Google Calls Out Bing for Stealing its Search Results

[Sovereignty]

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.

I've seen nothing stating they did.

So until that is put out there... You don't get to assume either way. So as I said. 8 out of 100 = non-consequential.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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. 7-9% Is in any case a highly suspect result to flatly say "MS is stealing our results" as it seems Bing is still doing a lot of it's own work, this just seems like an attempt to publicly undermine their competition.

Outright copying of results is different from looking at someone else's algorithms and improving it.

 

[Emergent]

They aren't copying results. They're copying the data that I.E. users type into google through their I.E. browser, and recording the pages they end up on, then only submitting the pages the ended up on to the Bing database. It's a foxy move, but certainly no more invasive, intrusive, or "cheating" than caching every site every visited through your engine (which is what Google does), regardless of whether that site, or the user, wishes you to do so.

 

[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.

I've seen nothing stating they did.

So until that is put out there... You don't get to assume either way. So as I said. 8 out of 100 = non-consequential.

Considering the only other way was if they googled (Edit: `Binged' just sounds wrong) random assortments of letters until Bing came up with something unexpected...

Also, for those people claiming that `7--9 % would be deemed inconsequential in Science' here's an example of where it wasn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment

 

[mjc0961]

Microsoft said that the experiment seemed like an effort by Google to try and confuse the data and make Bing less effective.

Isn't that some kind of admission? If Bing wasn't using data from Google, whatever Google does with its engine shouldn't make Bing less effective.

Of course, I want to know how many of those 100 things they did were pure gibberish. If nearly all of them were, only 7 or 9 one them working still seems inconclusive. 7 or 9 of them working really isn't impressive if there were 80 gibberish strings used, right?

Basically right now I'm wondering what game both Google and Microsoft are playing. Both of them seem a bit suspicious to me at this point.

 

[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.

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?

If Bing could legitamately turn around and accuse Google of stealing ITS results, then answer me this? Why didn't they?

Because they can't. The screenshots are real, and I like that you continue to ignore the fact that you can find the gibberish result giving the specific page listed in the screenshots on Bing right now, thus proving it is true. That little fact you seem totally content to ignore while constantly saying we have to take Google's word for it when we are able to confirm the evidence by that act.

I don't get why you think both companies needing their search engines for profit means that Bing can't possibly be stealing from Google, it's completely irrelevant information that leads me to believe you are grasping at straws.

Also, I'm sure as hell not going to think I lost this little debate because you left, and that cute little disclaimer you made doesn't change that. Either you got sick of arguing, which I'll take as a win considering as it stands, I have evidence that you can confirm right now of my argument, and you have no evidence that what Google said is false. Or you left because you lack any evidence to counter mine, which sure as hell is a "win" despite any cookie cutter "I bet you're going to call victory because I leave" statement.

Oh right, one last thing, you've changed your point about 10 times in this little debate. From the first post you made acting like this was just coincidental overlap (demonstrating an almost satirical misunderstanding of the news article) to claiming Google is lying, to claiming Google is actually the thief. You change your argument so much you've lost all credibility, as you clearly have an agenda here other than finding the truth, otherwise you'd stick with an argument instead of jumping between 15 different ones that all defend Bing.

 

[Danpascooch]

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.

That's not even close to how it works, notice Wikipedia is very commonly a top result? They don't pay Google anything.

Instead there is an area off to the side, or on the top that is clearly marked as "sponsored results" and everything outside of that small 2-4 result box is ordered by popularity, do a search right now for "oil" and result #1 is Wikipedia. Do you think Wikipedia decided to pay Google more than any other giant oil company for that result? FUCK NO!

 

[guntotingtomcat]

I only use bing for e mail. Google is just a better search engine.
Bing does give you pretty pictures, a new one every day, which I actually like. Brightens up the chore of checking my in box.

 

[imperialreign]

If Bing could legitamately turn around and accuse Google of stealing ITS results, then answer me this? Why didn't they?

Because they can't. The screenshots are real, and I like that you continue to ignore the fact that you can find the gibberish result giving the specific page listed in the screenshots on Bing right now, thus proving it is true. That little fact you seem totally content to ignore while constantly saying we have to take Google's word for it when we are able to confirm the evidence by that act.

TBH, and regarding my earlier posts - the more I've experimented between different engines, the more conviced I've become that bing isn't "stealing" googles search results - but instead returning the most relevant results that users choose based on search queries entered into differing browser search bars. MS would be pulling this off by collecting information through both IE and browser bars . . . I don't see this as cheating, but instead a different approach to a search engine. By monitoring search trends across various engines, you'd be able to return the most relevant results based on "user feedback." I refer back to my earlier posts for further insight into this theory.

If, for example, you go and search some off-the-wall string on both bing and google (one not listed in the article), both engines returns drastically different results. If bing were flat-out copying results, I would assume in such an instance that bing would then immediately query google and display what google would. No, instead that strign would have to be searched vast numerous times in google before bing would return the same. You're left with a "latency effect" as the search queries haven't been updated to bing yet.

It's not cheating. Google has simply unknowingly fabricated these results by reguarly searching these same gibberish strings. such being the case, I have to agree with MS' statement (and it actually makes a lot more sense now, too); google has indeed (unknowingly) made bing less effective in these specific searches . . . even though it's not like anyone is going to search those same strings.

 

[LastDarkness]

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?

Well I would be suspicious if they were both asked something like "Whats the Capital of your country?" and they both answered "juegosdeben1ogrande" id be a little suspicious.

To prove their point 7-9% isnt needed since they only needed 1 to show up. Its a fake word and google linked fake web pages that were completly unrelated and only existed in googles system. Then they show up in another exactly how they set it up.

 

[Woodsey]

Are you telling me people use Bing?

Double you tea eff.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

It's MS, what did you expect?

On a related subject, did you know that IE uses Firefox engine? If you're using IE and enter this link to see its user agent says Mozilla Firefox.

http://whatsmyuseragent.com/

(A user agent is a string that devices and software have to diferentiate ones from others)

Interesting. I also tried it with Google Chrome, and it comes up as using Mozilla parts as well.

I also tried Opera, it comes up as Opera and only Opera.

-----------

Ha, you don't expect Microsoft to do the work from scratch do you Google, that would take time and money.

 

[Danpascooch]

If Bing could legitamately turn around and accuse Google of stealing ITS results, then answer me this? Why didn't they?

Because they can't. The screenshots are real, and I like that you continue to ignore the fact that you can find the gibberish result giving the specific page listed in the screenshots on Bing right now, thus proving it is true. That little fact you seem totally content to ignore while constantly saying we have to take Google's word for it when we are able to confirm the evidence by that act.

TBH, and regarding my earlier posts - the more I've experimented between different engines, the more conviced I've become that bing isn't "stealing" googles search results - but instead returning the most relevant results that users choose based on search queries entered into differing browser search bars. MS would be pulling this off by collecting information through both IE and browser bars . . . I don't see this as cheating, but instead a different approach to a search engine. By monitoring search trends across various engines, you'd be able to return the most relevant results based on "user feedback." I refer back to my earlier posts for further insight into this theory.

If, for example, you go and search some off-the-wall string on both bing and google (one not listed in the article), both engines returns drastically different results. If bing were flat-out copying results, I would assume in such an instance that bing would then immediately query google and display what google would. No, instead that strign would have to be searched vast numerous times in google before bing would return the same. You're left with a "latency effect" as the search queries haven't been updated to bing yet.

It's not cheating. Google has simply unknowingly fabricated these results by reguarly searching these same gibberish strings. such being the case, I have to agree with MS' statement (and it actually makes a lot more sense now, too); google has indeed (unknowingly) made bing less effective in these specific searches . . . even though it's not like anyone is going to search those same strings.

Well obviously they aren't just running Google under the hood at Bing, but they are using Google search queries to further their search engine, by collecting data on what Google returns to specific search queries.

Think about it, that result for that gibberish came DIRECTLY from Google (because they invented that term-result relationship) which means when Bing doesn't know something, it steals answers from Google.

Sounds like cheating to me.

 

[tehbeard]

That's all I have really. Cookie for the reference.

I understand the argument Google is a company as well, but so is Valve or whatever product you enjoy. The point is that some play the long game and don't immediately screw over customers for profit, but instead slowly change things to ensure loyalty and thus revenue

 

[BabyRaptor]

Not commenting until I see a bit more of how this is going to play out. Not a big fan of foot-in-mouth syndrome.

 

[killamanhunter]

Microsoft shouldn't even try to go up against the undisputed ruler of the internet. Dang, maybe all of this conflict of Pirates, hackers and now corporations going against each other is a sign..

 

[Alpha Maeko]

Why actually do -real- work collecting data when you can milk Google's already established system? I don't give a damn about Bing, but I still think Microsoft needs to do their own dirty work. If Bing isn't popular enough to get the search results people want, then it needs to be put down. Don't frelling cheat in order to make yourselves look less like assholes.

I love Windows 7, but screw you Microsoft. Good day, sir.

 

[solidstatemind]

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.

That is kinda funny, but I was referring to the commentary more at sites like Huffington Post, Business Insider, major news services, etc. etc, plus all the brouhaha over how they essentially created what could be used as a tool for thieves to case neighborhoods with Google Maps, and didn't even bother to let the residents know what they were doing.

I hate to use it, but apply Occam's Razor here, people: If what Microsoft did was in any way against the Law, Google would've already filed injunctions, suits, etc.

No, the truth is that, due to some of their recent fuckups and shady moves, Google no longer has the a firm grip on the supposed 'moral high ground' (Seriously: go to Google, and enter the phrase "Google is Evil" and you get 41,300,000 hits), so they're attempting to sling a little more mud Microsoft's way. This is, to put it bluntly, entirely a PR move, to remind/reinforce to the people out there that Microsoft is still comprised only of greedy, evil businessmen and their mindless slaves, bent on world domination, and that Google is the 'anti-Microsoft'.

I love Windows 7, but screw you Microsoft. Good day, sir.

And apparently, it's working.

 

[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.

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?

If Bing could legitamately turn around and accuse Google of stealing ITS results, then answer me this? Why didn't they?

Because they can't. The screenshots are real, and I like that you continue to ignore the fact that you can find the gibberish result giving the specific page listed in the screenshots on Bing right now, thus proving it is true. That little fact you seem totally content to ignore while constantly saying we have to take Google's word for it when we are able to confirm the evidence by that act.

I don't get why you think both companies needing their search engines for profit means that Bing can't possibly be stealing from Google, it's completely irrelevant information that leads me to believe you are grasping at straws.

Also, I'm sure as hell not going to think I lost this little debate because you left, and that cute little disclaimer you made doesn't change that. Either you got sick of arguing, which I'll take as a win considering as it stands, I have evidence that you can confirm right now of my argument, and you have no evidence that what Google said is false. Or you left because you lack any evidence to counter mine, which sure as hell is a "win" despite any cookie cutter "I bet you're going to call victory because I leave" statement.

Oh right, one last thing, you've changed your point about 10 times in this little debate. From the first post you made acting like this was just coincidental overlap (demonstrating an almost satirical misunderstanding of the news article) to claiming Google is lying, to claiming Google is actually the thief. You change your argument so much you've lost all credibility, as you clearly have an agenda here other than finding the truth, otherwise you'd stick with an argument instead of jumping between 15 different ones that all defend Bing.

LMAO nerd rage is fun. I haven't defended either at all. All I have done is offered theories. You are the google fanboy it isn't me who is the Bing one. Maybe if you removed those fanboy tinted glasses and bothered to read what I have been saying instead of jumping to conclusions you might have seen I am unconvinced due to a lack of evidence. Just because you are convined by what you read off of Googleblog doesn't mean we all are. OMG someone has a differing opinion than you. Shocking isn't it? And all your arguing hasn't convinced me any more than the blog did. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I believe in what Google said because google has shown evidence to back it up that I was able to go and confirm.

Call me whatever you want, I have evidence, you just have condescending labels.