4 ms·

This post is a great rebuttal to those who think that Google is becoming a lumbering giant. I wonder how long it would have taken Microsoft to respond to a simi

by arman0 16y ago

This post is a great rebuttal to those who think that Google is becoming a lumbering giant. I wonder how long it would have taken Microsoft to respond to a similar situation.

kqr2 16y ago
One of the search terms mentioned in the NY Times articles was "Christian Audigier glasses". On Bing, the questionable www.decormyeyes.com site is still the 5th listing. http://www.bing.com/search?q=Christian+Audigier+glasses&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sk=&sc=1-23 http://www.bing.com/search?q=Christian+Audigier+glasses&...
- achille 16y ago
  They're still the 4th result when searching for "discount designer sunglasses" -- so they have not been banned quite yet.
  - kqr2 16y ago
    Confirmed: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1822&bih=1323&q=discount+designer+sunglasses&aq=f&aqi=g6g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=182... Google's algorithm needs some more improvement.
    - almond 16y ago
      I see it only on Page 2 an hour later. You were probably on the trailing end of the rollout.
- chollida1 16y ago
  I don't see it in the bing search results anymore. I guess the answer to how long would it take Bing to change is, about as long as it takes Google.
  - Frazzydee 16y ago
    They're on the 4th page, as of this writing.
  - yoak 16y ago
    Not at all! For the reason that google explained on the blog, it is a dumb response to remove or penalize this particular company in the wake of the media froth. The admirable and responsible thing to do is to figure out how to make the thing work better in general to cover the hundreds or thousands of similar cases not in the New York Times. This issue is complex and I don't have great overall answers. It isn't clear how search results should bias based on sentiment. (That's discussed on the blog and here.) One thing I am sure of is that I respect discovering a result they consider bad and looking at the algorithms that caused the result and I don't respect deciding that you got egg on your face for the results of your algorithm in this case and jiggering the results. Of course, we don't know that Bing didn't come up with algorithmic improvements, but the comment you're replying to isn't refuted in any way by the fact that the result has disappeared (or greatly diminished) in Bing. To the contrary, in addition to my bias to agree with the OP on Google / Bing, when one company says, "We've taken a look, made small improvements already that have some impact, and we're looking to make more" and the search result simply disappears in the other case, I'm inclined to take that as specific evidence of the former doing the better job.
    - doty 16y ago
      Let's be more specific with our arguments. You can't argue that Microsoft didn't respond quickly, because there has been a change in Bing's results. The original comment asked "how long until Microsoft addressed this problem?", and it appears that Microsoft has now addressed it, so the point that the comment made stands. The fact that Microsoft may or may not have addressed the problem by "jiggering the result" has nothing to do with it. There is no evidence one way or the other. You may be deeply suspicious of Microsoft's behavior, and that's perfectly fine. Let's just be clear about what we're saying. It would have been more direct to say "Microsoft may have responded quickly, but I bet they just cheated."
      - 16y ago
Encosia 16y ago
> I wonder how long it would have taken Microsoft to respond to a similar situation. When ASP.NET's AES implementation was exposed to automated attack recently, the DevDiv guys got out in front of the issue with a workaround in about four days: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/18/important-asp-net-security-vulnerability.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/18/important-... Then, they continued to stay on top of it, providing guidance until a real patch was available: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/20/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-asp-net-security-vulnerability.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/20/frequently... http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/24/update-on-asp-net-vulnerability.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/24/update-on-... http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/27/asp-net-security-update-shipping-tuesday-sept-28th.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/27/asp-net-se... http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/28/asp-net-security-update-now-available.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/28/asp-net-se... http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/30/asp-net-security-fix-now-on-windows-update.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/30/asp-net-se...

by arman0 16y ago

This post is a great rebuttal to those who think that Google is becoming a lumbering giant. I wonder how long it would have taken Microsoft to respond to a similar situation.

kqr2 16y ago

One of the search terms mentioned in the NY Times articles was "Christian Audigier glasses". On Bing, the questionable www.decormyeyes.com site is still the 5th listing. http://www.bing.com/search?q=Christian+Audigier+glasses&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n&sk=&sc=1-23 http://www.bing.com/search?q=Christian+Audigier+glasses&...

achille 16y ago
They're still the 4th result when searching for "discount designer sunglasses" -- so they have not been banned quite yet.
- kqr2 16y ago
  Confirmed: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1822&bih=1323&q=discount+designer+sunglasses&aq=f&aqi=g6g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=182... Google's algorithm needs some more improvement.
  - almond 16y ago
    I see it only on Page 2 an hour later. You were probably on the trailing end of the rollout.
chollida1 16y ago
I don't see it in the bing search results anymore. I guess the answer to how long would it take Bing to change is, about as long as it takes Google.
- Frazzydee 16y ago
  They're on the 4th page, as of this writing.
- yoak 16y ago
  Not at all! For the reason that google explained on the blog, it is a dumb response to remove or penalize this particular company in the wake of the media froth. The admirable and responsible thing to do is to figure out how to make the thing work better in general to cover the hundreds or thousands of similar cases not in the New York Times. This issue is complex and I don't have great overall answers. It isn't clear how search results should bias based on sentiment. (That's discussed on the blog and here.) One thing I am sure of is that I respect discovering a result they consider bad and looking at the algorithms that caused the result and I don't respect deciding that you got egg on your face for the results of your algorithm in this case and jiggering the results. Of course, we don't know that Bing didn't come up with algorithmic improvements, but the comment you're replying to isn't refuted in any way by the fact that the result has disappeared (or greatly diminished) in Bing. To the contrary, in addition to my bias to agree with the OP on Google / Bing, when one company says, "We've taken a look, made small improvements already that have some impact, and we're looking to make more" and the search result simply disappears in the other case, I'm inclined to take that as specific evidence of the former doing the better job.
  - doty 16y ago
    Let's be more specific with our arguments. You can't argue that Microsoft didn't respond quickly, because there has been a change in Bing's results. The original comment asked "how long until Microsoft addressed this problem?", and it appears that Microsoft has now addressed it, so the point that the comment made stands. The fact that Microsoft may or may not have addressed the problem by "jiggering the result" has nothing to do with it. There is no evidence one way or the other. You may be deeply suspicious of Microsoft's behavior, and that's perfectly fine. Let's just be clear about what we're saying. It would have been more direct to say "Microsoft may have responded quickly, but I bet they just cheated."
    - 16y ago

Encosia 16y ago

> I wonder how long it would have taken Microsoft to respond to a similar situation. When ASP.NET's AES implementation was exposed to automated attack recently, the DevDiv guys got out in front of the issue with a workaround in about four days: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/18/important-asp-net-security-vulnerability.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/18/important-... Then, they continued to stay on top of it, providing guidance until a real patch was available: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/20/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-asp-net-security-vulnerability.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/20/frequently... http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/24/update-on-asp-net-vulnerability.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/24/update-on-... http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/27/asp-net-security-update-shipping-tuesday-sept-28th.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/27/asp-net-se... http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/28/asp-net-security-update-now-available.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/28/asp-net-se... http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/30/asp-net-security-fix-now-on-windows-update.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2010/09/30/asp-net-se...