5 ms·

Anything in particular you're talking about? I've said a lot of stuff online over the last 10 years. :)

mc32 16y ago
It's no secret that a fair number of commenters throughout the controversy have sided with Google's or Bing's side. Some people have thought that the initial story came to a premature conclusion (where, incidentally, Bing cried foul). Now we have Jacques, it appears, arriving at premature conclusion as well and we have Google crying foul. To me, that's the essence of irony. I'm sure both Google Search and Bing have your reasons for the way the dirty laundry has been brought out in public.
Natsu 16y ago
I don't know, but I would assume that they're one of the people who don't think that what Bing did is a big deal. If I understand the arguments properly, most either believe that the clickstream data belongs to the user (who gave it away), or they believe that you haven't actually proven that they're singling out Google in their clickstream data. Anyhow, I've already posted in this story how anyone who wants to could go do their own experiment (it appears that Bing's data isn't too hard to fake, that goes double for anyone who can reverse engineer the toolbar). Similarly, I'm not convinced that Bing doing this is going to ruin search any time soon, mostly because I can see spammers/blackhat SEO types renting botnets to feed Bing all the bogus clickstream data they want. It appears to be a simple http request with some time zones, link text, and an identifier or two that can be harvested from actual toolbars. If they don't bother to spam them, it's because they believe that Bing is irrelevant. And when I say "irrelevant" I mean "even less relevant than a low-traffic wiki for a free game that's currently under a massive assault from spambots." Which, incidentally, might be one good reason for your team to look more at keeping wiki-spam out of your index. Some spam results from that wiki (in spite of having rel=no-follow) were seen in Google's index and stayed there until the admins caught on and cleaned things up.

mc32 16y ago

It's no secret that a fair number of commenters throughout the controversy have sided with Google's or Bing's side. Some people have thought that the initial story came to a premature conclusion (where, incidentally, Bing cried foul). Now we have Jacques, it appears, arriving at premature conclusion as well and we have Google crying foul. To me, that's the essence of irony. I'm sure both Google Search and Bing have your reasons for the way the dirty laundry has been brought out in public.

Natsu 16y ago

I don't know, but I would assume that they're one of the people who don't think that what Bing did is a big deal. If I understand the arguments properly, most either believe that the clickstream data belongs to the user (who gave it away), or they believe that you haven't actually proven that they're singling out Google in their clickstream data. Anyhow, I've already posted in this story how anyone who wants to could go do their own experiment (it appears that Bing's data isn't too hard to fake, that goes double for anyone who can reverse engineer the toolbar). Similarly, I'm not convinced that Bing doing this is going to ruin search any time soon, mostly because I can see spammers/blackhat SEO types renting botnets to feed Bing all the bogus clickstream data they want. It appears to be a simple http request with some time zones, link text, and an identifier or two that can be harvested from actual toolbars. If they don't bother to spam them, it's because they believe that Bing is irrelevant. And when I say "irrelevant" I mean "even less relevant than a low-traffic wiki for a free game that's currently under a massive assault from spambots." Which, incidentally, might be one good reason for your team to look more at keeping wiki-spam out of your index. Some spam results from that wiki (in spite of having rel=no-follow) were seen in Google's index and stayed there until the admins caught on and cleaned things up.