Bing Cashback Can Cost You Money

paltemalte writes "Microsoft and various retailers have teamed up to bring you cashback on purchases made via Bing's price comparison feature. There is a little snag, though — it seems that when you have a Bing cookie living in your browser, some retailers will quote you a higher price than if you come with no Bing cookie in your system."

Comments

Hehe

[cptdondo]

Deal with MS, get screwed.

Nothing to see here, move on....

Re:Hehe

[spyder-implee]

EXACTLY! Why would anyone use Bing anyway? - I'm asking genuinely, is it useful?

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it's probably Google paying those sites to charge more...

Re:Hehe

[pegdhcp]

It is slightly more userfriendlier(ish) than Google. And more importantly, MS pushing it as the default search engine in recent incarnations of IE, thus (l)users might start to think Bing=search engine, like they do in IE=Internet equation (Postel is turning in his grave). But the answer to your main question is "No it is not useful". Also I might add that, I would prefer Google to have my search patterns stored. At least they (seemingly) are not going to need to sell their shares to MS, with the current financial position.

Re:Hehe

[craagz]

The other day, i opened Bing to show to a colleague who did not know what Bing was... and kept pressing next for the background image that comes with it. Forgot what I wanted to search for. [:D]

Re:Hehe

[happylight]

My friend bought about 1500 dollars worth of sneakers, got the cash back from bing, then returned the sneakers. It's free money.

Re:Hehe

[mwvdlee]

Trouble is; can you actually AVOID Bing?
I mean, you can choose not to visit the search engine or any other Microsoft site, but can you catch this cookie through visiting other sites?

I'm guessing the safest way to go would be to avoid all shops that participate in the cashback program, but I doubt Microsoft will be so helpful to provide a list for this purpose.

Re:Hehe

[Antiocheian]

Actually IE was "The Internet".

Bing is OK. I've tested it sometimes and gave me good results, sometimes better than Google. Google is too targeted by SEOs, for examples when searching for reviews one has to skip over a few results to find the meat. There is actually a service called Give my Google back which filters those SEOed sites.

Re:Hehe

[Cryolithic]

How is this troll? It's a joke, it's funny.

Re:Hehe

[somersault]

can you catch this cookie through visiting other sites

o_0 it's not the flu. AFAIK you can only set a cookie for your own domain or a subdomain thereof. I'm sure someone who actually cares will clarify.

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's proof that it is Google.

Re:Hehe

[asdf7890]

can you catch this cookie through visiting other sites

o_0 it's not the flu. AFAIK you can only set a cookie for your own domain or a subdomain thereof. I'm sure someone who actually cares will clarify.

It is possible, though unlikely. If your browser is not set to block "third party" cookies, or Bing is in your trusted sites list which allow third party cookies regardless of your general settings, then nay object (an image, js file, css stylesheet, html in an iframe, anything requested via xmlhttprequest (though same origin checks should block this), ...) requested from that domain can leave cookies. In fact "something in an iframe" can probably leave cookies anyway as I don't think it would count as third party. Why such an object would be present in any given page is the question to ask here, though the sites that are checking for the cookie need to interact with Bing in your browser in some way.

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

How is Microsoft at fault here for venders making poor decision to take advantage of the user's looking for a bargain but ending up increasing the prices to recoup the "Cost" of the discount? Microsoft provided the search engine & the Cashback vehicle.. it's the vender participating in shifty pricing actions.

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

> My friend bought about 1500 dollars worth of sneakers, got the cash
> back from bing, then returned the sneakers. It's free money.

From the Bing Cashback FAQ:

``After waiting 60 days for possible returns, we'll send you a real check or
    deposit the funds in your bank account or your PayPal account.''

http://www.bing.com/shopping/pages/faq.aspx?FORM=R5FD3#WhenAndHowDoIGetMyBingCashbackReward

So.. what's the workaround?

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend bought about 1500 dollars worth of sneakers, got the cash back from bing, then returned the sneakers. It's free money.

-1 Urban legend

Re:Hehe

[KibibyteBrain]

1) MSN/Windows Live/Whatever MS is calling it this week search has always been the default search in IE since it had a default search feature. This is nothing new.
2) So has Google used its place as the default search in Firefox, which is well paid for by the way, to promote their search? Say it ain't so!

Re:Hehe

[Hyppy]

The difference is that Google's market share (~65%) has been earned through having a superior product, where most of Bing's current market share (~10%) can be easily attributed to the search engine being forced on unsuspecting IE users.

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

"Deal with MS, get screwed."

True, but similar things happen indirectly with Google too. Although probably not a cookie but simply accessing the referrer.

I shop at Smartbargains and went through Froogle one time because I couldn't find a link for something I thought I had saved previously. Was going to buy a comforter. Through Froogle, Smartbargains charged $109. The normal price was $99. However, direct from the SmartBargains site it was $73 on top of which they had a sitewide 10% promo code sale going on. (SmartBargains is wild with their prices; always some sale, some code, to sucker people in.)

A lot of retailers do jackass things. Amazon messes with their prices all the time. They have deals which you come back after a big Gold Box Deal or Lightning Deal that are cheaper, because they appear to have an algorithm to drop prices when something is hot. I've seen it happenw ith Video Game of the Day deals that are cheaper the next day. It recently happened a couple of Saturdays ago when they were using Gold Box to compete with Walmart's Saturday sale (happened with the laptop or TV). It's one of the reasons I believe Amazon dropped their 30 day price guarantee last year.

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Bing=Decision Engine /MS_brainwash

Re:Hehe

[228e2]

Technically, he said it right there. He waited for his cash back then returned the product.


Now, whether he actually did (i doubt it) or if there are stores that allow returns after 60 days (havent heard of any) are still up in the air . . . .

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Deal with MS, get screwed.

Nothing to see here, move on....

I got a great deal on a laptop plus $165 cash back. Thanks M$!

Re:Hehe

[Sethumme]

And by making exclusive deals with content providers like Wolfram Alpha and News Corp.. When things get tough, the tough innovate and Microsoft returns to making monopolies.

Re:Hehe

[plague3106]

No, that's not the reason. Live had the same advantage, and had lower marketshare. now bing is rising. Its not just live rebranded, it really is different, and while I still use google mostly, bing gives me an alternative I didn't have before.

Re:Hehe

[Stewie241]

I wondered about that after I RTFA. I assumed the sites were checking the referrer and then setting a cookie appropriately. Other thoughts?

Re:Hehe

[asdf7890]

If the cookie is specific to their site, then yes the most likely method is that they set it based on referrer (directly from the referrer header in the HTTP request) or, more likely as referrer header is stripped by some proxies and other tweaks, from something in the query string of the request.

If the cookie is not specific to that site, and is instead something relevant to Bing more globally, then it would need to be recorded in cookie value(s) from Bing and somehow relayed to the viewing site by client-side jiggery pokery. Thinking about it, this is not actually likely to be happening as it would be too issue prone and not efficient making my previous assessment of "possible but unlikely" wrong - it should be "possible but *very* unlikely".

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

bing gives me an alternative I didn't have before.

A harder, deeeper, more thorough shafting?

Re:Hehe

[AmiMoJo]

"Bing=search engine, like they do in IE=Internet"

Considering that MS is the default for both search and web browser on 90% of the world's PCs, they are failing pretty badly. The user has a choice of using their services or going off and finding alternatives. Turns out Bing is so bad people will take the extra effort to go to Google. If it was even close to being comparable people would just use it because it's there, it has to be pretty bad for the to leave.

Re:Hehe

[pegdhcp]

That is interesting. I did not look at the issue from this point of view. However, you are right, given the current MS penetration (any kind of misunderstanding caused here is intentional) in OS and browser market, that is not reflected on search engine share...

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

On a plane trip to Boston, I sat in front of two suits. During the whole trip, the one that had a laptop was lecturing the other about computers, email, the internet, etc. He said that the internet was pretty much worthless until Microsoft became involved.

Re:Hehe

[brkello]

Or they are more aggressive about forcing Bing on you. I installed Chrome the other day for my father and was showing him how he could type a search in the URL bar. The search it used was Bing. I would imagine Chrome wouldn't set that by default. So maybe Bing is better than its predecessors...or maybe MS is better at forcing it upon the users.

Re:Hehe

[jim_v2000]

I use Bing Because Its Not Google. I've not bought the line that Google is the end-all, be-all of internet search. I'd like to see some competition in the market, and Bing does a pretty dang good job. I've switched to it in all of my browsers.

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop sending referrer information in your http requests then.

Re:Hehe

[Rasperin]

And what, they never did that with MSN? Yahoo stood that testatment of time just fine and Google appeared as MSN just kinda faded away. I still have an @hotmail.com address.

Re:Hehe

[PhilipPeake]

"IE was "The Internet"

Is this deliberate flamebait? Or are you really that ignorant?

The Internet existed way before "The Web", which is what most people think of the Internet as being these days. IE has no claim to be even "The Web". Microsoft ignored the web until they were forced to acknowledge its existence and to provide some basic tools to allow users of its software to connect -- little things, like a TCP/IP stack and browser.

For the browser, they did the usual M$ trick of getting the technology from an existing source (Mosaic -- which was also the original core of Netscape browsers), waving the illusion of untold wealth in front of them, but carefully writing the contract such that they ended up with the Mosaic sources and no obligation to pay Mosaic anything beyond the initial teaser.

Microsoft then did various unethical and illegal tricks to attempt to destroy Netscape -- tricks which ended up getting themselves in deep trouble with the US and EU, paying some huge fines and having to submit to government oversight from both -- but not until they had achieved their aim and Netscape was no more.

So you might say that "IE hijacked the Internet", but never that "IE is the Internet".

Re:Hehe

[Creepy]

True, but you are also making the assumption people use the search in the toolbar, and I know plenty of people that just bookmarked google and click the link on the left hand nav bar (like my wife...). She was using that link long before search was added to the toolbar, so it is habit I think.

Re:Hehe

[Locke2005]

When I get people telling me to "just fucking Bing it!" when I ask for information, then I'll believe that Bing is making progress. Google has entered our common lexicon as a verb, Bing has not.

Re:Hehe

[Locke2005]

Funny, I thought there market share was due to actually paying people to use their search engine... have they abandoned that tactic already? Publisher's Clearing House will even give me an "entry" every time I do a search with Bing... pity I can't set up a script to do that for me!

Re:Hehe

[plague3106]

So somehow MS determined you had just installed chrome, and within seconds changed the default. Really, get a grip.

Re:Hehe

[MillionthMonkey]

I think Occam's Razor will give that second paragraph a nice shave. After RTFA I seem to recall that it assumed they were using a referrer header and giving you their own cookie stamped "idiot". If I were implementing such a thing that's surely how I would do it. Client-side jiggery pokery sounds like more work.

Re:Hehe

[Madball]

I believe the statement is a correct to the parent which stated "IE=Internet equation" (which btw I've never heard anyone say). This is in reference to Bing's attempt to conflate search with Bing, as IE has been conflated with the Internet (which I can attest to--ask your grandma or boss to open IE and they'll look at you confused, then ask them to open "The Intenet")...

Re:Hehe

[AmiMoJo]

The default homepage for IE has a Bing search box on it.

Re:Hehe

[MillionthMonkey]

Examine the vendor's page in Firebug, look for the DIV with id='sergey', and raise its z-order to see the awful truth with its current holiday logo.

Re:Hehe

[Antiocheian]

I was being sarcastic. Versions 3 of Internet Explorer would create an icon (in windows 95OSR at least) with a globe named "The Internet" and many users thought this was the thing everyone was talking about.

However, in regards to your thinking about poor Netscape I have a very interesting link for you straight from the IETF working group (which IETF dissolved to deal with more serious matters than silly Internet Drafts about FRAMEs):

http://www.nyct.net/~aray/htmlwg/

I don't think they would share your feelings on the matter...

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

Trouble is; can you actually AVOID Bing?
I mean, you can choose not to visit the search engine or any other Microsoft site, but can you catch this cookie through visiting other sites?

Cookies do not work in a cross-domain fashion. Meaning if Bing sets a cookie on your machine, no one other than Bing can read it back.

The problem here was that the site was checking for the referral tag to see if you came from Bing's cash back page, and then set a cookie of their own to remind them that you came from Bing.

What they did is very unethical and I hope Microsoft bans them completely from the program.

I'm guessing the safest way to go would be to avoid all shops that participate in the cashback program, but I doubt Microsoft will be so helpful to provide a list for this purpose.

I hardly doubt you can avoid that list, it includes Newegg, Barnes and Noble, Walmart, the list goes on. But then again you don't need to avoid them or Bing, that's just FUD.

As for the list, there's a detailed list of all the cash back stores available at Bing (clicking on the stores in that list will take you to their site which will tell them you came from Bing).

Re:Hehe

[MHolmesIV]

So when I installed IE8, it kept my previous search engine and didn't default me to a new one. Installing Live Messenger stuff suggested I change to Bing, but left the tickbox unchecked by default, unlike a bunch of other apps I installed that tried to change my home page/default search and they were checked by default.

Where exactly is this "force" of which you speak?

Re:Hehe

[wastedlife]

Did Chrome import settings from IE? The other possibility I can think of is that Bing was setup with some sort of DNS NX record hijacking. I highly doubt Google Chrome would have set Bing by default.

Re:Hehe

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize that the parent post is pretty far up on the page, but you may have wanted to read that in order to get the context of the post.

users might start to think Bing=search engine, like they do in IE=Internet equation

Actually IE was "The Internet".

Re:Hehe

[Meski]

Bing? I'm dreaming, of a cashback christmas?
Where the cookies gouge the customer...

No, doesn't scan.

Transcribed PDF from Microsoft Legal

[Ethanol-fueled]

Looks like Microsoft already tried to silence him. Here's a partial transcript of the letter sent to him from Microsoft legal after a prior post:

"This firm represents Microsoft blah blah blah you're violating our rights.

Specifically, at this site you are providing information directing users how to misuse the Microsoft Bing Cashback program through unauthorized technical means. Further, on this website you admit that you have personally misused the Cashback program in this regard. Microsoft believes that your actions and the direction that you are providing to others regarding this method of misuse violates various laws relating to computer intrusion, unauthorized access and unauthorized use of information. For example...directing users how to misuse the Cashback program constitutes a knowing and unpermitted access of data in order to wrongfully obtain money and is also unpermitted assistance in providing a means of accessing a computer, system, or network in violation of California Penal Code S502(c)*. This conduct would also violate provisions of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Fraud and Related Activity in Connection With Access Devices, and common law principles under state law.

Microsoft views the misuse of its programs...cease and decist...blah blah...."

Looks like they're taking cues from Best Buy.

* CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 502(c) "COMPREHENSIVE COMPUTER DATA ACCESS AND FRAUD ACT"
(1) Knowingly accesses and without permission alters, damages, deletes, destroys, or otherwise uses any data, computer, computer system, or computer network in order to either (A) devise or execute any scheme or artifice to defraud, deceive, or extort, or (B) wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or data.

Hmm, so Microsoft isn't trying to wrongfully control or obtain money? Last I checked, the class-action against Best-Buy was approved. Posting a blog post is tantamount to being an elite hacker who broke into a network and stole trade secrets or money?

Re:Transcribed PDF from Microsoft Legal

[LifesABeach]

Da always said, "If you lay down with a dog, you'll get up with fleas." With this bing crap, it looks like Google will have less to worry about. No Thanks, m$.

Re:Transcribed PDF from Microsoft Legal

[Toonol]

You realize that Microsoft isn't responsible for merchants doing this, and are probably highly against this behavior?

Re:Transcribed PDF from Microsoft Legal

[selven]

And here's the offending message (it doesn't even reveal much):

I’ve never bought anything using Bing Cashback, but the balance of my account is $2080.06. Apparently, I placed two $1 orders on January 24th of this year, and spent another $104,000 on October 24th. Let’s see how these transactions might have “accidentally” got credited to my account.

First, we need to try to figure out how transactions get into Bing Cashback. Microsoft posted some documentation here. The explanation of how a merchant reports transactions to Bing starts on page 20. Merchants have a few options for reporting, but Bing suggests using a tracking pixel. Basically, the merchant adds a tracking pixel to their order confirmation page, which will report the the transaction details back to Bing. The request for the tracking pixel looks something like this:
https://ssl.search.live.com/cashback/pixel/index?
jftid=0&jfoid=<orderid>&jfmid=<merchantid>

&m[0]=<itemid>&p[0]=<price>&q[0]=<quantity>
This implementation, while easy for the merchant, has an obvious flaw. Anyone can simulate the tracking pixel requests, and post fake transactions to Bing. I&rsquo;m not going to explain exactly how to generate the fake requests so that they actually post, but it&rsquo;s not complicated. Bing doesn&rsquo;t seem to be able to detect these fake transactions, at least not right away. The six cents I earned in January have &ldquo;cleared,&rdquo; and I&rsquo;m guessing the remaining $2080 will clear on schedule, unless there is some manual intervention.
Even if Bing detects these fake transactions at some point in the future, the current implementation might have another interesting side effect. I haven&rsquo;t done enough work to say it with confidence, but a malicious user might be able to block another user&rsquo;s legitimate purchases from being reported correctly by Bing (I only tried this once, but it seemed to work). Posting a transaction to Bing requires sending them an order ID in the request. Bing performs a reasonable sanity check on the order ID, and will not post a transaction that repeats a previously reported order ID. When a store uses predictable order ID&rsquo;s (e.g. sequential), a malicious user can &ldquo;use up&rdquo; all the future order ID&rsquo;s, and cause legitimate transactions to be ignored. Reporting would be effectively down for days, causing a customer service nightmare for both Bing and the merchant.
Based on what I&rsquo;ve found, I wouldn&rsquo;t implement Bing Cashback if I were a merchant. And, as an end user and bargain hunter, it does not seem smart to rely on Bing Cashback for savings. In our next blog post, I&rsquo;ll demonstrate some other subtle but important reasons to avoid using Bing Cashback.

Re:Transcribed PDF from Microsoft Legal

[selven]

I missed this but ’ is Slashdot speak for the apostrophe.

Re:Transcribed PDF from Microsoft Legal

[Richy_T]

Yeah, just like the kid who never does anything bad, bad things just seem to happen when they're around.

I doubt Microsoft is directly responsible but I wouldn't be surprised if they did something like lean on merchants to participate in the cashback and the merchants are compensating for their costs.

Re:Transcribed PDF from Microsoft Legal

[Aldenissin]

You realize that Microsoft isn't responsible for merchants doing this, and are probably highly against this behavior?

Sure they are against this behavior.... "Why being bad at work pays. How being the villain can actually help you career.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1330596

"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Shadow of Eternity]

The right one is "Will people finding out cost more than lawsuits if it isn't legal". If the answer is yes, don't do it, if no then go on ahead.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Mechanized Elf]

The "yes" answer can't be calculated up front, but we can do our best to push toward it.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Shadow of Eternity]

This is microsoft we're talking about, I don't think any non-physical action is even CAPABLE of hurting them at this point. They've just got too much money to harm by anything short of either a standard oil style breakup of the company.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[TubeSteak]

The right one is "Will people finding out cost more than lawsuits if it isn't legal". If the answer is yes, don't do it, if no then go on ahead.

Since when is simple price discrimination illegal?
It isn't like the website is charging you more based on any legally recognized actionable causes.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[tomhudson]

The right one is "Will people finding out cost more than lawsuits if it isn't legal". If the answer is yes, don't do it, if no then go on ahead.

Since when is simple price discrimination illegal?
It isn't like the website is charging you more based on any legally recognized actionable causes.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because anyone using Bing cashback at this point is obviously mentally handicapped.

Oh-oh ... incoming chair ... BING!

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Shadow of Eternity]

We both know that's a poor excuse that is barely even valid as a technicality because this is on the internet rather than in person.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[JackieBrown]

Bing doesn't tell me!!
http://www.bing.com/search?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=%22Will+people+finding+out+cost+more+than+lawsuits+if+it+isn't+legal%22.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[mysidia]

How about an order forcing them to release the source code to all retail and OEM versions of Windows (including 3.1, '95, '98, ME, XP, 2000, 2003, Vista, 7, MCE), Internet Explorer 3, 4, 5, MS Office 95, 97, XP, 2007, Exchange, IIS, Sharepoint, Visual studio, MS SQL, all components, and middleware with terms no more restrictive than the MIT license?

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[mysidia]

Well, what's illegal is deceptive business practices.

They claim to be offering a cash back if you utilize Bing, which implies a discount, where in fact, they are charging a higher price upfront to Bing users and creating a deceptive impression that the cash back is providing a discount of their normal price.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Next week we'll see Netscape users reporting deep discounts in online shopping as affirmative action fires up around the web....

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[1s44c]

Well, what's illegal is deceptive business practices.

You are talking about Microsoft. A company with weak and poorly implemented technology that would have gone bust 30 years ago if it wasn't for its deceptive business practices.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[iamacat]

Yes, the way software industry is going this days, this will revitalize Microsoft's stagnant revenues by putting them on equal footing with every other competing product in Operating System, word processing and web publishing sectors. After all, there is much more money to be made by having the best expertise to address needs of a 100000 large scale customers than by charging $15 OEM fees for a generic, unremarkable product for which many free alternatives are available.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft aren't charging a higher price, the seller (in this case) are. If this isn't a violation of their agreement with Microsoft, then Microsoft's lawyers are even stupider than I thought.

It's basically like credit card prices. Allowing people to pay with credit cards increases demand, so most shops like to do it. However, the shops also have to pay fees to the card issuers, so all else equal, they'd charge higher prices to credit card users. To prevent this, the card issuers tend to disallow this in their agreements, because the service they offer to customers is increased convenience, and implies the same price.

If shops want to let people pay with a given credit card, they usually have to sign an agreement in which they agree to charge the same price to users of that card as they charge customers who pay with cash or with other cards (even when fees are higher, eg American Express charge higher fees to shops than Visa).

Some credit cards offer 'cash back', but without a contractual obligation to offer the same price, shops would just increase the price for customers using those cards. If Microsoft failed to include something as basic as this in their cash-back programme, then it just shows once again that their legal department don't know what they're doing (in case anyone had any doubts after their self-defeating behaviour towards competition authorities in the USA and EU).

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[rbochan]

How is this any different from a grocery store jacking up prices on several items, then a week or two later putting those same items "on sale"?

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[mysidia]

In the grocery store, they don't leave the price of the items at the original low value for people who don't know about the sale.

Jacking them up and then lowering them for everyone, is not the same as claiming they are on sale, when the prices have been increased only for people who got a copy of the sales paper.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[TheBogBrushZone]

It might well be specifically legislated against in the UK within a year or two. The OFT (Office of Fair Trading) is currently undergoing a market study into potentially misleading advertising and pricing practices including this specific area of artificially inflating reference prices to exaggerate the value of discounts: http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2009/126-09

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[plague3106]

To prevent this, the card issuers tend to disallow this in their agreements, because the service they offer to customers is increased convenience, and implies the same price.

Technically yes, but argeements always allow the offering of a "cash discount" if the merchant chooses. Most do not though, and those that pay with cash are suckers for not using something more convient that they're paying for anyway.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[jellomizer]

Yes yes... An operating system that can run on 95% of the available hardware, is a weak and poorly implemented technology... Linux can't run on as much hardware as windows can, nor can OS X. Ever since XP the crashes I have seen was from Bad Drivers... Just as all the crashes from Linux come from Bad Drivers. Windows Technology is actually rather sound and it works very well... It is the fact they try to keep backwards compatibility and have poor security system in terms it feels you need to have administrator access to do anything and the idea if it is a security risk then just alert the person they will know the right thing to do... However I would expect if Microsoft was willing to toss away its old legacy support it would be a rather solid OS that would make Linux and OS X look rather flimsy.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[VGPowerlord]

However I would expect if Microsoft was willing to toss away its old legacy support it would be a rather solid OS that would make Linux and OS X look rather flimsy.

Essentially, you want Microsoft to start back off with 0 apps that run on it?

You know, it seems like Intel tried something different on the hardware level with the Itanium. That's why we all run Itanium chips right now!

...

...

...

except that we don't. What actually happened is that everyone, Intel included, ended up adopting AMD's 64-bit instruction set, in part because it could run x86 operating systems and programs.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this how ALL sales work, particularly in physical retail? They mark the price up 50%, then advertise some 25% off sale, and people think they're getting a deal.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

The right one is "Will people finding out cost more than lawsuits if it isn't legal". If the answer is yes, don't do it, if no then go on ahead.

"If you're not against me, then don't cross this line. If you are, then do."

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Rockoon]

In many cases they do leave the higher price up. The original price can only be had via coupons.

Its a no-brainer here. Apply simple supply and demand to a situation where a referrer site is very successful at bringing in lots of customers.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[amicusNYCL]

That must the similar to the premise that you're an expert on law because this is on the internet rather than in person. Sadly though, that doesn't really have an effect on reality or what actually happens in a courtroom.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[amicusNYCL]

Microsoft is not doing anything deceptive with the Bing cashback program. If you think they are, give an example.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[1s44c]

Yes yes... An operating system that can run on 95% of the available hardware, is a weak and poorly implemented technology...

Running on a large amount of hardware isn't proof of quality. It isn't really proof of anything.

Ever since XP the crashes I have seen was from Bad Drivers...

Lucky you. I saw plenty of crashes due to badly written code that doesn't validate input.

Windows Technology is actually rather sound and it works very well...

No. It's patched together junk that crashes at the first unexpected input and sometimes before then. I've seen it enough times. Userland crashes still bring kernel level code down.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[arkane1234]

*points your head back to win95*

Besides, it's not the operating system that runs on 95% of available hardware, it's the drivers written by the companies creating said hardware.

Microsoft has never been known for their coding prowess. Anyone with a memory longer than the lifespan of Firefly knows that.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Richy_T]

So what you're basically saying is that if Microsoft went to the effort to write a good OS, it would be a good OS.

Glad we cleared that up.

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like every supermarket in America?

Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question

[mysidia]

In many cases they do leave the higher price up. The original price can only be had via coupons.

You just re-affirmed how the store sale is different (and therefore the analogy is invalid). They still list the HIGHER price publicly.

And the lower price isn't available to anyone without a coupon.

That's not what sites that discriminate against Bing users are doing. They are representing that X is their price for the item, where, in fact, it's not -- they haven't honestly shown the additional amount they are charging the customer for being referred to them by bing.

MS Liability?

[Mechanized Elf]

Could MS be liable in a class action lawsuit if it explicitly offered or otherwise encouraged this practice? This story could have teeth.

Re:MS Liability?

[zonker]

I'm curious if the EU will have anything to say about this.

Re:MS Liability?

[Korbeau]

Could MS be liable in a class action lawsuit if it explicitly offered or otherwise encouraged this practice? This story could have teeth.

What makes you think that MS encourages a practice that makes prices LESS appealing using its search engine?

I'm more inclined to believe the official statement that it was a mistake (i.e. item went on sale at some point but got updated wrong in the Bing index).

Maybe the shop was truly giving an higher price but that's a totally absurd practice. I would have understood if they had given a price that with the 2% cashback was the same than without (the price appears the same to the costumer and the shop cashes more in), but 50 bucks more?! Also, change a price under 699$ to go above the psychological 700$ level?

Re:MS Liability?

[Mechanized Elf]

That's not what I'm suggesting. To know that a price is less appealing you would have to comparison shop. I think it's possible that MS is trying to exploit it's nonsavvy aol-like users under the assumption that most will either fail to comparison shop through other search engines, or will think that non-bing vendors' prices are too good to be true. I also think it's possible, and more likely, that participating vendors are just ensuring their bottom line without complaint from MS. In either case, as a later poster points out, discriminatory pricing is illegitimate and should merit some policy response from MS.

Re:MS Liability?

[LesFerg]

I'm more inclined to believe the official statement that it was a mistake

Lets see,
"...With more than 1,000 retailers and 17 million product offers..."
"Overall, this case is an isolated instance within the larger Bing cashback"

So we are supposed to believe that the blogger just stumbled across this? Or maybe had nothing better to do than compare prices with and without cookies, for more than 1000 retailer sites? My bullshit detector is still processing the "isolated instance" statement, results expected in soon...

Re:MS Liability?

[Hyppy]

The thing was that the author, if you believe him, checked it on the same day back and forth between Bing-encrusted and crusty-free browsers. The price as seen from the Bing-encrusted browser was consistently $758, but the price through the crusty-free browser was $699. It wasn't just cached information from Bing's index, although it is now that the site "corrected" its pricing.

Re:MS Liability?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I'm curious if the EU will have anything to say about this.

Yeah, they will. Probably something along the lines of "Give us 20 million euros for this or you're doomed."

Instead of complaining, game the system.

[ZackSchil]

Find out what sites go higher and what sites go lower in quoted prices. Fake a cookie to maximize savings or delete it altogether if it gets you a uniformly higher price.

That's the behavior I'd expect from /. . None of this Newsweek / Dateline NBC alarmist "They're using COMPUTER MACHINES to scam us!!!" Get on it, people.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[Mechanized Elf]

Taking the time to "game the system" is also a cost. What I expect from /. is astute agitation and bad PR for large players who try to game us.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[NoYob]

Find out what sites go higher and what sites go lower in quoted prices. Fake a cookie to maximize savings or delete it altogether if it gets you a uniformly higher price.

That's the behavior I'd expect from /. . None of this Newsweek / Dateline NBC alarmist "They're using COMPUTER MACHINES to scam us!!!" Get on it, people.

Bing cashback developer goes into boss' office tomorrow:

You know boss, I've been doing this analysis of our system, and I've figured out a way to game the system.

Boss: "Good work coder Dude! For that, you won't get axed this month!"

I would think that MS developers may occasionally read this site.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[nacturation]

Not just that but the site is unnecessarily fearmongering:

The problem doesn’t end there. Using Bing has tainted my web browser. Butterfly Photo set a three month cookie on my computer to indicate that I came from Bing. Any product I look at for the next three months may show a different price than I’d get by going there directly. Just clicking a Bing link means three months of potentially negative cashback, without me ever realizing it. I’m actually afraid to use their service even just to write this, because it may cost me money in the future.

(Emphasis mine.) It's as if he's saying his computer is totally tainted now. Why doesn't he just follow his own advice from step 4?

Step 4: Open a different web browser or clear your cookies from butterflyphoto.com in your current one. Go directly to their site and check the price. $699!

There! He knows that clearing his cookies solves the problem. Why all this bullshit about being tainted for three months and being afraid to use their service to write a bloody blog post? Does he think the "oh noes teh bing cookeez" are going to trash his blog and kill his hamster too?

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't stomach possibly paying a few dollars more for something and you don't have time to play game, don't use Bing. If enough people think like you, Microsoft will get the message.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[mysidia]

Actually.. there's good reason for the alarmism... it will discourage other people from using Bing, when they learn things are made more expensive for them.

Leaving fewer people to search for deals, once the word spreads... and perhaps better, more gamable deals for us /. users who have the extra time to do all the gaming, and know how to delete cookies and come from multiple IPs :)

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[unix1]

There! He knows that clearing his cookies solves the problem. Why all this bullshit about being tainted for three months and being afraid to use their service to write a bloody blog post? Does he think the "oh noes teh bing cookeez" are going to trash his blog and kill his hamster too?

He knows, but most people have no idea what cookies are, much less how to "clear" them. So, after reading the article, now you know how most people are getting screwed by some vendors claiming they are getting the customers a discount going through Bing when in fact it could be costing them money.

Also, now that you know, and if you would consider getting Bing cashback at some point in the future, you'd be likely to check if the vendor was charging you more just because you arrived from Bing.

Does everything have to be spelled out for you?

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[nacturation]

Also, now that you know, and if you would consider getting Bing cashback at some point in the future, you'd be likely to check if the vendor was charging you more just because you arrived from Bing.

Does everything have to be spelled out for you?

I have no problem with him pointing out the discrepancy and calling Microsoft on it. That alone would have been a huge story. What is completely unnecessary is:

1. Your condescending trollish post; and
2. His overblown Bing bashing

Pointing out the pricing difference? Great catch and a good story. Claiming he's afraid to even write the blog post because of the Bing cookie? Come on...

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[unix1]

What is completely unnecessary is:

1. Your condescending trollish post;

Wait a minute. Let's see who is trolling. From your previous post:

Why all this bullshit about being tainted for three months ...

Got any proof of this "bullshit?" Because if you read the blog post, the cookie he was referring to (that was set for 3 months) was NOT from Bing, it was from the vendor's website, after accessing it from Bing. So, unless you know how to clear your cookies, that cookie will identify you as a "Bing customer" and potentially give you inflated prices during those 3 months. It could be even worse - there's nothing preventing a vendor from modifying its cookie every time you visit the website to extend it for 3 months (or any arbitrary period) from that date.

They may clean it up this time. But there probably are and will be more vendors doing this in the future without anybody having any clue, or getting any publicity. So, go ahead and call it "bullshit" but let's be clear on who's trolling here without any evidence to back up their claims.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[Anonymous Coward]

He knows, but most people have no idea what cookies are, much less how to "clear" them.

Or put another way, it's an argumentative device where he places himself in the role of the typical user in order to illustrate what its behaviour would be to most people.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[BlueBoxSW.com]

I agree completely.

I hate this "the world doesn't work the way I want it to... WHAAAAA!" attitude that has cropped up on slashdot lately.

Let's crack this problem wide open.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

There! He knows that clearing his cookies solves the problem. Why all this bullshit about being tainted for three months and being afraid to use their service to write a bloody blog post? Does he think the "oh noes teh bing cookeez" are going to trash his blog and kill his hamster too?

Well, how about flash cookies? How do we know they didn't also run some very lightweight flash application just to set a cookie that most people wouldn't know about. Hell, most people don't know about regular cookies. I don't even know where flash stores its cookies or how I would get rid of them (don't you have to navigate to some Adobe site that runs a flash control panel or something?). I'm pretty sure there are some Firefox add-ons to delete flash cookies, and there's probably just a file somewhere in my profile directory, but I never think of it when I delete my other cookies. How about you?

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[Jesus_666]

Crowdsource. If you find that a certain UA string or cookie gives you a lower price on a website, you submit it to a database, which is accessed by a Firefox/Chrome extension. If you just want lower prices, install the extension and you're done.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[nacturation]

I'm pretty sure there are some Firefox add-ons to delete flash cookies, and there's probably just a file somewhere in my profile directory, but I never think of it when I delete my other cookies. How about you?

I disable Flash storage except for sites I specifically approve.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[nacturation]

Got any proof of this "bullshit?" [...] So, go ahead and call it "bullshit" but let's be clear on who's trolling here without any evidence to back up their claims.

That is my opinion and I've stated why I hold that opinion. If you disagree with my opinion, hey... it's a free country.

And since you seem to want evidence, asking someone "Does everything have to be spelled out for you?" is certainly condescending (even if it were true, that's a rather rude thing to say to someone you don't know) and actually is more flamebait than trollish, so my apologies for that miscategorization.

Because if you read the blog post, the cookie he was referring to (that was set for 3 months) was NOT from Bing, it was from the vendor's website, after accessing it from Bing. So, unless you know how to clear your cookies, that cookie will identify you as a "Bing customer" and potentially give you inflated prices during those 3 months.

You are quite correct and if you read my original post I don't disagree with that at all.

Re:Instead of complaining, game the system.

[Jesus_666]

Ah, Overrated. The downmod choice of people who know nobody agrees with their opinion anyways.

Disclaimer: TFA author works for a bing competitor

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the article; the author works for Bountii which also directs users to places to shop for things. What the article describes is one retailer specifically inflating prices of things when a user comes from Bing. That same retailer could just as easily do the same for links from the author's own site, Bountii. They even go as far to state "At Bountii, we do our best to make sure we always show the lowest available price at a store." It just seems a bit disingenuous to me I guess.

So 'ButterflyPhoto.com' is slime; thanks, got it.

Credit Cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the hidden credit card tax. Everything you buy is a few cents extra to cover credit card costs. Then you get "rewards" for using your card. Meanwhile everyone else gets 'gypped' 2 cents. Yes, it is different, but still similar.

Re:Credit Cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

gypped? Ah, you couldn't close escrow and just use the term "jewed" ?

Re:Credit Cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. The merchant sets his price based on the fees he pays for the cc charge. Your rewards are dependent on the card issuer, independent of the fees the merchant is charged. Different merchants get charged different fees based on volume , number of chargebacks and the way they collected your information. Your rewards are most likely paid out of the interest the issuing bank charges yourself and other cardholders.

Re:Credit Cards?

[noidentity]

Sounds like the hidden credit card tax. Everything you buy is a few cents extra to cover credit card costs.

A few cents?!? If only... card processing fees are several percent of the transaction, so for a $100 item, try several dollars extra.

Laws/card processor contracts prevent merchants from adding a surcharge if you pay with credit card, but they do allow giving you a discount if you pay with cash. Anytime you're making a large purchase, bring this up with the cashier, asking for a manager if necessary. If their card processing fee is X%, ask to have an (X-1)% discount for using cash. They avoid the card fee, get a little extra, and you get a discount; everyone wins (except the credit card company... boo hoo).

Re:Credit Cards?

[Jafafa Hots]

Not to mention the hidden "parking lot" tax. Just as it costs retailers money to take credit cards, it costs them money to have parking space. They fraudulently present this as "free parking" when in fact the cost is hidden in the price of the goods.

Then, drivers think they're getting "free" parking when they aren't, and non-drivers such as myself who have never once used a parking space are 'gypped' untold amounts of money.

And don't even get me started on those leeches who use the so called "free" shopping carts...

Re:Credit Cards?

[iamacat]

Laws/card processor contracts prevent merchants from adding a surcharge if you pay with credit card

There are no such laws, besides ones that require accepting local currency as legal tender. Contracts are another story.

Anytime you're making a large purchase, bring this up with the cashier, asking for a manager if necessary. If their card processing fee is X%, ask to have an (X-1)% discount for using cash.

If it is really a large purchase, both of you should feel safer with a credit card transaction. You know, them not having to worry about the guy behind you in line knowing that they now have $2K in the register. You being able to dispute the charge if the item is not as advertised.

Re:Credit Cards?

[noidentity]

Sorry, but you're wrong, at least for Texas (I've seen mention of similar laws for other states, but only verified them for Texas). Also, look how the government conveniently excludes itself from this restriction. I also thought that there was no way surcharges could be illegal, that surely it was just in the contract between the merchant and the card processor, but I shouldn't be surprised at the reach of government these days.

Re:Credit Cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and all that "free" light when you're in a completely different section and not even using it.

Think how much they are screwing the blind!

Re:Credit Cards?

[lazybeam]

I know in Australia they have lifted the ban on surcharges when using a credit card. Many companies now charge 2%, though these are generally either greedy or cheap. Other companies advertise "less for cash" (though you can get cash price when using EFTPOS (debit cards))

Re:Credit Cards?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

In the case of online retailers, all of the convenient forms of payment have a roughly 3% fee, the playing field is pretty level on that front. People might try to pay by mailing a check or money order, but that's going to delay shipping and adds points of failure.

One thing that isn't level is the rewards part. I don't like that the rewards cards tend to charge a little extra, but they also tend to have higher interest for the users too.

Re:Credit Cards?

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there's that awful "Bricks & Mortar" tax. All those retailers with physical stores that require rent, maintenance, utilities, taxes, employees, security, etc. They try to pass those hidden fees on us unsuspecting consumers. Even those of us who purchase online!

And don't get me started about the whole "Merchant Needs to Make a Profit Tax"!!!

Re:Credit Cards?

[spvo]

They may not be allowed to charge more for credit cards, but they can give 'discounts' for every other form of payment. I also live in texas and have found some large stores that do this.

Re:Credit Cards?

[steelfood]

Yeah, and they provide free shelter too, albeit temporary. But it's great on a hot day and their AC is at full blast. You can just duck inside, pretend to be interested in something, put it back, and repeat several times with the same item or various other items. Then after enough time for you to cool down and for the sweat to dry off your back, you make a mad dash out to the next place, leaving your unsuspecting victims at the cash register lines behind to pay the shelter tax for you.

Re:Credit Cards?

[Jared555]

Actually in at least some cases there is an extra fee to the merchant when someone pays with a rewards card. I know this was in the terms of the contract when I was using a merchant account for online payments. I was charged an extra 1% for rewards cards and some other special card that I now forget.

Re:Credit Cards?

[noidentity]

They may not be allowed to charge more for credit cards, but they can give 'discounts' for every other form of payment.

Is there an echo? Here's what I wrote in a grandparent post:

Laws/card processor contracts prevent merchants from adding a surcharge if you pay with credit card, but they do allow giving you a discount if you pay with cash

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Come on, it's obviously the store that's shady

[Edgewize]

This has nothing to do with Microsoft. From the article: Butterfly Photo set a three month cookie on my computer to indicate that I came from Bing.

So, a disreputable web site is setting a cookie when you click on a sales link. How is this Microsoft's fault again? What does this have to do with Bing?

A/V and photography stores are notorious for ripping off customers, both in-store and on-line. Surprise surprise, you can find these disreputable sites using search engines. Trying to blame this on Bing is like trying to blame your phone book for recommending a sketchy car mechanic.

Re:Come on, it's obviously the store that's shady

[Edgewize]

They aren't even suppressing this article! They suppressed a previous article where he meticulously detailed a flaw in the cashback system without giving MS a chance to fix it.

This whole thing is ridiculous and nothing but anti-Microsoft / anti-Bing bashing.

Re:Come on, it's obviously the store that's shady

[ysth]

Without giving MS a chance to fix it? If they had someone with half a brain making the decisions, they would never have used a tracking pixel like that - it's just plain broken by design.

And I bet the MS engineers who worked on this said so and were ignored.

Re:Come on, it's obviously the store that's shady

[nedlohs]

They're supressing the article that should really land the guy in jail. Since he confessed to something that every court in the land would class as stealing or worse "computer hacking".

Re:Come on, it's obviously the store that's shady

[value_added]

This whole thing is ... nothing but anti-Microsoft / anti-Bing bashing.

I don't see a problem. ;-)

Re:Come on, it's obviously the store that's shady

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

So, a disreputable web site is setting a cookie when you click on a sales link. How is this Microsoft's fault again?

Well, Microsoft might have tried a little harder to secure their system.

How? What do you think this is, constructive criticism!?

Re:Come on, it's obviously the store that's shady

[Aidtopia]

Of course it's the store that's shady. What's insightful about that? Neither the summary nor the article put the blame on Microsoft.

Re:Come on, it's obviously the store that's shady

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the summary and the article very clearly put the blame on Microsoft's Bing service. FFS, just look at the title: "Bing Cashback Can Cost You Money". Not "Shady Photo Site Rips Off Customers". The whole point of the linked blog article is to imply that Bing Cashback is dangerous for consumers. FUD posted by a Bing competitor (the blog author works for Bountii), and you're playing right into it.

The first thing that came to mind...

[rcolbert]

...are the notorious 'employee discount codes' that vendors such as Dell and other have employed. A few years back I was looking to buy a new LCD and had a Dell in mind when I remembered my company had a discount code. So I dug it up, and used the instructions provided to logon to the 'discount' site (the mechanics of doing so may be different today.) To my surprise, I found that the 'discounted' price of the monitor was several hundred dollars more than just the plain ol' Dell site. WTF? How do you advertise a code and process as a discount, and then the merchandise therein is actually priced higher than your regular price from your main site? I'm glad I double checked before hitting the purchase button.

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[bongey]

Dell has recently fixed this , but it still isn't perfect. The will match the price now.
Funny thing is sometimes applying coupon code will cause the price to go up, because this system does combine discounts properly.

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[jesseck]

I worked for a national healthcare system which offered a Dell employee purchase program. My wife wanted a pink laptop, and I quickly found out I could get a better deal on a regular "sale" from Dell than the "12% employee purchase program discount" could ever give me. They're scams, which attempt to con people into thinking they are getting a deal.

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you advertise a code and process as a discount, and then the merchandise therein is actually priced higher than your regular price from your main site?

You've never heard of negative numbers? :)

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[hairyfish]

Who said never put down to malice what can be explained by incompetence. I work for a Retail chain, and this sort of thing happens quite frequently due to plain old human error. The monkeys typing prices into the system sometimes add an extra zero or miss a zero, or switch the rrp price with the discount price, or use the wrong UPC (barcode) associated with a discount. I can't speak for Dell, but with us, it is boring old incompetence rather than any sinister plot to take your money.

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, seen that too with Dell.

Our 'preferred' office supply source is basically determined by who will give the largest 'discount' off of their list prices. Of course their list prices are ridiculously high, so much so that we get a specially branded catalog withour company name on it. And prices are never competitive. Try explaining that to the person who controls ordering... no success there. For items which get bought once and never again, I could imagine going to a specialty vendor with inflated prices (just to save on the time of finding a cheap one for a $40 item purchased once), but for printer paper, pens and the like, our 'discount' is killing us.

Also, for a real point on the process here, a lot of companies won't deal with a purchase order through the same channels as a direct to consumer purchase, and thus all the pricing changes. I think purchase orders end up being much more expensive to process for companies (a few cents for a credit card is nothing compared to a purchase order, where you have to pay someone to track them, and hassle customers when they're overdue etc.).

end gripe

-sk

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is due to confusion in how "employee pricing" works. Employees may get a discount, but most of the time vendors or employees are offered "employee pricing". This is usually "invoice price" or "X dollars above invoice price".

To put this into a car analogy, lets say you want to buy a mazda 3 and you have a code to get you employee pricing. If you go to buy this years model you will almost certainly be getting a great deal since no-one is selling a 2010 at invoice price. On the contrary side, trying to buy an 09 will likely not save you any money. They may be offering significant discounts on 09's to move them and your fixed employee price may be higher than what they are offering.

Just remember that employee pricing is asking for a fixed price. You can use this to your advantage, but it doesn't automatically get you a deal. What it can help is trying to get the best price off a particular dealer. If you can get invoice pricing at any mazda dealer let them know you are looking at other dealerships. There is almost always a "500 dollar off" or "1000 dollar off" coupon in there somewhere.

I managed to get 100 over invoice on my last subaru and I wasn't up for employee pricing-- but I was up for it on a mazda. This info somehow got them to magically lower the sticker price by almost 3000 dollars. It was still more expensive, but they "matched the deal" so to speak and I saved a lot more than I would have just arguing on my own.

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[mspohr]

I had the same problem a few years ago when my daughter started college. Dell had a special discount for UCSD students. It wasn't hard to figure out that the 'special' price after their 'discount' was more than the regular prices... waste of time scam.

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The two are not mutually exclusive.
Its common for companies not to bother to fix problems that just happen to work out in their favor.
Sprint's cell phone division was well known for not giving a crap about their atrocious billing system because frequently the errors were in their favor and the only way for a customer to get them corrected was to go through voice-mail hell.

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The same thing happened to me last week. I was looking to get a netbook, and was pricing dell minis. Baseline price was $299. I logged in with my corporate discount info, and found that my "discount price" was $339.

Re:The first thing that came to mind...

[Glorat]

To be fair to them, the Dell employee purchase scheme does say that it's discount is applicable *on top of* any pre-existing sale discount. They just make it hard to find - when you go through the EPP site, they hide all the "regular" discounts

This didn't stop me from purchasing this Dell Studio I'm typing on, having received -£300 from the regular offer and a further 5% off via the EPP. Make use of it!

No surprise ... price variations based on cookies

[gordguide]

No surprise ... price variations based on cookies ... is old news. I remember reading about how cookies resident on the user's machine can cause different quoted prices to appear years ago ... probably five years ago at least. I was able to test it at the time using two browsers with different cookie loads. It's definitely happening. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure it was a /. story years ago that first mentioned it.

Doesn't work for me

[Anonymous Coward]

Bing shows higher price for butterflyphoto.com on their site, but when bing redirects, butterflyphoto is showing the lower price.

Re:Doesn't work for me

[silencrasdf]

Same here, I get the lower price with or without cookies. Seeing as the article was written by a Bing competitor it's a way for them to get exposure.

* Step 1: Write article saying M$ is evil
* Step 2: Submit story to /.
* Step 3: Profit!

Doesn't matter if it's true or not

Re:Doesn't work for me

[Anonymous Coward]

The blog was updated to say that because of the article, the price at Butterfly Photo is now the same with or without the cookie, but the search result still show the higher price.

Re:No surprise ... price variations based on cooki

[fahrbot-bot]

No surprise ... price variations based on cookies ... is old news.

A new patent... Anyone? Anyone? Amazon? Microsoft? Bueller?

soo...

[mnemonic_]

Did anyone else notice the story submitter's alias links to a sex toy shopping site?

Re:soo...

[lul_wat]

I've just placed my order! And with using Bing I got heaps of cash back!

Re:soo...

[TubeSteak]

Did anyone else notice the story submitter's alias links to a sex toy shopping site?

If that's what makes him happy.
Maybe he doesn't know that all subby links are tagged rel="nofollow"

Re:soo...

[Anachragnome]

Nice catch. Most interesting.

You deserve a cookie.

Re:soo...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You deserve a cookie.

Yeah, but you never know how much a cookies going to cost you...

Re:soo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's too bad for the submitter that, thanks to that tag, we can't follow the link and the shop will never see any purchases from the slashdot traffic.

Re:soo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking for a job making BlackBerries?

www.rim.jobs (Research in Motion, SFW)

Re:soo...

[Jesus_666]

Then why is this in YRO and not in Hardware?

Name change required, and all will be fine

[syousef]

My top suggestions are:

Badda-BING

and

Kerr-Ching

Re:Name change required, and all will be fine

[bennomatic]

I always think "Chandler Bing". He was a loser, too.

Re:Name change required, and all will be fine

[bertoelcon]

What about "Chanandlar Bong"?

Re:Name change required, and all will be fine

[Anonymous Coward]

What about her?

Re:Name change required, and all will be fine

[Anonymous Coward]

What about "Chanandlar Bong"?

Luckily it was MS Chanandlar Bong, so it's already perfect for Microsoft!

That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[Valdrax]

You went to all that trouble to transcribe the PDF without reading the summaries noting that it had to do something else entirely? The takedown letter was for explaining a mechanism to post fake transactions to Bing Cashback, which could reasonably be described as telling people how to exploit Bing for money.

This is completely separate from telling people that merchants charge Bing customers more.

Re:That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's pointing out that the PDF grandparent posted was not related to the post that prompted this article. Whether he works for Microsoft or not can't change that.

P.S. Put a '$' in place of the 's' in Microsoft and it'll generally help your karma unless you get sane moderators.

Re:That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[Anonymous Coward]

p.p.s. make a big deal about "M$", invoke claims of hypocrisy, and then take on the injured tones of a martyr for even more karma.

Re:That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, that's the kind of "If you present 'so-called facts' that disagree with my hate-driven bubble worldview, you must be totally in the tank for the other side" attitude that's pretty much destroying our country by grind all sane and rational debate to a halt. People like you always make me ashamed to be on the same side.

Re:That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Valdrax' criticism of my post was technically correct, no matter how many people dislike Microsoft. He did a google search or was privvy to the information while I just followed the links of the article and didn't bother to find the fourth google entry for "fake transactions to bing cashback".

It shouldn't cause people to disagree with the part of my post that compared Microsoft to Best Buy with respect to price-fixing given the discovery outlined in TFA.

Re:That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[inode_buddha]

Looks like you got your wish. I'm sure there's a beowulf cluster working on it as I write. Maybe next time you should invoke Natalie Portman naked and petrified with hot grits.

Re:That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[LordAndrewSama]

well, looks like you got what you were expecting. :)

and to stay on topic

Is it legal/possible to use the cashback and wipe the cookie? I haven't RTFA or anything, but it sounds like they're profiting purely from users not knowing about cookies, and they have no legal recourse if someone edits/deletes a cookie on their own machine?

Re:That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[somersault]

It's the whole of humanity, not just "your country" (which I assume is the US if you automatically assume that he's from the same country as you).

You are perpetuating things by still thinking of things in terms of "sides". "Same side" (whatever that may refer to, presumably you mean "being American vs everything that is not American") or not.

I agree that that way of thinking is stupid and blinkered though.

Re:That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[roguetrick]

Hey guys, can I join the Karma Killing Party!

Re:That's for the fake transactions exploit.

[Megane]

Did somsone spell Microsoft with a dollar sign?

Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just had occasion to visit a Microsoft developer's website earlier today. Very rare event, believe me.

After browsing, I always clear out my cookies.

I went nowhere near the Bing "decision engine." But lo and behold, there was a cookie for "bing.com" in my cookie cache before I cleared it.

So, is Microsoft inflating Bing's numbers? Visit any Microsoft site, and you get a Bing cookie counted as a search on Bing? What gives?

Re:Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers?

[Mia'cova]

MSDN's search is powered by bing. So... no surprise?

Re:Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers?

[linumax]

So, is Microsoft inflating Bing's numbers? [We report, You Decide]

I wonder how you reached that conclusion. The ranking websites which announce results periodically, do not use cookies AFAIK.

I went nowhere near the Bing "decision engine." But lo and behold, there was a cookie for "bing.com" in my cookie cache before I cleared it.

Could it be Microsoft uses Bing embedded as frame or whatever inside Microsoft owned websites for search functions?

Re:Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Original poster here.

Here's the thing - I didn't use the search function on MSDN.

I knew the exact site I was going to, and did zero search.

So now what is the explanation?

Re:Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

But I didn't do a search.

Re:Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers?

[TrancePhreak]

Just because you didn't do a search doesn't mean search was unavailable on the site you were on.

Re:Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why set the cookie?

Re:Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers?

[DrXym]

MS could easily insert a tracking cookie by using a hidden iframe. It may even be that the iframe is original on the msdn host site but actually redirects you to the bing domain. Some browsers offer an option to disable 3rd party cookies if it worries you, or you can use an extension or proxy to explicitly block cookies you don't like. Banner ads are able to infest a machine with cookies through similar means.

In the case of bing, I really don't see a big deal about it at the moment. Bing cookies are benign compared to google or yahoo cookies which are used to access multiple services. That may change of course, for example Hotmail users must now accept 3rd party cookies, and it's Microsoft's attempt to do what the other sites do and create a strong association between a user, their searches and any other service MS thinks it can monetize.

If you were feeling paranoid about this, the solution would be to get your email through MS / Yahoo and your search through Google or vice versa so there is little chance of the two worlds being associated. Or use a lesser known service, especially a pay service. Or avoid webmail apps entirely. Since Yahoo is constantly discussed as a takeover target by MS, it may be best to avoid combining MS and Yahoo together.

I'd add that it's not just cookies people should be worried about. Flash shared objects are, IMO, a far more serious concern. They work on the same principle as cookies but they're browser independent and reside in a different place. Very few people are even aware they exist, or think to clear them out. Even if you deleted all your cookies, a 3rd party could (and many probably do) use shared objects in conjunction with cookies to keep that strong association. In the future you can throw Silverlight in there too as another way that sites can acquire limited local storage.

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[wygit]

Yes, I do remember that. I had the coolies in Firefox, and I'd check the same item in Safari with no cookies, and get a lower price in Safari.

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[EsJay]

Yes, I can has remembers that. I never logged onto Amazon from my work machine, and could see different prices between work and home. This was almost 10 years ago, I have not tested recently.

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[breeze95]

I remember a long time ago about a story where Amazon charged more to its returning customers than new ones through a cookie like that.
Anyone has remembers this as well?

I never heard of that. Besides, why would Amazon need to rely on a browser's cookie to identify returning customers when Amazon requires customers to have an account with them and be logged in before purchases are made?

That's why I use "Private Browsing" from work

[EsJay]

No, seriously, boss. I was, ummmm, ummmm, simply using the Bing search engine. Seriously. Really. Please believe me!

Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Could one price be with Tax seem as Bing/Butterfly Photo has placed a cookie on your system identifying possibly your location, and the other price be the price before any taxes are added?

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[EsJay]

why would Amazon need to rely on a browser's cookie to identify returning customers? In order to display the custom pricing (or whatever else they want) before you log on.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[Raistlin77]

I never heard of that. Besides, why would Amazon need to rely on a browser's cookie to identify returning customers when Amazon requires customers to have an account with them and be logged in before purchases are made?

Because if simply logging in or out changed the prices, you'd know right away something was amiss. If it was cookie-driven, then it would not rely on you having to login and Amazon could always show you the inflated price regardless of your login status.

I think I speak for us all when I say...

[bennomatic]

...F Microsoft.

Re:I think I speak for us all when I say...

[recoiledsnake]

I think you speak for all the modpoint-milking karma whores...

Re:I think I speak for us all when I say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, he was looking for a funny mod. You on the other hand were trying to get karma by being the one who thinks independently, and comes to Slashdot for intelligent conversation, not just to bash Microsoft.

ahahaha

Micro$haft is teh suxx00rs!!1

Re:I think I speak for us all when I say...

[arkane1234]

yeah, you can only kick a dead horse so much before you get tired of it and walk away....

So basically it's that old "I'm taking 10% off"?

[NotSoHeavyD3]

You know, where a retailer jacks up the price a bit and then claims that he's taking off say 10% because he likes you or some nonsense. The last time I had that happen was fairly recently with a cell phone carrier. (Which shall remain nameless.) This sounds like the same deal. I went on their web site and looked up how much a battery for my phone was and it listed a price. When I went to the local store they at first quoted a higher price and then said how they were giving me some money off. Surprise surprise it turned out to be the amount quoted on the web page.

Blame Murdoch.

[tomhudson]

After all, they've got to do something to raise the money needed to pay Murdoch to remove his newspapers from Google.

Otherwise, they'll have to start laying off Microsoft emp ... oh, wait a minute ... incoming chair ... BING!

(I hat it when that happens)

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[bennomatic]

I'm sorry, but your typo made me laugh.

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[MushMouth]

That wasn't exactly it, Amazon was testing different price points for items and set a cookie to make sure once your price point was set it remained. However some people noticed if they cleared their cookies they would get a lower price sometimes. The people who got a higher price didn't really have much to say about it. In the end everyone got charged the lowest price even if they thought they were paying the higher price.

Tell people.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely separate from telling people that merchants charge Bing customers more.

You're right.

Your preference: "People, you're being fucked."

Author's preference: "People, you're being fucked. Here's one way to stop that bullshit!"

I'd find the latter method superior in its ability to affect response/action from a greater number of would-be sheep, where as the former merely tells what we know without sharing ideas on what to do.

isn't this a problem with the retailers websites?

[timmarhy]

sounds like a retailer screw up

Re:No surprise ... price variations based on cooki

[AK Marc]

Next up:

When you go to Dell and click through as a home user vs a small business, the prices are different for the same machine!

Errata

[Anonymous Coward]

effect

It is?

[Weaselmancer]

It is slightly more userfriendlier(ish) than Google.

How is that even possible? Google is a plain white web page with a text box and a logo.

Re:It is?

[TrancePhreak]

After the search is where it gets better. The results pages on Bing are way better, and have even caused a stir at Google.

Re:It is?

[Gerzel]

Uhm plain is not always User friendly.

Re:It is?

[93 Escort Wagon]

After the search is where it gets better. The results pages on Bing are way better, and have even caused a stir at Google.

In what way? During the brief period I tried Bing, I was thoroughly unimpressed.

Giving me relevant results is the ONLY thing I care about with a search engine. Bing didn't do as well as Google - end of story. If it had done as well as Google, I still wouldn't have cared - it'd have to provide better results for me to even care.

Re:It is?

[Toonol]

Given the same results, a plain presentation is almost always better.

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of time when I search for something technical I get tons of useless links to acm, ieeexplore, arxiv etc. sites that give one set of data to googlebot and another to non-paying visitors. With bing (and practically any search engine that doesn't have something to do with google) there's no such problem.

Re:It is?

[bickerdyke]

Rule of thumb:

All great things are simple, but not every simple thing is great.

Re:It is?

[gmhowell]

He could explain to you why you are wrong, but unfortunately, /. won't let him post his .ppt explaining it.

Re:It is?

[thsths]

> In what way? During the brief period I tried Bing, I was thoroughly unimpressed.

Me too, but they can learn if they want to. And competition can only be good for the search engine market, assuming it happens on a decent level.

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

It has Clippy.

Re:It is?

[PizzaAnalogyGuy]

I must disagree here.

Lets say you've just spend the whole day calling your ISP that you will pay the bills, just let me back online because you have a World of Warcraft raid coming later at night. You're exhausted and hungry. You cant even Skype your pizza delivery guy because your internet is down. You have to walk upstairs to call from your moms phone. You're thinking about what kind of pizza to order. Now in your case you would order only the pizza bottom. It's simple and plain with no fancy extras, you say. But I like the toppings on my pizza. Ham, pineapple slices, shrimp, salami and BBQ sauce on a pizza taste great. As a pan pizza, please. With a large mountain dew! And some chocolate ice cream as dessert.

The point here being, by mixing things together to produce the final results can sometimes, and even often, be better than just listing the plain results. This is why we don't just do a SQL query and read the results from terminal. Or at least normal people don't. Google's more plain output might be nicer for ultimate geeks, but that isn't the internet anymore.

Re:It is?

[cheftw]

Then why don't you put on your google-goggles, click "Cached" under the result, and see through the eyes of the GoogleBot.

I see that as a feature, not a bug.

Re:It is?

[roguetrick]

Because websites that do that shit disable caching.

Re:It is?

[roguetrick]

Just because someone said Slashdot should have more pizza analogies doesn't mean you should've went and made a new account for that exclusive purpose.

Re:It is?

[SanLouBlues]

Try searching for restaurants in a certain area. They put yelp review averages inline with the regular results.

Re:It is?

[mcvos]

A lot of time when I search for something technical I get tons of useless links to acm, ieeexplore, arxiv etc. sites that give one set of data to googlebot and another to non-paying visitors.

Interesting trick, but isn't that easily defeated by looking at the version in google's cache instead?

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh. Why don't you try it before suggesting something that doesn't work.

My theory is that google allows this bullshit because they are in bed with these folks. And google doesn't even recognize them being evil since one upon a time they were in the business of distributing information instead of preventing it.

Re:It is?

[WindBourne]

Proof please. I have tried bing and found it to be less useful than Google. OTH, I guess if you are searching for MS documents, I suspect that Bing might do a better job, though not certain.

Re:It is?

[CGordy]

Easy.

Set your UA to googlebot. Unless the site author has done something really tricky, you see the full page.

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably see viagra adverts in your inbox as a feature too.

Re:It is?

[afex]

you're right - bing doesn't have that problem, because of one reason - they aren't google.

If bing was indeed better, it will rise to the top, and now those sites (and as an EE, i absolutely know the pain in the ass sites you're talking about) will start to come up on bing, and we'll be no better off. Unless you're seriously suggesting that a few MS employees that created bing are better at conducting searches than mother google....

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59

Now you ARE the googlebot

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably see viagra adverts in your inbox as a feature too.

Not just a feature, but the main reason for having email.

Re:It is?

[Fred_A]

Me too, but they can learn if they want to. And competition can only be good for the search engine market,

Presumably, competition is usually good.

assuming it happens on a decent level.

Ah, sorry, that's where your theory fails.

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except (as you should know) those sites aren't ordinary spammers. They are there because google views those as something valuable. I just happen to disagree with that.

Re:It is?

[x2A]

Sites are more likely to filter on IP address than purely the UA string, Google publish them so it's very easy, and far more reliable. At least, that's what I've always done (not to serve different content, just so that I don't add cookieless workaround codes to all the links on the page).

Re:It is?

[plague3106]

I dunno, hovering over the link to see more context without having to click seems pretty helpful. Plain means the interface does less, meaning I have to do more.

Re:It is?

[cheftw]

Fair point AC.

That is one thing gmail doesn't offer me.

Re:It is?

[Ceiynt]

Same here. I tried Bing after it came out. I did a comparison of searches for things that are relevant for me, it seemed that both engines returned the same top 20 results. Bing search result pages had more flash and annoying ad types, thus making me stay with Google. In no way was my comparison scientific, but I don't care. It was relevant to me.
I do understand that it may have changed a lot in the past few months, but when your first step is in shit, it's hard to take another step.

Re:It is?

[MrNaz]

Yes, because that's a hell of a lot easier than just using a search engine where it's not an issue.

Re:It is?

[rtb61]

Now that's got to be a really arbitrary response. The reality is on some results google will be better and on others MSN Search will be better. Catch is when you want to get to the place you searched for, google street view is way ahead on anything available at MSN Search (I sticking with that name, the way M$ keeps changing the name it's going to be the simplest one to stick with). Of course as is the norm with M$, some results will be censored out of existence and as such really bad.

As for stitching up customers, well that has always been the norm for paid for referrals, who the hell do you thinks pays for those referrals, you do when you buy the product, with computers and M$ at the helm, the process just gets automated. It just demonstrates the typical marketing lies, the illusion of the bargain, the trust I'm your friend deceit and believes us we tell the truth about our advertiser's products.

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof please. I have tried bing and found it to be less useful than Google

So where is your proof? I assume you have something more concrete than "Search for X" anecdotes? If not, nobody cares about your "opinion"

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, obviously you were. You MS fanbois are SUCH idiots

Re:It is?

[Thuktun]

Rule of thumb: All great things are simple, but not every simple thing is great.

Corollary: Something being simple does not imply it isn't great.

Re:It is?

[amicusNYCL]

Rule of thumb:

The quality of a presentation improves in direct proportion to the amount of content you remove while not changing the meaning.

In other words, simpler is better. You even said yourself that all great things are simple, which implies that anything not simple cannot be great.

Re:It is?

[CAIMLAS]

When I tried bing, it not only didn't give me relevant results, but it stuck me with ads as the first several links - without disclosing the fact that they were ads. It tricked me, and I clicked on one. That is reprehensible behavior, and not the kind of thing I'd expect from a large multinational corporation. I equate that kind of behavior with shady porn sites and the like.

I might add, Google isn't half as good as it was years ago - tech info has become increasingly difficult to find, and any qualifiers (+, -, quotation marks) don't seem to work as well at finding the results as they used to, either. I'd love to use their old search algorithms; that's what made them popular in the first place. They were, in all likelihood, search routines for geeks, by geeks. Only in recent years have they become more "user centric", making geeky things less relevant.

Re:It is?

[Anonymous Coward]

*kicks you back into the hole*

Re:It is?

[brkello]

Uh, proof? From the stuff I have seen, MS represses certain searches that make MS products look worse than its competition. Also, it shows things by popularity rather than relevance to the search.

Re:It is?

[sexconker]

And bird's-eye view is infinitely superior to street view.

Also, their maps page gives better directions.

Re:It is?

[sexconker]

Really tricky like check for the UA and the IP of known google bots?

Re:It is?

[sexconker]

1: How can you call for pizza if you're using a VoIP phone and the internet is down?

2: "This is why we don't just do a SQL query and read the results from terminal." Looks like someone doesn't actually work with databases. That's like saying you'll have a paperless office in a few years.

Re:It is?

[sexconker]

when your first step is in shit, it's hard to take another step.

So you stand there in an open gait doing what exactly? Letting your boot stew in the feces?

Seems to me like it's pretty easy to take another step - back out of the shit.

Re:It is?

[skelterjohn]

This is a search engine we're talking about, here. What is there other than "Search for X" anecdotes?

Re:It is?

[sexconker]

Bird's-Eye view is so much better than street view.

Re:It is?

[Puls4r]

Bing is still FILTERING their results. Now I don't mind when a company sorts the results in some type of ranking to try to give me better search results. But Bing is still BLATENTLY trying to play big brother by literally not allowing you to do some searches - ie the search results that are returned are clearly highly filtered. I did a number of test cases where this is repeated - compared them to google and it's quite clear they are removing some of the more morally "reprehensible" stuff. But here's the thing. I typed it in, I clicked enter. I expect an unfettered search and a set or results that reflect what's really out there - not Bing's "I want to play your parent" set of results. And yes, I know about their seperate "porn" section, and that's not what I'm talking about.

Re:It is?

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Google inlines reviews also. Has done for a long time..

Re:It is?

[geminidomino]

Does the old trick of changing your User Agent to googlebot still work?

Personally, I can't be bothered to try. I just report them as fakes (which they are according to google's report form)

Re:It is?

[AlamedaStone]

It tricked me, and I clicked on one. That is reprehensible behavior, and not the kind of thing I'd expect from a large multinational corporation.

Tired meme, or +1 funny? I choose...

You must be new here...

Re:It is?

[Sir_Lewk]

they can learn if they want to

Can they leave their friends behind?

Re:It is?

[sbeckstead]

they can learn if they want to
Can they leave their friends behind?

caused your friends can't dance and if they can't dance, well they're no friends of mine?

Re:It is?

[jaraxle]

Giving me relevant results is the ONLY thing I care about with a search engine. Bing didn't do as well as Google - end of story. If it had done as well as Google, I still wouldn't have cared - it'd have to provide better results for me to even care.

I agree completely. I didn't fully understand the relevance/popularity difference between Google and Bing until I went to Bing and searched just my last name. It gives plenty of results about a uranium mine that begins with a similar name, but nothing on pages 1 to 3 go to my website at all. Search for the first and last name combined of either myself or my wife, and nothing on the first or second pages link to our website either.

With Google, if you search my last name, my website is the third result on the first page since I would assume my family website is pretty relevant to my last name (it used to be first).

Now, I'm not particularly vain and I don't feel desperate to have my website show up right off the hop in all search engines, but it just sort of shows that Bing doesn't necessarily provide the most relevant results, just whatever happens to be most popular (which my website really isn't).

~jaraxle

Re:It is?

[DragonWriter]

In what way? During the brief period I tried Bing, I was thoroughly unimpressed.

Me too, but they can learn if they want to.

I will grant that this is possible, but Microsoft has been in the web search business for quite a while, and hasn't shown much sign of wanting to.

Sure, they do periodic rebrandings with new features and huge PR campaigns that generate lots of media "Microsoft is seriously making an effort in search", but they don't seem to be interested in doing much more than what is required to periodically make it look like they might become relevant.

And competition can only be good for the search engine market, assuming it happens on a decent level.

Competition on user experience and search algorithms would be good. Competition that amounts to bribing sites to be listed only one engine -- which MS is apparently doing with Bing, witness the recent story about the Microsoft - News Corp discussions -- less so. Competition centering around deceptive bribes to users, as in this story, also less so.

Re:It is?

[dgatwood]

With bing (and practically any search engine that doesn't have something to do with google) there's no such problem.

Just give it time and the Bing search experience will degrade similarly as soon as all those sites add appropriate IP address ranges and browser strings.

Re:It is?

[longhairedgnome]

Not according to his UID, you must be new here.

Re:It is?

[Chyeld]

Just set your user agent to the same one Goggle's bot uses. ^_^

Re:It is?

[TrancePhreak]

Try using the image search on both. The Bing results are larger per page, and easier to look through after clicking on an image.

Re:It is?

[WindBourne]

Now, you are talking about the UI, not the search results. Big difference.

Re:It is?

[TrancePhreak]

I was always talking about the UI. "results pages" != "search results". The video search is also impressive.

looks more like a fail to me

[digmediaguy]

While certainly not a good thing for MS, it doesn't look to me like something they're doing to intentionally screw people over. At least if anyone's trying to screw anyone over, it's not MS - maybe the camera store, as another poster pointed out, which I would agree with, based on my own past experience in such establishments. That said, I don't want to specifically implicate anyone of wrongdoing without having complete evidence of such, so for all anyone really knows it could have just been one big unfortunate f---up.

What this does look like is some team within MS that handles some aspect of Bing and/or Bing cashback might not have thought through this whole scenario enough. It looks, though, based on the update provided on the site, that somebody at MS has taken notice of the issue. Whether they take action to prevent future incidences of this, and how quickly and thoroughly they do remains to be seen. Hopefully the folks over at Bing can demonstrate some agility here.

Kudos to the finder for bringing this up.

Good luck with that

[Weaselmancer]

The US Department of Justice can't even successfully hit them with an antitrust suit. Microsoft settled, and then laughed off the settlement. Or else we'd have those APIs at the very least, wouldn't we?

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and they still do it sometimes.

Re:No surprise ... price variations based on cooki

[armyofone]

"When you go to Dell and click through as a home user vs a small business, the prices are different for the same machine!"

Yeah, and my residential phone line costs $25.00/month while my business line costs $120.00/month. There is no discernible difference in service level between the two.

WTF Verizon?

Dummy reply to negate moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

NTSH, MO...

Re:So basically it's that old "I'm taking 10% off"

[rrohbeck]

I'm pretty sure this will remain SOP as long as people are dazzled by "SALE!!! Umpteen percent off!!1!"
That is, forever.

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[SKPhoton]

I believe it was the other way around. Amazon would slowly lower the price on items they saw you monitoring over time, hoping to entice you to finally buy it. One guy was complaining because he lost his cookies and thus his discount on the product he was wanting.

Welcome to Slashdot

[Zixaphir]

You must be new here!

Re:Welcome to Slashdot

[Jesus_666]

This post is not an accurate representation of the views, ideals, personality, nor alignment of the user who posted it.

You do realize that posting out of alignment for too long will provoke an alignment shift? I just want to make sure you don't accidentally keep yourself from leveling up the way you want to.

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I remember why I always have Firefox delete my cookies after every session. I hate cookies.

Moral action

[Anonymous Coward]

Since this makes Microsoft solution users poorer it is good.
With a little bit of luck Microsoft's greed will bankrupt their customer base and "the spuck will be vorbei"

Retailers have always done this

[1s44c]

Much as MS can't be trusted this isn't a new trick.

You don't seriously think that the shoes reduced from $300 to $100 this week only were ever really selling at $300 do you?

The answer is easy, never deal with retailers who will try to deceive you. Sadly that doesn't leave you with too much choice.

Re:Retailers have always done this

[Locke2005]

I had a friend that worked for a jewelry store; she could buy anything in the store at 75% off retail -- meaning that everything was marked up at least 300% over wholesale. You didn't think stores where actually losing money selling stuff at 75% off, did you? Yes, the shoes might have been priced at $300 at some time and place, that doesn't mean anybody actually payed $300 for them.

Always check prices

[1s44c]

I worked for a national healthcare system which offered a Dell employee purchase program. My wife wanted a pink laptop, and I quickly found out I could get a better deal on a regular "sale" from Dell than the "12% employee purchase program discount" could ever give me. They're scams, which attempt to con people into thinking they are getting a deal.

Always compare prices. All sales and discount schemes are meant to deceive you.

Re:Always check prices

[Antony-Kyre]

Not that I am saying they do, but I can't help but wonder. What about those membership cards you get at grocery stores, saying you saved X amount of dollars in a given purchase? Couldn't they just raise the price, then create a sale, saying that you saved? Comparison shopping is always best.

Re:Always check prices

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing prices is a common practice for most shoppers. Comparing prices from one company against itself is not so common.

Re:Always check prices

[winwar]

"Couldn't they just raise the price, then create a sale, saying that you saved?"

Absolutely. But that would take too much effort. All they really did was take their normal weekly sales and require their card to get the savings. Viola! Real, yet imaginary, savings plus a lot of marketing data.

Re:Always check prices

[Antony-Kyre]

Except for the stores that require little to no information to get the card.

Re:No surprise ... price variations based on cooki

[mike2R]

No surprise ... price variations based on cookies ... is old news. I remember reading about how cookies resident on the user's machine can cause different quoted prices to appear years ago ... probably five years ago at least. I was able to test it at the time using two browsers with different cookie loads. It's definitely happening. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure it was a /. story years ago that first mentioned it.

A/B split testing is very common practice in ecommerce, for everything from site design, or cart functionality to shipping charges or prices. Go onto an ecommerce forum and post something inane like "if I raise my prices, will I make more money?" and you'll get a generic "do a split test and see" response.

Surprised? Really?

[Spazed]

A Microsoft product having hidden costs? NO WAI!

Is this news?

[DrXym]

My wife was buying some bags the other day. If you visited the site cookie-less, it offered 20% off the list price and free shipping. But if you came in through an affiliate site, the offer disappeared in a puff of smoke, often replaced by a lesser offer. We discovered this when the price of the shopping cart suddenly leapt from $120 to $163 after she returned to the site from another link. In the end I had to zap all the cookies on the site and create a new cart to get back to the original price.

Point being that if you click an affiliate link, or enter through a partner site, there is no guarantee you'll be seeing the same prices. I expect lots of sites run various promotions in parallel, and if one of those offers a cut to an affiliate, it may work out worse for the buyer. If in doubt zap your cookies, or launch two browsers (one through tor if necessary), create baskets with the same items and compare the outcome.

Really?

[AliasMarlowe]

After the search is where it gets better. The results pages on Bing are way better, and have even caused a stir at Google.

In what way does it get better? I tried Bing a few times, and its results on many test queries were roughly equal to Google's. On some queries, Google was definitely better than Bing. In no case was Bing better than Google. I just compared Bing & Google again with two simple searches to see if there was any substance to your claim, and there was not. Google still has the edge.

The first search was: tilt-integral-derivative. The two engines gave quite similar results for such a clear unambiguous and uncommon term. This implies they are spidering with similar coverage.

The second search was: colonel shakespeare -william. Google's results were clearly more relevant. This implies that Bing's ranking algorithm is still not as good as Google's. Try it with other searches where the search terms are quite common and one occurs overwhelmingly in an unwanted context. Bing borks them.

Re:Really?

[caffeinemessiah]

I agree in principle with what you're saying about Bing vs. Goog, but I'm quite astounded by your leaps of logic. Nobody here can make a claim for either search engine being better, because as the old saying goes (approximately): "I see you anecdote, and raise you two."

The two engines gave quite similar results for such a clear unambiguous and uncommon term. This implies they are spidering with similar coverage.

Most of the results that are controversial/missed by a search engine will occur at the periphery of the web. There's one giant honkin' connected in the Web, so it's quite unsurprising that the first few dozens of results for a well-defined, common term will show up in all major search engines. Your search does NOT imply that they are spidering with similar coverage. See the paper by Broder: Broder et al

Google's results were clearly more relevant. This implies that Bing's ranking algorithm is still not as good as Google's.

Anecdotes and subjective judgments do not result in implications, unless you're Sarah Palin.

one occurs overwhelmingly in an unwanted context. Bing borks them.

This is interesting, but again, "miserable failure" can be used as an anecdote for Google "borking" too.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The second search was: colonel shakespeare -william. Google's results were clearly more relevant. This implies that Bing's ranking algorithm is still not as good as Google's.

Or possibly that websites have not been optimized for Bing's ranking algorithm...

Re:Really?

[QuietObserver]

Just as a gag, based on a string of comments made on an earlier date about Google vs. Bing, I typed "2^2^2^2" into Google, Bing, Wolfram|Alpha, and Yahoo. Google, Wolfram|Alpha, and Yahoo all provided the correct answer of 65536 (2^(2^(2^2))), while Bing provides 256 (((2^2)^2)^2). That alone makes Bing's search results less reliable than the others, in my opinion.

Re:So basically it's that old "I'm taking 10% off"

[GrumblyStuff]

Why would you leave out names of companies who pulls this kind of shit?

It might be a bad apple but give potential buyers an idea what to look out for should they be in the market for similar products.

Duh, TANSTAAFL

[griffo]

Duh, TANSTAAFL

About the message that got taken down

[selven]

It's funny how if it wasn't taken down I probably wouldn't even have read it, but since it was I actively sought it out, wasting an entire 5 minutes of my valuable time, and then read it over and posted it to some other places since it's a good article and I wouldn't want to see it disappear off the internet. Will they even learn?

Re:About the message that got taken down

[jim_v2000]

It's even funnier because if you'd have taken another 5 minutes to verify the claims in the article, you would have found that it was untrue. Don't believe me? Go do what the author said he did. The prices are the same whether you come through Bing or not. I tried it with two machines...one with the Bing cookie and one without.

Re:About the message that got taken down

[selven]

So because this vulnerability is closed now it was closed when the article was written? Do you really think Microsoft hasn't fixed it by now?

Why I don't use Bing...

[Anonymous Coward]

beacuse everything Microsoft comes with a hidden price tag.

Ya'll make fun of it, but M$ is very appropriate. Every dirty, underhanded, unethical and illegal method they can use to suck up your dollars, they will.

Re:Why I don't use Bing...

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, its almost like they're trying to make money or something.

Can't even find "slash dot"

[Carra]

I had to try Bing out now!

First result for "slash dot":

• Google: www.slashdot.com, yey!
• Bing: www.dotslash.co.za, boo!

Re:Can't even find "slash dot"

[DaveV1.0]

That is funny. I did the same search and slashdot.org is at the top. And, "slashdot" was also the top search suggestion when I was typing it in.

So, I say you are a lying, sack-of-shit troll.

Re:Can't even find "slash dot"

[Carra]

Probably because you do not use the Dutch version: proof.

Re:Can't even find "slash dot"

[Necroloth]

hrmm... weird... my first page was all links to various slashdot pages like main page, games, hardware, interviews, news etc

Google wins, MS looses... again :| - no surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Bing is crap. Give up the battle MS, Google already gotcha... BING!!!

Mental note

[Anonymous Coward]

I just made sure my browser has zero bing cookies.

And then made a mental note to never go to the bing site.

Problem solved.

Front-end for Wolfram Alpha.

[SgtChaireBourne]

After the search is where it gets better.

Not really. After re-branding Live Search as "Bing", to leave the baggage associated with the old name, they also struck a deal so that Bing is a front-end for Wolfram Alpha plus whatever Live Search might have had. So to get those results unmodified, you don't have to go through M$ filter, you can go straight to Wolfram Alpha skipping the middle man. Not difficult.

There are even meta-search engines that can cross-search both Google and Wolfram Alpha for you. For Firefox there is the Goofram add-on which lets you search both at the same time. If you're on Opera, Safari or Chromium, there are also search customization options there, too.

Il bet that you took a load of mod-downs

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like all the MS fanbois come out and knock anybody that cracks a joke or even says anything at MS's expense. Sometimes, I suspect that about half or more of these are MS employees.

Murdoch and fox news

[WindBourne]

Is this how Murdoch will be able to make more money than if he simply sold an honest paper? Work with a company that is known to cheat on all.

Slimy Bountii

[bigtallmofo]

I'm no user of Bing, but it was pretty obvious reading the article that this guy has an axe to grind against Bing. First he supposedly finds a security flaw that enables you to game the system, uses that security flaw personally and posts for others how to do it on his site and now he's posting about this.

And to top it off, he's a competitor. Pretty slimy.

Re:Slimy Bountii

[Just Some Guy]

And to top it off, he's a competitor. Pretty slimy.

If Ford discovers a flaw in Chevy's cars and tells you about it, is it automatically untrue?

Car analogy FTW.

Re:Slimy Bountii

[Bakkster]

Exactly, I don't see 'some retailers will quote you a higher price', I only see 'one retailers quoted a higher price, and it was fixed after it was noticed'.

I won't rule out that others are doing this, but I'm going to need a few more examples before I think of this as anything more than an isolated incident.

Re:Slimy Bountii

[jim_v2000]

It's automatically questionable, especially if no one else can verify the claim.

Re:Disclaimer: TFA author works for a bing competi

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Not surprised, camera shops are one of those things that are commonly operated by scammers. Camera scammers tend to give you a low price for the camera, but try to make you pay extra for the battery that was already included. Sometimes they sell units with no domestic warranty (gray market), and sometimes they won't sell you the camera unless you buy extra warranties or extra accessories. If you refuse to buy the things, they might just not sell it to you. Or just take your money and run.

Check this shop's ratings at resellerratings.com: http://www.resellerratings.com/store/ButterFly_Photo

Cookie nonsense

[dgun]

it seems that when you have a Bing cookie living in your browser, some retailers will quote you a higher price than if you come with no Bing cookie in your system.

Surely someone has pointed this out already, but you can only retrieve the cookies you set. So a retailer would not be able to pull all the cookies and look for a Bing cookie. Of course, they could look at which search engine referred someone and set their own cookie.

Retailer's Fault

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'll get voted down for being an MS fan boy, but:

      Did no one stop to think that this was the RETAILER's fault? Microsoft isn't charging you a higher price, and surprisingly enough there's nothing magic or "tainted" about their cookie. The retailer is the one raising their prices if you have certain cookies ...

This article doesn't tell me much about Bing, but I definitely won't ever buy from ButterflyPhoto.

Special cash-back discount code

[SgtChaireBourne]

Well, what's illegal is deceptive business practices.

If it weren't for illegal and deceptive business practices, they wouldn't have any business practices at all.

They claim to be offering a cash back if you utilize Bing, which implies a discount, where in fact, they are charging a higher price upfront to Bing users and creating a deceptive impression that the cash back is providing a discount of their normal price.

Like any discount programme, they throw barriers to reduce the number of people they have to reimburse. The upside is that if you use the special discount code you get to choose the amount of cash reimbursed. ;)

Re:Special cash-back discount code

[amicusNYCL]

If it weren't for illegal and deceptive business practices, they wouldn't have any business practices at all.

Who is that, the camera retailer who actually had the different prices, or Microsoft? What exactly did Microsoft do that was deceptive in this situation?

Re:Reminds me of Amazon

[wygit]

heh... oops.

That's okay

[Cro Magnon]

Dealing with online retailers make me want to toss my cookies anyway.

Hello? Anti-Trust...

[Jawn98685]

Not surprisingly, the tone of the responses reflects the usual /. MS haters vs MS fanboys argument. Few of the respondents seem to have recognized that what Bing is doing here represents an alarming trend. Not that they're the first to play pricing games on the web, to be sure, but their's may well be the most far reaching. Setting aside the tortured ethics of the whole "rebate" or "cash rewards" scam, fucking with someone just because they are known to pay attention and actually try to take advantage of such schemes (Bing cookie present) is slimy business practice, to say the least.

Translation of the "Response"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Merchants can use us to screw you over. If you are lucky enough to catch them, notify us and we will try and fix the issue."

Re:No surprise ... price variations based on cooki

[Anonymous Coward]

When you go to Dell and click through as a home user vs a small business, the prices are different for the same machine!

I don't know if this is still the case, but once upon a time, paying the extra money for a "Small Business" machine was the only way to get a Dell with only half the preinstalled crapware as the "Home" machine. The crapware/adware/spyware on the Home machines subsidizes the purchase, I suppose.

Depressing thing is I ended up nuking it and reinstalling after a year anyways.

Re:Hehe,Christmas gift,shoes,handbags,Tshirts,etc

[clone53421]

You know, it kinda makes me chuckle to think that this spammer thinks he might actually get even one sale by spamming a tech forum.

More likely he’ll get digitally mailbombed...

confused .. Re:Hello? Anti-Trust...

[rs232]

"fucking with someone just because they are known to pay attention and actually try to take advantage of such schemes (Bing cookie present) is slimy business practice, to say the least"

Who is doing the 'fucking', who is the recipient fuckee ?

Re:Retailer's Fault ?

[rs232]

"The retailer is the one raising their prices if you have certain cookies ..."

Where does it say anywhere that the retailer set different prices? Does ButterflyPhoto deny or confirm this is the case ?

This is so much drivel

[lacaprup]

I've used Bing cashback over 20 times, and comparison shopped on different PCs with different browsers. This is 100% unfounded.

The amount of anti-MSFT vitriol is simply amazing sometimes. How, praytell, does Ebay raise it's price quotes when using Bing cashback? ROFL epic failure

Re:Disclaimer: TFA author works for a bing competi

[jim_v2000]

The article is completely untrue. I've checked several items, including the one he was looking at, and the prices were the same (or less) if you came through Bing. I used two different computers, one with a Bing cookie, and one with all the cookies dumped.

They figure you've already proved you were

[crovira]

an idiot by trying this shit in the first place and couldn't organize an erection in an orgy, never mind a class action suit.

Re:Disclaimer: TFA author works for a bing competi

[Anonymous Coward]

Camera scammers tend to give you a low price for the camera, but try to make you pay extra for the battery that was already included. Sometimes they sell units with no domestic warranty (gray market),

Selling gray market cameras is perfectly legal, provided that it is disclosed.

Reputable photo stores (like B&H Photo) offer regular & gray market then let you choose. B&H honor the warranty themselves.

The savings can be substantial. Here's a nice explanation of gray market: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/USGrey.jsp

How life has changed

[MillionthMonkey]

I'd like to see some competition in the market, and Bing does a pretty dang good job.

I often have that same thought. I have to smack myself to make sure I'm not dreaming that helping to create competition means switching over to Microsoft.

Yeah yeah "I'm a PC"... the mere slogan reeks of desperation.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm...as private individuals we buy software from MicroQuack at grossly inflated prices compared to what Dell pays, or the special deal Thailand got a few years back. & MicroQuack turns around & uses that money to turn us into Bing sluts?

Okaaaaayyyyyyy

Re:So what?

[Ethanol-fueled]

What is there some Perez Hilton site to keep up with / cyber-stalk all the trolls on Slashdot?

I see what you did there, Valtrex. Alluding to a journal entry I created 10 months ago and then took down makes you the "cyber-stalker".