How exactly is Bing cheating? Have you even read up on what happened? Bing isn't scraping Google search results. It was responding to what users were clicking on--in this case, the click data was submitted through the Bing toolbar by Google employees clicking on their own honeypot. Because of the small data set and the esoteric search terms, the data was weight higher than normal.
"Industrial espionage?" Give me a break. I'm sure pro-Google, anti-Microsoft Slashdot is going to have such an objective, non-biased opinion on this situation.
Hey, another anonymous pro-Google post. Isn't it weird how anonymous pro-Google posts show up in every Google article on Slashdot?
Microsoft wasn't caught doing anything wrong. Bing was responding to what users were clicking on. It doesn't care if that source data was Google employees clicking on their own honeypot.
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?
That's not what was happening. I've noticed a lot of Slashdotters probably didn't RTFA in the original submission, didn't RTFA in the followup, and haven't RTFA in this submission either.
Google employees installed the Bing toolbar and enabled the feature that submitted click data to Microsoft. Then, they clicked on the honeypots. If users are clicking on data, Bing will use that data regardless of the source, even if it's Google.com. Because Google's search engine was the only source of that data, and the search terms themselves were nonsense terms, Bing's results happened to match Google's. In other words, Bing was correctly returning results based on what users were clicking--even if those users happened to be Google employees clicking on their own honeypot. The small dataset meant that the source data was weighed more highly than normal, which wouldn't happen for standard search terms. Notice that Google hasn't made any accusations about Bing copying results for actual search terms people care about. It's only these nonsense terms they fed to Bing.
Basically, your entire post is bullshit. You obviously haven't read up on what's going on here. But hey, it got you and several others an instant "+5 Insightful" right out of the gate on Slashdot--a pro-Google, anti-Microsoft community. Gee, what are the odds?
Why would you hope others boycott him? Why do you care if he jokes about Cairo to announce a new line of shoes? How does it affect your life, and who is he hurting by it? America has become a country full of wimps feigning outrage and looking for meaningless causes to take up.
How is making a Cairo joke on Twitter selling things "via the blood of others?" Hell, Twitter itself benefits from people talking about Cairo on Twitter.
You're another phony who's not actually offended. You're pretending to be offended so you can feel self-righteous. Nobody is really offended by Kenneth Cole's tweet.
It's tacky, but I find the fake uproar over it amusing. What a bunch of wimps this country has become! Absolutely nobody is actually offended over the joke--they're just pretending to be offended for attention or other reasons.
I actually find the absurd stupidity and tastelessness behind his joke kind of funny.
iOS on the iPhone and on the iPad are the same operating systems but have different interfaces. Using the same OS allows for universal apps that seamlessly run on both. This is further fragmentation of the Android platform.
Google collects data the users send to Google itself. Bing collects data users send to another website, namely Google. Don't you see the difference here?
So what if Bing collects your web history? You have to install the toolbar and tell it to accept that click-data. Google also collects your web history if you use Chrome or install its plug-in in other browsers, and it indexes your emails, chats, and more if you use any of its services. They also drive vans through your neighborhood and "accidentally" archive private, passwords, emails, and other data. This is what advertising companies like Google do.
Would you think it OK for Bing to collect data you send to your bank, like account numbers and passwords? What makes Google different from your bank?
If a user willingly installs the Bing toolbar and enables the data-sending feature, then yes, they are saying it's okay for Bing to collect the data. That was my point--you portrayed Microsoft as installing some evil data-snooper in Windows monitoring everything the user does against their will, when in reality, it's a browser toolbar you have to install and give permission to, and it monitors your web history to improve its search results.
All that happened here is that Bing got gamed because the garbage search terms were so obscure that they got weighed highly after Google employees fed the data to Bing through that toolbar. I don't care if you're a Google fan or a Microsoft fan. It's a total non-story.
The real story here is that Google felt so threatened by Bing that they actually set up a "honeypot" to try to embarrass them. Apparently, this is how Google is choosing to compete with other search engines.
The problem is that Microsoft are again leveraging their windows monopoly to gain an unfair competitive advantage over a competitor, they are effectively using the massive installed base of IE as a distributed computer that harvests the most relevant results from their competitors' search corpus in an attempt to close the gulf that would otherwise exist due to Google's massive head start.
Um...how? You have to install the Bing toolbar and enable the data-sending feature. Bing isn't "harvesting" results from Google; it's harvesting results from users, and in this case, the data was so obscure that it was weighed higher than normal.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I fail to see how utilizing a massive userbase as a distributed computer in order to deliver more relevant search results is a bad thing or how it's any different at all than from what Google does when it indexes web history, Gmail, chats, and so on. Microsoft absolutely should take advantage of its massive install base. After all, that's what Google does.
It's really amusing for you to be talking about monopoly concerns in an article involving Google.
Thanks for telling me what to think about The Daily, Slashdot! Now I don't have to check it out and make a judgement for myself like an intelligent human.
I'll just file this article away next to the "iMac is doomed," "iPod is doomed," "iPod nano is doomed, and "iPad is doomed," articles from Slashdot's past.
What Microsoft is tantamount to admitting is that "customer data" includes searches on a rival engine, and the relevant results.
No, this is not what they're saying. Google employees installed the Bing toolbar and enabled the feature to send click-data to Bing. Then they fed that data to Bing. Because the data was small and obscure, it was weighed higher. Basically, Google gamed Bing's search engine for some garbage search terms. For normal search terms, the corrupt data would be weighed much lower as to be insignificant.
I also find it bizarre that, on a website like Slashdot which is constantly ranting about copyrights and cheering on piracy sites, the idea of using public search results on another website would be such a sin to some people. That Google even had to resort to this stunt suggests they're worried about Bing.
Oh, for fuck's sake. It's the Bing toolbar. You have to install it yourself, and you have to agree to enable the feature to send your click-data to Microsoft.
You really want to talk about unwanted data-collection in a story involving Google?
How many people are going to respond without even reading the original articles?
Those terms came up because Google engineers fed them to Bing by installing the Bing toolbar and performing the searches with the feature to send click-data to Microsoft enabled. Because the terms were obscure and had few other results, they were weighed higher.
I'm not really sure what Google is trying to pull here. Anyone who reads up on what is happening can see that Bing isn't "copying" Google's search results. It's just responding to obscure (and therefore highly-weighed) data that was intentionally provided to it by users. Apparently, PR stunts like this are how Google chooses to compete with other search engines.
If you'd read the original article, you'd see that Google employees installed the Bing toolbar, enabled the feature to send click data to Bing, searched for obscure terms, and now they're complaining that Bing did exactly what it's supposed to do with the user data it was provided. The data was weighed higher because the terms were obscure, and so there were no other results to display for them. Normal results don't get gamed like that.
Basically, this is a PR stunt from a company that is, for some reason, worried about Bing.
So basically they're saying they're just collecting information from their customers. But their toolbar is SENDING their customers to google to get the information, which is then automatically forwarded to them.
Wow. You really don't have any idea what's going on, do you?
No, they're not, you tool. There's no "theft." Google employees installed the Bing toolbar and enabled its history tracking feature, so they willingly provided that data to Bing. Bing saw the data that these users were generating and responded accordingly for that particular data. It was weighed higher than normal because it was unusual search data that had no other results.
Also, Slashdotters should know that Google employees have confirmed in the past that they post here, and there sure are a lot of anonymous posts showing up to defend Google in this story.
Well, if their users include Google employees who are sending specific click-data through the Bing toolbar, then yes, Bing is understanding what its users are searching for. The real story is that people at Google are worried enough about Bing to have pulled a PR stunt like this.
Of course, I realize this is Slashdot, so Google is automatically right be default and Microsoft is wrong. Still, Google is wrong in accusing Bing of directly copying their results. Bing is just displaying what its users are searching for, and those were the searches that Google employees fed the Bing toolbar.
Have you not been following along? Google employees willingly sent the data using the Bing toolbar. Bing isn't directly copying Google--they're just using the click-data that their users are providing them, even if they happen to include Google employees with the Bing toolbar enabled.
That Google even came out with this stunt is proof that they're more worried about Bing than they've been letting on. After the H.264 fiasco, Google is becoming very arrogant lately.
You're a blind Google fanboy. Sorry, but there's no other way to put it.
Google's employees fed Bing click-data through the Bing toolbar, so Bing provided the search results relevant to those search terms, which were what those users were searching for. You claim it doesn't matter how Microsoft got the data, but it does.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly is Bing cheating? Have you even read up on what happened? Bing isn't scraping Google search results. It was responding to what users were clicking on--in this case, the click data was submitted through the Bing toolbar by Google employees clicking on their own honeypot. Because of the small data set and the esoteric search terms, the data was weight higher than normal.
"Industrial espionage?" Give me a break. I'm sure pro-Google, anti-Microsoft Slashdot is going to have such an objective, non-biased opinion on this situation.
Hey, another anonymous pro-Google post. Isn't it weird how anonymous pro-Google posts show up in every Google article on Slashdot?
Microsoft wasn't caught doing anything wrong. Bing was responding to what users were clicking on. It doesn't care if that source data was Google employees clicking on their own honeypot.
That's not what was happening. I've noticed a lot of Slashdotters probably didn't RTFA in the original submission, didn't RTFA in the followup, and haven't RTFA in this submission either.
Google employees installed the Bing toolbar and enabled the feature that submitted click data to Microsoft. Then, they clicked on the honeypots. If users are clicking on data, Bing will use that data regardless of the source, even if it's Google.com. Because Google's search engine was the only source of that data, and the search terms themselves were nonsense terms, Bing's results happened to match Google's. In other words, Bing was correctly returning results based on what users were clicking--even if those users happened to be Google employees clicking on their own honeypot. The small dataset meant that the source data was weighed more highly than normal, which wouldn't happen for standard search terms. Notice that Google hasn't made any accusations about Bing copying results for actual search terms people care about. It's only these nonsense terms they fed to Bing.
Basically, your entire post is bullshit. You obviously haven't read up on what's going on here. But hey, it got you and several others an instant "+5 Insightful" right out of the gate on Slashdot--a pro-Google, anti-Microsoft community. Gee, what are the odds?
Fact: Nobody in the world was actually offended by Kenneth Cole's tweet. It's fake outrage.
Why would you hope others boycott him? Why do you care if he jokes about Cairo to announce a new line of shoes? How does it affect your life, and who is he hurting by it? America has become a country full of wimps feigning outrage and looking for meaningless causes to take up.
How is making a Cairo joke on Twitter selling things "via the blood of others?" Hell, Twitter itself benefits from people talking about Cairo on Twitter.
You're another phony who's not actually offended. You're pretending to be offended so you can feel self-righteous. Nobody is really offended by Kenneth Cole's tweet.
Oh, no, a single post clogged up the all-important Twitter Cairo feeds, because everyone else's little tweets are so important.
It's tacky, but I find the fake uproar over it amusing. What a bunch of wimps this country has become! Absolutely nobody is actually offended over the joke--they're just pretending to be offended for attention or other reasons.
I actually find the absurd stupidity and tastelessness behind his joke kind of funny.
That must be why the iPad is the #1 tablet.
What happened to all the good anonymous Slashdot trolls?
iOS on the iPhone and on the iPad are the same operating systems but have different interfaces. Using the same OS allows for universal apps that seamlessly run on both. This is further fragmentation of the Android platform.
So what if Bing collects your web history? You have to install the toolbar and tell it to accept that click-data. Google also collects your web history if you use Chrome or install its plug-in in other browsers, and it indexes your emails, chats, and more if you use any of its services. They also drive vans through your neighborhood and "accidentally" archive private, passwords, emails, and other data. This is what advertising companies like Google do.
If a user willingly installs the Bing toolbar and enables the data-sending feature, then yes, they are saying it's okay for Bing to collect the data. That was my point--you portrayed Microsoft as installing some evil data-snooper in Windows monitoring everything the user does against their will, when in reality, it's a browser toolbar you have to install and give permission to, and it monitors your web history to improve its search results.
All that happened here is that Bing got gamed because the garbage search terms were so obscure that they got weighed highly after Google employees fed the data to Bing through that toolbar. I don't care if you're a Google fan or a Microsoft fan. It's a total non-story.
The real story here is that Google felt so threatened by Bing that they actually set up a "honeypot" to try to embarrass them. Apparently, this is how Google is choosing to compete with other search engines.
Um...how? You have to install the Bing toolbar and enable the data-sending feature. Bing isn't "harvesting" results from Google; it's harvesting results from users, and in this case, the data was so obscure that it was weighed higher than normal.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I fail to see how utilizing a massive userbase as a distributed computer in order to deliver more relevant search results is a bad thing or how it's any different at all than from what Google does when it indexes web history, Gmail, chats, and so on. Microsoft absolutely should take advantage of its massive install base. After all, that's what Google does.
It's really amusing for you to be talking about monopoly concerns in an article involving Google.
Thanks for telling me what to think about The Daily, Slashdot! Now I don't have to check it out and make a judgement for myself like an intelligent human.
I'll just file this article away next to the "iMac is doomed," "iPod is doomed," "iPod nano is doomed, and "iPad is doomed," articles from Slashdot's past.
No, this is not what they're saying. Google employees installed the Bing toolbar and enabled the feature to send click-data to Bing. Then they fed that data to Bing. Because the data was small and obscure, it was weighed higher. Basically, Google gamed Bing's search engine for some garbage search terms. For normal search terms, the corrupt data would be weighed much lower as to be insignificant.
I also find it bizarre that, on a website like Slashdot which is constantly ranting about copyrights and cheering on piracy sites, the idea of using public search results on another website would be such a sin to some people. That Google even had to resort to this stunt suggests they're worried about Bing.
Oh, for fuck's sake. It's the Bing toolbar. You have to install it yourself, and you have to agree to enable the feature to send your click-data to Microsoft.
You really want to talk about unwanted data-collection in a story involving Google?
How many people are going to respond without even reading the original articles?
Those terms came up because Google engineers fed them to Bing by installing the Bing toolbar and performing the searches with the feature to send click-data to Microsoft enabled. Because the terms were obscure and had few other results, they were weighed higher.
I'm not really sure what Google is trying to pull here. Anyone who reads up on what is happening can see that Bing isn't "copying" Google's search results. It's just responding to obscure (and therefore highly-weighed) data that was intentionally provided to it by users. Apparently, PR stunts like this are how Google chooses to compete with other search engines.
If you'd read the original article, you'd see that Google employees installed the Bing toolbar, enabled the feature to send click data to Bing, searched for obscure terms, and now they're complaining that Bing did exactly what it's supposed to do with the user data it was provided. The data was weighed higher because the terms were obscure, and so there were no other results to display for them. Normal results don't get gamed like that.
Basically, this is a PR stunt from a company that is, for some reason, worried about Bing.
Wow. You really don't have any idea what's going on, do you?
No, they're not, you tool. There's no "theft." Google employees installed the Bing toolbar and enabled its history tracking feature, so they willingly provided that data to Bing. Bing saw the data that these users were generating and responded accordingly for that particular data. It was weighed higher than normal because it was unusual search data that had no other results.
Also, Slashdotters should know that Google employees have confirmed in the past that they post here, and there sure are a lot of anonymous posts showing up to defend Google in this story.
Yeah, but this is Slashdot. That means it's a huge story, Microsoft should be embarrassed, Google is awesome, Google is great, Google is God, etc.
Well, if their users include Google employees who are sending specific click-data through the Bing toolbar, then yes, Bing is understanding what its users are searching for. The real story is that people at Google are worried enough about Bing to have pulled a PR stunt like this.
Of course, I realize this is Slashdot, so Google is automatically right be default and Microsoft is wrong. Still, Google is wrong in accusing Bing of directly copying their results. Bing is just displaying what its users are searching for, and those were the searches that Google employees fed the Bing toolbar.
Have you not been following along? Google employees willingly sent the data using the Bing toolbar. Bing isn't directly copying Google--they're just using the click-data that their users are providing them, even if they happen to include Google employees with the Bing toolbar enabled.
That Google even came out with this stunt is proof that they're more worried about Bing than they've been letting on. After the H.264 fiasco, Google is becoming very arrogant lately.
Through the Bing toolbar by agreeing to send the data to Bing.
You're a blind Google fanboy. Sorry, but there's no other way to put it.
Google's employees fed Bing click-data through the Bing toolbar, so Bing provided the search results relevant to those search terms, which were what those users were searching for. You claim it doesn't matter how Microsoft got the data, but it does.
They're not using Google's results. They're using the click-data that Google's own employees fed to Bing through the Bing toolbar.