March 18, 2006
From MercuryNews.com:
Google has mysteriously downgraded the search ranking of a Web site geared to help parents care for young children, causing a "cataclysmic fall" in advertising revenue and the number of monthly page views, according to a class-action lawsuit filed Friday.It will be interesting to see how this case develops. I'd suspect that Google will act to prevent class-action status.The civil suit by KinderStart.com of Norwalk seeks financial damages and more information about Google's secret method for ranking sites. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, seeks class-action status for other sites that have seen their rankings drop without warning or explanation from the Mountain View search giant.
A Google spokesman told the Associated Press that the company hadn't seen the suit and had no immediate comment.
Since it launched in May 2000, KinderStart.com had built up its traffic to more than 10 million page views a month, the suit says, with much of the traffic coming from Google search users. But in March 2005, page views plunged 70 percent and advertising revenue fell 80 percent and hasn't recovered. KinderStart.com suspects that Google erected invisible barriers that divert consumers elsewhere when they type in a search but says Google will not explain what happened.
The drop-off was so sudden that the Web site suspects Google has a flawed method or blocks sites subjectively despite Google's pledge to provide objective search results.
From Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
11:16 PM
| Comments (22)
| Add Comment
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: tt@tt.com at March 19, 2006 08:47 AM (YiOKT)
Posted by: slug at March 19, 2006 10:29 AM (USunv)
Posted by: rightwingprof at March 19, 2006 11:09 AM (hj1Wx)
Posted by: phreaseology at March 19, 2006 12:07 PM (adiYH)
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at March 20, 2006 09:10 PM (4pYF5)
Legally, the issue is whether a search engine is a “publisher†or a “common carrierâ€. Currently they enjoy the advantages of both and the responsibilities of neither.
See much more extensive discussion of these issues at: http://www.searchenginehonesty.com/
Posted by: Ted at March 26, 2006 02:02 PM (yiL5Y)
Posted by: Patrick at June 23, 2006 10:45 PM (mhGbV)
Posted by: Janice at June 23, 2006 10:48 PM (yEQ3O)
Posted by: Pamela at June 23, 2006 10:52 PM (acy+C)
Posted by: Don at June 23, 2006 10:54 PM (iK93d)
Posted by: Naomi at June 24, 2006 10:15 PM (0Drfi)
Posted by: Joe at June 24, 2006 10:18 PM (S5hCr)
Posted by: Zane at June 24, 2006 10:21 PM (xakOF)
Posted by: Angie at June 24, 2006 10:24 PM (uTr73)
Posted by: Ben at June 25, 2006 10:24 PM (94EEG)
Posted by: Ron at June 25, 2006 10:39 PM (2xoLT)
Posted by: Julie at June 25, 2006 10:39 PM (o5L7W)
Posted by: Alice at June 26, 2006 10:03 PM (0aGP/)
Posted by: Lisa at June 26, 2006 10:07 PM (n3+LG)
Posted by: Mary at June 26, 2006 10:11 PM (moKgH)
Posted by: Victor at June 26, 2006 10:18 PM (VC9zZ)
Posted by: Joy at June 26, 2006 10:19 PM (RbKMD)
34 queries taking 0.0551 seconds, 177 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.