6 ms·

Setting aside the ethical questions, because I don't really care, when I look at the probable outcomes of this, I think it's wise for Google to point out what's

Setting aside the ethical questions, because I don't really care, when I look at the probable outcomes of this, I think it's wise for Google to point out what's going on here. This string of stories positions Google as the smart, sciency search engine, and Bing as a collection of hacks. This is how I'd want the public to perceive the battle if I were Google. But even though this makes Google look good, PR-wise, Bing should still use this trick, if it makes their search results better. It seems like a short term solution, but a good one to get their results more competitive, while they work on the core problems Google has already solved. Google should call them on it and expose their hackery, so people know where the good search science still comes from, but Bing should still do it. They are both playing the game very rationally. As an aside, I don't buy the arguments of "they shouldn't be mentioning Bing." This isn't like the POTUS running against some no-name congressman - this battle is already well-publicized, via hundreds of millions of dollars of ad buys by Microsoft, so the general public already knows there is a competition between Bing and Google.

tmsh 16y ago
Yes, but historically this is how Microsoft wins. They win by entering the dialogue. They copied UI from Apple back in the day, and then were able to cut prices, etc., and Apple lost (at least for a decade). I would caution Google to ignore the controversy completely and move on to more interesting problems in search. Microsoft is very good at playing this game increasingly on their terms, and then they win. ETA. As a quick caveat. I have nothing but respect for many Microsoft employees. And I don't mean to generalize. I just can't help but remember the similarities to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso... Being 'right' is sometimes a premature optimization.... ETA2. Esp. with someone who is very good at making the second dance move. But think back on all the major Microsoft products (IE v. Netscape, Office v. Lotus, though this is a reach maybe, Xbox v. PS, .NET v. Java, etc.). It's just a different approach. But it's a mistake to not analyze it and appreciate it for what it is..
- city41 16y ago
  Yes but when Microsoft took on Apple back in the day, they were young, agile and relevant. The same is much harder to say of the MS of today. They aren't winning very often anymore, especially in the consumer space. And I say this as a Microsoft alum and really enjoyed my time at the company.
- Getahobby 16y ago
  Wait a second. Can't let you completely get away with the MS stealing UI from Apple comment when SJobs stole it from Xerox/PARC first. Although to be fair he does readily admit the thievery.
  - dreyfiz 16y ago
    No "thievery" was involved, he licensed it in exchange for access to pre-IPO Apple stock.
    - Getahobby 16y ago
      I didn't mean thievery in the classic sense. Only in the sense that he/AAPL didn't come up with the innovation of the GUI as the parent was suggesting.
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      Hmm, How would you explain Xerox suing Apple over this? http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html?scp=3&sq=apple+xerox&st=nyt http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xero... I can't find a mention of Apple licensing anything in the wikipedia article either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation#cite_note-xeroxsuesapple-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso... Also this claims to debunk the story: http://books.google.pl/books?id=gzAEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA3&hl=it&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.pl/books?id=gzAEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA3&#38... "Xerox did at one time owne stock in Apple, they were purchased as an investment" (All this followed from the Wikipedia page, I'll admit)
Jd 16y ago
Playing PR games (even if you win) may make you look good at the moment but has a tendency to spiral into more PR games instead of a better product. Also, as stated on the earlier HN thread on this topic, it isn't at all clear that Google will come out on top. Many users suggested that the Google toolbar collected data on the sites people visited and if the Bing toolbar does also -- well is that really a game Google wants to play? Bing could come out a net winner given the increased attention on their search engine. Why does this last aspect matter? It is an acknowledgment that Google is taking their competition seriously, which indicates a bit of uncertainty with respect to their own product. The more that goes into this (esp. if Bing hits back w/ info on how Google historically has mined data with their own toolbar) the more that Google has to lose and Microsoft has to win.
po 16y ago
As an aside, I don't buy the arguments of "they shouldn't be mentioning Bing." I do buy that argument but only for mass media PR type stuff. The market leader can only give attention and raise awareness to the followers. The thing is in this case, it's a technical blog posting and really anyone following that already knows about Bing. It was in searchengineland. If they had a link to it on their home page it would be a different story.
qjz 16y ago
Sciency? Their experiment appears to lack a control of any kind. They only use a Google search page as the source for the links, one that is specially engineered to return specific results for a specific term. Then they count the coincidences to support the conclusion that Bing is stealing search results from Google. Where is the non-Google page of links? Where is the comparison using links from a specially crafted bookmarks file? What is the margin of error? Where are the plausible alternative explanations? If this had been a science experiment, it would have been scoffed at for its narrow scope and predetermined outcome.
- kaffiene 16y ago
  Are you kidding? You are a moron - this is as close to a smoking gun as you can get. You did get the part that there was NO relationship between the meaningless search phrases and the returned page right? What POSSIBLE situation could explain Bing returning the Google returned page without recourse to Google's search?
  - recoiledsnake 16y ago
    >Are you kidding? You are a moron - this is as close to a smoking gun as you can get. You did get the part that there was NO relationship between the meaningless search phrases and the returned page right? What POSSIBLE situation could explain Bing returning the Google returned page without recourse to Google's search Eh? Then why did it happen only in 6% or 7% of the cases tested and not close to 100%, a fact that the blog conveniently glosses over?
  - qjz 16y ago
    Google created the relationship when they enabled user tracking features in IE and Bing Toolbar, then used a specially created Google page as the HTTP REFERER to the desired page. Go ahead and duplicate the experiment using a non-Google page or file. I'll bet Bing "steals" those results, too. Google seeded Bing, plain and simple. Note also that the example search links in the blog post are all from the non-SSL Google search. User tracking doesn't necessarily rely on the HTTP REFERER in this case, since the browser already has access to all of the necessary information. But it would still be interesting to see the experiment repeated using the SSL-encrypted Google search, which disables referrer information, along with non-Google sources.
tony_landis 16y ago
The result of this PR move does not decrease my opinion of Microsoft as a company, or Bing as a product. I held them both in fairly low regard already. The result of all this is that I now perceive Bing to be considered more of a contender by Google than I previously did. I doubt that is what Google intended. But then, this PR move was probably meant to change the opinion of people who had a higher opinion of Microsoft and Bing than myself, or were just casual users with no real position. Either way, it does put Microsoft on the defense for something that I wouldn't construe as malicious.
kmavm 16y ago
Especially in the case of spelling correction, it is not so much that Google has "solved hard problems" to get the long-tail right, as that they have a monopoly on the relevant data. Unlike all their competitors, Google has 12 years of the entire history of queries and clicks to mine for signals about how to rewrite queries. Even if you have all of Google's algorithms, it is technologically impossible to build a better query rewriter, because you don't have their data. You can't buy this data short of buying Google, and if you believe Peter Norvig, it's an irreplaceable component of Google's quality advantage. Microsoft, and any other would-be competitor, would essentially be committing suicide not to try to make up this data gap. If their toolbar is opt-in on the part of users, and you agree with me that my click history is mine to share with Microsoft if I so choose, this is helping consumers. Without some of this data, building a viable competitor to Google is impossible, and consumers do benefit from competition in web search. Disclaimer: I work in Facebook search. Not the same thing as web search, and I don't really care whether Bing or Google "wins", though I'm temporarily rooting for Bing because as a user I want better, more competitive web search.
- andrewljohnson 16y ago
  Exactly... to beat Google, you need time and data. Or you can do what MS did to fill the gap for a while.
  - kmavm 16y ago
    Actually, time won't do it either. Unless you somehow compete with Google today, the data will never come. Google only gets the query volume it does because it is the quality leader. The query volume itself helps Google to retain its quality lead. Google likes to portray search quality as being algorithm-driven, and it is to some extent, but in the modern era quality is also about collaborative filtering with clicks. If you don't have the users, you don't see the clicks, and you can't have the quality. Web search is a natural winner-take-all monopoly, unless someone gets creative, which is what Microsoft seems to have done.
    - bad_user 16y ago
iamelgringo 16y ago
when I look at the probable outcomes of this... In discussions of this, I'm always surprised that people forget that Microsoft has had the axe of anti-trust litigation looming over it's head for years. They haven't been able to compete aggressively on a number of fronts, because they could easily be seen as anti-competitive, and end back in the courts. But, now, search is a market where they are clearly the underdog. And, Microsoft finally has an arena they can step into and fight bare bloody knuckled without arousing anti-trust eyebrows in the US or EU governments. And, Bing is competing rather well. Bing launched 18 months ago, and they now have 30% of the total search market (Yes, the bought a good bit of that through Yahoo). And, they are finally presenting a viable competitor to Google in general web search, which I believe is good for all. Not only that, but in a number of search verticals, IMHO Bing's technology is quite a bit better than Google's (image search, video search and travel search). I think Google has a reason to be scared and start throwing punches. Microsoft has a much more diverse revenue stream, and they can afford to lose money on search for years without breaking a sweat. Google primarily has a single source of revenue: search advertising. It'll be interesting to see how Google reacts when it's back is against the wall fighting for it's only revenue stream. I agree with the OP. This is going to be a fun fight to watch.

tmsh 16y ago

Yes, but historically this is how Microsoft wins. They win by entering the dialogue. They copied UI from Apple back in the day, and then were able to cut prices, etc., and Apple lost (at least for a decade). I would caution Google to ignore the controversy completely and move on to more interesting problems in search. Microsoft is very good at playing this game increasingly on their terms, and then they win. ETA. As a quick caveat. I have nothing but respect for many Microsoft employees. And I don't mean to generalize. I just can't help but remember the similarities to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso... Being 'right' is sometimes a premature optimization.... ETA2. Esp. with someone who is very good at making the second dance move. But think back on all the major Microsoft products (IE v. Netscape, Office v. Lotus, though this is a reach maybe, Xbox v. PS, .NET v. Java, etc.). It's just a different approach. But it's a mistake to not analyze it and appreciate it for what it is..

city41 16y ago
Yes but when Microsoft took on Apple back in the day, they were young, agile and relevant. The same is much harder to say of the MS of today. They aren't winning very often anymore, especially in the consumer space. And I say this as a Microsoft alum and really enjoyed my time at the company.
Getahobby 16y ago
Wait a second. Can't let you completely get away with the MS stealing UI from Apple comment when SJobs stole it from Xerox/PARC first. Although to be fair he does readily admit the thievery.
- dreyfiz 16y ago
  No "thievery" was involved, he licensed it in exchange for access to pre-IPO Apple stock.
  - Getahobby 16y ago
    I didn't mean thievery in the classic sense. Only in the sense that he/AAPL didn't come up with the innovation of the GUI as the parent was suggesting.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    Hmm, How would you explain Xerox suing Apple over this? http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html?scp=3&sq=apple+xerox&st=nyt http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xero... I can't find a mention of Apple licensing anything in the wikipedia article either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation#cite_note-xeroxsuesapple-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso... Also this claims to debunk the story: http://books.google.pl/books?id=gzAEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA3&hl=it&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.pl/books?id=gzAEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA3&#38... "Xerox did at one time owne stock in Apple, they were purchased as an investment" (All this followed from the Wikipedia page, I'll admit)

Jd 16y ago

Playing PR games (even if you win) may make you look good at the moment but has a tendency to spiral into more PR games instead of a better product. Also, as stated on the earlier HN thread on this topic, it isn't at all clear that Google will come out on top. Many users suggested that the Google toolbar collected data on the sites people visited and if the Bing toolbar does also -- well is that really a game Google wants to play? Bing could come out a net winner given the increased attention on their search engine. Why does this last aspect matter? It is an acknowledgment that Google is taking their competition seriously, which indicates a bit of uncertainty with respect to their own product. The more that goes into this (esp. if Bing hits back w/ info on how Google historically has mined data with their own toolbar) the more that Google has to lose and Microsoft has to win.

po 16y ago

As an aside, I don't buy the arguments of "they shouldn't be mentioning Bing." I do buy that argument but only for mass media PR type stuff. The market leader can only give attention and raise awareness to the followers. The thing is in this case, it's a technical blog posting and really anyone following that already knows about Bing. It was in searchengineland. If they had a link to it on their home page it would be a different story.

qjz 16y ago

Sciency? Their experiment appears to lack a control of any kind. They only use a Google search page as the source for the links, one that is specially engineered to return specific results for a specific term. Then they count the coincidences to support the conclusion that Bing is stealing search results from Google. Where is the non-Google page of links? Where is the comparison using links from a specially crafted bookmarks file? What is the margin of error? Where are the plausible alternative explanations? If this had been a science experiment, it would have been scoffed at for its narrow scope and predetermined outcome.

kaffiene 16y ago
Are you kidding? You are a moron - this is as close to a smoking gun as you can get. You did get the part that there was NO relationship between the meaningless search phrases and the returned page right? What POSSIBLE situation could explain Bing returning the Google returned page without recourse to Google's search?
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  >Are you kidding? You are a moron - this is as close to a smoking gun as you can get. You did get the part that there was NO relationship between the meaningless search phrases and the returned page right? What POSSIBLE situation could explain Bing returning the Google returned page without recourse to Google's search Eh? Then why did it happen only in 6% or 7% of the cases tested and not close to 100%, a fact that the blog conveniently glosses over?
- qjz 16y ago
  Google created the relationship when they enabled user tracking features in IE and Bing Toolbar, then used a specially created Google page as the HTTP REFERER to the desired page. Go ahead and duplicate the experiment using a non-Google page or file. I'll bet Bing "steals" those results, too. Google seeded Bing, plain and simple. Note also that the example search links in the blog post are all from the non-SSL Google search. User tracking doesn't necessarily rely on the HTTP REFERER in this case, since the browser already has access to all of the necessary information. But it would still be interesting to see the experiment repeated using the SSL-encrypted Google search, which disables referrer information, along with non-Google sources.

tony_landis 16y ago

The result of this PR move does not decrease my opinion of Microsoft as a company, or Bing as a product. I held them both in fairly low regard already. The result of all this is that I now perceive Bing to be considered more of a contender by Google than I previously did. I doubt that is what Google intended. But then, this PR move was probably meant to change the opinion of people who had a higher opinion of Microsoft and Bing than myself, or were just casual users with no real position. Either way, it does put Microsoft on the defense for something that I wouldn't construe as malicious.

kmavm 16y ago

Especially in the case of spelling correction, it is not so much that Google has "solved hard problems" to get the long-tail right, as that they have a monopoly on the relevant data. Unlike all their competitors, Google has 12 years of the entire history of queries and clicks to mine for signals about how to rewrite queries. Even if you have all of Google's algorithms, it is technologically impossible to build a better query rewriter, because you don't have their data. You can't buy this data short of buying Google, and if you believe Peter Norvig, it's an irreplaceable component of Google's quality advantage. Microsoft, and any other would-be competitor, would essentially be committing suicide not to try to make up this data gap. If their toolbar is opt-in on the part of users, and you agree with me that my click history is mine to share with Microsoft if I so choose, this is helping consumers. Without some of this data, building a viable competitor to Google is impossible, and consumers do benefit from competition in web search. Disclaimer: I work in Facebook search. Not the same thing as web search, and I don't really care whether Bing or Google "wins", though I'm temporarily rooting for Bing because as a user I want better, more competitive web search.

andrewljohnson 16y ago
Exactly... to beat Google, you need time and data. Or you can do what MS did to fill the gap for a while.
- kmavm 16y ago
  Actually, time won't do it either. Unless you somehow compete with Google today, the data will never come. Google only gets the query volume it does because it is the quality leader. The query volume itself helps Google to retain its quality lead. Google likes to portray search quality as being algorithm-driven, and it is to some extent, but in the modern era quality is also about collaborative filtering with clicks. If you don't have the users, you don't see the clicks, and you can't have the quality. Web search is a natural winner-take-all monopoly, unless someone gets creative, which is what Microsoft seems to have done.
  - bad_user 16y ago

iamelgringo 16y ago

when I look at the probable outcomes of this... In discussions of this, I'm always surprised that people forget that Microsoft has had the axe of anti-trust litigation looming over it's head for years. They haven't been able to compete aggressively on a number of fronts, because they could easily be seen as anti-competitive, and end back in the courts. But, now, search is a market where they are clearly the underdog. And, Microsoft finally has an arena they can step into and fight bare bloody knuckled without arousing anti-trust eyebrows in the US or EU governments. And, Bing is competing rather well. Bing launched 18 months ago, and they now have 30% of the total search market (Yes, the bought a good bit of that through Yahoo). And, they are finally presenting a viable competitor to Google in general web search, which I believe is good for all. Not only that, but in a number of search verticals, IMHO Bing's technology is quite a bit better than Google's (image search, video search and travel search). I think Google has a reason to be scared and start throwing punches. Microsoft has a much more diverse revenue stream, and they can afford to lose money on search for years without breaking a sweat. Google primarily has a single source of revenue: search advertising. It'll be interesting to see how Google reacts when it's back is against the wall fighting for it's only revenue stream. I agree with the OP. This is going to be a fun fight to watch.