user24

84 ms·

811.
by user24 16y ago
> Your assertion Bing is most likely to be accurate about Bing ignores self-interest and spin. We can't apply skepticism to one source and not the other. Either Google and Bing are not blogging with self-interest and spin - and thus Bin
812.
by user24 16y ago
Recent dupe: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2166555 1 day ago, 306 points, 97 comments.
813.
by user24 16y ago
If extensions checked to see if they had permission to alter/interfere/access webpages by looking it up in robots.txt, which is what is being suggested by people who say "Bing toolbar violated robots.txt", then that same mechanism could be
814.
by user24 16y ago
> You checked it against the assertion of the most interested party? There are currently exactly two sources: The Google post and the MS post. Who are more likely to know about what MS are doing? MS. I check my theory about what MS are
815.
by user24 16y ago
> The evidence that has been presented by Google does show that MS is monitoring Google's search results, or at the very least users' behavior when using Google. I said "exclusively". > there's no evidence that Google is the only se
816.
by user24 16y ago
See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXmv8quf_xM (TracerT guy)
817.
by user24 16y ago
except that that's not what robots.txt is for. Otherwise your adblock extension could be excluded via robots.txt edit: bing toolbar is effectively an extension for MSIE. robots.txt is designed to stop spiders. Spiders aren't extensions. The
818.
by user24 16y ago
> certain he's spotted "the real situation". How did he fact check it By reading the official MS blog post[1], watching the Farsight conference live, and being confident in my own judgements based on the observed evidence. No other conc
819.
by user24 16y ago
I've written a followup post addressing some of the common reactions to my first: http://www.puremango.co.uk/2011/02/what-are-google-thinking-... On HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2169690
820.
by user24 16y ago
I think that Google are claiming that Bing were specifically spying on Bing users clicking on Google results. My position is that it's simpler to assume that Bing were spying on Bing users regardless of what page they were on, a side-effect
821.
What are Google thinking: Part 2(puremango.co.uk)
2 points by user24 16y ago|1 comments
822.
by user24 16y ago
Sure. As Harry Shum said; this is a new kind of clickfraud. Just like when googlebombing become a public technique, Google would have been foolish not to change the behaviour of their algorithm. I'd be amazed if Bing didn't swiftly change t
823.
by user24 16y ago
and take a look at inline dictionary definitions, page previews, images - the entire business is based on 'copying' other people's info. My question was genuine - what are you thinking, google?
824.
by user24 16y ago
Good question. robots.txt was designed for an age before ajax and the proliferation of plugins/toolbars/etc. It's a valid shortcoming you've identified, imho.
825.
by user24 16y ago
sure, but I think it's reasonable to expect that. I don't pay for gmail and if it all went pop tomorrow I would be incredibly annoyed but I would accept that you get what you pay for. If I had a gmail pro account (if such a thing existed),
826.
by user24 16y ago
> I don't recall many sites that would have good information for a search engine in that string. Well, Google is one such site - as in, if you have bing toolbar installed and are on google.com/search?q=keyword and click on example.com,
827.
by user24 16y ago
thanks, I was beginning to wonder if I was 'right' or not. Didn't know the standard was singular in US.
828.
by user24 16y ago
The data's sent back via SSL, from what I've read, and disassembling is not going to be practical.
829.
by user24 16y ago
> parsing the query out of the url Or parsing any words found in the URL. Not unreasonable to believe.
830.
by user24 16y ago
With a control. Launch a fake search engine with similar spiked results but with no traceable connection to Google. If the results only show up on Bing from google-clicks and not from clicks on the control, then it's a good indicator that B
831.
by user24 16y ago
...and points to their jobs site!
832.
What on earth are Google thinking? (re: Binggate)(puremango.co.uk)
234 points by user24 16y ago|129 comments
833.
by user24 16y ago
> Would someone really trust Yahoo/Flickr to all their images It's a paid service[1]. So yes. [1] he had a pro account.
834.
by user24 16y ago
Yes it would imply that, if that were indeed what was going on.
835.
by user24 16y ago
I'm quite stunned that Google allowed this story to break. It's such a bold claim, and with such an obvious explanation - Bing use all kinds of click data, whether from Google or not. Did they really not realise that was what was happening
836.
by user24 16y ago
needn't even be limited to "what user clicks after search" could simply be "what user clicks" They're trying to link Content A and Content B, where "Content" includes page content, URL(including GET string terms), and various other factors.
837.
by user24 16y ago
all search engines make use of a variety of signals. Bing decided to use what users click on as a signal. Google spotted it and thought it was 'zomg bing are stealing our results'. I don't understand why you think taking advantage of a new
838.
by user24 16y ago
Microsoft, historically, have been kings of the desktop. With the rise of the web (which post-dated MS's rise), the desktop has become less and less relevant. Google is fast replacing them - my email, documents, search, advertising, analyti
839.
by user24 16y ago
That would be a nice way of testing it. edit: I'm not even sure if it's only search engines that are being analysed by Bing or all pages, but it's possible that it is just SEs - they could be capturing query terms distinctly.
840.
by user24 16y ago
no, the "strike rate" is precision/recall. Good advertising CTRs is a side-effect of relevancy. Relevancy is measured by precision and recall. edit to expand: If the measure by which a search engine evaluated itself was advertising revenues

More ›