3 ms·

Address the argument. The intuition is that if a method allows you to build a search engine without actually knowing anything (besides the method itself) - the

Address the argument. The intuition is that if a method allows you to build a search engine without actually knowing anything (besides the method itself) - then that method is piggy backing off someone else's work. Yes - google piggy backs off other people's work - i.e. linking to other sites to indicate quality. But this is not piggy backing off a search engine. It's not piggy backing off the technical work that someone else developed for a search engine product. So it's not a counter example to my argument.

dilap 16y ago
We agree, in a way, but disagree about the severity of the distinction. Google can't build a good search engine w/o mining an existing network of interlinks between sites to build a good measure of quality. Bing can't provide results as good (or perhaps "good" -- "torsoraphy", "hiybbprqag"...) as they currently do w/o watching what users click on, which includes Google search results. You're saying (if I follow you) that what Google does is fair because they always transform the form of their input, whereas Bing, in some instances, does not transform their input -- they use search engine results to provide search engine results. OK, fine. But I still don't really see the outrage. I don't care about piggy-backing or fairness; I care about maximum public good. So here's the situation. Google wants Bing to stop harvesting its results. Why? Very broadly, there are two scenarios: - Bing is adding value - Bing is not adding value In the latter scenario, Google should not care. No one will use Bing, and it's a non-issue. In the former scenario, it's not clear at all to me that Google should have a monopoly on the information entered and sites visited of people that happen to visit their site. Google is trying to assert ownership, in a fashion, of the link between the users query and the site they visited, because the site they visited happened to be shown to them by Google. I see no reason to grant them this right. The fact that Google acts outraged be Bing's behavior strikes me as particularly rich, given that Google itself is a notorious and cavalier harvester of data others would consider "theirs". (Edit: This is pure, uninformed speculation, but I wonder if Google's (to me) odd outrage is because they place such a premium on algorithms over human-generated content. I.E., the idea is it's fine to harvest other people's human-generated work ("information wants to be free"-style), but harvesting other's algorithm-generated content is verboten, because that's essentially stealing the algorithm. I have no inside knowledge, but this would agree w/ the pop-culture characterizations of Google.)
- grovulent 16y ago
  It doesn't improve the common good. Bing is not adding value with this method - they are thieving value. By thieving it they reduce the reward for the value that google provides. As such they reduce the incentive to provide genuine innovation. Having said that - I don't necessarily disagree with the view that Google's position is a bit rich given the data that they do harvest from us folk without remunerating us for that work. But that doesn't make the argument against Bing any weaker. Two wrongs n rights n all that.
  - true_religion 16y ago
    What data does Google harvest without renumeration? When it comes to PageRank, the implicit offer is: Allow google to use your links (intra-site and extra-site) in its algorithm, and it will make your site searchable via Google. If you don't want Google to use your 'hard work' of collating and vetting links to other sites, then disallow the Googlebot via robots.txt On the other hand, Microsoft refuses to allow anyway to disallow click traffic patterns involving your site to be used in its algorithm. They are thus mining the links from your site to another without even having to renumerate you by giving you a chance to be indexed in their engine.
    - wnoise 16y ago
      > Microsoft refuses to allow anyway to disallow click traffic patterns involving your site Because that information doesn't belong to the site to which it is associated, but to the user.
    - grovulent 16y ago
      That's a good point. I didn't really have a clear view on that matter. I just wanted to emphasise that however that discussion bore out - it is irrelevant to the argument against Bing.

dilap 16y ago

We agree, in a way, but disagree about the severity of the distinction. Google can't build a good search engine w/o mining an existing network of interlinks between sites to build a good measure of quality. Bing can't provide results as good (or perhaps "good" -- "torsoraphy", "hiybbprqag"...) as they currently do w/o watching what users click on, which includes Google search results. You're saying (if I follow you) that what Google does is fair because they always transform the form of their input, whereas Bing, in some instances, does not transform their input -- they use search engine results to provide search engine results. OK, fine. But I still don't really see the outrage. I don't care about piggy-backing or fairness; I care about maximum public good. So here's the situation. Google wants Bing to stop harvesting its results. Why? Very broadly, there are two scenarios: - Bing is adding value - Bing is not adding value In the latter scenario, Google should not care. No one will use Bing, and it's a non-issue. In the former scenario, it's not clear at all to me that Google should have a monopoly on the information entered and sites visited of people that happen to visit their site. Google is trying to assert ownership, in a fashion, of the link between the users query and the site they visited, because the site they visited happened to be shown to them by Google. I see no reason to grant them this right. The fact that Google acts outraged be Bing's behavior strikes me as particularly rich, given that Google itself is a notorious and cavalier harvester of data others would consider "theirs". (Edit: This is pure, uninformed speculation, but I wonder if Google's (to me) odd outrage is because they place such a premium on algorithms over human-generated content. I.E., the idea is it's fine to harvest other people's human-generated work ("information wants to be free"-style), but harvesting other's algorithm-generated content is verboten, because that's essentially stealing the algorithm. I have no inside knowledge, but this would agree w/ the pop-culture characterizations of Google.)

grovulent 16y ago
It doesn't improve the common good. Bing is not adding value with this method - they are thieving value. By thieving it they reduce the reward for the value that google provides. As such they reduce the incentive to provide genuine innovation. Having said that - I don't necessarily disagree with the view that Google's position is a bit rich given the data that they do harvest from us folk without remunerating us for that work. But that doesn't make the argument against Bing any weaker. Two wrongs n rights n all that.
- true_religion 16y ago
  What data does Google harvest without renumeration? When it comes to PageRank, the implicit offer is: Allow google to use your links (intra-site and extra-site) in its algorithm, and it will make your site searchable via Google. If you don't want Google to use your 'hard work' of collating and vetting links to other sites, then disallow the Googlebot via robots.txt On the other hand, Microsoft refuses to allow anyway to disallow click traffic patterns involving your site to be used in its algorithm. They are thus mining the links from your site to another without even having to renumerate you by giving you a chance to be indexed in their engine.
  - wnoise 16y ago
    > Microsoft refuses to allow anyway to disallow click traffic patterns involving your site Because that information doesn't belong to the site to which it is associated, but to the user.
  - grovulent 16y ago
    That's a good point. I didn't really have a clear view on that matter. I just wanted to emphasise that however that discussion bore out - it is irrelevant to the argument against Bing.