Of course this isn't the first time....

http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-980215.html

Rosalyn wrote:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-980215.html

Indeed nothing new: "Spammers with an attitude" come by the dozens...

Piet

Rosalyn wrote:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-980215.html

That was interesting. What was most interesting to me was google using
the 1st amendment and saying page rank wasn't a system that they have
devised but their personal opinion. That was not a bright thing for them
to say and I can see Search King winning the suit. I also agree with
Search King that a public search engine on the internet is accountable
for their actions even though they may be privately owned the internet
is a public place and there's a certain nettiqete even that search
engines and other big sites need to follow.

Sam wrote:

Rosalyn wrote:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-980215.html


That was interesting. What was most interesting to me was google using
the 1st amendment and saying page rank wasn't a system that they have
devised but their personal opinion.

Of course it is: PR measures what they think is important. And they may
change their minds as often as they like. And they also may take as many
measures against abusers as they like.

That was not a bright thing for them
to say and I can see Search King winning the suit.

Well, you never know in the States. But I think it's rediculous to go to
a judge complaining that you have been earning money misusing a search
engine and now the SE has taken measures against you...

(I used to grab handbags from old ladies on 5th Avenue and guess what
judge, now they take another route. Could you please do something
against that because now I'm almost broke.)

I also agree with
Search King that a public search engine on the internet is accountable
for their actions even though they may be privately owned the internet
is a public place

No, it's not. Internet is a network of privately owned servers.

Piet

Anders Reizen wrote:

Of course it is: PR measures what they think is important. And they may
change their minds as often as they like. And they also may take as many
measures against abusers as they like.

WRONG. Page Rank measures the amount of incoming back links not an
opinion from the google staff. Google is free to change the way they do
page rank but they are not free to discrimate against an individual
website and have different rules from one site to another. That's a
civil lawsuit when they do shit like that and if search kings persists
they will win.

Well, you never know in the States. But I think it's rediculous to go to
a judge complaining that you have been earning money misusing a search
engine and now the SE has taken measures against you...

There's only like about a million people spamming at google and mostly

due to google allowing all kinds of linking for back links such as
craeting a zillion internal pages at one's own site, posting to blo
coments, guestbooks ect. If google wants the spamming stopped it would
be a breeze for them to do it. This is a case where they're
discriminating against someone they personally don't like and nothing
else.

No, it's not. Internet is a network of privately owned servers.

WRONG AGAIN! The internet is public domain and no one owns it. People

can own server and web space but that is not the internet in of of
itself. You probably own a car maybe a house? Does that mean you also
own all the public roads, streets, and the land they're on too? I don't
think so. You have a website maybe too? does that mean you can spam your
url address as often and wherever you feel like? Try that and see what
happens with your web hosting and perhaps even your url as well if
internic gets enough complaints. You are accountable for your action
with your privately owned property when you deal in public places and
the internet is a public place. Therefore even a search engine such as
Google which is privately owned is accountable for their actions in the
public internet.

If search king and others persist they'll eventually win. Google has big
money to stall the final court outcome but they can only stall and will
eventually face the music for their wrong doing.

Sam wrote:

Anders Reizen wrote:


Of course it is: PR measures what they think is important. And they may
change their minds as often as they like. And they also may take as many
measures against abusers as they like.



WRONG.

Don't need to shout. That sure doesn't make me take you more serious
than when you'd whisper. On the contrary.

Page Rank measures the amount of incoming back links not an
opinion from the google staff.

They also put some weight on those links. And there comes the opinion
part. Of course they are free to say: this are not the kind of links we
appreciate, so we give them a weight of zero.

Google is free to change the way they do
page rank but they are not free to discrimate against an individual
website

Of course they can. They prefer to take automated measures against
spammers, but they are free to remove them by hand.

Well, you never know in the States. But I think it's rediculous to go to
a judge complaining that you have been earning money misusing a search
engine and now the SE has taken measures against you...


There's only like about a million people spamming at google and mostly
due to google allowing all kinds of linking for back links such as
craeting a zillion internal pages at one's own site, posting to blo
coments, guestbooks ect. If google wants the spamming stopped it would
be a breeze for them to do it.

They do whatever they can. See the improvements since Florida.

This is a case where they're
discriminating against someone they personally don't like and nothing
else.

Even when that would be true: they are free to do so.

No, it's not. Internet is a network of privately owned servers.


WRONG AGAIN!

Shouting again? And again your arguments are losing weight...

The internet is public domain and no one owns it.

You really don't have a clue what the internet is: a bunch of privately
owned servers that peer connections. Nothing more nothing less.

People
can own server and web space but that is not the internet in of of
itself. You probably own a car maybe a house? Does that mean you also
own all the public roads, streets, and the land they're on too? I don't
think so.

This really doesn't make any sense. Which part of the net is public? And
who is paying for that? The gouvernment?

You have a website maybe too? does that mean you can spam your
url address as often and wherever you feel like?

No. The people who own the place where I'm spamming have every right to
take measures against me. Just like Google has that right if it concerns
their servers.

Try that and see what
happens with your web hosting and perhaps even your url as well if
internic gets enough complaints.

Internic? I don't think so. My host will take action though. Like most
(privately owned!) web hosting companies, because that's what they
agreed to do. But they don't have to: see bullet proof hosters in China etc.

You are accountable for your action
with your privately owned property when you deal in public places and
the internet is a public place.

When I'm breaking any law (like publishing child porn) I am. When I
don't want you in my place, I'm free to kick you out. I'm even free to
block all US visitors by IP-number if that's what I like. Or block every
visitor that's coming from a referring site I don't want to be
associated with.

Therefore even a search engine such as
Google which is privately owned is accountable for their actions in the
public internet.

Again: when they are breaking any law they are. When they want to kick
you out because they don't like your face, they are free to do so.

If search king and others persist they'll eventually win. Google has big
money to stall the final court outcome but they can only stall and will
eventually face the music for their wrong doing.

And which court has any jurisdiction about this? And what if Google
decides to move all their datacenters outside that area?

Piet

"Sam" <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote

Rosalyn wrote:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023_3-980215.html

That was interesting. What was most interesting to me was google using
the 1st amendment and saying page rank wasn't a system that they have
devised but their personal opinion. That was not a bright thing for
them to say and I can see Search King winning the suit. I also agree
with Search King that a public search engine on the internet is
accountable for their actions even though they may be privately owned
the internet is a public place and there's a certain nettiqete even
that search engines and other big sites need to follow.

This is stupid. Google can rank pages (or not) by any means they deem
appropriate. This isn't some socialist utopia we live in (then again, maybe
you're from some European socialist country where the government tells you
how many times you can pee in a day). It's no judge's business how search
results are displayed on Google unless someone is breaking a contract.
Search engines are not regulated like telephone companies (thankfully).

What a joke.


--
- Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

"Sam" <. (AT) mail (DOT) com> wrote

WRONG. Page Rank measures the amount of incoming back links not an
opinion from the google staff. Google is free to change the way they
do page rank but they are not free to discrimate against an individual
website and have different rules from one site to another. That's a
civil lawsuit when they do shit like that and if search kings persists
they will win.

Excuse us idiots who don't understand the law, but what law says that Google
is obligated to index any particular website at all?

--
- Brandon Staggs
http://www.brandonstaggs.com

"Brandon" wrote in message >

This isn't some socialist utopia we live in (then again, maybe
you're from some European socialist country where the government tells you
how many times you can pee in a day).

I think you may be getting mixed up with USA
They may not tell you to how many times to pee, but they sure make you think
it.

Just like they make you think Iraq was the right thing to do.

appropriate. This isn't some socialist utopia we live in (then again,
maybe
you're from some European socialist country where the government tells you
how many times you can pee in a day). It's no judge's business how search
results are displayed on Google unless someone is breaking a contract.

Oh, I think Google would be much much safer under European- than US law
(INAL).
We do not have anywhere near that number of completely nonsense lawsuits as
you do in the US :-).


best regards
Thomas