4 ms·

I'm certain they never stopped trying to be innovative, but Bing is able to use that click stream data to reap the benefits of Google's innovations. Google is o

I'm certain they never stopped trying to be innovative, but Bing is able to use that click stream data to reap the benefits of Google's innovations. Google is on the right side of this argument even if it makes them seem whiny to some people.

angusgr 16y ago
The part that seems interesting to me is that Google scrapes other entities' data (Reader, News, Books, Scholar) in dozens of other ways, and that behaviour is generally regarded as totally justifiable.
- magicalist 16y ago
  robots.txt. a more specific example might make for better discussion.
- coderdude 16y ago
  Because Google has a symbiotic relationship with the entities whose data it's grabbing. It uses that data to drive traffic or attention to the originators and owners of that data. Everyone wants Google to use their data to drive them traffic and those who do not use robots.txt. Bing is being parasitic to Google in this situation by generating no value for them.
  - angusgr 16y ago
    That's not how the AFP felt about Google News when it launched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_News#News_agencies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_News#News_agencies or how some publishers felt about Google Books when it launched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books#Copyright_infringement.2C_fair_use_and_related_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books#Copyright_infringe...
    - coderdude 16y ago
      The AFP could have opted out if they wanted to. Copyright and fair use laws are not something we should be dragging into this. Your examples have nothing to do with the argument at hand between Google and Bing.
      - angusgr 16y ago
        I'd suggest that they're indirectly relevant, because they all address the question of what constitutes fair indexing and what constitutes "copying" or theft of innovative/valuable information. The evidence suggests Bing is scraping clickstream data to work out where its users go and where they stay, and this includes google search URLs with embedded queries. The evidence doesn't seem to suggest that Bing treats google any differently to any other URL on the web. So, the questions could come down to: who has the right to disseminate URL strings and mine them for valuable information? Which seems not indirectly related to "who has the right to digitise other forms of media and mine them for valuable information?"
  - tygorius 16y ago
    Bing is being parasitic to Google in this situation by generating no value for them. Well, perhaps Microsoft thinks its business involves providing value to their customers rather than its competitors. What seems consistently missing from the Google PR campaign has been how Microsoft's behavior is a bad thing for the user.
    - coderdude 16y ago
      Google doesn't spend exorbitant amounts of money so that they can provide value to Bing's users. If Bing's users want value they can use Google instead.
      - tygorius 16y ago
        Again you put the focus on Google. And again I ask, how is Microsoft's alleged behavior harming the user? Bing's increasing market share is presumably already due to providing value. If Google's unique sales proposition has become, "we find obscure misspelled words better than those copycats at Microsoft", do you think that's going to make people less inclined to try Bing?
        coderdude 16y ago
        Because the focus is on Google vs. Bing, not Google vs. Bing's users or Google's users vs. Bing or users vs. users. >how is Microsoft's alleged behavior harming the user? It's not harming Bing's users to provide Google's results. What's in it for Google to help Bing's users? It's not as if Google is an NPO humanitarian effort to help people find the information they seek. >If Google's unique sales proposition has become, "we find obscure misspelled words better than those copycats at Microsoft" Obscure misspelled words are just one thing that Bing is able to get better results on thanks to this. They also benefit from every other kind of query that a user can make on Google.
- arst 16y ago
  Those other entities can opt-out of being indexed.

angusgr 16y ago

The part that seems interesting to me is that Google scrapes other entities' data (Reader, News, Books, Scholar) in dozens of other ways, and that behaviour is generally regarded as totally justifiable.

magicalist 16y ago
robots.txt. a more specific example might make for better discussion.
coderdude 16y ago
Because Google has a symbiotic relationship with the entities whose data it's grabbing. It uses that data to drive traffic or attention to the originators and owners of that data. Everyone wants Google to use their data to drive them traffic and those who do not use robots.txt. Bing is being parasitic to Google in this situation by generating no value for them.
- angusgr 16y ago
  That's not how the AFP felt about Google News when it launched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_News#News_agencies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_News#News_agencies or how some publishers felt about Google Books when it launched: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books#Copyright_infringement.2C_fair_use_and_related_issues http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books#Copyright_infringe...
  - coderdude 16y ago
    The AFP could have opted out if they wanted to. Copyright and fair use laws are not something we should be dragging into this. Your examples have nothing to do with the argument at hand between Google and Bing.
    - angusgr 16y ago
      I'd suggest that they're indirectly relevant, because they all address the question of what constitutes fair indexing and what constitutes "copying" or theft of innovative/valuable information. The evidence suggests Bing is scraping clickstream data to work out where its users go and where they stay, and this includes google search URLs with embedded queries. The evidence doesn't seem to suggest that Bing treats google any differently to any other URL on the web. So, the questions could come down to: who has the right to disseminate URL strings and mine them for valuable information? Which seems not indirectly related to "who has the right to digitise other forms of media and mine them for valuable information?"
- tygorius 16y ago
  Bing is being parasitic to Google in this situation by generating no value for them. Well, perhaps Microsoft thinks its business involves providing value to their customers rather than its competitors. What seems consistently missing from the Google PR campaign has been how Microsoft's behavior is a bad thing for the user.
  - coderdude 16y ago
    Google doesn't spend exorbitant amounts of money so that they can provide value to Bing's users. If Bing's users want value they can use Google instead.
    - tygorius 16y ago
      Again you put the focus on Google. And again I ask, how is Microsoft's alleged behavior harming the user? Bing's increasing market share is presumably already due to providing value. If Google's unique sales proposition has become, "we find obscure misspelled words better than those copycats at Microsoft", do you think that's going to make people less inclined to try Bing?
      - coderdude 16y ago
        Because the focus is on Google vs. Bing, not Google vs. Bing's users or Google's users vs. Bing or users vs. users. >how is Microsoft's alleged behavior harming the user? It's not harming Bing's users to provide Google's results. What's in it for Google to help Bing's users? It's not as if Google is an NPO humanitarian effort to help people find the information they seek. >If Google's unique sales proposition has become, "we find obscure misspelled words better than those copycats at Microsoft" Obscure misspelled words are just one thing that Bing is able to get better results on thanks to this. They also benefit from every other kind of query that a user can make on Google.
arst 16y ago
Those other entities can opt-out of being indexed.