|
Google Inc.'s mysterious methods for ranking Web sites came under
attack Friday in a lawsuit accusing the online search engine leader of
ruining scores of Internet businesses that have been wrongfully
banished from its index.
The civil complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose by
KinderStart.com, seeks to be certified as a class action representing
the owners of all Web sites blacklisted by Google's Internet-leading
search engine since January 2001.
KinderStart, a Norwalk-based Web site devoted to information about
children, says it was dropped from Google's index a year ago without
warning.
"The world is becoming increasingly 'Googlized,'" said Gregory Yu, a
lawyer for KinderStart. "For most people, that has been a good thing,
but not for everyone."
A Google spokesman said the company hadn't seen the suit and had no immediate comment.
KinderStart alleges Google has engaged in anticompetitive behavior
and misled the public by positioning its search engine as an objective
source for finding Internet content. The suit seeks unspecified
financial damages and a court order that would require Google to change
its ways.
The case aims at Google's heart — its tightly guarded formula for ranking Web sites.
Google's system strives to elevate in search results the Web sites
with content most relevant to a request. Because Google handles far
more search requests than its rivals, its ranking system can make or
break Web sites without a well-known domain name.
With the stakes so high, Web sites assigned a low Google ranking are
constantly trying to elevate their standing, and an entire cottage
industry has formed surrounding search engine optimization. Some sites
resort to dirty tricks, hoping the shenanigans will fool Google into
highlighting their Web links.
Google regularly tweaks its search formula to weed out the mischief
makers — sometimes called "Black Hats." In the worst cases, Google
exiles the manipulative Web sites, a practice that has become known as
being sent to "the sandbox" for the equivalent of a children's time out.
KinderStart's lawsuit alleges Google's policing efforts have
penalized Web sites that have done nothing wrong. To make matters
worse, the suit alleges the banished sites can't determine how they can
restore their standings because the company doesn't explain its actions.
Mountain View-based Google has previously defended its right to revise its search formula however it sees fit.
In 2003, Google persuaded a federal judge to dismiss a case filed by
Oklahoma City-based Search King Inc. after its search ranking abruptly
fell. Google argued its search ranking formula represented an opinion
protected by the First Amendment, and U.S. District Judge Vicki
Miles-LaGrange agreed.
This time, KinderStart is the one making accusations of free-speech
violations — in Google's case, by reducing the traffic sent to Web
sites that have been wrongfully punished.
KinderStart said its traffic plunged by 70 percent after Google
dropped it. At its peak, KinderStart's visitors viewed more than 10
million Web pages per month, according to the suit.
Yu hopes to prove Google has become an "essential facility" that
should be required to warn Web sites before dropping them from the
index. "We don't really feel there is enough transparency and openness
in a service that has become so important," Yu said.
Google has always been tightlipped about how its search engine's works, maintaining the secrecy is essential to its success.
|
