Search Engine Dispute Notification (Re: Weinstein, RISKS-24.72)

[Kirakowski, Jurek]

To see if I understand Lauren Weinstein's premise correctly, let me give an
example: my company has a web site [A] on which we advertise a particular
product that we have created and sell. A competitor sets up a web site [B]
hosted in some odd place which gets either more, or round about the same
number of, hits on a search engine when someone seeks information on
distinctive keywords to do with my site [A].  This competitor's web site [B]
contains derogatory, possibly misleading, and certainly unflattering
information about my company and its product. It may even pretend to be my
company and might sell a similar product or a clone of mine.

Search engines will as search engines do and [A] and [B] are likely to come
close in keyword searches because that is the skill of [B] to be able to
second-guess the algorithms.

Getting court orders against [B] will take ages, and may not be effective.

Lauren proposes that a 'dispute register' be set up in which [A] can
register that [B] and [A] are in dispute about content. The entry in the
register can't afford to make veracity claims or to take sides. It can only
note that there is a dispute between [A] and [B], which dispute has been
notified to the register by either owners of [A], [B] or both. If there is
an attempt by the register to make veracity claims, then a clever faker of
site [B] could tie up a process indefinitely with specious arguments (and oh
boy, have we all heard some lulus!)

The best way for the register to work is that if a searcher finds either [A]
or [B] they will also be given a link to the entry in the register.

However, if the searcher has to go to a special list at, say, disputes.org
then if I were [B] I would certainly want to draw the searcher's attention
to the entry in this list and rely on my ability to scam. If I were [A] it
would not matter: someone has already found my site [A] and I would either
warn the searcher of counterfeit sites, or present my information in such a
way that it would be convincing.

Either way, this makes the job of [B] even easier. All [B] has to do now is
to set up a bogus site, never mind the keywords or any expertise in getting
noticed by a search engine. Having set up his misleading site, he then
notifies the register that [A] and [B] are in dispute as if he were the
aggrieved party.

And so even if it works for a small percentage of searchers, [B] has made
his hit.

The only real cure is web savvy and siting oneself within web communities.
It may take a while for this to sink in (how many people STILL get caught in
'Lotto' scams?), but on the web where there is a lot of free information the
seeker should understand that the rule CAVEAT EMPTOR applies. Let the buyer
beware.

My best defence as [A] is as follows:

I contact sites which reference mine [C], [D]...  and ask them to put a note
next to their listing of [A] saying something to the effect that the reader
should be aware that bogus sites have appeared (not giving their URLs!) A
person browsing for the distinctive keywords of my site will likely find
mention of my site on other sites indexed by the same keywords [C], [D]...
and will find this information. This is not a route available to the bogus
site owner [B] who does not have the same peer network as I do. It will be
in the best interests of [C], [D]... to assist me in this as they themselves
may one day come under attack in this way.

If someone browses using the distinctive keywords they will get [A], [B],
[C], [D]... and will see that there is a problem between [A] and [B].

I offer this more in the spirit of a 'straw man' since there must be an
obvious rejoinder which unfortunately this morning I just can't see.

------------------------------