3 ms·

"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 wea

"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.

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.