7 ms·
The statements by the Microsoft people remind me of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." They don't seem to realize that ordinary consumers don't
by pg 16y ago
The statements by the Microsoft people remind me of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
They don't seem to realize that ordinary consumers don't care about this, and that the people who do care (e.g. investors, potential employees) are smart enough that these evasions just make the problem worse.
- kenjackson 16y agoWhy would potential employees take this negatively? This is exactly the type of thing I'd love to work on. Give me opt-in to your web browsing characteristics, and let me optimize your searches. Opt-in is the key. I'm certainly an odd one here, but I'm more inclined to use the Bing toolbar due to this, although the perf cost is still too high to use any toolbar, IMO. What would be nice is if the browsers had an open format of your browsing history that you can send to providers of your choice...
- axod 16y agoMost people want to work in a company that innovates. This isn't innovation. Any fool can write something that copies data from a competitor.
- kenjackson 16y agoLike how Google copies the titles of web pages and snippets and puts them in search results? Ahh... the innovation is not in the "content", but how the content is determined. Google crawls the web, copying content, creates and index, and a sophisticated formula for determining relevance of search. MS has innovated by taking this one step further by saying, "if you opt-in we'll use your behavior as part of our index and relevance metric". So they no more copied from Google than Google copies from CNN. But in the same way Google has created value from mined data, Bing has created value from mined opt-in user behavior. That's the innovation. If one can't see that, I think most of these places would do a "no hire" in any case.
- axod 16y agoWith that logic you should definitely work at MS. It'd be a perfect fit.
- kenjackson 16y agoI agree. I do think it indicates a cultural position, and to the extent that you don't fit culturally you should get a "no hire" to the benefit of both parties. That is why I disagree that this is harmful to potential employees. I'd no sooner want to work for someone who thought this indicated inferior technology as they'd want me to work with them.
- axod 16y agoJust to address your 'logic' above though: > "Like how Google copies the titles of web pages and snippets and puts them in search results?" Google copies parts of web pages to benefit the website. To send traffic to them. It's beneficial to both parties which is opt-out by the webmaster. How does Google benefit from Bing copying their search results? They don't. How can Google opt-out of Bing doing it? They can't. Bing copying other search engines results is throwing down the gauntlet and stooping to desperation. It's MS announcing "we are not a technology company" - something I think would put off candidates who want to work at a technology company. You might find it all morally acceptable, or even impressive. I don't.
- kenjackson 16y agoBing isn't copying the Google page. Bing is copying what the user typed in a form. And a link the user clicked. The benefit to the user is improved searches from Bing in the future. Google can block Bing from crawling the search results, which it does. But Google does NOT OWN what the user typed, nor the URL the user goes to. If MS is scraping the page that's one thing. But if MS is using information provided by the user that the user has given them permission to use, then it is completely fine. I find it morally acceptable and impressive. EDIT: Google could block users that have the Bing toolbar installed from using Google search.
- contextfree 16y agomoreover, Clinton's statement was an outright lie, not an evasion. And it didn't seem to hurt his approval ratings. The analogy makes no sense.
- pg 16y agoApparently his justification was that he didn't consider what happened to have been "sexual relations," because he hadn't been what one might call an active participant. The far extreme of evasion, certainly, but the narrowness of his definition of "sexual relationships" seems in the same ballpark as the narrowness of Microsoft's definition of "copy."
- contextfree 16y agoI think Clinton's actions were well within the common-language definition of "sexual relations". I don't think the Google "experiments" showed anything about Bing's behavior that falls within the common-language definition of "copy".
- MaysonL 16y agoAlso, Clinton is of a generation that grew up with the understanding that gentlemen don't "kiss and tell".
- rbanffy 16y ago> Clinton's statement was an outright lie He employed a very narrow definition of "sexual relations" that was made possible by the ambiguity of what a sexual relationship actually is.
- lanstein 16y agoIt depends on what your definition of is, is.
- pg 16y agoBecause if Bing has to rely on Google Search's solutions to problems it should itself be able to solve, that implies it's inferior technology.
- contextfree 16y agoProblems like returning meaningful results for "hiybbprqag"?
- spiffworks 16y agoNo, problems like returning meaningful results for "torsoraphy". See the first example that is provided in Danny Sullivan's post.
- brudgers 16y agoNot to rationalize away the similarity between nonsense words and search results, but there are legitimate reasons why gross misspellings might yield similar results. Among them are that similar algorithms may have been derived from similar libraries and academic literature. With 25+ years in the word processor business Microsoft certainly has significant experience with spell check and algorithmically deciphering bungled words - The claim that Google has better code for deciphering jumbled spelling is not self-evident.
- contextfree 16y agoThe suspicious part is that the "corrected" version only appeared in one link, the first. So it doesn't seem to have actually recognized the misspelling as such, but associated it with the Wikipedia page through some other mechanism. There's definitely a circumstantial case that it's through the Google clickstream, though I don't think that's the only plausible explanation (especially given that it's a Wikipedia page).
- brudgers 16y agoRight. Typically, Wikipedia would know have a record of the search term being used to reach the page. Of course, it is plausible only if Wikipedia shares that information with others.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]