Comments on: Now, This Reads Wrong to Me

By: GoogleBias

GoogleBias — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:32:40 +0000

Of course google is being subjective. Use their "news" search, and click on the "Blogs" after you search for "Iraq".

Only left-leaning, Democrat-friendly blogs are included.

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&client=news&q=iraq&ie=UTF8

By: David Arthur

David Arthur — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 06:04:37 +0000

Do You Feel Your Business Has Been Mislead by Google’s Search Indexing or Google Adwords?
It appears that Google has reached the ethical apex within the American Corporate sector. What is sad about all the perplexing information on Google and the many recent lawsuits against the company is that we continue to let corporations like Google and the Enron’s of the world eat away at what was a country with strong ethical codes of conduct, professionalism, and sturdy and honest leadership. Though we have not been a knowing victim of corporate deception, up till this point, we sadly admit our company feels that Google is misrepresenting it’s advertising and search engine ranking services. After a two and a half week vigilant analysis of Google’s Adwords “bidding” program, we have found that Google is, in short, is “misleading” it’s customers and depriving users of a free and open internet experience in the name of profit and corporate greed. We are unclear on what action to take and which bureaucratic body to approach in dealing with this matter, we are resolved in gaining more facts and information about Google and its business dealings and will seek damages to be rewarded to cover the offense that the company has caused. This statement is not intended to disparage or sway any of the current pending judgments against Google, but since we have not been able to resolve this matter with the company directly, and since they choose not to cooperate and continue their current business methods and hold such subjective business practices, we hold no recourse but to conform and align with other parties with similar interest against the company and take action. With that being said, we are seeking to initiate a class action law suite against the Google Corporation for ethics violations and misleading advertising customers by implementing a rather precarious and subjective search engine and advertising program. If you feel you may have fallen into any of these list of items, we would be interested in speaking with you about your experience and the possible offenses the company has caused your business.

By: Joe Hunkins

Joe Hunkins — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:31:13 +0000

Wow, I hadn't noted all this follow up until today, and based on how many people are challenging John's legitimate concerns it's clear to me that this well informed community is ... out to lunch in their lack of concern.

Google engineers have publicly explained the 30+ day ranking penalty process for deceptive practices. This "defense of the algorithm" activity can't be squared with a fully objective approach to ranking, which would put the 'best' site first regardless of that site's former practices. Arguably this approach cannot be squared with Google's odd claims of a sort of pagerank objectiveness with reasonable ranking subjectiveness, which I think will come back to bite them eventually.

Kinderstart will be refiling and the judge appeared to leave a very interesting door open if Kinderstart can show that Google ranks sites capriciously. I don't think they do it often, but they certainly do it sometimes.

By: TL

TL — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:40:08 +0000

I think the "with leave to amend" part of the decision looks pretty interesting. Particularly since in the CNET article quoted above Kinderstart's attorney also has a fairly confident sounding statement, saying something to the effect that the door has been left open for a second amended complaint and that Google now seems more at risk to the defamation claim than before.

It's also important to note that nowhere in the decision or in the article does it mention any of the counts being dismissed "with prejudice" (i.e. with no chance to modify/refile the complaint whatsoever). A few are simply dismissed and most are dismissed with leave to amend.

As Eric Goldman (quoted in the above CNET article) writes on his blog:

One side note: it's unclear from the opinion if all of the claims are amendable, or only those where the judge expressly said that KinderStart could amend--the Sherman Act claim, the common carrier claim, the 17045 claim, the good faith and fair dealing claim, the defamation claim and the negligent interference with prospective economic advantage claim. My reading is that KinderStart can amend all of its claims, but the opinion is ambiguous on that point.

So, it seems like because of a relatively soft dismissal, this case may still have a ways to go.

By: SEARCH Engine Web

SEARCH Engine Web — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 07:27:55 +0000

Kinderstart vrs Google - Suit DISMISSED!

news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6094132.html

U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel for the Northern District in San Jose dismissed all nine claims, saying that KinderStart's claims were insufficient or failed to allege facts or conduct to support that the claims or were too vague.
Fogel specifically dismissed some of the claims against Google "with leave to amend," meaning that KinderStart can modify and refile the complaint

By: JG

JG — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:22:33 +0000

New Google motto: “Don’t be evil…be legal!”

Ga-zing!

But seriously.. I understand the point you are making, Seth, and you may very well be correct in assessing the situation. However, it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Was there really no other legal way for Google to make its case without resorting to this tactic? It feels like Google is willing to say anything, to anyone, at any time, in order to get what it wants. And while that may be par for the course in 99% of the business world, it wasn’t what I thought Google stood for. I switched to Google not because its results were any better (back in 1998 I was using SavvySearch, and it was just as goood as, if not better than, the Goog), but because of its mottos and ideals.

More and more, the things that attracted me to Google as a user are disappearing, if not already gone. This particular example is just one more item among many. Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:34:45 +0000

Titus: I completely agree with you that it wouldn't be morally right for Google to treat sites in (my phrasing) an arbitrary and capricious manner. What I'm saying is that, here, Kinderstart wasn't treated unfairly (all in all - apart from the general weaknesses of not notifying spammish sites - but they aren't an unclear case!). And that the tough-talk argument doesn't imply that Google is in fact being arbitrary and capricious. The strawman is that people are reading too much into the short description of Google's algorithm, and then saying human judgment in penalizing spammers makes that short description a lie.

There's a certain type of legal tough-talk argument that one sees in these situations. It runs like this (I'll exaggerate somewhat, to illlustrate the points):

Plaintiff: Google says they're completely objective. But they *ADMITTED* they use human judgment in changing rankings. That's subjective.

Lawyer: Google uses objective and subjective factors. We do penalize spammers, and sometime make human judgment calls about who is a spammer.

Plaintiff: So, you admit Google lied in saying it was completely objective?

Lawyer (going on the attack, talking tough): Even if were in fact lying, it's *our right* as *free speech* to lie through our teeth. As long it's as not libel/defamation/etc, we have a legal right to be liars. [Sometimes further, if they want to be nasty: Our audience can make up their own minds as to whether or not we are telling the truth. Who are YOU, huh, huh, huh, to arrogate yourself the right to determine truth from lie? That's totalitarianism, religious fanaticism - you think you know what's true, which is a sign of INTOLERANCE! You should be open to alternative views, you closed-minded arrogant True Believer!]

Sadly, I have had entirely too much experience with that sort of lawyer conduct ... But, anyway, other discussion can go down that path that it's morally wrong to tell a lie, even if there's a legal right to do so, and I certainly concur. But I'm saying that you can't derive from the tough-talk legal argument that Google is in fact lying. It's a common argument in these situations. The factual answer is that the plaintiff is making a straw man out of a public relations summary of Google's procedures. But it would be a weak rhetorical argument to get into that discussion too much in court. So, yes, Google is in fact arguing in court it can lie if pleases. And I agree doing so would be morally wrong. But that argument is also not any sort of confession either. Rather, it's a completely expected legal tactic in this case.

By: Titus

Titus — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 18:23:16 +0000

Seth: You're right. Those sites displayed on Kinderstart do look kind of suspect. I was a little surprised to see that. About what the Google lawyer said, though: Tough-talk or not, it's still part of Google's argument. There aren't straw men being set up here, it's all straight from the mouth of Google's defense attorney.

In both your comments here and in the entries on your own weblog, it looks like you're saying that the key part in all the stuff Google has said about "subjectivity" and "opinions" is that they are simply pursuing their right to shut out sites "playing web-spam games" without having to explain themselves endlessly every time they do it.

While that's all well and good, I think it's important to note that the reasoning they use about "subjectivity" to argue for that extends well beyond web-spam games. The model case in point, perhaps, is in the part I quoted earlier. It looks like Google could use this line of reasoning to justify shutting out sites maliciously and arbitrarily. Of perhaps equal significance, it was their own defense attorney who made this point.

As I said earlier, Google may indeed have the right to treat sites the way they want. But it doesn't seem right for them to be able to do that without being honest and upfront about it, especially if so much of their success comes from their reputation for "objectivity" and "fairness."

By: Seth Finkelstein

Seth Finkelstein — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 07:58:07 +0000

TL: Take it up with _Fox News_ "Fair And Balanced". People are simply imputing a strawman in what Google says, and then going crazy demolishing the strawman. What the lawyer said is completely expected in this context, it's standard legal tough-talk.

Go look at Kinderstart.com. At this moment:
"Last Few Sites Added:
... Console Gaming ... Buy Belize Real Estate ... College Degree Direct ..."

That screams SPAM.

By: Joe Hunkins

Joe Hunkins — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 06:38:05 +0000

John I'm glad you are being persistent on this topic because I think it's possible (though I still think unlikely) that the lawsuit will reveal that some pretty subjective / punative/ questionable filtering is done under many sets of circumstances. If Google is not acting with the algorithmic objectivity they've claimed for some time it is important people understand that.

The Google labs incident comes to mind. Human review processes were revealed in that, but Google insisted the reviewer feedback was only used to compare result sets for algo tweaking. I still believe them though I sure wish they'd provide more direct feedback regarding downrankings