5 ms·
"- How different would their results be if they didn't use clicks from google's search as a signal?" That's the important one. These Bing people are happy to
by earl 16y ago
"- How different would their results be if they didn't use clicks from google's search as a signal?"
That's the important one. These Bing people are happy to run their mouths about 1k signals blah blah blah. Who gives a fuck? What is the weight on those signals.
Further, this case was made obvious because Bing couldn't create an answer to a query so they copied Google's answer. Dude admits as much. Why should we give Bing a pass on copying Google's results just because in this instance it was too hard to find their own results?
- brudgers 16y ago>"What is the weight on those signals." Low enough that it took Google nearly three engineers per successfully injected honeypot (7 honeypots per 20 engineers) and Google was only able to achieve a 7% success rate despite their extensive in-house knowledge of SEO.
- teach 16y agoI don't understand what you're trying to say here. The Google blog post says that they inserted 100 honeypots into Google. Then it says "within a couple weeks of starting this experiment, our inserted results started appearing in Bing." Where are you getting the 7% number?
- contextfree 16y agothe more detailed searchengineland.com post mentioned that they only got 7-9 of the 100 nonsense terms they tried to inject to show up.
- brudgers 16y agoLink: http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914 http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-...
- jerf 16y agoThree searches is nothing.
- Aaronontheweb 16y agoHave the Bing team expose their algorithms and criterion to the public so they can settle a spat with Google over 7/100 made up words appearing in a set of search results? That sounds reasonable.
- moultano 16y ago>over 7/100 made up words appearing in a set of search results Again, that's not the allegation, that's the evidence. The allegation is that bing is using data that essentially amounts to a wholesale copying of google's results.
- Aaronontheweb 16y agoYou missed the point I was making, which is that asking a company to fork over expensive information that a competitor like Google would kill for in the name of answering a question about 7 queries is disporportionate.
- moultano 16y agoForking over data is not required. Making a clear public statement would suffice.
- earl 16y agoExpensive information? Please. I'm not asking for all weights, I'm asking for 1/1000 weights. If it's tiny, then sharing it should be inconsequential. And no bullshit about competitors or spammers please -- it's not as if anyone is unaware that ranking well in Google organic results is good :rolleyes:
- Aaronontheweb 16y agoWhat would be the value in knowing that weight without knowing what it's relative to?
- 16y ago
- zzleeper 16y agoI've seen this 1k signals BS repeated over and over by HN commenters, as if somehow copying from 999 other guys makes this a nonproblem.
- AmazingMe 16y agoso maybe you should stop using all search engines, because they by definition do not create any data and just copy it from other people.
- waterlesscloud 16y agoThe weight on keywords that exist nowhere else on the internet other than the fake searches Google injected? Well, if there's one source of data, that data is weighted at 100%. The whole experiment is meaningless.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]