Google's Search Copying Accusation Called 'Silly'

itwbennett writes "Google's Bing sting, reported in Slashdot just days ago and subsequently denied by Microsoft, is now being called 'silly' and 'petty' by search industry analysts and execs. The reason: it would be impossible for Microsoft to use the copied results to reverse engineer Google's search algorithms. And in fact it is more likely that Microsoft was conducting competitive research. Charlene Li, founder of technology research and advisory firm Altimeter Group, saw Google's actions as a misguided response to a real threat from a competitor in its core search business. 'Google isn't used to having competition. You look at this incident and you wonder why they are doing this. It feels amateurish in a way, a kind of 'they're not playing fair' attitude,' she said."

Comments

Seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to copy an algorithm if they are just copying search results. This response is amateur.

Re:Seriously?

[ILuvRamen]

I agree totally. What "research" includes looking for an already searched term on Google and then looking at what results come up...then slapping them into your own live result list for the general public? Bing's cheap algorithm is some search and crawling technology from like 2007 mixed with marketing, marketing, MARKETING! Oh, and flashy features that don't really work. So it's not that shocking that they're ripping off other people's results because their product is pretty hollow to begin with.

Re:Seriously?

[Korin43]

Hey, looking at the test next to mine isn't cheating. It's not like I could reverse-engineer the other students algorithm by looking at his test!

Re:Seriously?

[NeutronCowboy]

No kidding. I'm used to nonsense from "industry analysts", but this takes the cake. It's a complete non-sequitur. This never was a question of reverse-engineering. It's a question of straight-up ripping off results.

On a related note, what's with all the Google-bashing recently? First the idea (which has now turned into a meme) that Google's search result are not the gold standard for search anymore, and now the idea (probably soon to be turned into a meme) that Google can't handle competition and is resorting to FUD?

Yes, Google is no saint, it's not perfect. No shit, Sherlock. But if all I did was read "industry analysts" and various websites, I'd think that Google was about to fall apart, what with search sucking and all other products completely falling flat on their face. There's either a general search for the same story going on (Look Ma! I broke the news of Google sucking first!), or some grade A bullshitting is taking place.

Re:Seriously?

[ThePromenader]

I also agree - Bing is cheating. Never mind Google, they're second-sourcing ~everyone's~ results without giving them credit.

Every search engine has its own search methods and data-parsing algorithms (down to the lowest in-site-search php code), and it is these algorithms that provide the 'top results' that bing toolbar (and/or IE) users are clicking on. Never mind the Bing toolbar user; what if the owner/creator of a search engine doesn't want any data generated by it to be sent to Bing - where does ~he~ opt out of MS' data-sculling program?

Bing's tactics are distasteful for many reasons, but mainly a) because they exploit (toolbar) users to scull data from competitors and b) because Bing uses this data to provide 'top results' that it obviously values above those provided by its own algorithm. This is borderline - if not outright - industrial espionage.

Re:Seriously?

[horza]

With tweets like "At Microsoft Productivity Council mtg on future of Office" and worse "Ribbon Hero which teaches how to use MSFT Office better. Making work (gasp!) fun", Charlene Li is obviously blatently dishonest in her representation of her position.

"Charlene Li, founder of technology research and advisory firm Altimeter Group" - and as sortius_nod says, now paid shill.

Phillip.

Re:Seriously?

[nstlgc]

First of all, I don't think Google has a copyright on any of the content they index, do they?

Second, as I understand it, clickstream data points are only a small part of the equation. Notice how Google could only reproduce this by using totally bogus keywords, ensuring that the data they fed to Bing through the toolbar were the only data points being considered for those keywords?

Bing tracks when users search for something, and what sites they visit as a result. I'd almost be offended intellectually if this was not part of their game to provide me with better search results.

Disclaimer: I use Google almost exclusively. Bing can suck it, but this debate is ridiculously biased.

"Competitive Research"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see this phrase going down well in any other industry. If you copy a map or a book or the design for a car from a different company in the same field, you wouldn't get out of it by calling it "competitive research". Microsoft doesn't need to reverse engineer google's algorithm if they can just steal their results directly; in fact, it's simpler this way because it cuts out the middle part where they even bother to figure out how it works.

Re:"Competitive Research"

[grantek]

It's not "research" if the leeched data appears on your production site automatically and without review...