4 ms·

>The end result is a copy of the results of a competitor. If you borrow it, steal it from your users, ...Your index still contains copied results for a fact. T

>The end result is a copy of the results of a competitor. If you borrow it, steal it from your users, ...Your index still contains copied results for a fact. This is pure nonsense, and so is the rest of your post. [edit: The business of] search is not about academia, or algorithms, or engineering, its about providing users with relevant responses to their queries. The best way currently to do that is through crowdsourcing--which is exactly what Google does through Pagerank. Now Bing took that a step further and creates an association between what a user searches for and what they end up finding relevant: This is exactly what we currently call "search". Whether that initial directory of sites came from Google or from some hand culled list is inconsequential. This is not "copying", this is doing exactly what they should be doing. The point is Google doesn't own the link, or the form input, or the fact that many users clicked on that link after posting that term. The only thing they could be reasonably construed to "own" are the relative rankings themselves. Bing did not "copy" this.

moultano 16y ago
>Bing did not "copy" this. People only click on the results that are there. Google put them there. People tend to click on results in roughly the order they appear on the page, which Google also determined. Getting the data through an indirect means does not insulate them from culpability.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- hackinthebochs 16y ago
  In my opinion it does. The whole purpose of this technique is to get better results than just an algorithmically generated list. If people are simply clicking on the first result, then it's not accomplishing what they want. Having a mirror image of Google's results is not what they want (otherwise why would anyone switch?). We all know how gamed the first few results on Google are these days anyways.
  - moultano 16y ago
    >otherwise why would anyone switch? Marketing and flashy features, two areas where bing has been investing a lot of money.
    - hackinthebochs 16y ago
      The value of a search engine isn't any particular result, or any set of results. Its the quality of all the results over time. If Microsoft's algorithm picks up a tiny amount of signal (ahem 1 of a 1000) indirectly from Google's results, this does nothing to artificially inflate their position off of Google's back. There's nothing inherently wrong about using user signal for this. There are many sites on the internet that generate a set of links based on form data. Google is one of many in that respect. This technique is effective in gathering search information on this "deep web". Special-casing Google positively or negatively is the wrong approach here.
      - stanleydrew 16y ago
        The problem is that the small amount of signal that Bing picks up from Google carries more weight for the more rare associations that Google has worked so hard to help users find. Spelling mistakes stand out here quite a bit.
        hackinthebochs 16y ago
        I don't really see this as a problem. This is in fact what search is all about. Some human makes an association between A and B, and a major search engine picks up on that. Google has algorithms for picking up on these associations, and so does Bing. It just so happens that some of those associations have passed through Google's servers before reaching Bing. The point is that Google is not creating these associations. They're algorithmically picking them up from others, just as Bing is doing. Btw good job with the disagree downvotes guys.
blauwbilgorgel 16y ago
"This is pure nonsense, and so is the rest of your post." Thank you. I don't really know how to respond to this, but maybe say that your own statement is so weak it just contains its own counterargument. "[The business of] search is not about academia, or algorithms, or engineering, its about providing users with relevant responses to their queries" And the food industry is not about the ingredients, the cooks and the recipes, but about providing users with a dish suitable to their tastes. In fact, we could do without the cooks, recipes and ingredients. er...? "The best way currently to do that is through crowdsourcing". These are fine words to say that Bing uses rank on Google as 1 in 1000 ranking factors. Bing uses GoogleRank. Or CrowdRank in less polemic terms. To me: it isn't about if Microsoft is "copying" or not anymore. You can win that semantic game. What you can't win or explain away is the end result: the duplicate results and grammar corrections. The process by which this happened (Microsoft can hack my microphone and record keystrokes) is irrelevant. Bing uses rank on Google as a ranking factor and Bing contains duplicate results.
- hackinthebochs 16y ago
  >"This is pure nonsense, and so is the rest of your post." Thank you. I don't really know how to respond to thi I apologize for the unnecessarily mean-spirited reply, it was uncalled for. >And the food industry is not about the ingredients, the cooks and the recipes, but about providing users with a dish suitable to their tastes. In fact, we could do without the cooks, recipes and ingredients. er...? You're wrongly combining "food" and "the food industry". Food is about the end result, regardless of how it came about. The food industry is about all those things you mentioned. The same goes for search. >it isn't about if Microsoft is "copying" or not anymore. You can win that semantic game. You're right about this, "copying" or not is purely a semantic game. The problem I see is that Google started it intentionally. They could have used more precise terms and actually started a conversation about the real issue here, which you correctly identified, as Google results showing up in Bing. But they chose to go the sensational route. This is my reply to moultano that addresses your point: The value of a search engine isn't any particular result, or any set of results. Its the quality of all the results over time. If Microsoft's algorithm picks up a tiny amount of signal (ahem 1 of a 1000) indirectly from Google's results, this does nothing to artificially inflate their position off of Google's back. There's nothing inherently wrong about using user signal for this. There are many sites on the internet that generate a set of links based on form data. Google is one of many in that respect. This technique is effective in gathering search information on this "deep web". Special-casing Google positively or negatively is the wrong approach here.

moultano 16y ago

>Bing did not "copy" this. People only click on the results that are there. Google put them there. People tend to click on results in roughly the order they appear on the page, which Google also determined. Getting the data through an indirect means does not insulate them from culpability.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
hackinthebochs 16y ago
In my opinion it does. The whole purpose of this technique is to get better results than just an algorithmically generated list. If people are simply clicking on the first result, then it's not accomplishing what they want. Having a mirror image of Google's results is not what they want (otherwise why would anyone switch?). We all know how gamed the first few results on Google are these days anyways.
- moultano 16y ago
  >otherwise why would anyone switch? Marketing and flashy features, two areas where bing has been investing a lot of money.
  - hackinthebochs 16y ago
    The value of a search engine isn't any particular result, or any set of results. Its the quality of all the results over time. If Microsoft's algorithm picks up a tiny amount of signal (ahem 1 of a 1000) indirectly from Google's results, this does nothing to artificially inflate their position off of Google's back. There's nothing inherently wrong about using user signal for this. There are many sites on the internet that generate a set of links based on form data. Google is one of many in that respect. This technique is effective in gathering search information on this "deep web". Special-casing Google positively or negatively is the wrong approach here.
    - stanleydrew 16y ago
      The problem is that the small amount of signal that Bing picks up from Google carries more weight for the more rare associations that Google has worked so hard to help users find. Spelling mistakes stand out here quite a bit.
      - hackinthebochs 16y ago
        I don't really see this as a problem. This is in fact what search is all about. Some human makes an association between A and B, and a major search engine picks up on that. Google has algorithms for picking up on these associations, and so does Bing. It just so happens that some of those associations have passed through Google's servers before reaching Bing. The point is that Google is not creating these associations. They're algorithmically picking them up from others, just as Bing is doing. Btw good job with the disagree downvotes guys.

blauwbilgorgel 16y ago

"This is pure nonsense, and so is the rest of your post." Thank you. I don't really know how to respond to this, but maybe say that your own statement is so weak it just contains its own counterargument. "[The business of] search is not about academia, or algorithms, or engineering, its about providing users with relevant responses to their queries" And the food industry is not about the ingredients, the cooks and the recipes, but about providing users with a dish suitable to their tastes. In fact, we could do without the cooks, recipes and ingredients. er...? "The best way currently to do that is through crowdsourcing". These are fine words to say that Bing uses rank on Google as 1 in 1000 ranking factors. Bing uses GoogleRank. Or CrowdRank in less polemic terms. To me: it isn't about if Microsoft is "copying" or not anymore. You can win that semantic game. What you can't win or explain away is the end result: the duplicate results and grammar corrections. The process by which this happened (Microsoft can hack my microphone and record keystrokes) is irrelevant. Bing uses rank on Google as a ranking factor and Bing contains duplicate results.

hackinthebochs 16y ago
>"This is pure nonsense, and so is the rest of your post." Thank you. I don't really know how to respond to thi I apologize for the unnecessarily mean-spirited reply, it was uncalled for. >And the food industry is not about the ingredients, the cooks and the recipes, but about providing users with a dish suitable to their tastes. In fact, we could do without the cooks, recipes and ingredients. er...? You're wrongly combining "food" and "the food industry". Food is about the end result, regardless of how it came about. The food industry is about all those things you mentioned. The same goes for search. >it isn't about if Microsoft is "copying" or not anymore. You can win that semantic game. You're right about this, "copying" or not is purely a semantic game. The problem I see is that Google started it intentionally. They could have used more precise terms and actually started a conversation about the real issue here, which you correctly identified, as Google results showing up in Bing. But they chose to go the sensational route. This is my reply to moultano that addresses your point: The value of a search engine isn't any particular result, or any set of results. Its the quality of all the results over time. If Microsoft's algorithm picks up a tiny amount of signal (ahem 1 of a 1000) indirectly from Google's results, this does nothing to artificially inflate their position off of Google's back. There's nothing inherently wrong about using user signal for this. There are many sites on the internet that generate a set of links based on form data. Google is one of many in that respect. This technique is effective in gathering search information on this "deep web". Special-casing Google positively or negatively is the wrong approach here.