Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bing Adds 'Like' Button

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the still-waiting-for-hate-button dept.

Tiek00n wrote in with something that might sound familiar, saying, "Microsoft on Monday expanded its use of Facebook within its Bing search engine, adding 'likes' and recommendations from friends and strangers into search results. Going forward, if you search for something one of your Facebook friends has 'liked,' Bing will note that in its search results. Did your sister and roommate 'like' a nearby Italian restaurant? A small photo, the Facebook 'thumbs up' icon, and a note that said they approve will show up in search results, Microsoft said."

119 comments

  1. I wonder.. by beowulfcluster · · Score: 3, Funny

    ..if my sister and roommate have agreed to let their like thingies be used like this. Unknowingly, obviously, since they'll never know about it.

    1. Re:I wonder.. by Sonny+Yatsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, of course, that to Microsoft and Facebook (and pretty much every other major company on the internet that dabbles in social networking), agreeing and knowing are mutually exclusive concepts.

      --
      My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
    2. Re:I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The vast majority of people on Facebook aren't going to have a clue how this works. They are going to just use Bing and "like" everything they see that looks shiny to them. Unbeknownst to them, their relatives, friends, employers, etc. are going to be privy to all manner of interests that they may prefer to be private yet are too naive to see the connection. Somebody else uses your computer, suddenly you "like" gay midget hamster porn for all your "friends" to see. The potential for abuse and violation is much too high to be any part of this. I for one will recommend to everyone to not use Bing until this is mothballed.

    3. Re:I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of people on Facebook aren't going to have a clue how this works. They are going to just use Bing and "like" everything they see that looks shiny to them. Unbeknownst to them, their relatives, friends, employers, etc. are going to be privy to all manner of interests that they may prefer to be private yet are too naive to see the connection. Somebody else uses your Facebook account, suddenly you "like" gay midget hamster porn for all your "friends" to see. The potential for abuse and violation is much too high to be any part of this. I for one will recommend to everyone to not use Bing until this is mothballed.

      FTFY. It's no different from any other fraping that goes on now. If you let someone else use your computer and you're still logged into FB, then you deserve all the gay midget hamster porn likings you get.

    4. Re:I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the difference here is that you don't have to be logged into Facebook at all. All they have to do is perform a web search. I find it likely that while many people may log out of FB when they're done, most people don't log out of their search engine of choice.

    5. Re:I wonder.. by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      The problem here isn't Bing. It's Facebook.

    6. Re:I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you've got a few skeletons in your closet.

    7. Re:I wonder.. by ciscoguy01 · · Score: 1

      Which is the whole problem. You have to be logged into a search engine?
      More and more reason to use IXQUICK.com so you won't be tracked. At all.

      --
      .
    8. Re:I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To computers, unlike users, "once liked" means "always liked", and probably "this is his *major* preference." That's a wake-up call for all those fools who think they're cool when they "like" videos for porn-sites (an alarmingly odd new trend.)

      Scenario: Your work supervisor isn't your facebook friend the exact day you liked the vid, so he couldn't see the wall post you liked and sent to all your friends about "transexuals asses", maybe tongue-in-cheek --FB has no way to hint otherwise. A month later, your supervisor gives you a pressing request to add him on FB and you strive to stop posting "offensive" things starting that day. Later that same week, Bing adds the Like button. Your supervisor then searches for "big asses" in the privacy of his home. He sees a message indicating *you* liked something... slightly more controversial. You'd be none the wiser to understand why he starts avoiding you --or worse.

      Someone discovering what you liked is not gonna believe you clicked anything only once: with data miners^W^W search giants, it does not matter that your actions had low volume or happened years ago. It's there forever, and will be used in innovative ways. They will mostly work against you, the user of the free services. Therefore, avoid entering agreements with new free services. Go the extra mile and avoid pay-for services too --they can get hacked or *acquired* by Facebook, MS, Google and Yahoo and suddenly you can't decide to quit --they already own your data even if you "delete" it.

    9. Re:I wonder.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.... "somebody else" used my computer to like gay midget hamster porn. That is what happened.

    10. Re:I wonder.. by x*yy*x · · Score: 0

      Who said that you would be liking the something on the search engine page? The summary just notes that if some of your friends has liked something on Facebook, Bing will note that on the results.

    11. Re:I wonder.. by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      You probably won't have to be logged into Bing, just be logged into Facebook while using Bing. Though I'll admit I haven't RTFA at all.

    12. Re:I wonder.. by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Are you stupid? It works both ways. If I something gets "liked" on my computer, my friends will see it. That's what this entire thread is about.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    13. Re:I wonder.. by Pigskin-Referee · · Score: 1

      I for one will recommend to everyone to not use Bing until this is mothballed.

      You would be recommending that users not use Bing whether this feature were present or not. Now, if a non Microsoft browser initiated this feature, you would be claiming it was the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel.

      I for one am advising my friends not to use Firefox or Chrome since from the first of this year, they have both been shown to have more exploitable flaws than IE9.

      --
      Pigskin-Referee
      Linux: Yesterday's technology, tomorrow ...
    14. Re:I wonder.. by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      You would be recommending that users not use Bing whether this feature were present or not.

      Please remove the tinfoil headwear. You look ridiculous.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  2. Re: Bing Adds 'Like' Button by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

    As Microsoft's search engine share sunk to its lowest level yet in February, with approximately 8 to 9 queries total worldwide, Steve Ballmer has reiterated his willingness to hook up with Yahoo! and its 21 queries worldwide to take on Google.

    The press conference was held on a street corner in San Francisco as Mr Ballmer and Jerry Yang sat with their hats on the sidewalk and playing harmonicas with a "WILL WEBSEARCH FOR FOOD" sign behind them.

    "Understandably, we expect less activity in the Great Recession," said Mr Ballmer. "Nobody knows what value assets should be ... say, you aren't finished with that cigarette, are you?"

    Press attendees included a schizophrenic local resident in a tinfoil hat (“to keep Google out"), two teenagers drunk on malt liquor and a policeman keeping an eye on things from a distance. The teenagers taunted, confused and upset Mr Ballmer by suggesting he attempt to locate his own posterior.

    "My new search technology is unstoppable! Just look at this netbook!" shouted Mr Ballmer, waving an Etch-a-Sketch in a threatening manner. "IT'S MAUVE! IT RUNS WINDOWS SEVEN! LINUX PUT A RADIO IN MY HEAD! I'LL SHOW ’EM ALL! BASTARDS! LIKE! LIKE! "

    "Some love stories are eternal," said Mr Yang. "Romeo and Juliet. Heloise and Abelard. Leopold and Loeb. Microsoft and Yahoo."

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  3. Eh... not interested. by commodore6502 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    My facebook "friends" and I don't like the same things. I like sitting at home playing videogames or watching Free tv or reading Asimov's magazine. Most of them do not.

    Most of them like going out, or looking for child-friendly school related activities, or jogging, or other tasks that hold zero attention for me. Even if they recommended a site (via bing) I'd probably not look at it.

    Nice idea though. I guess someone will find it useful.

    --
    Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    1. Re:Eh... not interested. by x*yy*x · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Most likely 99.9% people will find it useful. It's not other peoples fault you 1) have friends who share nothing with you 2) are anti-social and still living the 80's.

    2. Re:Eh... not interested. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily anti-social, you insensitive clod, sometimes it's just difficult to find people with the same hobbies/interests.

      But while I'm in the same situation as parent, I agree with you that the vast majority will find it useful. Well, maybe not 'useful', but at least interesting.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    3. Re:Eh... not interested. by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Most likely 99.9% people will find it useful.

      No way; he's right this time. Sure, friends have things in common, but in my experience, diversity in preferences among friends seems more common than conformity. This is especially true for typical Facebook usage, where the threshold for "friend" is so low (i.e. someone you know or like, rather than someone you actually have so much in common with that you can stand to be around them 16 hours every day (e.g. your wife)).

      That's the problem with social-based recommendations as opposed to similar-rating-based recommendations. The people you hang out with are usually into different things (which is what makes them interesting), and the people who are into the same things as you, you probably don't feeling like hanging out with (ever been to a LUG?).

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:Eh... not interested. by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily anti-social, you insensitive clod, sometimes it's just difficult to find people with the same hobbies/interests.

      So, are these just random people you "friend" just so you have someone?

      Or are they people you actually know, but don't have anything in common with?

      I've always been a little unclear on WTF people are doing with these 'friends' -- it seems some people just collect them for the sake of it, which seems rather lame.

      I'm aware that some of the people I know in the real world use Facebook, but I just can't make myself care enough to look. However, I'm also aware that I'm a crusty old geek who doesn't care about shiny things on the internet anymore.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:Eh... not interested. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I'm aware that some of the people I know in the real world use Facebook, but I just can't make myself care enough to look. However, I'm also aware that I'm a crusty old geek who doesn't care about shiny things on the internet anymore.

      I think that's fine. I don't think my dad would have much to gain with Facebook -- he has all his friends' phone numbers written in a little book (or in his head), or else he knows which day of the week they'll be at a certain pub, etc.

      I have a few different (mental) groups of friends on Facebook:
      - Close friends who I see very frequently. If I'm having a party they'll usually know about it outside of Facebook first, but I'll probably send details using Facebook too -- it's useful to keep track of who's coming, remind everyone what the nearest station is, etc.
      - Other friends. I might not care so much if they can't attend the party, so I won't check the date with them first. They'll find out through Facebook.
      - Less-close people I've met at nightclubs, other people's houses/parties, my more interesting colleagues, etc. I don't know them well enough to invite them to my house, but I'll forward an invitation to a gig I'm going to, or 'tag' them in a note about an exhibition at an interesting museum I'm thinking of going to.
      - Long-distance friends. I'll tell them if I'll be travelling nearby, and add my comment to the debate on politics or the daft meme on their wall, etc. If I notice something like ".... will be in London next week!" as their status they're temporarily in the first group.
      - Organisers (sometimes companies) of gigs, exhibitions, etc. It's the 21st century equivalent of reading the cultural section of the newspaper and keeping all the fliers I'm handed in the street, plus the events automatically show up on my phone's calendar. These people can't see anything of my profile.

      When I've met someone it's sometimes useful to reply to "what's your email/phone/whatever" with "[our common friend who just introduced us] has me on Facebook, I'm [Dave]", or "I'm [Dave Bloggs], I should be on the 'Attending' list for this gig on Facebook". Of course, people can figure this out even if we don't discuss it -- that's usually fine, although very occasionally I've received "friend requests" and seen the person's profile and decided not to accept it (usually on my housemate saying "you idiot, he obviously fancies you, how can you not have noticed?").

      Like any social network tool you need a critical mass of 'friends' to make it worthwhile.

    6. Re:Eh... not interested. by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I don't have FB anymore. I tried it for a week, and "deleted" it. But when I had it, they were basically the colleagues from college which I hang around with, so yes, people I actually know.

      They're nice people, and I prefer to have lunch with them than alone, but they aren't really interested in the same stuff that I am, despite being in the same course.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
    7. Re:Eh... not interested. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The people you hang out with are usually into different things (which is what makes them interesting), and the people who are into the same things as you, you probably don't feeling like hanging out with (ever been to a LUG?).

      Hmm? That's the opposite of the way I, and pretty much everyone I know, chooses their friends. My friends are people who share a sufficiently similar taste (or distaste) in music, cinema, art, culture, travel, sport, etc that we go to places together.

      I think a LUG is a bad example, it's too broad. I use Linux, and I cycle to work, but I wouldn't go to a LUG or any organised cycling event. Neither is an interest in itself. An interest might be programming Android apps, campaigning against copyrights, racing bicycles, or cycling round the countryside and visiting tea shops.

    8. Re:Eh... not interested. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought LUG stood for "Lesbian Until Graduation". Seriously. Look it up.

  4. I don't 'like' it at all by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So where's my 'dislike' icon?

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:I don't 'like' it at all by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny

      Google it.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:I don't 'like' it at all by muffen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Make a new facebook profile and call it "nobody", then when you dislike something you can click the "Like" button with the "nobody" profile, and it will say "Nobody Likes This"

    3. Re:I don't 'like' it at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah...but you would have to be friends with nobody to get this to work :/

    4. Re:I don't 'like' it at all by tgd · · Score: 2

      Its the logout link under the Facebook icon.

      If you don't log into FB and grant Bing permissions to your social feed, you won't get any of it.

      But for a lot of people, its pretty damn handy.

    5. Re:I don't 'like' it at all by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Who cares? He's a Nobody!

    6. Re:I don't 'like' it at all by digitaldc · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares! That's who!

      Wait, what?

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  5. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How they will avoid results being tainted by automated "Like" submissions, specially if botnets are used to do so...

    1. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How they will avoid results being tainted by automated "Like" submissions, specially if botnets are used to do so...

      I can be a lot more creative at "liking" something than any bot. And I have suddenly developed a really bad taste.

    2. Re:I wonder... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      How is it tainted? Unless you're "friends" on FB with the bot, you won't see it at all.

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
  6. Google adds like button by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose if Google did this they would be investigated by the Feds ...

    1. Re:Google adds like button by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

      I thought they already had?

  7. I am a curmudgeon by bradley13 · · Score: 3

    Ok, I am being an old curmudgeon here, but...can we just take all of these social icons littering the web and sweep them into the trashcan?

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:I am a curmudgeon by andrea.sartori · · Score: 2

      NoScript should do.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    2. Re:I am a curmudgeon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NoScript should do.

      And RequestPolicy to be sure. Plus a hosts file to make certain you never see anything from Facebook.

    3. Re:I am a curmudgeon by andrea.sartori · · Score: 2

      Oh noes you mentioned the hosts file... countdown running...

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    4. Re:I am a curmudgeon by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      can we just take all of these social icons littering the web and sweep them into the trashcan?

      And if noscript doesn't cut it (say they are start putting them in bog standard html), just try greasemonkey. Guaranteed or your money back!*

      Not really.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    5. Re:I am a curmudgeon by Combatso · · Score: 1

      nope.... next question?

    6. Re:I am a curmudgeon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a plugin to block facebook from any page that isn't facebook http://webgraph.com/resources/facebookblocker/

      It supports Safari, Chrome, Firefox and Opera.

    7. Re:I am a curmudgeon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you brother!! I've never used social media and never will.

    8. Re:I am a curmudgeon by instagib · · Score: 1

      I have *facebook* in AdBlockPlus. Quick and dirty...

    9. Re:I am a curmudgeon by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      Oh how I wish that were possible.

      Users above have posted solutions to getting rid of the bloody things, but the one I use in FF is a simple rule in adblock plus:

      ||facebook.*$domain=~facebook.com|~127.0.0.1

      This effectively blocks the loading of facebook.com content from any site that isn't actually facebook.com. I've just remembered I set this up ages ago so it should probably also include all the other facebook domains like fbcdn.net and the like.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    10. Re:I am a curmudgeon by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      If you use Firefox you can use Adblock Plus to remove all the social media crap.

      http://adblockplus.org/en/subscriptions

      Scroll down to the very bottom and subscribe to the Antisocial filter in the Miscellaneous section.

    11. Re:I am a curmudgeon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Adblock Plus has an "Antisocial" filter list which does exactly that.

  8. Going forward by Threni · · Score: 1

    Going forward? Let's try that sentence again with that pointless piece of `office bulls**t` removed:

    > If you search for something one of your Facebook friends has "liked,"
    > Bing will note that in its search results.

    Hmm. It has exactly the same meaning. I wonder if it's possible to construct a sentence such that adding the prefix `going forward` actually modifies the meaning in some way.

    1. Re:Going forward by gr8_phk · · Score: 2

      While totally off topic. "Going forward" implicitly means "excluding the past" and therefore this is a new thing. This doesn't add much to the conversation going forward, but will easily prevent people from saying "but I didn't see that" because obviously it wasn't there before. And yeah, I did that again for you.

    2. Re:Going forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Going forward" is classic business abstraction -- turning metaphors into concrete concepts. It means absolutely nothing and, as Threni point out, most sentences lose nothing by its deletion. That's what we have verb tenses for -- to describe when things occur. If there's any doubt, why not use "from now on", or simply "now,"?

      I proactively discourage its use. Oops, there's another word that adds nothing.

  9. And here I thought ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And here I though Google was late to the party with its +1 button :rolleyes:

    Then again, all I have seen of this +1 thing so far are press releases. Apparently I'm doing something right, so it doesn't show up for me. Useless clutter ...

  10. It won't matter, especially with scams by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't wait to see what happens come the next FB scam/spam blitz, now that SEO's have a huge incentive to push a few in their favor.

    Also, for some odd reason I foresee Farmville and other Zynga games at the top of damned near every Bing results page...

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:It won't matter, especially with scams by x*yy*x · · Score: 1, Informative

      They didn't say it affects rankings, only that it will show in the search results.

    2. Re:It won't matter, especially with scams by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      If it is anything like the beta mode of +1 for Google, then it does (modify read:change) the search rankings. When i am logged into a Gmail account and I search for anything. Things, i have +1'd appear on the first page interlaced with the other search rankings as do sites others in my contacts have +1'd. I have to keep logging out to see actual search rankings (without social modifiers). As far as I can tell Bing flat out carbon copies Google's efforts and they will be doing the same. On another note, I heard people are now naming their children "Like". It is only a matter of time before someone names their child +1. That is at least cooler than "Like".

  11. The Borg have won by Posting=!Working · · Score: 2

    FTFA:
    "Input from the collective IQ can enable search to become a discovery tool"

    Damn, they're not even trying to hide it anymore.

    --
    This sentence no verb.
    1. Re:The Borg have won by torgis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Because none of us is as dumb as all of us."

    2. Re:The Borg have won by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      This quote should be added to the list of problems with the Mythical Man-Month.

  12. Re: Bing Adds 'Like' Button by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

    On Tuesday May 17, @01:17AM, David Gerard opined:
    > Steve Ballmer has reiterated his willingness to hook up with Yahoo!

    Yahoo already hooked-up with Microsoft's Bing 2 years ago. When you look at Yahoo search results, you're really looking at Bing results.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  13. Re: Bing Adds 'Like' Button by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Definitely not your best work.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  14. Now here's an idea by Nineteen-Delta · · Score: 1

    And as soon as companies can see this as an advantage to pushing their crap, they'll be all over this in a rash. Where will it end, people?

  15. Hello, bandwagon! by torgis · · Score: 1

    Once again a lumbering corporation proves it's never too late to jump on the bandwagon. You'd think Microsoft was run by actual politicians instead of rich old white men.

    1. Re:Hello, bandwagon! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think Microsoft was run by actual politicians instead of rich old white men.

      same people, their surnames and qualifications usually have a subtle correlation too.

  16. Uninformative! by augi01 · · Score: 2

    Alright, so I can know if my sister (or whoever) "likes" a particular restaurant (or whatever) through Bing. But what about the why? Was the service good? How was the food? Are the drinks reasonably priced? And so forth. Absent any of that information, this "addition" is rather useless.

    --
    No yesterday, no tomorrow, and no today.
    1. Re:Uninformative! by Combatso · · Score: 1

      its a perfectly cromulent idea, that embiggens the bing search engine

    2. Re:Uninformative! by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Alright, so I can know if my sister (or whoever) "likes" a particular restaurant (or whatever) through Bing. But what about the why? Was the service good? How was the food? Are the drinks reasonably priced? And so forth. Absent any of that information, this "addition" is rather useless.

      Well, that pretty much sums up the entire fscking "like" button idea.

      I often find myself in Subway seeing the "Like us on Facebook" or whatever the heck the sign says -- near as I can figure, the "Like" button is really only useful for marketing purposes to be able to say "see, we have eleventy million people on Facebook who like us". Who gives a crap?

      It's complete drivel, which is more or less how I feel about Facebook. Seems like half the web pages I go to now have the embedded "friend us on facebook" or "like us facebook" -- there is nothing meaningful, or useful in there, it's just casting your lot in with everyone else to say you like McDonald's or whatever. In fact, I'm sure from a marketing perspective, it's the best thing evar.

      The fact that it's integrated now with Bing ... well, once again, I find myself yawning at the prospect of Bing. Oooh, they've added a Facebook 'Like' button -- that's gonna make me switch search engines.

      Maybe I just got bored with IRC, usenet, and ICQ back in the 90s ... but I gotta say, I just don't 'get' this stuff.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Uninformative! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell us your opinion on lawns, and how hard it was to get to school back in your day.

    4. Re:Uninformative! by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Because the way I see it, when you use IRC, Usenet, ICQ/MSN/etc it's because you need to talk. The technology is there to help you communicate and FaceBook is communication for the sake of communication, i.e. there's no actual information involved.

      Does anyone bother people via phone, email and IM about things they like and dislike, all day long?

      FaceBook is just another way for people to rant about things, just like blogs. Just because everyone is saying something doesn't mean that others are listening.

      Hum, I guess that was a rant...

      Soylent Green is p... I mean, Slashdot is FaceBook!

    5. Re:Uninformative! by xaxa · · Score: 1

      the "Like" button is really only useful for marketing purposes to be able to say "see, we have eleventy million people on Facebook who like us"

      That's 100% of the intention and purpose of Subway having a Facebook page: marketing.

      A friend has recently been employed by a medium-sized visitor attraction to be a social networking marketer. I think she has to have a Facebook, Twitter etc profile set up to churn out news and updates. Someone at my workplace (a larger visitor attraction) has a similar rôle, although only for a fraction of the time she's employed: "The weather is going to be fantastic this weekend, why not come to XXX? 2 for 1 voucher here: ___". Outside the marketing team everyone's very sceptical about this. However, both these attractions have been charities for over 50 years, people donate lots of money to them, so I can understand why an individual would "Like" them on Facebook, or send the link to their friends after they've visited. I'm quite happy to recommend friends and family visit them.

      It's a bit odd to do the same for Subway, and even if I worked there I doubt I'd recommend it.

    6. Re:Uninformative! by MrNemesis · · Score: 1

      It's even gotten to the stage where I'm seeing adverts that say "Find us on facebook!" without even giving an honest to god URL. This is, I imagine, because it's much cheaper to rent an end-to-end user-tracking marketing framework from facebook than it is to set up your own on www.hotnewlatestproduct.com and ask all the visitors to supply you with their name, age and a ballpark figure for you annual income. Like another poster said, the sole purpose of facebook is marketing, either of yourself or everyone else.

      But then again, advertising-hostile thirtysomethings like me aren't the focus of marketeers just yet. If a company sends me unsolicited marketing more than twice, I add them to my black list and never buy anything from them ever again (after a phone call and a letter explaining precisely why, of course).

      Disclaimer: I have a facebook account, but under a false name (incidentally the porn star name of a friend at college) with false information, and only viewable by friends of friends. I also block facebook content from loading on any non-facebook page.

      --
      Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
    7. Re:Uninformative! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.despair.com/blogging.html

    8. Re:Uninformative! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, with the information that your sister likes a restaurant that came up in your search, you could, you know, like talk to her.

  17. Huh? by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Funny

    Somebody actually uses Bing? Now THAT would be front page news!

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have actually met someone who uses Bing as a verb. And yes, he's a tool.

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Somebody actually uses Bing? Now THAT would be front page news!

      In US, about 30% and growing. http://www.stateofsearch.com/bing-keeps-growing-in-the-us-now-30-marketshare/

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use bing only because msdn library help search is even worse. Worst search engine, EVER, and bing has a convenient button in the search result where I can re-search.

  18. Spammers and scammers by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    This won't get abused AT ALL, I'm sure.

    1. Re:Spammers and scammers by delinear · · Score: 2

      So what's new? Search engines have been abused since day 1 (in fact since day zero - even before dearch engines existed, when you basically got a list of links, people paid to rank higher). Google managed to bring some common sense back to proceedings for a while, but it seems like it gets gamed as much as anyone else today. I'm not sure how spammers could abuse this, though, other than asking a bunch of users to like their pages (which companies already do, and if it's so overt they should be easily filtered out).

  19. Why Bing shouldn't 'Like' Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nice comment article about why Facebook's 'Like' button is utterly meaningless here, worth a read.

    1. Re:Why Bing shouldn't 'Like' Facebook by treeves · · Score: 1

      +1, Like!
      (I say this *after* reading it, fyi.)

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  20. Horse before the Cart. by bobs666 · · Score: 1

    Again Microsoft got it backwards. By Facebook first, then promote it.

    1. Re:Horse before the Cart. by delinear · · Score: 1

      I assume MS sees an ally in putting Google in their place. As a business tactic you're right, it seems incredibly short sighted (given all the rumblings over the past year that FB might just replace conventional search). It's like someone buying a lion to help them deal with a wolf in their garden - all well and good until the wolf is gone and the lion gets hungry.

  21. Wel, admittedly I am a Microsoft hater... by GoodBuddy · · Score: 1

    ... but in recent years I have decided Facebook is even more evil than Microsoft since they seem to be trying to take over the internet a push everyone out. In the Facebook world there won't be anyone else. And they make it easy to get content into their system but they make it very hard if not impossible to get content out. And they want ot make everyone in the world get a Facebook account.

    So it is quite interesting to see that Microsoft has fallen so low that they must kow-tow to Facebook. But I don't like Bing. And this makes me like them even less.

    But Mark Zuckerberg is even more rapacious than Bill Gates. It will be quite delicious to see his screw Microsoft the same way Microsoft has screwed so many other companies.

    1. Re:Wel, admittedly I am a Microsoft hater... by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Why are you even mentioning Bill Gates?

      The real question is: Is Mark Zuckerberg is even more rapacious than Steve Ballmer?

    2. Re:Wel, admittedly I am a Microsoft hater... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Google? Thought of any reasons to hate them yet?
      I could list about 100.
      Think about it you will begin to hate them too
      "Don't be evil" as a company slogan . . . . .Reason to hate #1

    3. Re:Wel, admittedly I am a Microsoft hater... by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 0

      i'm not looking that word up, asshole.

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
  22. Wow by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Would be nifty if I EVER used bing except when forced to by some app that forced me to open IE and I mistyped something at which point Bing brought up a search page full of all kinds of stuff I might have meant to type when what I was REALLY trying to type was www.google.com

  23. people use bing by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I use bing, I get better results than google, which the first 10 pages for essentially ANY search these days are links to just computer-generated content, my keyword match being the caption text of some advertisement or worse, not anywhere on the page. Bing filters through all that and gives me the legitimate pages I'm after. Another problem with google, is it won't bother to return results for "old" web pages - even if the site has been indexed, and you can run a query with an EXACT match from within the site's text. There are sites from 2002-2004 I reference all the time in my academic work, they don't need to be updated, so why should the value of their informative content ever expire like Google thinks it should? so when I am using a computer without my bookmarks, I'll never find those sites on google.

    However upon this news, I will no longer be using bing. I want facebook and facebook alone to know that I'm using facebook, if I'm logged into facebook, I don't want bing or any other site to be aware of that.

    1. Re:people use bing by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I want facebook and facebook alone to know that I'm using facebook, if I'm logged into facebook, I don't want bing or any other site to be aware of that.

      Nothing has changed in that respect. Sites have always been able to tell if you were on facebook before.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    2. Re:people use bing by tgd · · Score: 1

      If you're logged into Facebook, almost any site can be aware of it.

      Bing requires not only logging into facebook but granting Bing permission to access your profile. If you don't do that, you've got nothing to lose.

      That said, if you're okay with the astronomical amount of data that Facebook keeps on you, I'm puzzled why you think giving Bing a small feed into it to make your searches better is a problem?

    3. Re:people use bing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only log into facebook for the 2 minutes a day that I use it. I also have all facebook cookies delete when I close the browser.

    4. Re:people use bing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, I have these little things called children, and I also have these larger things called parents. I live about 600 miles from my parents, along with my children. My parents like to regularly see snapshots of my children, along with other parents with whom I don't get together nearly often enough. Using a social network such as facebook, I can post these things and all of these interested parties can passively consume them along with me passively consuming their content, which is nice when I hop online at 11 pm to do yet another software build because the last one failed due to some moron merging files badly. THAT is why these networks catch on.

    5. Re:people use bing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want facebook and facebook alone to know that I'm using facebook, if I'm logged into facebook, I don't want bing or any other site to be aware of that.

      I agree and that's why I log onto facebook, see if there is any interesting updates from friends (I block all games and only use the birthday calendar app). There often are interesting updates since I only "friend" people who are really friends in meatspace. Once I've read those I log off.

      What people don't seem to get is that "like" has a very different meaning than you might guess. Sure if you like a friend's post then the function is straight forward. It will make a post that all your "friends" can see. BUT if you "like" a company or an app like means "share my information with." So if you "like" subway you are really clicking on "share my information with subway." Don't "like" anything except personal posts from your friends.

    6. Re:people use bing by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 1

      Disabling third party cookies breaks all of this. I always see "Sign up to see what your friends like" even when actually logged into Facebook in another tab.

      I've yet to find a downside to this either.

  24. Thinking about it... by MerlinTheWizard · · Score: 1, Redundant
    ... isn't the internet, and especially social networks and search engines, becoming something worse than communism, where eveveryone's life, not just their properties, belongs to everybody?

    People, in their Internet-aholism, seem to care less and less about their privacy. Are we regressing on some level?

    But what's even more amazing is that this seemingly endless source of revenue makes people think it actually enhances their lives, whereas the added value to their lives is doubtful, at best.

    The Economist talks about the new tech bubble: http://www.economist.com/node/18681576, and this time, it seems like it's here to stay. All these new "technologies" look like they have something in common: depriving people of their freedom (the so-called "cloud", social networks, increasingly intrusive search engines...)

    Will I eventually be proved wrong? I hope so.

  25. Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's interesting because bing has been caught using Google search results to build their own search results.

    A more likely scenario is that you're nothing but a shill being paid off one of the PR firms hired to make Google look bad.

    1. Re:Shill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesting because bing has been caught using Google search results to build their own search results.

      If you are interested in facts instead of just calling everyone shills - that is a very inaccurate claim debunked (fx) by anyone interested in search. They used an opt-in feature in an opt-in toolbar to track user behaviour as one of several signals to train relevance. When people search using other search engines that would be one of the signals, but they weren't copying the search result - but the user action. If the user clicked a lower ranked link they would actually be doing almost the opposite of copying Googles recommendations. When the Google people installed and enabled this software, and then started doing these "sting" searches, they effectivly poisened this signal. And where able to confuse it enough in 7 of the 100 (!) cases they tried, to get Bing to believe this was a relevant page for that query. Probably because these made-up words had no other signals. What MS should have done is to ignore a singel signal like this when nothing supports it.

      A more likely scenario is that you're nothing but a shill being paid off one of the PR firms hired to make Google look bad.

      If you believe random comments on Slashdot is considered important enough for that you are living in fantasy land.

      but still waiting for the s.. comment trumping a technical argument about what actually happened.

    2. Re:Shill by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      However upon this news, I will no longer be using bing.

      Worst shill ever in that case. Why is it on Slashdot I see more accusations of shilling than on any other site for even remotely positive comments about a MS product?

  26. Prediction for the future: by QilessQi · · Score: 2

    When Facebook goes the way of MySpace and Friendster, the Bing results will look incredibly dated and dumb.

    Oh, but don't let me stop you, Microsoft. Please go right ahead. :-)

    --
    Koans and fables for the software engineer
    1. Re:Prediction for the future: by treeves · · Score: 1

      It's already too late to have gone the way of those things.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  27. What about objectivity in search results? by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    According to a video on this issue on moveon.org I saw yesterday, this potentially could become a problem.

    The gist of the video: If you choose to like certain search results (news/politics), won't that block you from seeing "the other side" in a 2-sided debate? If all you do is like conservative-leaning news sources, and the more liberal-leaning news sources are filtered out, how are you ever going to have an objective view of the world? Shouldn't we be the "gatekeepers" of what we want to read, not search engines or social media platforms?

    This sounds like it serves the narcissism in ourselves more than the ideal of what the internet is supposed to be - an objective purveyor of information.

    1. Re:What about objectivity in search results? by delinear · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, this isn't about filtering or ranking your results, it's just about sharing virtual word of mouth about sites, if you will. So you search for a particular TV and you get the exact same page of results you would have got before, but one of the sites you've not heard of has a few recommendations from people in your friends list. You can rely on their "liking" the site, or maybe go talk to them about their experience before you risk parting with money. From that point of view it sounds like it might be reasonably useful to those people who are already churning all their data into the Facebook machine. If it ever did start affecting rankings then I agree it would be more of a worry.

  28. The other shoe falls by Dagmar+d'Surreal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well... I guess this explains why it was that Facebook was trying to chum the waters about Google's social search features--because they were planning on partnering with Bing to do the exact same thing with social searches.

  29. Microsoft owns at least 20% of Facebook... by johnthorensen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Citation

    I've never understood why this situation doesn't garner more attention in all the debates about either Microsoft or Facebook. I'm not saying that MS owning part of FB is a bad thing or a good thing, it just amazes me that it's not brought up in conspiracy theories about FB privacy, or in stories about Microsoft's 'decline', or whatever...

    Even TFA doesn't mention this *in a story about MS integrating FB features into Bing*. Instead, it just says something about Google not going there because they're slinging mud back and forth with FB.

    1. Re:Microsoft owns at least 20% of Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do the maths right or read the article properly. 1.6% != 20%

    2. Re:Microsoft owns at least 20% of Facebook... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation

      Even TFA doesn't mention this *in a story about MS integrating FB features into Bing*. Instead, it just says something about Google not going there because they're slinging mud back and forth with FB.

      How did this note get modded "interesting"? Did no one read your citation?

      The facts from your citation are: a) Microsoft bought 1.6% of Facebook; and b) Zuckerberg owns 20% of Facebook.

      No article mentions Microsoft owning 20% of Facebook because there is no evidence that they do.

  30. Creepy by hduff · · Score: 1

    If there's anything that could make BING creepy, it's Facebook integration.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  31. Another reason not to use bing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I try to avoid any website that uses the like feature.

  32. Going Forward by mcnazar · · Score: 1

    ... Going Forward... /me throws up

  33. This can't happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    San Francisco recently passed a "sit lie ordinance". I doubt that Ballmer and Yang will be able to stand for very long, and as soon as they sit down the police watching from a distance will issue a citation and possibly arrest them as aggressive panhandlers.

  34. Bing keeps copying Google's bad ideas by Animats · · Score: 1

    Bing keeps faithfully replicating Google's bad ideas. When Google merged "places" data from the map search engine into web search results, Bing immediately followed. Google search quality went way down as their "places" system was heavily spammed. Bing had the same problem. Google de-emphasized Places results, but that was subtle and Bing didn't pick up on it. So, right now, Bing's results are about where Google was at their low point in late 2010.

    Now Google adds "like" (but not "hate" or "sucks" or "spam"), and so does Bing.

    Bing could potentially do better than Google, because Bing doesn't have an AdSense revenue stream to protect. Sites with third-party ads need to be looked at more critically. (We do that with SiteTruth, and it helps.) Google gets 30% of their ad revenue from AdSense ads, and can't afford to raise their standards too high. But Bing's model seems to be to emulate Google, good or bad.

  35. Recent TED Talk by TrevorB · · Score: 0

    Eli Pariser's recent TED talk states Google does this too, except instead of clicking a like button, it just assumes you like what you click on.

  36. It would be better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be better if it had a "Fuck Off" button. At least that one would get used.

  37. Let's rename Bing by eulernet · · Score: 1

    Let's rename Bing... Boogle !

  38. It isn't on by default - you have to enable it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Social search isn't on by default. You have to give Bing permission to access your Facebook data. Of course, no one will read this, as tinfoil hats and Microsoft bashing are more fun.

  39. Mrs. Anderson your son John liked..... by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 1

    "Asian ass porn". Would you like to look up "Asain ass porn" too?

    (This isn't going to work)

  40. So use Tracking Protection by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    If you aren't already filtering out queries to Facebook from your browser, then everything and its pig know you you use Facebook, how many friends you have, and more. The facebook integration with Bing isn't a matter of "Hey, revolutionary new idea: let's check whether you have a Facebook account whenever you use Bing!" but more of "since you never sign out of Facebook anyhow, we might as well use that info you're handing out to every site that queries Facebook to improve your search results."

    Personally, I use IE9's Tracking Protection feature to block all third party requests to Facebook. If I'm on Facebook.com (as in, URL of the active tab), my browser will talk to Facebook.com. If I'm not, as far as any script running in my browser is concerned, I don't even have a Facebook profile. It also makes a pretty good ad-blocker; unless I for some reason see a need to actually visit doubleclick directly, I never see any content from them (or any of a number of other sources). It automatically adds content to filter if it finds it on multiple third-party sites (the original idea being to block tracking scripts).

    On Firefox, I can get the same effect, if through slightly different mechanics, using AdBlock Plus and NoScript.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  41. Re: Bing Adds 'Like' Button by dave87656 · · Score: 1

    On Tuesday May 17, @01:17AM, David Gerard opined:
    > Steve Ballmer has reiterated his willingness to hook up with Yahoo!

    Yahoo already hooked-up with Microsoft's Bing 2 years ago. When you look at Yahoo search results, you're really looking at Bing results.

    And when you are looking at Bing Results you are actually looking at the results Bing copied from Google.

    http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914