Google Calls Out Bing for Stealing its Search Results

[Cain_Zeros]

How is upstart Google comparable to giant monolithic corpo-beast Microsoft?

Did I fall asleep and wake up 10 years ago? Upstart Google lolz

I think the point being made is that when Google was using rough base code from other search engines, they were an upstart. Meanwhile, Microsoft's already huge.

So it's okay for little guys to cheat, but not big guys? And if Google were to one day kill Microsoft (as MS seems to see a credible threat that has been growing non-stop) would it be okay that they used unscrupulous means to attain that achievement while Microsoft was not allowed to do the same to defend itself? For that matter, why was Google using Bing in the first place? Aren't they conducting their own corporate espionage here?

Now, no, it wouldn't be ok for Google to use unscrupulous means to do anything, let alone drive Microsoft out of business. Although somehow I doubt Google's going to completely destroy Microsoft. They might be able to push them out of the search engine competition, but that's about it. And big guys shouldn't need to cheat, where as little guys, especially in anything technology-related, don't even know if they'll exist in six months, so as long as it's legal, yeah, little guys can "cheat".

 

[JonnWood]

Shrug. I remember when Google was up and coming they talked about looking at the code for Lycos and Web Crawler "and it was a mess, we could do better". But they still used those engines as a building block. Now that they're the neighborhood alpha male and a new dog is nipping at their heels they're crying foul. I can understand their frustration, but it's also annoying to see them acting like this.

How is upstart Google comparable to giant monolithic corpo-beast Microsoft?

Shrug. I remember when Google was up and coming they talked about looking at the code for Lycos and Web Crawler "and it was a mess, we could do better". But they still used those engines as a building block. Now that they're the neighborhood alpha male and a new dog is nipping at their heels they're crying foul. I can understand their frustration, but it's also annoying to see them acting like this.

How is upstart Google comparable to giant monolithic corpo-beast Microsoft?

Everyone likes to think they're rooting for the underdog.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

People use Bing? Really?

 

[BENZOOKA]

That silly Microsoft. Always copying the cooler kids.

 

[knhirt]

Shrug. I remember when Google was up and coming they talked about looking at the code for Lycos and Web Crawler "and it was a mess, we could do better". But they still used those engines as a building block. Now that they're the neighborhood alpha male and a new dog is nipping at their heels they're crying foul. I can understand their frustration, but it's also annoying to see them acting like this.

How is upstart Google comparable to giant monolithic corpo-beast Microsoft?

Everyone likes to think they're rooting for the underdog.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not rooting for anyone. It was a simple question that I asked to try to make sense of Gengis John's post.

If you think that my question indicated that I was so incredibly naive as to think that Google is some kind of underdog - well, I think there's a pretty high horse that you need to be stepping off some time soon.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

Of all the things you could call out Microsoft on, we get 7-9% search similarity in searches?
Seriously Google. All you're doing is giving Bing free press.

Might want to check out the link maddawg posted. It's not just actual word similarities. They're complete gibberish words that were inserted by Google to be synthetic queries IE Google purposefully made up words like hiybbprqag and delhipublicschool40 chdjob and juegosdeben1ogrande to get only a single url that has no relation whatsoever to what the gibberish word was. This means that they should only appear when searched by GOOGLE, but no. They appeared in Bing, too.

 

[GoldenShadow]

Its a lot more in-depth than the 7-9% search similarities. Think of it as cheating off your neighbor during a test. But, your neighbor knows you're cheating off him. So he puts in wrong answers on purpose. Not just merely wrong answers, but complete gibberish, all to prove you are cheating. And that is how they know Microsoft is cheating.

 

[Danpascooch]

wait whhhhaaaaa?? 7-9% of the search results came out the same? Even if Bing wasn't copying google (not saying they are or not) you would think the results would be higher.

but in the sting operation they used completely random gibberish.

If google decided to return an article about Stem Cell Research for the search terms "Balloon Honey Awesome Rhinocats" and that happened on Bing too, there is no fucking way that is a coincidence, even at ONE percent.

 

[0mn1p0t3ntg6y]

Neither of them accomplish anything. Let them kill eachother and hope something more useful replaces them

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

wait whhhhaaaaa?? 7-9% of the search results came out the same? Even if Bing wasn't copying google (not saying they are or not) you would think the results would be higher.

There's pretty much no chance that they're not copying google. These weren't things that could happen by chance. We're talking about forcing associations between words that don't exist and sites that have nothing to do with the nonexistent words. If even a single one went through, it would mean that something fishy was going on.

As for why it's not 100%, it might be that they're not collecting data from everyone using IE, that they're implementing it somewhat randomly to help keep it covert, that whatever they're using to send out the information was blocked for some of the engineers, that whatever is recording the results happened to be down, or that any number of other issues are to blame.

 

[Danpascooch]

If two students took a test and 7-9% of their answers were similar, could you accuse one of the students of cheating?

Also, were there any search results exclusive to Google (that were not advertisements) that appeared in Bing?

If both students answered the same random gibberish 7% of the time, YES I sure as hell would.

If the question was "what was Newton's second law" and 2 students both wrote:

"Lasercats in space puts the lotion on the skin"

I sure as hell would know one copied (or collaborated) with the other.

These aren't normal search terms, Google made them up specially to be completely random bullshit that would never be found on a different search engine because it makes no sense.

 

[Danpascooch]

Google:

Bing:

Can anyone honestly believe they aren't copying Google? Google linked that gibberish to that site for the sole reason of seeing if Bing would steal it, why would Bing have that same link for that result if they weren't stealing?

I bet this is somehow illegal, I hope they get nailed.

 

[Ghengis John]

I'm not comparing google-now with microsoft-now, nor am I comparing google-then with google-now. I'm using your original post as basis for my comparison, which is of google-then and microsoft-now. My phrase "giant monolithic corpo beast" is fitting, in my opinion, and served only to emphasize that you were talking about "upstart google" and Microsoft as a company today.

All clear?

I comprehend but if you read my post in reply to Cain you'll probably grasp what my position on the matter is. I thought you were rooting for Google (get me my ladder, this damn horse is too high) but for what it's worth I never wanted a debate in the first place. I was just commenting on the irony of the situation which I found amusing and a little obnoxious. Frankly I'd prefer nobody "cheated", but if you've done it in the past you forfeit the right to call anyone on it. It's not like upstart Google was calling giant MS out, giant Google and giant MS are in a shoving match. I dunno what the point of shouting is anyhow if nobody has broken a law. Google just inadvertently professed it was spying on MS when it realized MS was spying on them. They're both spying on each other apparently. Surprise.

 

[Danpascooch]

SNIP

Please edit this article with an example phrase and result, or at least more emphasis on the fact that google used nonsensical gibberish for this test, because almost HALF the people commenting on this article think it's just saying that Google and Bing are 7% similar.

 

[imperialreign]

I'm going to hop out on a limb and play devil's advocate here . . .

I think there might be something a little bigger going on than Google is giving Bing credit for . . .

I don't for a moment doubt that MS is more than likely collecting information from IE and Bing-bar users as to search queries . . . but I do not think they're fully "copying" google's results.

Now, if I remember correctly, ages ago, google's search engine functioned very much like the antique WebCrawler - that was, it "scanned" pages and determined it's search results via keywords and caches. It used a slightly different method to apply the same results . . .

But, this article kinda spurned a curiosity for me - Bing has been quite adamant about it being a different search engine that returns more relevant results, right? So, that got me thinking, perhaps bing isn't going to the effort of scanning and caching web pages, but instead scanning user search queries and using those to return the most commonly selected results.

Typing a simple string into bing and into google does indeed return similar results, but the way in which they're ordered is quite different. It's understood that most relevant result will return at the top of the list . . . but, bing does return some different results intermixed - the page does not look identicle to google. Now, if you bring up a different popular search engine (i.e. Yahoo, lycos, etc.), and search the same string, you get a different set of results . . .but, the differences that bing had returned which google hadn't, you'll more than likely see on these other search engines.


Now - if this is how MS has engineered bing to work, I can't fault them for it. It does make their search engine different in that, it's returning queries based on a popular user selection across numerous engines - eliminating a lot of BS sites that might crop up on other engines. You're left with a larger selection of the most relevant sites other users have visited . . . think of it like a search engine for the people by the people. It would also drastically reduce the amount of crud MS would have to store (like how google caches sites), and search results would change quickly with the changing trend in popular queries.

Such being the case, I don't see bing as actually "cheating" - it's just going about things a different way. If My "theory" is indeed the truth, that would explain the anomalies in googles "research," and it would also mean that google literally created what they wanted bing to return as a result.

 

[deleted_scifidownbeat]

DELETED