Google Calls Out Bing for Stealing its Search Results

[Emergent]

(Deleted: Double post, sorry)

 

[Emergent]

I'm not exactly sure there is anything to call foul on here. Unless Microsoft is illegally accessing Google's servers for information (which is not is what is being claimed), they are only making excellent use of information provided by the public and made available to the public for private profit, EXACTLY what Google does with the same information. Google is already much too comfortable in their position of profiting enormously off the data-mining of the world's internet traffic, and are only upset that someone else is getting into the game, too.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses-google-search.html You should read this, it'll explain things better.

Except I have, and it doesn't. See, Google is essentially accusing Microsoft of "cheating" by taking search results directly off their web site to enhance their own search engine, but Google already effectively caches (makes backup copies of) nearly the WHOLE DAMN INTERNET in order to enhance their own search function (essentially "cheating" in exactly the same manner but on a scale that dwarfs what MS is doing). The kettle is calling the pot black.

Note that every time you type the Bing website into the google search engine it does EXACTLY what Google is accusing of Microsoft (copying data from someone else's website for your own company's gain) - and it does it automatically.

If anything, Google should be lambasting Microsoft of being so inefficient in their ability to mine the collective progress of the internet's users for private profit, for being behind the curve so to speak.

 

[Electrogecko]

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?

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

Did I fall asleep and wake up 10 years ago? 9-year-old reading comprehension lolz

Read the post I quoted. I'll give you a hint: "I remember when Google was up and coming"

Read what you actually wrote lulz. Sorry I do have the mind reading power of a 9 yr old I hope that doesn't offend you. You know just going on by what you wrote and not the sarcastic tone your voice may have used. Or did you forget that I can't hear you? That is why most people would finish that with [/sarcasm] because they are aware of such facts [/sarcasm]

Dude wtf....he didn't use sarcasm in any of his posts and he was perfectly justified in comparing upstart Google to monolithic Microsoft. I can't make sense of what you just posted and I'm sure it's not due to a lack of reading comprehension skill or intellect on my part.

And talking about cutting yourself if your proven wrong on the internet....as if there's no possibility that anyone here could be more knowledgeable than you on a given subject.....I wouldn't expect such arrogance from one of the elder users here.

Btw, you should make use of semicolon's or whatever the required punctuation is for the type of phrases you use such as this. "...that day ever come. Being proven wrong on the internet. I don't think..."

 

[SanguineSymphony]

I just want Bing to stay around so I can cap out my MS Points Rewards. Once I do that I don't care what happens to it.

 

[squid5580]

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?

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

Did I fall asleep and wake up 10 years ago? 9-year-old reading comprehension lolz

Read the post I quoted. I'll give you a hint: "I remember when Google was up and coming"

Read what you actually wrote lulz. Sorry I do have the mind reading power of a 9 yr old I hope that doesn't offend you. You know just going on by what you wrote and not the sarcastic tone your voice may have used. Or did you forget that I can't hear you? That is why most people would finish that with [/sarcasm] because they are aware of such facts [/sarcasm]

Dude wtf....he didn't use sarcasm in any of his posts and he was perfectly justified in comparing upstart Google to monolithic Microsoft. I can't make sense of what you just posted and I'm sure it's not due to a lack of reading comprehension skill or intellect on my part.

And talking about cutting yourself if your proven wrong on the internet....as if there's no possibility that anyone here could be more knowledgeable than you on a given subject.....I wouldn't expect such arrogance from one of the elder users here.

Btw, you should make use of semicolon's or whatever the required punctuation is for the type of phrases you use such as this. "...that day ever come. Being proven wrong on the internet. I don't think..."

First off do you know what "upstart" actually means? Sure they are. And by definition so was MS.

And sorry but if someone wants to cop an attitude they will find that is what they get. If you are gonna finish posts with crap like "it's the truth deal with it" you are going to find that kind of attitude coming right back at you.

And you really should take into context the entire post. I don't care if I am proven wrong online, in real life or anywhere else. I AM NOT PERFECT. I know shocking to hear right? I also don't feel the need to always be right and rage when someone isn't convinced. Something the poster you are defending may want to learn one day. Sorry if I have a bit higher standards than a few screenshots and the rant of either some fanboy or some anti fanboy (I am not sure which side he belongs on) and a blog from the company crying foul. Call me crazy.

If you go back you might see that I like Google. I hope either they are wrong or they can sue the shit out of MS and Bing. Why as I type this I am using Google chrome and to find the actual definition of "upstart" I used Google. I have said and I will continue to say I am remaining neutral until further proof is shown on the matter. Real proof, unbiased proof, not claims from googleblog who used underhanded techniques (and unscientific ones) to gain it.

Oh and my deepest apologies my grammar was not up to your standards. I bow down to your superior semi colon skills.

 

[squid5580]

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?

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.

I am pretty sure MS was an upstart company at one point as well. Doesn't change the fact now either one are worth a lot more money than I will ever see in my lifetime.

Yes, and at the time Bill Gates pulled all kinds of underhandedness.

And look at where he is now. Remember kids nice guys do finish last.

But that's no reason to keep being a dick once you can crush someone by shifting your weight, is it? (ok, this analogy falls apart now simply by existing)

My guess is it will depend if you are the crusher or the crushee. It only sucks if you are on the bottom. Isn't going to bother the one on top. So why should he care?

 

[Cain_Zeros]

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?

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.

I am pretty sure MS was an upstart company at one point as well. Doesn't change the fact now either one are worth a lot more money than I will ever see in my lifetime.

Yes, and at the time Bill Gates pulled all kinds of underhandedness.

And look at where he is now. Remember kids nice guys do finish last.

But that's no reason to keep being a dick once you can crush someone by shifting your weight, is it? (ok, this analogy falls apart now simply by existing)

My guess is it will depend if you are the crusher or the crushee. It only sucks if you are on the bottom. Isn't going to bother the one on top. So why should he care?

A valid point. And Google's more the "person of near-equal size who's slightly irritated that their toes are currently being stepped on".

 

[squid5580]

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?

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.

I am pretty sure MS was an upstart company at one point as well. Doesn't change the fact now either one are worth a lot more money than I will ever see in my lifetime.

Yes, and at the time Bill Gates pulled all kinds of underhandedness.

And look at where he is now. Remember kids nice guys do finish last.

But that's no reason to keep being a dick once you can crush someone by shifting your weight, is it? (ok, this analogy falls apart now simply by existing)

My guess is it will depend if you are the crusher or the crushee. It only sucks if you are on the bottom. Isn't going to bother the one on top. So why should he care?

A valid point. And Google's more the "person of near-equal size who's slightly irritated that their toes are currently being stepped on".

You know the one thing I don't understand. How did google get so big in the first place. How did they make millions. I doubt they did it without stepping on a few toes themselves. But at least with MS you can point and say hey there is something tangible. There is something of value. There is something consumers actually paid for. Other than a free search engine and a free browser what have they done? How have they made money? That in itself strikes me as underhanded.

 

[Cain_Zeros]

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?

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.

I am pretty sure MS was an upstart company at one point as well. Doesn't change the fact now either one are worth a lot more money than I will ever see in my lifetime.

Yes, and at the time Bill Gates pulled all kinds of underhandedness.

And look at where he is now. Remember kids nice guys do finish last.

But that's no reason to keep being a dick once you can crush someone by shifting your weight, is it? (ok, this analogy falls apart now simply by existing)

My guess is it will depend if you are the crusher or the crushee. It only sucks if you are on the bottom. Isn't going to bother the one on top. So why should he care?

A valid point. And Google's more the "person of near-equal size who's slightly irritated that their toes are currently being stepped on".

You know the one thing I don't understand. How did google get so big in the first place. How did they make millions. I doubt they did it without stepping on a few toes themselves. But at least with MS you can point and say hey there is something tangible. There is something of value. There is something consumers actually paid for. Other than a free search engine and a free browser what have they done? How have they made money? That in itself strikes me as underhanded.

Selling advertising, mostly. Those "featured results" that they make sure to emphasize? They paid Google. How they got big enough to warrant the kind of ad revenue they have now, I'm not sure...

 

[Emergent]

How they got big enough to warrant the kind of ad revenue they have now, I'm not sure...

By leveraging the collective efforts of billions of users (and the ad revenue that violating the privacy of such an audience can generate) into private profit.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

So Bing is basically now Google with less functionality? Well, it's an improvement.

Oh, Microsoft, you lazy company you.

 

[squid5580]

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?

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.

I am pretty sure MS was an upstart company at one point as well. Doesn't change the fact now either one are worth a lot more money than I will ever see in my lifetime.

Yes, and at the time Bill Gates pulled all kinds of underhandedness.

And look at where he is now. Remember kids nice guys do finish last.

But that's no reason to keep being a dick once you can crush someone by shifting your weight, is it? (ok, this analogy falls apart now simply by existing)

My guess is it will depend if you are the crusher or the crushee. It only sucks if you are on the bottom. Isn't going to bother the one on top. So why should he care?

A valid point. And Google's more the "person of near-equal size who's slightly irritated that their toes are currently being stepped on".

You know the one thing I don't understand. How did google get so big in the first place. How did they make millions. I doubt they did it without stepping on a few toes themselves. But at least with MS you can point and say hey there is something tangible. There is something of value. There is something consumers actually paid for. Other than a free search engine and a free browser what have they done? How have they made money? That in itself strikes me as underhanded.

Selling advertising, mostly. Those "featured results" that they make sure to emphasize? They paid Google. How they got big enough to warrant the kind of ad revenue they have now, I'm not sure...

Wait if you are even half right that is not underhanded? Shouldn't those top sites on page 1 of a search be the most popular not who paid the most?

 

[Cain_Zeros]

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?

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.

I am pretty sure MS was an upstart company at one point as well. Doesn't change the fact now either one are worth a lot more money than I will ever see in my lifetime.

Yes, and at the time Bill Gates pulled all kinds of underhandedness.

And look at where he is now. Remember kids nice guys do finish last.

But that's no reason to keep being a dick once you can crush someone by shifting your weight, is it? (ok, this analogy falls apart now simply by existing)

My guess is it will depend if you are the crusher or the crushee. It only sucks if you are on the bottom. Isn't going to bother the one on top. So why should he care?

A valid point. And Google's more the "person of near-equal size who's slightly irritated that their toes are currently being stepped on".

You know the one thing I don't understand. How did google get so big in the first place. How did they make millions. I doubt they did it without stepping on a few toes themselves. But at least with MS you can point and say hey there is something tangible. There is something of value. There is something consumers actually paid for. Other than a free search engine and a free browser what have they done? How have they made money? That in itself strikes me as underhanded.

Selling advertising, mostly. Those "featured results" that they make sure to emphasize? They paid Google. How they got big enough to warrant the kind of ad revenue they have now, I'm not sure...

Wait if you are even half right that is not underhanded? Shouldn't those top sites on page 1 of a search be the most popular not who paid the most?

In theory, yes. But in practice, they're doing what any website without a fee for use or other source of income has to do to make money. At least they're tasteful about it and don't have hideous banner ads or those ads on the Youtube homepage (although that's Google too).

 

[Sovereignty]

Everyone seems to think 7-9% is something concrete, but I think it just proves Bing probably wasn't stealing anything...

Between 7 and 9 is just 8. So out of 100 fake gibberish words 8 of them matched to Bing...

Entrapment aside here, how do they know it's not a freak coincidence?

I'd like proof (And no those blurry images don't count. If I took a desktop screen shot of the page it'd look far more legitimate then that.). I'd also like someone from this "sting" operation to state if they searched for their entries first.

How do we know there wasn't a result for the afl;skdfjsdl;fjsfl;jka prior to this sting operation?

 

[Space Jawa]

Now, let me stipulate something: I'm not defending MS so much as making the statement 'Large, profitable corporations engage in some shady tactics... GOOGLE INCLUDED.' If you don't believe me, just go Google "is Google evil", and you'll find plenty of examples where Google exploited, bullied, coerced, and outright fucked people over.

This is interesting - I looked up "is google evil" on both Dogpile and Bing, and right now your post shows up in the top 10 search results of each.

 

[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.

All I am saying if they want to convince me that Bing is they are going to need more than their opinion, a claim of a higher than a 7-9% success rate and a few screenshots that I could just as easily fake. By simply searching whatever and replacing what is in the search bar with a bunch of gibberish, not hitting enter and taking a screenshot. And on the blog that someone linked that is all they have.

Right now it sounds like Google is afraid. And they are using cheap tactics to smear the competition. Put out some substantial evidence and hey then we can talk. Otherwise it is just their word against MS.

First off, the content in those screenshots is irrefutable proof, look at the shots on the first page that I posted

Secondly, do a Bing search RIGHT now for "delhipublicschool40 chdjob" and the first result you see is

Welcome to the Clyde-Findlay Area Credit Union

A nonprofit cooperative providing a financial products and services to individuals who live, work, or attend school within the Ohio counties of Hancock, Sandusky, and Seneca.
cfacu.org · Cached page"

Those lazy fuckers are too stupid to even take down the proof that the screenshots are real, right there is the sting result google put into its search engine. There is your proof.

Lastly, why are you still fixated on the 7% success rate? You DID look at the terms they used right? Even a 1% success rate is 100% impossible unless they stole from google.

It's the truth, deal with it.

Of course I used the terms THEY used. And I am standing by what I believe. When an unbiased company reports the same thing. When an unbiased company researches and comes forth to say the only way this could happen is if Bing stole it from Google and there is no room for coincidence then I will deal with this truth you speak of. Until then there is no truth just one company's word against another.

Although I don't know how I will deal with such pain should that day ever come. Being proven wrong on the internet. I don't think cutting myself will be enough.

So you're saying you are ignoring solid evidence because it comes from a company that benefits from it?

That's crazy, it would have been impossible for an unbiased company to do this because an unbiased company cannot inject results into google's search engine, they have shown strong evidence that you can CONFIRM THIS VERY INSTANT by searching the terms on Bing.

But whatever, if you want to stick your head in the sand that's fine.

BTW, we also evolved from primitive species.

 

[squid5580]

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?

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.

I am pretty sure MS was an upstart company at one point as well. Doesn't change the fact now either one are worth a lot more money than I will ever see in my lifetime.

Yes, and at the time Bill Gates pulled all kinds of underhandedness.

And look at where he is now. Remember kids nice guys do finish last.

But that's no reason to keep being a dick once you can crush someone by shifting your weight, is it? (ok, this analogy falls apart now simply by existing)

My guess is it will depend if you are the crusher or the crushee. It only sucks if you are on the bottom. Isn't going to bother the one on top. So why should he care?

A valid point. And Google's more the "person of near-equal size who's slightly irritated that their toes are currently being stepped on".

You know the one thing I don't understand. How did google get so big in the first place. How did they make millions. I doubt they did it without stepping on a few toes themselves. But at least with MS you can point and say hey there is something tangible. There is something of value. There is something consumers actually paid for. Other than a free search engine and a free browser what have they done? How have they made money? That in itself strikes me as underhanded.

Selling advertising, mostly. Those "featured results" that they make sure to emphasize? They paid Google. How they got big enough to warrant the kind of ad revenue they have now, I'm not sure...

Wait if you are even half right that is not underhanded? Shouldn't those top sites on page 1 of a search be the most popular not who paid the most?

In theory, yes. But in practice, they're doing what any website without a fee for use or other source of income has to do to make money. At least they're tasteful about it and don't have hideous banner ads or those ads on the Youtube homepage (although that's Google too).

Yes but there is a difference if I am understanding you correctly. When a site like youtube does it well it is like a TV ad. I mean if you don't pay you don't get the commercial and that is that. It may give the competition an advantage but it doesn't put you at a disadvantage so to speak. But if you don't pay google and someone else with a similar name does because they paid and you didn't their site gets first page and your site get buried on page 5 even though you have more hits that seems unfair. Almost extortion to be honest.

 

[Lukeje]

How do we know there wasn't a result for the afl;skdfjsdl;fjsfl;jka prior to this sting operation?

I know this sounds crazy, but maybe they checked first. And it's not whether there was any result. It was whether there was a specific result that google had linked to.

 

[squid5580]

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.

All I am saying if they want to convince me that Bing is they are going to need more than their opinion, a claim of a higher than a 7-9% success rate and a few screenshots that I could just as easily fake. By simply searching whatever and replacing what is in the search bar with a bunch of gibberish, not hitting enter and taking a screenshot. And on the blog that someone linked that is all they have.

Right now it sounds like Google is afraid. And they are using cheap tactics to smear the competition. Put out some substantial evidence and hey then we can talk. Otherwise it is just their word against MS.

First off, the content in those screenshots is irrefutable proof, look at the shots on the first page that I posted

Secondly, do a Bing search RIGHT now for "delhipublicschool40 chdjob" and the first result you see is

Welcome to the Clyde-Findlay Area Credit Union

A nonprofit cooperative providing a financial products and services to individuals who live, work, or attend school within the Ohio counties of Hancock, Sandusky, and Seneca.
cfacu.org · Cached page"

Those lazy fuckers are too stupid to even take down the proof that the screenshots are real, right there is the sting result google put into its search engine. There is your proof.

Lastly, why are you still fixated on the 7% success rate? You DID look at the terms they used right? Even a 1% success rate is 100% impossible unless they stole from google.

It's the truth, deal with it.

Of course I used the terms THEY used. And I am standing by what I believe. When an unbiased company reports the same thing. When an unbiased company researches and comes forth to say the only way this could happen is if Bing stole it from Google and there is no room for coincidence then I will deal with this truth you speak of. Until then there is no truth just one company's word against another.

Although I don't know how I will deal with such pain should that day ever come. Being proven wrong on the internet. I don't think cutting myself will be enough.

So you're saying you are ignoring solid evidence because it comes from a company that benefits from it?

That's crazy, it would have been impossible for an unbiased company to do this because an unbiased company cannot inject results into google's search engine, they have shown strong evidence that you can CONFIRM THIS VERY INSTANT by searching the terms on Bing.

But whatever, if you want to stick your head in the sand that's fine.

BTW, we also evolved from primitive species.

Next you are going to try and tell me the world is round. Oh that's right there is scientific evidence to support both. Not some people who just wrote something down and called it the truth.

And of course an unbiased company would be so technologically impaired they couldn't inject their own results into a search engine. What was I thinking? I mean some guy on the internet claimed to have done something so it must be true right? He would have no reason to lie right? Funny thing is Bing could turn around and accuse Google of doing the same thing. Claiming they were the ones who are being stolen from. And that right there is where it all falls apart. But let me guess because Google blogged it first they must be right. You know because both companies need their search engines to survive. Just like you are going to claim victory with this discussion because I am not going to bother responding to it anymore allowing you to have the last word. That is how the internet works no?