- Status
[citation][nom]swamprat[/nom]I really don't see what the issue is if all they're doing is comparing (1) search string entered in the bing toolbar and (2) the pages people went on to. Using IE8 is a bit cheeky, but again they're collecting factual data on where people go after a search, the only difference is that they're not just using their own search tool. [/citation]
Wrong. Debunked already on Google's blog on how they did it if you had bothered to read it properly.
Which means, they only had the toolbar installed. They only were interested in what searches came up, they didn't force feed bing at all. Bing gleaned the search from the regular web page and took it as its own.
Keep in mind this was something they had suspected for a long while since they keep track of how searches on their engine would often later turn up in Bing. This is not "lets go Sting Bing!" It was a response to something looking funny.
While I don't believe they just copy verbatim, using a competitor's work to shore up your own and not giving any credit is bad. Now, while not illegal, its still dirty, scummy, and typical Microsoft behavior.
Wrong. Debunked already on Google's blog on how they did it if you had bothered to read it properly.
(emphasis mine)
Which means, they only had the toolbar installed. They only were interested in what searches came up, they didn't force feed bing at all. Bing gleaned the search from the regular web page and took it as its own.
Keep in mind this was something they had suspected for a long while since they keep track of how searches on their engine would often later turn up in Bing. This is not "lets go Sting Bing!" It was a response to something looking funny.
While I don't believe they just copy verbatim, using a competitor's work to shore up your own and not giving any credit is bad. Now, while not illegal, its still dirty, scummy, and typical Microsoft behavior.
[citation][nom]yao[/nom]didn't google benefit from this? bing use google's search results?now they have a bigger share of the market. lol[/citation]
however google has ads, if bing is the same it would still take away from google.
[citation][nom]gogogadgetliver[/nom]That's not at all what happened but it's *exactly* what Google is trying to get everyone to believe. You're on Toms so fair chance you're a clever fellow. Go dig deep on what's actually happening and you'll see.[/citation]
probably right, a sever distrust in microsoft and good will for google, it probably clouds that judgement a bit. but im doing "research" on other topics, and dont care enough to add a bigger @#$@ contest to that list. google probably did something they are at fault for too...
if you know, can you say it as simply as possible, reading 6 pages of law speak (it has to do with the things i'm researching) than translating it into what it means takes alot of my will to look into this away.
however google has ads, if bing is the same it would still take away from google.
[citation][nom]gogogadgetliver[/nom]That's not at all what happened but it's *exactly* what Google is trying to get everyone to believe. You're on Toms so fair chance you're a clever fellow. Go dig deep on what's actually happening and you'll see.[/citation]
probably right, a sever distrust in microsoft and good will for google, it probably clouds that judgement a bit. but im doing "research" on other topics, and dont care enough to add a bigger @#$@ contest to that list. google probably did something they are at fault for too...
if you know, can you say it as simply as possible, reading 6 pages of law speak (it has to do with the things i'm researching) than translating it into what it means takes alot of my will to look into this away.
I think it's funny how google tries to claim they put so much effort into their search engine. I mean really? It's worse than it has ever been. All it finds are paid results and/or articles that are many years old. It's so annoying to use now because it's damn near impossible to actually find something I'm looking for.
[citation][nom]beayn[/nom]I think it's funny how google tries to claim they put so much effort into their search engine. I mean really? It's worse than it has ever been. All it finds are paid results and/or articles that are many years old. It's so annoying to use now because it's damn near impossible to actually find something I'm looking for.[/citation]
really, the first two results, and a side bar have ads. here i gave it 4 search terms, and i know what im looking for, so it made it faster.
websites like 2chan, websites similar to 2chan, list of 2chan like sites, and list of image boards
i was looking for the overchan2v
from the first 3, i decided to try and only use 2chan, a japanese website, to see if i could get to overchan, but from teh first result i learn that 2chan is an image board so i could easily have found what i wanted in 2 searches, and this is something fairly obscure.
i find that google is as good as it has ever been, and if you honestly thing that google should be ran for free... i have to ask what drugs you are on that you think an entity that is on its own, in power consumption alone, costs probably 30-40000$ should be free. feal lucky you dont have to pay to use their service.
really, the first two results, and a side bar have ads. here i gave it 4 search terms, and i know what im looking for, so it made it faster.
websites like 2chan, websites similar to 2chan, list of 2chan like sites, and list of image boards
i was looking for the overchan2v
from the first 3, i decided to try and only use 2chan, a japanese website, to see if i could get to overchan, but from teh first result i learn that 2chan is an image board so i could easily have found what i wanted in 2 searches, and this is something fairly obscure.
i find that google is as good as it has ever been, and if you honestly thing that google should be ran for free... i have to ask what drugs you are on that you think an entity that is on its own, in power consumption alone, costs probably 30-40000$ should be free. feal lucky you dont have to pay to use their service.
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]really, the first two results, and a side bar have ads. here i gave it 4 search terms, and i know what im looking for, so it made it faster. websites like 2chan, websites similar to 2chan, list of 2chan like sites, and list of image boardsi was looking for the overchan2vfrom the first 3, i decided to try and only use 2chan, a japanese website, to see if i could get to overchan, but from teh first result i learn that 2chan is an image board so i could easily have found what i wanted in 2 searches, and this is something fairly obscure.i find that google is as good as it has ever been, and if you honestly thing that google should be ran for free... i have to ask what drugs you are on that you think an entity that is on its own, in power consumption alone, costs probably 30-40000$ should be free. feal lucky you dont have to pay to use their service.[/citation]
Who said it had to be free? I just said all it finds are paid ads and I find it annoying. The side bar of ads are fine, but google mixes paid ads into your results, it's not just the first 2. The first 2 are just made obvious.
It used to find more relevant sites and now it doesn't. It has been degrading a lot over the last few years. If you haven't noticed then, then maybe you should try searching for something useful.
For example, try finding out how to fix the USB stick not formatted problem in WinXP. All you will find are ancient forum posts from from 2004 or 2005 where retards tell you to uninstall your USB drivers. The newest forum post returned was 2008, yet if you go through the trouble of specifying the last Year, you find several more forum posts on the topic. Why not list the newest first by default?
OR you find paid sites that try to sell you programs to "recover" data from memory sticks. The problem is a common one that can be fixed and a $49 data recovery program is not going to recover shit and rob you of 50 bucks. The average computer user may not realize this.
Something from 7 years ago isn't useful most of the time to anyone unless you're specifically looking for something old. This problem is much more annoying when you need to find something new. Finding stuff from 2004 and constantly having to select newer dates gets annoying (as I stated in my OP). Ironically, 2004-5 was about the time Google gave its best results.
If the search engine was doing a good job, more recent and relevant sites would be found without having to constantly narrow the parameters manually. (I could just use ANY search engine and constantly narrow the parameters to find shit). It doesn't even find the Microsoft support site article on the issue in the first 5 pages, even if you specify WinXP.
Who said it had to be free? I just said all it finds are paid ads and I find it annoying. The side bar of ads are fine, but google mixes paid ads into your results, it's not just the first 2. The first 2 are just made obvious.
It used to find more relevant sites and now it doesn't. It has been degrading a lot over the last few years. If you haven't noticed then, then maybe you should try searching for something useful.
For example, try finding out how to fix the USB stick not formatted problem in WinXP. All you will find are ancient forum posts from from 2004 or 2005 where retards tell you to uninstall your USB drivers. The newest forum post returned was 2008, yet if you go through the trouble of specifying the last Year, you find several more forum posts on the topic. Why not list the newest first by default?
OR you find paid sites that try to sell you programs to "recover" data from memory sticks. The problem is a common one that can be fixed and a $49 data recovery program is not going to recover shit and rob you of 50 bucks. The average computer user may not realize this.
Something from 7 years ago isn't useful most of the time to anyone unless you're specifically looking for something old. This problem is much more annoying when you need to find something new. Finding stuff from 2004 and constantly having to select newer dates gets annoying (as I stated in my OP). Ironically, 2004-5 was about the time Google gave its best results.
If the search engine was doing a good job, more recent and relevant sites would be found without having to constantly narrow the parameters manually. (I could just use ANY search engine and constantly narrow the parameters to find shit). It doesn't even find the Microsoft support site article on the issue in the first 5 pages, even if you specify WinXP.
gogogadgetliver
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2010
- 159
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]...if you know, can you say it as simply as possible, reading 6 pages of law speak (it has to do with the things i'm researching) than translating it into what it means takes alot of my will to look into this away.[/citation]
Hrm. I'd prefer you didn't take my word for it since that would always leave an itching doubt. Here goes.
1. MS uses IE+Bingbar to watch user clicks. This includes if they go to some particular site after a search. (organic search, not ads) opinion: almost certainly a Bing search since they are a BingBar users. fact: It doesn't have to be Bing.
2. Bing uses some 1000+ factors in rankings the clickthroughs are one of them. Click throughs are good for levaraging human behaviors/observations that are beyond what software can determine. (short of say the Jeopardy software IBM recently did)
3. Google engineers create a false search result that would normally appear as it has no relevance on the search term at all. (eliminate 999 of those 1000 factors)
4. Google has a result. bing has none.
5. Google engineers load up IE+Bingbar, don't use bing but use Google to do this particular search.
6. This essentiallys uploads the desired fake data to bing similarly to click fraud tactics.
7. Bing sees users going to some site when searching on a term. With no other contradicting factors or higher ranked results Bing accepts this as valid data and shows the result itself(important: only 7-9 times out of 100 attempts by Google Engineers does this work).
8. Google sits on this information for several months. During a Bing hosted search conference when Google is in the spotlight for EU antitrust worries they reveal it and accuse Bing of scraping their search results.
9. They reveal it indirectly through a 3rd party blog who paints a pretty one sided picture. The rest of the blogosphere and news aggrigates spread it like wildfire. It makes CNN so fast the response from the VP at Bing isn't included.
10. Fanboy armies align behind William Wallace lookalikes and charge each other.
Hrm. I'd prefer you didn't take my word for it since that would always leave an itching doubt. Here goes.
1. MS uses IE+Bingbar to watch user clicks. This includes if they go to some particular site after a search. (organic search, not ads) opinion: almost certainly a Bing search since they are a BingBar users. fact: It doesn't have to be Bing.
2. Bing uses some 1000+ factors in rankings the clickthroughs are one of them. Click throughs are good for levaraging human behaviors/observations that are beyond what software can determine. (short of say the Jeopardy software IBM recently did)
3. Google engineers create a false search result that would normally appear as it has no relevance on the search term at all. (eliminate 999 of those 1000 factors)
4. Google has a result. bing has none.
5. Google engineers load up IE+Bingbar, don't use bing but use Google to do this particular search.
6. This essentiallys uploads the desired fake data to bing similarly to click fraud tactics.
7. Bing sees users going to some site when searching on a term. With no other contradicting factors or higher ranked results Bing accepts this as valid data and shows the result itself(important: only 7-9 times out of 100 attempts by Google Engineers does this work).
8. Google sits on this information for several months. During a Bing hosted search conference when Google is in the spotlight for EU antitrust worries they reveal it and accuse Bing of scraping their search results.
9. They reveal it indirectly through a 3rd party blog who paints a pretty one sided picture. The rest of the blogosphere and news aggrigates spread it like wildfire. It makes CNN so fast the response from the VP at Bing isn't included.
10. Fanboy armies align behind William Wallace lookalikes and charge each other.
gogogadgetliver
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2010
- 159
- 0
- 18,630
mayankleoboy1
Distinguished
- Aug 11, 2010
- 677
- 0
- 18,930
gogogadgetliver
Distinguished
- Apr 7, 2010
- 159
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]mayankleoboy1[/nom]if bing is stealing google, how come its still crap?[/citation]
1. It's not.
2. That sounds like someone who hasn't peeked at more than one or two bing results.
Set your search engine to this for a week: http
/www.bing-vs-google.com After a week I bet you'll agree they are too close to call.
1. It's not.
2. That sounds like someone who hasn't peeked at more than one or two bing results.
Set your search engine to this for a week: http
/www.bing-vs-google.com After a week I bet you'll agree they are too close to call.- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Why do people 'like' Lenovo so much?
- Started by sarrpatta
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
Question Can Minecraft 1.20.51 Apk be installed with high graphics on Realme 5?
- Started by BertramBlythe
- Replies: 0
-
Facebook
Twitter