3 ms·

The best argument Microsoft has is: "You Too". Basically: "What I did wasn't wrong because the person complaining does it too."

by maeon3 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
brudgers 16y ago
My comment was not a defense of Bing but an attempt to point out the absurdity of applying academic standards Microsoft's conduct. Were one to apply academic standards to Binggate, it seems somewhat probable that Google's experimental results would have difficulty passing peer review. Interestingly from a plagiarism standpoint, the description returned by Bing for cfacu.org is far better cited, since it is directly from the website itself rather than from an entirely uncited site like Google's. In terms of academic standards, the results returned by Bing would probably not to be categorized as plagiarism but rather as not meeting style guidelines [such as APA format].
gojomo 16y ago
In this case, I think "You Too" is a pretty good argument. By the standards of web search, pioneered by Google, bootstrapping rankings from clicktrails fits right in with lots of other gray, indirect reuse of others' editorial judgement. The de facto standards here are looser than standards in traditional fields, and that's a good thing! I want Google to be able to liberally use text snippets from around the web. I want web crawling to be allowed by default. (You have to take affirmative steps, adding a robots.txt or other directives, to opt-out. No other written material is treated the same way!) I want most incidental 'infringement' from automated or user-driven processes liberally forgiven. I want Google and all its competitors to use clicktrails and similar signals, if legally available, to improve rankings and fight search manipulation. As much as such practices offend copyright maximalists – a category Google has rarely been included within – these practices also create a giant bonanza of public benefit.

The best argument Microsoft has is: "You Too". Basically: "What I did wasn't wrong because the person complaining does it too."

by maeon3 16y ago

The best argument Microsoft has is: "You Too". Basically: "What I did wasn't wrong because the person complaining does it too."

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

brudgers 16y ago

My comment was not a defense of Bing but an attempt to point out the absurdity of applying academic standards Microsoft's conduct. Were one to apply academic standards to Binggate, it seems somewhat probable that Google's experimental results would have difficulty passing peer review. Interestingly from a plagiarism standpoint, the description returned by Bing for cfacu.org is far better cited, since it is directly from the website itself rather than from an entirely uncited site like Google's. In terms of academic standards, the results returned by Bing would probably not to be categorized as plagiarism but rather as not meeting style guidelines [such as APA format].

gojomo 16y ago

In this case, I think "You Too" is a pretty good argument. By the standards of web search, pioneered by Google, bootstrapping rankings from clicktrails fits right in with lots of other gray, indirect reuse of others' editorial judgement. The de facto standards here are looser than standards in traditional fields, and that's a good thing! I want Google to be able to liberally use text snippets from around the web. I want web crawling to be allowed by default. (You have to take affirmative steps, adding a robots.txt or other directives, to opt-out. No other written material is treated the same way!) I want most incidental 'infringement' from automated or user-driven processes liberally forgiven. I want Google and all its competitors to use clicktrails and similar signals, if legally available, to improve rankings and fight search manipulation. As much as such practices offend copyright maximalists – a category Google has rarely been included within – these practices also create a giant bonanza of public benefit.