Slashdot Mirror
Why Microsoft Wants to Buy Google
xihr writes "Harry Fletcher writes in The Inquirer about an obvious discrepancy between searches for "linux windows" on Google and MSN; the former comes up with almost 9 million hits, but the latter only comes up with -- wait for it -- 16. The author then speculates on Microsoft's ulterior motives for their attempted (and failed) purchase of Google."
True, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere - it just says "Results 1-15 of about 16 containing linux windows". Also, there is a 'sponsored links' section on the right of the page, separate to these 15. You need to click on the 'next' button to see "Results 16-30 of about 8898833". Which is an abysmal design decision, if nothing else.
No where, *anywhere* on that first search results page does it indicate these are "sponsored results". Maybe "featured sites" is a euphemism for "paid for adverstising", but you have to ask yourself...why does Microsoft not come clean? Oh yeah, right, the credibility factor...
Having run a search engine for a major banking internet portal, i know from experience that less than 50% of your users are going to move to a second page of results...more often than not, if they don't find what they're looking for in the first 20 results, users are just going to abort, or chose the closest looking link.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
...And, it returns a pop-under for your trouble. So, I get sponsered links, and then a pop under, and then another click, and I can get the results I was looking for.
Wow, the mind boggles.
Actually, most people asked a tech to disable it for them the first time the computer went into the shop for anything. I can't tell you how many times I've turned that thing off for people... along with changing their homepage (my internet is provided by Yahoo!), removing some bookmarks (but I've never BEEN to hotteenlesbians.com!), and "installing Google.com" (I can't use Google, I told you my internet is from Yahoo!).
I guarantee you these people and others like them have racked up plenty of hits for MSN's advertisers because they don't even know they're "allowed" to use another search engine!
End of lesson. You may press the button.
"I got 9.3M in 0.11 secs at Google, did someone add 1.2M links this morning? ;)"
It depends on the country you're viewing from
The google results can vary depending on per-country censorship rules (French and German laws are the ones discussed here, but other examples include China and the US where the results may be less than expected)
Well, but if you search for windows, it displays the correct hit count on both pages. For linux, it hides the hit count on the first page. Try it.
They wont understand either...
Sure *we* can see past this and get facts, but *we* dont line their pockets either...
Did you ever stop to think that one of the reasons people don't support or take the time to learn about the various OSS movements is because of high-brow, elitist comments such as yours?
Instead of alienating the "average consumer", perhaps we should be working as hard as possible to present a viable alternative without all the attitude. If we perpetuate an image that Linux users are different from the "average consumer", then guess what, we will be the only ones using it.
Linux, as many OSS projects, is not too dissimilar from a business in many ways, except that instead of a highly trained marketing department, it has us. That is a greatly simplified statement, but I think it stands to reason.
It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
Yes, but the question is: why would you have to hit Next a few times to see the actual number of results?
MSN results (yes, I read about sponsored links):
office - 5204
windows - 2373
server - 2121
money - 982
terrorism - 249
osama - 103
bill gates - 63
linus torvalds - 323738
Try George W. Bush. I just did. It'll say something on the order of 301 hits. Scroll through the pages to the last hit. Suddenly, the number jumps through the roof. I find it hard to believe that the first 300 hits are all sponsored links. I think something else is going on here: MSN has not only sponsored links, but some kind of edited directory scheme going here, and it doesn't care to let you know that the first number it quoted is of those links which are sponsored or added editorial, and the second number is a raw search result.
I am too; stylistically I wouldn't choose to state it as above, but I am a fan of accountability for individuals and corporations alike. If your position were a machievellian one that rationalizes doing something because it's possible to do then I wouldn't agree, but if I understand correctly then perhaps you and I simply have a different threshhold of what we'd consider "stupid" in this particular case. It seems your position that when people don't have an awareness of how search results may be skewed in favor of a given business, then they deserve to be taken advantage of and critics should be silent.
I think there's a component of untruthful advertising to this issue. Microsoft may not actually commit themselves to objectivity by saying "our search results are unbiased with regard to any commercial interests" but it's not an unreasonable expectation of a search engine; after all, google has set the precedent of making money via advertisements, not by covert manipulation of results.
If I drive past a gas station and ask to have my engine checked, the station may well try to bilk me out of money by claiming I need more work done than is the case. There are ways for the station to claim this without technically breaking the law, but I don't regard myself as stupid for not knowing enough about cars to certify the station's results; at least not stupid in a perjorative way. And, I wouldn't regard the station as on uncriticizable moral ground for doing so. This may all come down to my world vision, where I'd like to steer the world towards honest exchanges without people stabbing each other in the back at every opportunity. I realize that not everybody wants to live in such a world.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Here are the results for different OSes:
OS: Google vs. MSN
aix: 3,550,000 vs. 40
solaris: 8,340,000 vs. 87
tru64: 676,000 vs. 93,433
hp-ux: 1,890,000 vs. 287,294
ms windows: 6,650,000 vs. 291
vms: 1,770,000 vs. 22
os2: 702,000 vs. 118,273
linux: 96,800,000 vs. 365
freebsd: 8,810,000 vs. 1,136,552
openbsd: 3,500,000 vs. 341,343
netbsd: 4,750,000 vs. 223,075
unix: 23,700,000 vs. 164
symbian: 1,400,000 vs. 420,701
"windows 2000": 6,750,000 vs. 315
"windows xp": 970,000 vs. 297
"windows server 2003": 4,170,000 vs. 30
Yep, page 2 of the search for 'linux windows' should theoretically bring up a single hit (the remaining 1, out of 16). However, it brings up 15 more pages, out of about 8879023!
Looks like if there is biasing going on, it's just to try and prevent people hitting 'next'. Don't forget MSN don't provide a nice goooooooooooogle style page index, just next/prev links. Ick.