3 ms·
It doesn't matter, because the results (from the honeypot) had nothing to do with the searches, so it would have been impossible to clue Bing in directly by sea
by tghw 16y ago
It doesn't matter, because the results (from the honeypot) had nothing to do with the searches, so it would have been impossible to clue Bing in directly by searching on Bing a lot.
- blahedo 16y agoAre you claiming that they made the queries without actually making the queries? Reread the first line of my algorithm: once you identify a query Q as more than just a one-off mistake—whether it's an actual new item or a common misspelling or, maybe, a trap—then you decide it's worth looking into. Put another way, it's impossible not to clue Bing in on at least the fact that you are making these searches.
- broofa 16y agoThat is exactly what's being claimed. The queries were not made on bing.com, they were made on google.com. The only way Bing can become aware of the results of these google.com queries is if they're "spying" on the user's activity via the Bing Toolbar and IE8 suggested search features. From http://goo.gl/Bi0JH http://goo.gl/Bi0JH (Google blog): "We gave 20 of our engineers laptops with a fresh install of Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer 8 with Bing Toolbar installed. As part of the install process, we opted in to the “Suggested Sites” feature of IE8, and we accepted the default options for the Bing Toolbar. We asked these engineers to enter the synthetic queries into the search box on the Google home page, and click on the results, i.e., the results we inserted. We were surprised that within a couple weeks of starting this experiment, our inserted results started appearing in Bing. Below is an example: a search for [hiybbprqag] on Bing returned a page about seating at a theater in Los Angeles. As far as we know, the only connection between the query and result is Google’s result page (shown above)."