":
1. Irreparable Harm: because SK can not quantify the damages, they don't meet the standard of suffering irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. The court also states that the injunction would not compensate SK for monetary damages, therefore would not provide the relief sought.
2. Relative Harm: the court found that Google would not suffer significant harm if forced to provide their source code, or by restoring SK's former PageRank,also that Google has already compromised PageRank by manually adjusting it in this instance.
3. Public Interest: The court finds that Google's PageRanks are opinions subject to first amendment protection.
4. Likelihood of success on merits: "SearchKing has not established a substantial likelihood of success on merits."

SearchKing's response includes the following assertions:
1. That Google's PageRank is objective (not subjective), therefore provably true or false, and therefore not an opinion; and that the body of published work on PageRank, as well as Google's own patent filing, supports this.
2. Google's patent (#6,285,999 if you want to look it up) states that PageRank is an objective measure. Larry Page's dissertation says that "PageRank is a method of ranking pages objectively and mechanically." Google's own website states that PageRank is an objective measure.
3. Opinions are not patentable, therefore PageRank isn't an opinion.
4. Several pages of forum posts (none from here, though, it seems) have been included as an exhibit to demonstrate the harm done to SearchKing's reputation.

It does appear that if SK can convince the court that PageRank is not an opinion, Google's motion to dismiss will be denied, and it will have to proceed to trial.

[ihelpyou]

I'm moving this to the "Spam Forum".

[ihelpyou]

Oh and btw, Of course he would not present our thread from here as that would reveal quite a bit.

But Google might present the same thread from here if it got to that point. The parts about Massa "knowing" that Google would penalize him but he went ahead and launched the site anyway, would not be good for him.

[Dan0]

SK probably will convince the judge that PageRank is not an opinion. In my opinion, PageRank is clearly an objective measurement arrived at through a mechanical process.

I think that the cannon Google will fire next will be regarding their published terms of service, and their "opinion" that SK violated their TOS resulting in the penalty. It will be more difficult to prove that Google's interpretation of their own terms of service is not an opinion protected by the first amendment, or that it is incorrect.

Strange as it seems, Google might not have had to go to as much trouble if they had just banned searchking.com, as opposed to reducing its PageRank. That would have made this thing about their TOS in the first place.

[Robert2]

Page Rank is an opinion .... in my opinion.

If I said to you, "I do think websites that have the word 'sex' should be seen based on your search for 'sextant', then that is my opinion. My opinion was just now stated in the English language.

Ok, ok, here's where my train might jump the tracks ....

If I implement my opinion in a programming language, its still my opinion. The programming language only does what I tell it to do.

You can see evidence of that by visiting different search engines. They ALL use programming languages that are based on "mathematics" such as 0 and 1. But they get vastly different results -- because of the opinions of the programmer, or their boss. However like the English language based on letters such as A and B, programs such as Page Rank are nonsense without an opinion behind their use.

Google even clearly says, in my opinion, that they may visit a site if needed and take some action, positive or negative, depending on their opinion when they review the site.

[Robert2]

Oh, and one more thing ...

Robert2's scientific law of website quality:

"The judgement of the suitability of an internet website can only be an opinion."

[Dan0]

In the legal sense, the number that the PageRank algorithm generates is not an opinion.

In the legal sense, Google's adjustments to the scores it generates do represent their opinion.

So, in the end, the PageRank score that Google uses to rank your site is their opinion.

[Robert2]

Sure it is.

A number from my Page Rank algorithm might be the number 4.

A word printed in a newspaper movie review might be "good".

So what?

Google's Page Rank algorithm would be different from mine if I wrote one. Because we would have different opinions on how websites should be 'page ranked'.

I might choose to personally visit a web site and make further modifications, since the algorithm is only a tool to enact my opinion.


(Just my opinion)

[Dan0]

That's the great thing about the U.S.A. You can be as wrong as you like.

[Robert2]

Yep. There is a reason that the first amendment is first.

Any person in the world with any common sense can see that there must be an opinion behind the ranking of a webpage.

Google is CLEARLY within their rights.

[Dan0]

Of course Google is within their rights. Who's arguing that? The following is simply a statement of facts:

Google's PageRank algorithm is a patented process. It generates a score for web pages in the database. If you run the process again with the same database, you will get the same score. It is objective.

Google doesn't just take that score and generate search results, though. Google applies adjustments (penalties) for sites that don't meet their quality standards. This adjustment is based on their opinion of the quality of the site. Since the order of their search results is based on adjusted scores, they are an expression of that opinion.

[glengara]

The way I see it, the algo itself may be objective, but the factors included in the algo are subjective.

[Dan0]

There are at least two algorithms.

The first one, that everyone gets in a frenzy about, is the mathematical calculation of PageRank. PageRank is an objective value when it comes out of this. It's just a measurement. No more an opinion than the different ways of measuring temperature, really.

The other algorithm is the one they use to deliver search results. When Google penalizes a site for whatever reason, they are adding their opinion into the equation.

The final result, where your website ranks for a given search, is quite clearly Google's opinion of where your site should rank. Their search results are not any less an opinion just because math is part of forming the opinion.

When Google files their response to SearchKing, this will all be made very plain. Then we will all argue about it anyway.

[Advisor]

Did you guys see the lastest from Law Meme on the SearchKing vs. Google case?

http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=863

The crux of it (and what many of us have been saying all along) appears to be this (imo):

"SearchKing consciously accepted the risk of operating a business that is largely dependent on a factor (PageRank) over which it admittedly has no control. The fact that the company with sole control over that factor has unilaterally changed the impact that the factor has on SearchKing's business cannot give rise to a claim for tortious interference with contractual relations." (page 12)

In English...if you choose to base your business model on Google and you get screwed...tough bananas!

Jill

[Advisor]

It does appear that if SK can convince the court that PageRank is not an opinion, Google's motion to dismiss will be denied, and it will have to proceed to trial. From the document I just read -- the denial of the SearchKing's motion preliminary injunction (PDF): http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/files/SearchKing-SummaryJudgement.pdf

The courts have already concluded that PageRank is indeed an opinion and is protected under the 1st amendment. So there won't be any convincing of anything in that regard.

Looks to me like the whole thing is pretty much a done deal, with Google coming out the winner. Hope they can recover their attorney's fees and court costs for this frivolous case.

Jill

[chris]

The courts have already concluded that PageRank is indeed an opinion and is protected under the 1st amendment. So there won't be any convincing of anything in that regard.

Which would be a shame, seen as the court clearly had no idea what PageRank is.

An informed decision is one thing, an uninformed decision is scarey.

[ihelpyou]

I thought the "Honorable Judge Vicky" had an amazing understanding of all the issues. She clearly has been doing lots of reading and studying. Her ruling on things showed she knew a bunch! And understood it.

It's safe to say that only a small minority of the world population know as much as she showed she knew. Only the immediate industry 'pundants' and followers of search engines know as much or more.

[Advisor]

Too bad it wasn't the honorable Judge Judy! She woulda told Mr. Massa where to stick his zero pagerank...

:green:

[chris]

It's safe to say that only a small minority of the world population know as much as she showed she knew. Only the immediate industry 'pundants' and followers of search engines know as much or more.

I dare say and I appreciate the difficulties. But then it is still scarey if a decision is made by a person who has a basic conceptual misunderstanding of PageRank don't you think?

[CuttingTeeth]

Taking this from the WMW thread - LawMeme Publishes Court Ruling in Search King vs Google (http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum5/1799.htm)

BigDave posts the following -
With Google's filings, they intentionally blurred the line between PageRank and SERPs. It is much easier to get the ruling in their favor by having that happen.

Now, we all understand PageRank and being what was patented by Stanford. But what was patented was an algorithm that happened to use the word PageRank to describe it. The algorithm is what is patented, not the name of it.

On the other hand, Google can apply the Trademarked (not patented) name PageRank to anything that they want. They do not even have to use the original concept of PageRank to come up with PageRank.

To overturn the patent SK would have to come up with some very convincing prior art. Google stating that current PageRank is opinion will have no bearing on any patent case where there is a defined algorithm.

That pretty much nullifies any argument I've seen from Bob Massa or any of his supporters. Well. Hmm. Back to the grindstone..

[chris]

Not that it really matters, but doesn't that just really say the equivalent of "oh well, PageRank may not really be PageRank after all".

And that sheep on the hill might be a wolf.

It's an irrelevant point if you ask me, but that's just a silly argument.

[ihelpyou]

Not entirely true though Chris. The issue at hand and the issue that is the basis for Massa's claims is about the little green bar of PageRank. That bar of PR is the end result after all other things are considered. Hence, that little green bar is very much an opinion and why the Judge got it exactly right.

Now, the algo etc that derives the real PR of any page is something entirely different, but not what is at issue with the lawsuit.

[CuttingTeeth]

The entire lawsuit is silly, stupid, a waste of time and money. On a related note, the lawsuit aginst the fast-food chains by those parents on behalf of thier children egged on by greedy lawyers was thrown out. Score one for the war aginst frivolous lawsuits!

[chris]

Now I see where you're coming from Doug.

But that would be wrong, nobody said that the little green bar had been reduced. They said the PageRank had been reduced. The little green bar may be an indicator of PageRank, but the claim was that the PageRank was reduced.

The judge described PageRank and gave a description that included textual relevancy, and that on a scale of 1-10.

Now if we presume she was talking about the little green bar then how did we arrive at the textual relevancy? Answer: she couldn't.

If we talk about the SERPs then she could talk about textual relevancy, but she would have over shot the mark and the scale of 1-10 wouldn't have come in to it.

Sorry Doug, it has to be SearchKing's responsibility for letting Google get away with that definition so far. But on a wrongness scale of 1 to 10, little green bar or not she couldn't have been further off. Note very careful how it's typed "PageRank". I was interested in this case because I was interested in this "is PageRank an opinion" question, but what's being talked about is some fictional half way concept that's a cross between the toolbar 1-10 scale and the SERPs with very little PageRank mixed in. Not the judge's fault, but when she arrived at her deduction she wasn't talking about PageRank.

Now, the algo etc that derives the real PR of any page is something entirely different, but not what is at issue with the lawsuit.

I think Doug, that we must be looking at different lawsuits. Because in the one I read they even capitalize it properly - PageRank.

[chris]

The entire lawsuit is silly, stupid, a waste of time and money.

I think that although I suspect SK will lose, the lawsuit raises some important issues.

Waste of time? Nah...I am learning SO much.

[ihelpyou]

The only thing Massa knows about and the only thing any one of us know about is the PageRank that is shown on the little green bar. How could the lawsuit be pertaining to anything else? That is what Massa's whole argument is based on. That is what he was/is doing with his pradnetwork site. That is what he is referring to when he whines about his searchking site. That's the only thing he can go on. .... the little green bar. Hence, the only thing the lawsuit can be based on. Nothing else matters and the reason that the PageRank in question is purely an 'opinion'. The Honorable Judge Judy.... I mean Judge Vicky got it absolutely right. No doubt about it in my mind.

[chris]

OK Doug. I'll play along, I disagree with you but I'll play along with the point.

If the judge "got it absolutely right", teach me how the toolbar of the pre-calculated PageRank has anything to do with textual relevancy. Where do I tell the toolbar what query term I happen to be thinking of for this page?

Did everyone else get a telepathic plug in that I missed. Coz Doug, I'm finding it very hard to believe she "got it absolutely right" if they didn't.

Frankly, I'm kind of insulted and hurt that I didn't get this telepathic plugin. Can it do any other cool things? Can I control my web browser by thought or something? Sheesh, I miss out on all the cool stuff.

[just for the record, that was gentle british sarcasm and not meant to be taken personally - just to indicate that it don't add up]

[Dan0]

Let me break this down one more time. There are several things being referred to by the same name. To make it easier, I've given each of these things a different name.

"Objective PageRank" is a score that comes out of an algorithm. All it does is sift, weigh, and count links, over and over, until it settles on a score that represents the weighted link popularity of a given web page. Given the same set of data, the algorithm will always generate the same score. In legal terms, this is not an opinion, it is a measurement.

That score does not, by itself, determine where a page will appear in any given search.

"Adjusted PageRank" is the "Objective" score, plus any bonus they might add (Yahoo & DMOZ might be getting a boost), or minus any penalty they want to deduct (SearchKing.com is getting such a penalty). These adjustments are based on Google's opinion of the quality of the page. "Adjusted PageRank," therefore, is an opinion.

The adjusted score is used in conjuntion with 100+ other factors to determine rankings for a particular search. The rankings are, therefore, Google's opinion of what sites are most relevant to a particular search.

"Toolbar PageRank" is that collection of white, gray, and green pixels that appears in the Google toolbar. It is a graphic representation of the "Adjusted PageRank." In other words, an expression of Google's opinion.

The only part of this that *isn't* an opinion is the original "objective" number... and that number is not on trial. The question is whether Google has the right to adjust the scores. To put it another way, whether Google has a right to have an opinion. The answer the court will give is probably going to be "yes."

[ihelpyou]

Well put Dan0.

[Advisor]

I think what Chris is trying to put forth is that the judge stated that keywords have something to do with PageRank, and that is why he questions her ability to make a complete and accurate decision.

Although she may have got a bit confused by that one point, it appears that she has gotten everything else right. And since that one point doesn't appear to affect anything else that she may have said, I don't think it's important.

But I do understand where you're coming from, Chris!

Jill

[chris]

That score does not, by itself, determine where a page will appear in any given search.

Nor do any of them. Nowt special about that. 'tis an interesting and laudible break down though (although it is easily argued that two of those are not PageRank).

But the document doesn't say which one of your PageRank's is on trial, so how can one of them be stated as not on trial?

Now if the court can't get one interpretation of PageRank without including textual relevancy then is it capabable of understanding three.

The answer the court will give is probably going to be "yes."

Because?

[ihelpyou]

I thought the court already said it's an opinion? That's how I read it.

Oh sure, SK can come up with some evidence that it's not an opinion. The Judge concurred that PageRank is an opinion and why she denied the motion for an injunction. And also why she will dismiss this time-wasting lawsuit, and a suit we all are paying for with taxes.

[Dan0]

the document doesn't say which one of your PageRank's is on trial, so how can one of them be stated as not on trial?
Bob Massa sued Google for adjusting scores. How could it be any more clear?

The question is whether Google can apply penalties and bonuses. In other words, does Google get to express an opinion?

I don't know how it works where you're from, but in the U.S.A. that's right at the top of the Bill of Rights.

[chris]

Oh sure, SK can come up with some evidence that it's not an opinion. The Judge concurred that PageRank is an opinion and why she denied the motion for an injunction. And also why she will dismiss this time-wasting lawsuit, and a suit we all are paying for with taxes.

Doug, does it not stand to reason that to say something is an opinion you must first know what that something is?

I'd have thought that was a fairly basic idea, perhaps not. If you put textual relevance in to the mix then you're flashing a pretty big warning light that perhaps you don't know what it is.

[chris]

Bob Massa sued Google for adjusting scores. How could it be any more clear?

The question is whether Google can apply penalties and bonuses. In other words, does Google get to express an opinion?

I don't know how it works where you're from, but in the U.S.A. that's right at the top of the Bill of Rights.

It could be a lot more clear. Which score? Is that what he said "We are sueing Google because they adjusted scores"? Liverpool v Man Utd perhaps? With a document smattered with the word PageRank I am perhaps a little naive to assume it's that one?

The question is not whether Google can apply penalties and bonuses at all. The question is whether PageRank is an opinion, you only arrive at your question when the real question is resolved first. Something that by your own comments you believe hasn't yet happened.

[ihelpyou]

The only body that knows what a PR is for a page before any adjustments are made to it is Google. How the heck could this lawsuit be based on anything other that the PR shown on the little green bar?

I cannot see any good argument for it to be any other way. You and I and the Judge and anyone with the toolbar installed knows that is the only thing we or you or anyone can see. How can the suit be based on anything else? How could Massa sell his ads based on anything else? :rolleyes:

Putting it this way:

If Massa was to win this thing, it would mean I could not ever or never post a negative reply to anyone in here. If I did, that member could sue me because I'm the owner and they could say I have lowered the opinion about how others view them. NOT. It's my opinion in here and that is protected by the 1st amendment.

Also, it would mean I could never ban a member in here, never demote a moderator in here for any reason, never be able to run my web site and database they way I wish. It's all about the freedom to do as we please with our own web sites. That's what this is all about and what Massa is trying to do..... stifle owners of web sites to not be able to have 'opinions'.

[chris]

Yes Doug, I understand your position. The converse being that if Google win they can effectively do whatever they like (Don't like wheatabix - Yuk. drop their web site. Probably not a bad thing - horrid cereal. That's just an opinion by the way :) Phew, I'm safe). And frankly, both situations are equally as bad.

But how does that answer the question. How can you make a decision on whether PageRank is an opinion if you do not know what PageRank is and if you make the world aware of that by including textual relevancy. Doug, tell me how the textual relevancy fits in if she was talking about the toolbar and I'm sure it'll all click in to my obviously thick mind.


Incidentally, you'd just have to get foreign moderators :)

[ihelpyou]

The converse being that if Google win they can effectively do whatever they like
Exactly. And what's the reason they should not be able to do as they like with their own database? I must have missed the reason along the line. :)

So your position is that I should not be able to do as I like with my web site?

I think I'm missing something here....

[Dan0]

.... and it would be criminal for a film critic to give bad reviews.
.... and newspapers would have to stop running editorials.

The portals face the same problem if any of them wants to sue. The argument there is that Google penalized every site that was hosted on a particular I.P. address, arbitrarily, and didn't review each one to form a separate opinion.

But they did form an opinion. Google's people saw some sites they didn't like on that I.P., and formed the opinion that all the sites were bad. A sweeping generalization is still an opinion.

Does Google have a "special" responsibility because they have a large audience for their opinions? Nope. You get to have an opinion anywhere in the world. In the U.S.A., you get to express that opinion - that right doesn't go away just because people are listening to you!

I don't see any way to slice and dice this thing to where it's anything other than a 1st amendment question.

[chris]

Tell you what guys, if you actually answer my extremely relevant question (which I doubt you ever will) I might scrape together some more time. Till then - time is money. Thanks for the thoughts.

[Dan0]

Chris:

I don't even know what question you're talking about, but since you don't seem able to understand the answers, it's probably best if you stop asking questions.

[Matt B]

Originally posted by chris
Tell you what guys, if you actually answer my extremely relevant question (which I doubt you ever will) I might scrape together some more time. .

The question was most likely penalized and dropped for lack of content.

[Dan0]

I can only find one relevant question, and it's been answered. He asked how we know which "PageRank" score is the issue in the SK case. We answered that several times.

[Blue]

Originally posted by Doug

...never demote a moderator in here for any reason... Hot Damn! We could finally get rid of those pesky midget strippers and get in some real ones!

[WebSavvy]

heh! heh! John you have got to be the funniest guy in here! :lol:

[MJR]

You guys crack me up. Did you read through the whole thing? And I don't just mean LawMeme's take on it. This will go to "trial" some of SK's preliminary motions on the points were set aside. The judge agrees that PageRank is Google's opinion. BUT as an opinion they can NOT patent the ToolBar/PageRank/algo. So if Google wins they lose. You are smart people are you not seeing where this lawsuit is going? It is certainly more than about the stupid little green bar. Do you not see the legal wrangling is backing Google into a corner, that Google has been trying to back up and do damage control for some of the things they have already admited to, not to mention a certain someone's Doctorate is now in jeopardy. LawMeme conveniently forgot to post reference to SK's lawyers filed response to the judge. In addition, if you go back to that very same article there is a post in reply from one of SK's attorneys below the article in their forums. You guys are so blinded with wanting to see SK loose this case you are NOT doing your homework. The PageRank (PR), that little green monster has always been such a small part of the lawsuit - look a little closer, beyond you noses. :)

[ihelpyou]

No, I think you need to look closer actually. :)

The lawsuit has zero to do with Google's patent. Two totally different things. The patent is all about the 'thing' that is used in the algo... the technology behind it. The suit is about the 'adjusted PageRank 'after' opinions are put in.

PageRank on the toolbar is an opinion. Those are two different things. The lawsuit ain't about the patent or about the algo/technology before 'adjustments'. Instead, it's all about the little green bar that Massa was peddling his wares with.

Believe me, Google ain't worried about anything after this suit is behind them. It's like a flea that won't go away. :)

[Dan0]

WCWH:

Sorry you didn't read my post where I explained the difference between the algorithm's PageRank score, and the adjusted PageRank score. The adjustments are an opinion.

Bob definitely knows the difference. He knows he's not going to win the "opinion or not" battle, so he must have something else up his sleeve. I just can't imagine what that is.

[Advisor]

BUT as an opinion they can NOT patent the ToolBar/PageRank/algo. So if Google wins they lose. Where was that in the the judgement? I didn't see that, and yes, I read the whole thing, not just lawmeme's take.

From reading the whole thing, it all looked pretty cut and dry to me.

What did I miss?

Jill

[ihelpyou]

For a court document, it certainly was very clear-cut. Normally they are very hard to read and very boring. That one was extremely easy to read and put into terms anyone can understand.

And yes Mike, I read the whole thing as well. It was great reading! :)

[Dan0]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
terms anyone can understand.
Well, almost anyone.

[apeuro]

BUT as an opinion they can NOT patent the ToolBar/PageRank/algo. So if Google wins they lose.

PageRank already is patented - by Stanford no less. ;)

[MJR]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
No, I think you need to look closer actually. :)

The lawsuit has zero to do with Google's patent. Two totally different things. The patent is all about the 'thing' that is used in the algo... the technology behind it. The suit is about the 'adjusted PageRank 'after' opinions are put in.

PageRank on the toolbar is an opinion. Those are two different things. The lawsuit ain't about the patent or about the algo/technology before 'adjustments'. Instead, it's all about the little green bar that Massa was peddling his wares with.

Believe me, Google ain't worried about anything after this suit is behind them. It's like a flea that won't go away. :)

I think I am in a much better position to know what's going on than you are in regard to the lawsuit. You guys can beat your drums all you like, but keep an eye on what I have said and on what happens. And apeuro, you really need to do some research, not only about the patent your talking about from Stanford but who was involved AND the patent Google has pending now. You guys are truly amazing! :)

typo edit

[ihelpyou]

Your 'better position' I presume is because of Massa? If so, we have seen his latest post and I must say it ain't too impressive. You really do need to speak your own mind as you are on the losing side. Sorry, but it's the facts. :)

[Dan0]

Mike:

You sound extremely confident. I wonder if you would be interested in making a small wager on the outcome?

[WebSavvy]

Mike, you're talking to apeuro like he's an idiot. I assure you that he's no slouch. He happens to be a Professor of Law at a University and he would be well read and aware of his facts.

Maybe you could take some pointers from him, hmmm?

[scottiecl]

Originally posted by WCWH
I think I am in a much better position to know what's going on than you are in regard to the lawsuit.
How so?
Originally posted by WCWH
I am not an employee of SearchKing and I have looked at it from the "other side", I looked at it from the side of my sites being punished for simply being on the same server From http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=71021&highlight=employee#post71021

So where does this insight come from? Just a guy hosting with SearchKing?

It is hard to retain any credibility when things don't seem to add up...

[MJR]

You really do need to speak your own mind as you are on the losing side. Sorry, but it's the facts I'm on my side, period. Facts, I know the legal facts, I've read them without blinders on.

[MJR]

Originally posted by savvy1
Mike, you're talking to apeuro like he's an idiot. I assure you that he's no slouch. He happens to be a Professor of Law at a University and he would be well read and aware of his facts.

Maybe you could take some pointers from him, hmmm? What does that have to do with his post? Err nothing. I do not think him an idiot by any means.

[WebSavvy]

What does that have to do with his post?

"Err" ... everything. You stated that he research his facts in the matter of the patent as far as what Stanford has actually patented. I simply pointed out the facts to you that the man is a Professor of Law at a very prestigious University and is well read, researched, and competent of what he states as fact. I don't believe that was too difficult to derive from the post.

[Advisor]

:green:

I just read Bob's win the war post over at searchking forums. Too funny.

Dougie, Bob's ego is even bigger than yours and mine put together!

He still thinks he's somehow changing the face of the Internet. I'm sorry, but that's just too funny.

:D

[MJR]

Originally posted by scottiecl
How so?
From http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=71021&highlight=employee#post71021

So where does this insight come from? Just a guy hosting with SearchKing? How about the attorneys - hey there's a concept! ;)

It is hard to retain any credibility when things don't seem to add up... Oh my dear, trying to cloud the facts again. I am NOT an employee of searching. I do however own 5% of the company and that is going to be disposed of soon. My opinions have nothing to do with any affiliation with SK as you all so quaintly try to revert to. My opinions are based on what I feel to be Google's irresponsibility's, and no let's debate that subject again. My complaint with Google has everything to do with how they handled my sites who were NOT affiliated with SK but because of my affiliation with SK were targeted, don't even try to explain it away, I already have seen the proof. You guys are so convinced that you have a handle on this lawsuit and what it's about; we'll just have to see what develops won't we:)

[MJR]

Originally posted by savvy1
"Err" ... everything. You stated that he research his facts in the matter of the patent as far as what Stanford has actually patented. I simply pointed out the facts to you that the man is a Professor of Law at a very prestigious University and is well read, researched, and competent of what he states as fact. I don't believe that was too difficult to derive from the post. yeah fine, whatever, just don't put words into my mouth. I never said nor implied him an idiot, that was your term. He needs to do a little more research is all

[ihelpyou]

Yes we will.

I guess you feel the Yale Law people don't know anything either?

[scottiecl]

Originally posted by WCWH
Oh my dear, trying to cloud the facts again. Which facts would those be? Just quaintly trying to get back on topic here...

[WebSavvy]

You're completely missing the point Mike. The point is, he has done the research. This is why I suggested maybe you could get some points from him as far as the legal standpoint of this issue since it revolves around something he obviously understands more than you do.

[scottiecl]

Originally posted by WCWH
My complaint with Google has everything to do with how they handled my sites who were NOT affiliated with SK but because of my affiliation with SK were targeted, don't even try to explain it away, I already have seen the proof. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had filed a complaint! You are suing Google because you were affected by your afilliation with SearchKing, who broke their TOS? OK, now we are getting somewhere!

[scottiecl]

Of course, the more likely complaint would be against SearchKing, who knowingly violated the TOS. But then, that would be like suing 5% of your own company...

[MJR]

Originally posted by scottiecl
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had filed a complaint! You are suing Google because you were affected by your afilliation with SearchKing, who broke their TOS? OK, now we are getting somewhere! I think you smart enough to get the point, but just in case you missed it; my point is that these are my own opinions, not SK's and not BM's.

[ihelpyou]

I'm actually quite shocked by the fact that the portals have not got together to file a lawsuit against searchking. If my web host ever did what Massa did, and I mean EVER, there would be a lawsuit soooo fast the host would not be able to see straight.

[MJR]

Originally posted by scottiecl
Of course, the more likely complaint would be against SearchKing, who knowingly violated the TOS. But then, that would be like suing 5% of your own company... You see you are confused again, SearchKing didn't do anything, now if you meant PRAD Network, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I didn't see any TOS being violated, but you interprutatin is differnet than mine.

[scottiecl]

Originally posted by WCWH
You see you are confused again, SearchKing didn't do anything, now if you meant PRAD Network, then you are entitled to your opinion, but I didn't see any TOS being violated, but you interprutatin is differnet than mine.

Both owned by the same man who made sure he got a lot of publicity about what he planned to do...

You are right, your interpretation is different from mine and we are both entitled to our opinions. I'm not trying to flame you, I just can't see how you can ignore the big picture and keep triumphantly pointing to tiny details as "proof" that things are going your way.

I do see your points, I just don't think they apply to the legal situation that has been created. The entity that broke agreements was not Google...

[MJR]

I just can't see how you can ignore the big picture hehe, that's exactly what I was just thinking. Think about what you just said :)

[ihelpyou]

Reading posts written by Massa and his portal puppets...sorry, I mean members, makes one feel like doing this to themselves:

:hit:



:p

[MJR]

Doug making posts like that only dims your light while making others look brighter. :)

[markymark]

This thread is going nowhere - as most of the SK vs Google threads have done, but I do need to ask you this, WCWH - are you naturally that obtuse or do you have to practise ?

[MJR]

Originally posted by markymark
This thread is going nowhere - as most of the SK vs Google threads have done, but I do need to ask you this, WCWH - are you naturally that obtuse or do you have to practise ? Nope, you guys bring out the best in me :)

[Advisor]

I can't wait for the next decision to be reached and made public. Perhaps we can finally have an end to this whole ridiculous law suit.

It makes me angrier and angrier to watch as SK tries to wrangle different things out of this suit. Their first tact didn't work, so let's change it to something else.

Those idiot posters at the lawmeme forum really crack me up. Yeah, they're going to take away the Google founder's PHD now! C'mon...get real. This whole show is getting ridiculous.

I hope SK has to pay Google some BIG bucks in the end for wasting their time and resources on such nonsense! Utter total ridiculous NONSENSE.

Jill

[MJR]

For once we can agree on something! I agree that this lawsuit needs to be over and we need to move on to discuss other important topics. The scars through some of this will probably never heal. Jill, I do not believe that Google can recover anything from this lawsuit, not even attorney fees - they'd have to file their own lawsuit.

[Matt B]

Originally posted by WCWH
The scars through some of this will probably never heal.

right.

Much like an animal digs at its own wound, never allowing it to heal, but only hurting itself.

[Advisor]

If you're right about that, Mike, then there's something wrong with our court system. Nobody should be allowed to sue others and make them have to foot the bill.

If this case gets thrown out (which I believe it still can), then it seems to me that all court costs, etc., should have to be paid to the party that was sued for no good reason.

If it doesn't get thrown out, but goes to court, then the losing party should also have to pay. (I have no idea how it really works, but it seems to me, that would stop frivolous law suits.)

It's not fair that companies should have to defend themselves against any Tom, Dick or Bob that may want to sue them just because...

Jill

[ihelpyou]

Of course Massa has to pay all court costs if he loses. That is standard practice so I have no clue as to what Mike is talking about. Massa has to pay if the case is dismissed or if it goes to trial and he loses. Either way.

[MJR]

Funny thing about the US law, anyone can sue anyone for just about anything. You just never know when someone might sue or get sued. Sometimes what might seem frivolous to some may end up being an important lawsuit - remember the hot coffee innocent and lawsuit of McDonalds? You just never know when there might be a new lawsuit looming, especially when people feel that they have been wronged. Lawsuits many times are about timing. Heck who knows, maybe SearchKing will be the next to be sued - ya just never know :)

[MJR]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
Of course Massa has to pay all court costs if he loses. That is standard practice so I have no clue as to what Mike is talking about. Massa has to pay if the case is dismissed or if it goes to trial and he loses. Either way.

Rather than get into a debate with you over this, after all you'll not believe anything I say anyway, let's ask the resident legal mind apuero (sp?)

typo edit

[scottiecl]

I don't claim to be the "legal mind" but my .02 -

It is not required that the losing party pay court costs but it is usually ordered by the judge, especially in cases deemed to be frivolous. It is up to the judge's discretion.

[ihelpyou]

So Mike, I read elsewhere today where you posted that 'other' forums don't allow you to post freely? How ya figure? Surely you were not referring to our forums, right? I know there is only one forum on the internet that agrees with searchking, except the SK forums themselves, but we allow you to post whatever you wish.

I don't remember ever editing any of your posts. Correct me if I am wrong please. :)

[MJR]

huh??

[MJR]

You know I really have no idea what you are talking about. I have NEVER had any post of mine edited or deleted in ANY forums. Which include SF, SEF, WMW, c8, to mention a few. Enlighten me as to which post you are refering??

[ihelpyou]

Busting your chops for the most part. LOL But I have seen your posts elsewhere with kind of inuendos. :)

I feel we are the most lenient of any.

[MJR]

Well I don't believe that I have ever accused these forums of that. The only place I recall hearing that kind of complaint is about WMW. Now I do believe I once said that posting here can at times make you feel like you have to circle the wagons to ward off the indian attacks :D :cheers:

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by WCWH
Now I do believe I once said that posting here can at times make you feel like you have to circle the wagons to ward off the indian attacks :D :cheers: That would make you the cowboy, Mike... :)

[MJR]

yep :bandit:

[apeuro]

He happens to be a Professor of Law at a University and he would be well read and aware of his facts.

While I'm quite honored to think that my posts may have given this impression (and with apologies to all law professors ), I most certainly am not a law professor myself.

As my ODP profile (http://dmoz.org/profiles/apeuro.html) states I'm but a lowly graduate student. While I do have a strong background in law, I'm most certainly not the end all or be all when legal matters are concerned.

Moving on . . .

With regards to court costs it's best to get the information right from the source:


Court Costs (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00221.htm)
Attorney's Fees (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00220.htm)

[apeuro]

And apeuro, you really need to do some research, not only about the patent your talking about from Stanford but who was involved AND the patent Google has pending now.

Hmm . . . let's see:

United States Patent: 6,285,999 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,285,999.WKU.&OS=PN/6,285,999&RS=PN/6,285,999)

Method for node ranking in a linked database


Abstract
A method assigns importance ranks to nodes in a linked database, such as any database of documents containing citations, the world wide web or any other hypermedia database. The rank assigned to a document is calculated from the ranks of documents citing it. In addition, the rank of a document is calculated from a constant representing the probability that a browser through the database will randomly jump to the document. The method is particularly useful in enhancing the performance of search engine results for hypermedia databases, such as the world wide web, whose documents have a large variation in quality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Page; Lawrence (Stanford, CA)
Assignee: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford, CA)
Appl. No.: 004827
Filed: January 9, 1998

********

Perhaps you'd like to stop before making yourself look even more foolish?

[apeuro]

I will add only this . . .

The total amount of Bob's claim against Google is $10,000 - it would be barely enough to cover his legal costs even if he won. The fact that Google is going after this guy with all guns blazing, when they could toss him a couple of G's to make it go away, is a testament to how seriously they take this suit.

[Advisor]

While I'm quite honored to think that my posts may have given this impression (and with apologies to all law professors ), I most certainly am not a law professor myself. I didn't think you'd hold out on us like that!

Maybe some day a professor though, huh? :D

[WebSavvy]

LOL! OK, my mistake, I could have sworn Doug or someone had said you were a Professor at Rutgers? :o:

Oh well, not the issue, nonetheless your posts have been very enlightening and intelligently structured. :)

[MJR]

Originally posted by apeuro
I will add only this . . .

The total amount of Bob's claim against Google is $10,000 - it would be barely enough to cover his legal costs even if he won. The fact that Google is going after this guy with all guns blazing, when they could toss him a couple of G's to make it go away, is a testament to how seriously they take this suit.

As stated in the original filing "...in excess of $75,000..." However, as I'm sure already know, that figure can be increased as well as any other terms to settlement (should there be one).

[MJR]

Originally posted by apeuro
And apeuro, you really need to do some research, not only about the patent your talking about from Stanford but who was involved AND the patent Google has pending now.

Hmm . . . let's see:

United States Patent: 6,285,999 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,285,999.WKU.&OS=PN/6,285,999&RS=PN/6,285,999)

Method for node ranking in a linked database


Abstract
A method assigns importance ranks to nodes in a linked database, such as any database of documents containing citations, the world wide web or any other hypermedia database. The rank assigned to a document is calculated from the ranks of documents citing it. In addition, the rank of a document is calculated from a constant representing the probability that a browser through the database will randomly jump to the document. The method is particularly useful in enhancing the performance of search engine results for hypermedia databases, such as the world wide web, whose documents have a large variation in quality.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inventors: Page; Lawrence (Stanford, CA)
Assignee: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford, CA)
Appl. No.: 004827
Filed: January 9, 1998

********

Perhaps you'd like to stop before making yourself look even more foolish?

Foolish? You have still missed several important points here, i.e. the current patent application by Google. And; MR. Page receiving his doctorate as a result of this. The LawMeMe article has been used here for reference many times, as I suggested read the posts below the current article, several of which were posted by attorneys and law students not to mention one of SK's own attorneys. I am no attorney either, however I do trust the knowledge of those attorney's that are involved in the case to be providing factual information :)

[apeuro]

As stated in the original filing "...in excess of $75,000..."

I don't know what Bob's telling you, but here's the text of the docket sheet straight from the Federal District Court of Western Oklahoma.


Docket Sheet for 5:02-CV-1457 Western District Court of Oklahoma

87BD TLC
U.S. District Court
Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma Cty)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 02-CV-1457

Search King Inc v. Google Inc, et al
Filed: 10/17/02
Assigned to: Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange
Jury demand: Both
Demand: $10,000
Nature of Suit: 370
Lead Docket: None
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Dkt# in other court: None

Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud


SEARCH KING INC, an Oklahoma Brett D Sanger
Corporation 405-239-7795
plaintiff [COR LD NTC]
Holly Hefton
405-239-7795
[COR LD NTC]
Brett D Sanger PC
204 N Robinson Ave
Suite 1500
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
405-232-1015


v.


GOOGLE INC, a California
corporation
defendant
[term 10/29/02]


GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY INC, a Joseph J Ferretti
California Corporation 405-272-5256
defendant [COR LD NTC]
Crowe & Dunlevy
20 N Broadway Ave
Suite 1800
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
405-235-7700




SEARCH KING INC, an Oklahoma Corporation

plaintiff


v.

GOOGLE INC, a California corporation; GOOGLE TECHNOLOGY INC,
a California Corporation

defendant

[Advisor]

Foolish? You have still missed several important points here, i.e. the current patent application by Google. And; MR. Page receiving his doctorate as a result of this. C'mon, Mike! You don't really believe that any of that has any bearing on this case now do you?

I could have sworn you actually had some sense...now you're just being silly.

Jill

[apeuro]

Let's start with the fact that no sane law attorney comments on the merits of his/her case while it is still pending. Doing so will get you disbarred.

From the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/index.asp?ftdb=STOKRUPR&level=1=):

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, and except as stated in paragraphs (b) and (c).

...

Authorized Disclosure. A lawyer is impliedly authorized to make disclosures about a client when appropriate in carrying out the representation, except to the extent that the client's instructions or special circumstances limit that authority. In litigation, for example, a lawyer may disclose information by admitting a fact that cannot properly be disputed, or in negotiation by making a disclosure that facilitates a satisfactory conclusion.

In short the guy posting on the Lawmeme forum claiming to be SK's lawyer is full of it.

As for the last comment on Lawmeme - the guy is so deluded it makes you wonder whether to laugh or cry.

Certainly the court is wrong in this regard when arrived at this decision based on a reference case: Moody's case. SearchKing lawyer is right: Moody did not hold a patent on the metric utilized in the reference case and brought to the court's atention by Google's lawyers. Patents are not protected by First Amendment and indeed can be challenged and invalidated if found known art or opinions rather than objective inventions.

The patent has absolutely nothing to do with this case. Neither does the fact that the courts decided PR is an opinion, mean that the patent will be invalidated. It's not PR itself that is patented, but rather the process that produces PR. Regardless of whether or not the end result is an opinion, the process itself can be patented as long as it fulfills the requirements set out by the US patent law (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf), specifically 35 USC §101 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/101.shtml):

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

The algorythm which produces PR is a process under this definition, and as such is eminently patentable. End of story.

As for Google or Larry Page, well, could you have a patent or a PhD doctoral thesis or a grad degree earned based on opinions? Can you?

What a complete moron. Has this guy ever read a doctoral dissertation? A large majority of dissertations in the social sciences, and practiacally all in the humanities, are opinions. Apparently Stanford found PR to be impressive enough to grant Larry Page a Ph.D based on it. Again it's not the end result, but rather the process.

[MJR]

As I said, I perfer to take the opinion of the practising attorneys in this case as they are privy to the discovery, and I am not refering to the LawMeme posts.

[MJR]

Originally posted by Advisor
C'mon, Mike! You don't really believe that any of that has any bearing on this case now do you?

I could have sworn you actually had some sense...now you're just being silly.

Jill

Am I? Stay tuned :)

[MJR]

Originally posted by apeuro
[B]I don't know what Bob's telling you, but here's the text of the docket sheet straight from the Federal District Court of Western Oklahoma.

I can read to: On this page, copies of the original documents, the ammount is refered to several times "in excess of $75,000"

http://www.searchking.com/news/complaint5.htm

And again here:
http://www.searchking.com/news/complaint1.htm

Adding, check the date of the document you provided against the documents I provided. I think you'll find mine to be most current. To be fair, the filing was amended after the original filing date :)

[apeuro]

To be fair, the filing was amended after the original filing date

You're quite right. I hadn't noticed that SK posted the amended complaint on his site.

[robertclough]

Source: Slate

Google-Opoly: The Game No One but Google Can Play

http://slate.msn.com/id/2077875/

Snippet:
The strange Google lawsuit over its page-ranking monopoly.

[ihelpyou]

Nice article Robert. Thanks for posting!

[Advisor]

No one doubts SearchKing is going to get clobbered in court. Their legal arguments are vague and the legal ground they rest upon is shaky. But the real test of justice in this case will be this: Will their ranking drop down to zero the day after Google prevails at trial? ROFL

:green: :green: :green: :green: :green: :green: :green:

[scottiecl]

I just can't get past the idea that all these "people" think that Google ought to be "regulated".

OK, so when my little rental company directory gains such industry acceptance that the average surfer thinks that it is "the best" and "the only" place to find a rental company, what then?

It's free, I list who I want to, I list them in the order I feel like listing them. Is someone going to sue me because their listing is 10th for Tampa Florida? They pay me nothing, I encourage a link back but don't require it, I do the work on the page and I pay for the hosting. In areas where my listings are few, I actively search for companies and add them, just like a spider finds a site and adds it to a SE index.

Is the fact that it is the only useful directory for my industry a reason that I should have to be regulated? There are 4 other directories out there with paid listing models. They don't have many entries. Does their poor business model mean I should be forced to change mine or that someone should "oversee" my listings?

I just don't understand how people can't see the implications for EVERY WEBSITE that offers a free service. We all have the potential to dominate our respective markets by being best at what we do. Why aren't people complaining about the poor competitors?

If I were AltaVista or Teoma, I think it would be time to get a clue when every shred of media and user attention is focused on Google that it is time to clean house and take a hint from what obviously works and follow suit. Work for relevant results, kill the spam, downplay the ads.

I keep repeating it because it seems SO obvious to me- why aren't we all demanding that the competitors catch up instead of insisting that Google should change?

[Advisor]

What's even scarier, Scottie, is that one of those in your directory apparently could sue you because you don't list them first. I guess anyone can just sue anyone for anything.

And we wonder why the courts are so clogged....

[MJR]

I read that article earlier. I certainly do not have a problem with the writer expressing their opinions, but the article, once again, is full of inaccuracies that even hardest of you all must admit to. :)

[ihelpyou]

Right on Scottie. 100% in agreement!

Even the very idea that Massa truly believes that Google sees him as a some kind of 'competitor' is clearly an indication of a delusional mind. Either that, or an inflated ego. Don't really know which. :)

And I don't see any inaccuracies in that article at all. Good article.

[apeuro]

I read Dahlia Lithwick's coverage of the Supreme Court as often as she writes an article.

I always been impressed by her writing, and I love her articles for Slate.

[Alan Perkins]

Originally posted by ihelpyou
And I don't see any inaccuracies in that article at all. No, there were definitely inaccuracies (or at least sacrifices to simplicity). e.g.PageRank is Google's page ranking system
...
PageRank is a free feature on the Google toolbar, and it's based on a top-secret algorithm that can evaluate over 3 billion Web pages for relevance and quality in under a second, enabling Google to instantly put the most useful sites at the very top of its results page.I loved the quote from Bob, though. I believe that once any person, group or company attains a certain level of influence in a specific segment of a market, and are fully aware of the power of that influence to cause harm to a third party, then they have a legal and moral obligation to dispense that opinion very carefully.That's the whole point. Google did dispense that opinion very carefully. Did Bob do the same when he was selling links?

If we take the third parties in question as those whose sites were displaced in the search results as a consequence of Bob selling links, then it was Bob that was harming those third parties by selling links.

If we take the third parties in question as searchers who believed they were seeing objective results, not advertising, then it was Bob that was harming those third parties by selling links.

Google (like any search engine) intervenes manually to preserve the integrity of their search results both for the honest sites within them and (more importantly to Google) for their searchers. I thought every SEO knew this. Anyway, if you didn't know it before, you do now.

Some seem to suggest that Google intervenes manually to destroy the integrity of their search results. I have seen no evidence of this, and can see no motive for them to do it.

[Advisor]

I didn't notice any obvious factual errors in that article. In fact, I was impressed with the writers knowledge of the subject. Most articles only seem to know a few things they've read elsewhere. This writer really did her homework.

Obviously, the article was supposed to be fairly tongue in cheek. It was a great, humorous read. And surprisingly on the mark!

Jill

[MJR]

Jill you're getting to be more like Doug everyday - I mean that as a compliment.

[Advisor]

Originally posted by WCWH
Jill you're getting to be more like Doug everyday - I mean that as a compliment. Now there's a mixed message if I ever saw one!

I find that I'm more like Doug some days, and other days not. Depends on my mood, if I've had enough sleep, whether I'm pms'ing. That sort of thing.

Sometimes I'm perfectly happy to see all sides of an argument. Other times, I've simply had enough and something pushes me over the edge to make me "more like Doug"!

Sometimes my kids do something that pisses me off and I'll take it out in my forum posts.

Other times I'm in a great mood and will even be nice to spammers.

Such is life!

Jill

[MJR]

Don't kill the messanger...I found this on the Wall Street Journal today:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1046226160884963943,00.html

[Matt B]

Why would we kill the messenger?

Nothing to be upset about here. The main point of the story is not to try and fool Google with tricks. She tried "everything" and got penalized.

Google is very open about penalizing people that use the very same strategies she employed, and the article does a good job of explaining that.

On a side note, Bob needs accountability more than Google.

The story ran front page yesterday.

[Alan Perkins]

Discussion on WSJ article (http://www.ihelpyouservices.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7255)

[MJR]

Originally posted by SEO Guy
Why would we kill the messenger?

Last time I posted somethig like this you accused me of only posting the anti-google stuff. I thought this a very good article but I did not know you'd take it :)

[Alan Perkins]

I think it's a very good article. The three people named that tried to "Game the System and Improve Exposure" were:

Joy Holman: who "tried all sorts of tricks", learnt a lot of bad things on "online discussion groups dedicated to search engines" (not this one), put them into practise, did well for a while, was then penalised, and now has to buy Adwords.

Graham McLeay: who saw revenue cut in half during the two months he believes his site was penalized by Google, and who made the telling comment "I don't know how people are supposed to judge what is right and wrong"

Bob Massa: need I say more? :D

IMO the fundamental misconception in the article is this:Because of its importance, Google can make or break businesses that sell over the Web. It's the new "location, location, location" for online retailers, for whom ranking at the top of a Google search is the Web equivalent of landing a choice corner on Miracle Mile or Fifth Avenue.IMO, if your business relies on free traffic from Google, you are in no way comparable to a business that has a choice corner on Fifth Avenue. In fact, your business is built on vapour. Free traffic from Google is great and should be worked for (by building really good web sites) and gratefully accepted - but not relied upon for the existence of the business. People pay big money for that choice corner on Fifth Avenue.

A better analogy for that Fifth Avenue corner would be this: I'm trying to get a client into a Premium Sponsorship position with Google, but in this particular client's market the Premium Sponsorship is sold out until 2005.

I'll just have to work hard and get them the free traffic instead, I suppose. ;)

[Dan0]

Looks like that weasel from AutomatedLinks ran and hid pretty quickly. He used to post all over the Sitepoint forums, but I doubt he's showing his face much these days, after getting 1200 sites penalized.

[MJR]

Maybe someone should start a 1200 club, there are a few that could be nominated :)

[Advisor]

I can tell you that the journalist did a ton of research for the article. He talked to me for a long time on the phone, as well as talking to many others. He even went to the SES conference in Dallas to talk to people.

Jill

[Kal]

That's good to know Jill and it really showed. I think that was the first accurate article about SEO/SEM I've seen in the mainstream media for months :thumb:.

[Advisor]

Yeah, it's not often that a reporter does so much research. It seems they usually talk to a few people for a few minutes and then write about what they think they learned!

Of course...a quote from me would have been nice! :) (Or from some of the other many, many SEOs he talked to.)

Jill

[MJR]

Wondering why SearchKing's numbers had been increased lately, at least Bob has boasted about this increase to his portal partners. I thought I'd do a little research. If you do a search on SearchKing and then select the site of your choice from the search results, click on it and you appear to be at that website, wrong, checkout the address bar at the top of your browser next time. No matter where you go on that site, or any link from that site you remain within a hidden frame on SearchKing. Thus every click you make from that point on, unless you break out of the frame, registers as a click to SearchKing. If you are using IE, right click and select "open frame in another window" thus bring whatever site/page you are on into a new window. This is how they are inflating their traffic numbers on SearchKing. I was wondering what the magic trick might have been done to bring up their declining traffic. He is just trying to convince his portal partners (and advertisers too I suspect) that things are improving. Just another SearchKing parlor trick done by the magician himself :)

[ihelpyou]

Report it to Google and get him delisted for good. He's so full of it. It's sickening. It's sad.

Oh yes, with declining numbers, no advertiser would touch him or searchking so he had to resort to spam again. Go figure?

[Advisor]

I don't believe a click within a framed site registers for a hit for that outside framed site.

Jill

[MJR]

It sure does if the page refreshes after every click. This is how it was set-up before when they used their voting frame, the difference being that it refreshed out of the frame. :)

[Advisor]

Ah...yes. A refresh would do that!

But what are the benefits for Bob? Just to show that SearchKing has many "hits"? Seems kinda weird!

Jill

[MJR]

Not too weird *if* you are trying to convince your portal owners that SearchKing is not diminishing in traffic and not to weird *if* you are trying to sell advertising based on your traffic - these of course *are* the "obvious" reasons ;)

[ihelpyou]

I don't think BK has much convincing to do from what I see with the portals..... they seem to melt in his arms. :eek:

[MJR]

Perhaps, but have you seen any new portals lately? I haven't :D