Google's Childish Response To Microsoft Using Google To Increase Bing Relevance
from the get-over-it dept
It's inevitable as a company gets bigger and older that rather than just competing in the market, it starts attacking competitors and accusing them of doing something "wrong." It's too bad that Google appears to have reached this stage. There have been plenty of stories lately about Google's decreasing relevance and how its search results have been getting worse. There are plenty of ways to respond to this and improving search quality should be the main focus. But it looks like Google has, instead, decided to call out competitors. Specifically, Google set up an elaborate and pointless "sting operation," which appears to show that Microsoft uses Google results as a part of its overall relevance algorithm. Basically, it looks like for users who have the Bing toolbar installed, Microsoft aggregates some search information, perhaps including Google results, and weighs them (only partially) into its own algorithm.This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Google's search results are public and as an established player in the market, almost every comparison of alternative search engines, including Bing, compares it to Google. So, making use of Google data to improve its own rankings seems like a rather smart move.
Remember, too, that Google's own search algorithm is based on viewing what people are doing online and coming up with a ranking based on that. How is that any different than Microsoft viewing a variety of information online -- including Google's own search rankings -- and using that as the basis of its own rankings? But instead of recognizing that this is all perfectly reasonable, Google starts acting like the RIAA, accusing Microsoft of "cheating" and doing something that is potentially illegal. It even pops out this line from Amit Singhal, a Google Fellow who apparently oversees Google's search ranking algorithm.
"I've got no problem with a competitor developing an innovative algorithm. But copying is not innovation, in my book."As if Google hasn't copied the work of others in the past? The very basis for the original Page Rank was "copied" from Jon Kleinberg's research and then built upon that work. It was not a direct copy, just as Microsoft's search results are not a direct copy. For Google to attack a competitor for using open information on the web -- the same way it does -- seems like the height of hypocrisy. It's fine for Google to crawl and index whatever sites it wants in order to set up its ranking algorithms, but the second someone looks at Google's own rankings as part of their own determination, suddenly its "cheating"?
This seems like the latest in a series of indications that Google has moved past the innovation stage into the "protecting its turf" stage. That would be a shame.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: algorithms, bing, relevance, search
Companies: google, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
(a href=" ")" search results have been getting worse."(a)"
.........^
Reference please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously? They've been all over the web lately. Here are a few:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/01/why-we-desperately-need-a-new-and-better-google-2/
http: //www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/01/trouble-in-the-house-of-google.html
http://www.marco.org/2617 546197
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/12024312770/google-effectively-puts-demand-media-no tice-days-before-planned-ipo.shtml
That links to at least the techcrunch page, as well as another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Windows is full of ways in which an external agent can control the PC. Microsoft writes the software and they almost certainly sell some of that information to partners. Of course, their EULAs grants them license to do almost anything. [Over a matter of days while trillions of instructions execute on the PC each at lightning speed, a small fraction of that is almost impossible to catch and can analyze a very large amount of material.]
I can keep going, but honestly I think anti-trust authorities should step in. I think people would generally be very angry to understand that one entity (Microsoft) can have that much control and leverage and use it to dominate markets leading to higher prices, loss of privacy, etc. Anti-trust is well warranted.
[I use open source, not Windows or Mac]
BTW, Google stopped using Windows at their headquarters not too long ago. That was an overdue move. Also Russia made a strong statement to move off Windows for the entire nation, and I don't think (guess) it was a coincidence that the strong statement happened around the time of (and was partially provoked by) the NY Times report from wikileaks material about the US and Israel wanting to intercept a shipment of hardware to Iran which ultimately seems like may have been contaminated with the Stuxnet worm that may have destroyed numerous nuclear centrifuges in Iran. Stuxnet was very sophisticated and relied on flaws that Microsoft has a clear advantage in knowing because it is their software. I think, even if they had understood this for a long time, that Stuxnet was a wake-up call.
In short, don't depend on the proprietary software your competitor builds. Google made it far by relying on Linux for servers and it was about time they switched their desktops as well. In fact, most successful major web firms independent of Microsoft have relied on other-than Microsoft software, on software that they can audit and control in many ways they can't do with Windows.
[Microsoft has many partners and avenues, but that does not detract from this point.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The tech crunch article is crap as that seems more it was written by someone who's "google-fu" is weak (and wants to an promote an alternative search engine..that after a quick test drive does not seem very good at relavancy at all)
The coding horror article though is a lot better and those of us that do look up lots of tech questions will know exactly what he is talking about, as it is something we will have noticed over the last 6-8 months or so (and it is that recent that things got bad). But don't see how google could fix it from their end without starting to censor the net, something i would hate to see.
But what i would like to see is an option from them where we, the users, could block the scraper sites mentioned in the article, something like an icon that says "never show me results from this site again" for those of us that are actually logged in to google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@JackSombra Re: personal page rank in google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They did that. Somewhere on my Google Dashboard there's a list of all the sights that I blocked like that. I don't know why they stopped, or if they're still doing it and I just can't find it again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks ... I just hadn't noticed the stories, been busy with other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I didn't see this problem before because I don't shop on Google. I really only use it for research and spell check, or searching for anything on Microsoft's website. Don't care how good Bing is for shopping, it sucks for finding Microsoft things.
I don't know if I can blame Google too much for this, these sites are setup specifically to game the system. If Google put in extra algorithms to block the sites, then they risk large problems with false positives. If they review the results manually, like one article you linked to suggests, they get hit with millions of requests to do it for everyone else. Plus we can't put all the blame on Google. These websites are the ones doing the sleazy acts.
Google seems to be stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and lose their search market, or change their search and lose their search market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Google will adapt. They also have motivation to fight against some of these insane IP laws (at least for the extreme cases), so that is good for the average person.
Google gains leverage as they keep broadening their portfolio. They have found success with browsers, operating systems, and numerous web services and web apps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Slightly related, I've also noticed you use the expression "in case you've been living under a rock and haven't heard about [X]" a handful of times recently. And each time, I haven't heard of the things you've mention (some were pop music, which I simply can't stand, so there's the reason for that).
I read the internet and news a lot more than many people I know (and, obviously, a lot less than others) but why the (likely unintentional) backhanded insult for others not knowing what you do? That's the point of us reading this blog, to find out what you do know, or think, about stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I sometimes make that mistake as well and use words that couldn't reasonably apply to the average person. I get carried away. You assume for a moment that the audience is looking over your shoulder. Certainly, a great many people read this website fairly frequently. Many likely know in most cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's an opinion, I know, but it does seem like a strong generalization to make on such ... flimsy evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what BS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll Just Repost My Own Thoughts On This
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'll Just Repost My Own Thoughts On This
At least they're not going to get sue-happy or anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Come on..
Mike, you keep saying that execution is more important than idea - and you're right. So why do you conflate the two here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh Come on..
Since you were too lazy to read the article, I will make it easy.
"By no means did Bing have exactly the same search results as Google. There were plenty of queries where the listings had major differences."
Google set up a way to test their hypothesis. They used search terms no one would ever actually use and forced the results to return a nonsensical page. After the engineers used Google to search for those and clicked on the first link with nonsensical page (all with the Bing toolbar installed), only 9 out of 100 search terms returned the page that google set up for that term.
This shows that Bing is not copying the Google results. they are just taking the Google Result and using it as 1 of many criteria used to return search results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh Come on..
Easy != correct.
They injected search results which were only available through Google.
Thus, the results were copied to MS via the toolbar and/or the search box. Not all of them, granted. Most likely, there is some sort of ranking that Bing applies.
Still, the fact of the matter is that Bing took Google's results and either copied them and/or used them to seed their search index.
If that's OK or not, dunno.
If it's an overreaction to call out Bing on this, dunno.
If it's an overreaction to call out Google on calling out Bing, dunno.
But please get your facts straight before posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh Come on..
They're not copying the results. They're using user clickstream data as a piece of their own algorithm, just as Google uses link analysis as a part of their algorithm.
Mike, you keep saying that execution is more important than idea - and you're right. So why do you conflate the two here?
Where did I conflate the two?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh Come on..
Yes, they are, in some cases. That was the point behind the "sting".
Correct. However, the "sting" demonstrates that Bing is perfectly willing to simply feed back Google search results, even in the absence of any other data.
Again, this was the point behind the "sting". The pages that Bing reported in its search results could only have come from Google searches, since the pages did not exist anywhere else, were not linked to from anywhere else, etc. It's not like Bing blended Google search results with umpteen other sources in these cases -- they just reported the Google results.
Furthermore, it indicates that Bing ignores robots.txt, since Google search results are marked as "disallowed". If Google wanted its search results to be indexed by other search engines, it would allow it via robots.txt.
In fact, this means that you're being a bit two-faced on this issue. For other places (AFP comes to mind), your argument has been "use robots.txt if you don't want to be indexed". Here, we have a case where somebody is using robots.txt to avoid being indexed...yet your argument now is that robots.txt can be safely ignored by the indexer. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
Not really. If they had passed a user query through to Google, then displayed Google's results on their page, that would have been copying. Instead, their toolbar sends a message to MS that says "A user searched for "aksjdhaksj" and eventually clicked a link headed to "www.kasjfhkj.com".
Then MS uses this data to make sure that any future user who searches for "aksjdhaksj" gets sent to the most relevant link for their search. This is really no different from what Google does themselves; they see what people search for vs. what they click on and they use that to rank page relevancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
The answer is obviously no, since by using Google, you agreed to send your searches out to Google, just as these users agreed to send that very same search data to Microsoft when they installed the Bing toolbar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
Why? try clinking www.kasjfhkj.com and you will realise that the link doesn't even work, so it looks like Microsoft has done a straight copy of the results Google returned. Looks like blatant copyright infringement to me. This is not just screen scraping since the results seem to have gotten into Bing database.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
And the sting only managed to force Bing into "copying" Google results by using phony queries for which no other data would be available, thus isolating the "Google variable" in the Bing algorithm. In any and all real life queries, Google results are only one of many, many factors influencing the results.
Any more questions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
By your argument, nobody needs to pay attention to robots.txt for any purpose whatsoever, since the same data could be obtained by humans instead of robots.
That's fine, but then I don't want to hear anyone suggest that copyright holders (e.g., News Corp) should use robots.txt to stop from being indexed by search engines (e.g., Google), since search engines don't need to use robots for that purpose. At least then we have consistency.
Personally, I would prefer the consistent solution whereby robots.txt represents a "do not index" roster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
Robots.txt informs a search spider not to index a web address - it has nothing to do with the content of the page. When you use robots.txt to block search engines, it doesn't stop them from reading all the content of your page - it just tells them not to include that specific web address in its index of locations, and not point any users there.
Bing is not indexing the google results pages. It is not adding those URLs to its database. It is also not using a search spider or robot of any kind to do this. It's not even pulling this data directly from the web. It is collecting data from people's actual computers through users of the Bing toolbar - recording what they type into google, and what they click as a result. It really is an entirely different thing from a search spider and has nothing to do with robots.txt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
"When you use robots.txt to block search engines, it doesn't stop them from reading all the content of your page - it just tells them not to include that specific web address in its index of locations, and not point any users there."
Well yeah. And Bing didn't reference the robots.txt when it included that page in the search results.
Yes, it has nothing to do with robots.txt, but don;t you think it should still check the txt file when it indexes a site?
So, ignoring the rest of his argument, he has a point here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
Google uses robots.txt to tell webcrawlers not to index its content. But Google does not own the behaviour of all users who use its search engine - these are users who have opted to share their browsing data with Bing through the toolbar. That is entirely within their right, and it's entirely within Bing's right to record it.
To put it simply, robots.txt is geared at *robots* - automated web crawlers. Bing is not using robots here - these are real users who are conducting genuine Google queries, and who have also opted to share their browsing data with Bing. So I stand by my assertion: robots.txt does not apply, and talking about it is completely missing the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
If they use Windows for any help at all, the anti-trust card comes into play.
Now, don't ask me why Microsoft has been allowed all of these years to own their Windows monopoly and compete in many related markets. [without open sourcing Windows entirely of course.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
The idea of robots.txt is that sites searching the page shouldn't index it by first checking the robots file. But that's assuming the SE indexes by comment.
Bing's method has nothing to do with robots.txt. It doesn't ever enter or load the page.
HOWEVER, just because I never have to access robots.txt doesn't mean I shouldn't pay attention to it. Makes sense.
If I index the page, I should check it's robots.txt file.
Perfectly valid point.
The rest of your argument, not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh Come on..
Microsoft doesn't need Bing toolbar. They own Windows (with generous EULAs and an army of potential partners willing to exploit Windows weaknesses (some of which they might learn about from information about Windows Microsoft might give them)).
If they use Windows for any help at all, the anti-trust card comes into play.
Now, don't ask me why Microsoft has been allowed all of these years to own their Windows monopoly and compete in many related markets. [without open sourcing Windows entirely of course.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh Come on..
Did they mention this 'coipying' only happened in about 7% f cases they tried to force? Did they try this on any other sets of results?
And, finally, Google uses its own tracking data and mechanisms to work on its search engine. But somehow that is different.
I just tried a nonsense search that I made up on both (trabgqr) and told Google that I did not want its not very similar suggestion but wanted what I asked for - what did I get? A spammer page that is trying to include every possible letter combination. On Bing I got a better result - that this could not be found. Bing did NOT suggest Google's not very good spelling change suggestion. Why not if Bing is copying? Oh yeah - because Google staff hadn't deliberately taught Bing to go to the wrong page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh Come on..
and loves the taste of that shit; He is A groveling Homo bottom MS Fanboy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Curious:
Please explain why Google should be anything other than bothered by the fact that another search engine is using their results in an effort to compete with them. Also, why Google should try and be more "innovative", knowing that Bing is likely to continue to use the results obtained through whatever innovative means employed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Curious:
All Bing is doing is aggregating Google search results along with all that public data. The purpose of the Bing toolbar is to help them understand user behaviour: it records what users do and how they find things online, so that Bing can use that information to improve its search tools. So if users of the Bing toolbar conduct google searches and click the results, why shouldn't Microsoft include that data in their analysis of web usage?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just Curious:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Psst, what you get for #12?
The answers you do know, you give you own answer (which might be wrong), but the ones you don't, you copy from somebody who is smarter, in this case has a better algorithm.
Microsoft just got caught copying someone else's answer when displaying to others.
In school/college, copying answers meant you got a zero or kicked from that class, not the student saying to the teacher or instructor... "get over it."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psst, what you get for #12?
A more apt analogy would be more like studying with the person and using their notes. Yes, you came up with a similar answer, that was right, but came to it from different approaches, and the different approaches left plenty of differences in the actual answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Psst, what you get for #12?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psst, what you get for #12?
Bing is examining the searches people conduct on Google, the results it returns, and the links they choose to click - then feeding all that aggregated data into their own algorithm that produces their own results. It's no different from Google (for example) indexing public directories like Yelp and the Yellow Pages, and analyzing their usage patterns to help return better results on business-related searches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psst, what you get for #12?
No, because this isn't an exam designed by an instructor to test your personal knowledge in an environment where you specifically agreed that copying someone else's answer during a test would result in a zero for that assignment.
But aside from that, your analogy is right on . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psst, what you get for #12?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psst, what you get for #12?
Microsoft, through the Bing toolbar, similarly collects a list of websites that users visit subsequent to entering a search term indiscriminate of whether that search occurs on google, bing, ask.com, microsoft.com, etc.
Google, by clicking their own honeypot links, told the MS algorithm that THESE websites are relevant to the "gotcha" search term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psst, what you get for #12?
Uh, no. It's like taking a poll from all the test takers and determining what is the best answer.
All the Bing bar is doing is asking: "When you searched for , which link did you click?"
It doesn't matter if the user got the results from Google, Yahoo!, Bing, Ask.com, AOL Search or any other search engine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psst, what you get for #12?
Can you even comprehend what is going on?
This is the most awful analogy but if we have to map the current situation to your analogy then "copying" isnt the word. This is more like a student giving another student tips in study group and the later picks it up.
Google setup 20 of its engineers to "send" click stream data to bing. Bing did not copy or scrape the results.
Geez!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Psst, what you get for #12?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a difference though...
At that point Microsoft and Google devolve into squabbling 5th graders about who copied who on what test.
Mike's right...innovate or get out of the way. But if Microsoft is going to not only have but actively use a monopoly power in operating systems (even if not in browsers) to crush competition, they leave themselves open to a lot of bad user sentiment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a difference though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree
If the Bing bar is there to help make your search results more like Google's, then why do I ever need Bing?
I'll stick with Google.
PS I read the article & saw the screen caps. I understand what MS did & they incorporated a level of Google results into Bing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, so you can "own" search results too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As long as Google is merely pointing out that others are taking their search results and pretending they are their own, I can't hold it against them. This is "social mores" at work, and in this situation I feel it's the right thing to do.
HOWEVER, if they start suing everyone I will then agree with you that this is only about "protecting their turf".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If google HAD merely pointed it out, fine - but they didn't. They called it cheating and not innovation. I find that to be an odd statement coming from the world's largest data aggregator...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From a machine learning/document retrieval point of view, it's quite clear that if algorithm A is trained mostly* on the results of algorithm B, then algorithm A's results will be at most as good as algorithm B's but not better.
In essence, if the two algorithms are very similar, algorithm A is trying to approximate the "internal self-programming" of algorithm B (for document retrieval, typically a bunch of weight/probability vectors).
In a different scenario, a weak learning algorithm could perfectly memorise some of the results of a more powerful algorithm, and return relevant results on common queries. However, that algorithm is "cheating" because it can't generalise to queries it's never seen before.
Perhaps this leads Bing's search engine to give more relevant results, but it's doing it by riding on the coat-tails of Google's algorithm. That's not the way to win any data-mining competitions.
* I'm assuming that they're getting an enormous amount of data from Google searches, which dwarfs the amount of data they get from their own search engine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Instead they come off as impetulant. Saying it's cheating in particular IS something I'd call 'odd'. I don't really have a conception of what "cheating" means in the business world. Isn't any legal tactic up for grabs? How do you 'cheat' then without breaking the law? It's silly. It doesn't help their image that there's a popular view that only the players who lose the race will accuse someone of cheating. So is Google implying that they're losing? Not a smart strategy.
But then, programmers aren't exactly the best PR people, are they? Maybe they honestly don't realize what they're saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps. But they seem to be implying this is somehow "wrong," and I don't see how it's really wrong at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I can totally empathise with Google calling them "cheaters", but only in the academic sense of the word (e.g., cheating on a test rather than defrauding a bank).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If it were true that they were simply training their algorithm based on the results from Google's algorithm, then perhaps you could call this cheating from an engineering standpoint - but if that were the case, there would be no reason for them to do it, would there? As you say, Algorithm B could never measure up to Algorithm A under that system.
But remember, this is not a right/wrong situation - the quality of search results is always going to be somewhat subjective. So if they have developed their own algorithm that they believe to be superior, which they are training with a wide variety of data sources, and they include data from Google - well, that just seems smart.
What I'd really like to see here is a statement from Google saying they have never done this before - but I doubt they would make such a statement because I highly doubt that's the case. Do you think that, when Google was first entering the scene and developing its search algorithms, they never aggregated data about what users were clicking on in Lycos and Altavista? Because I would be pretty astonished if they didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The other data sources, and other Google users. They only enlisted a handful of people, and only waited for about a month -- their test group would have been overpowered by normal users if they had used popular terms.
"Algorithm B could never measure up to Algorithm A under that system."
Nope. If both their algorithms are similar (and they almost certainly are; possibly variations on a Dirichlet-based approach but with different implementation details), given enough time both algorithms will converge to giving almost identical results. So, it's not a matter of surpassing, but a matter of catching up to.
"But remember, this is not a right/wrong situation"
I can almost imagine Ballmer telling his chief engineer "If Google is what people want, then let's give them Google."
"Because I would be pretty astonished if they didn't."
Be under no illusion. I'm not defending Google, I'm criticising Microsoft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, you still haven't convinced me that any of this isn't smart business and smart science. If the problem-to-be-solved is "stuff is hard to find online" then any (legal) method of finding better solutions and training better algorithms is exactly what I expect everyone to be doing. Why would we want it otherwise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
O rly? ;)
"I'm sorry, you still haven't convinced me that any of this isn't smart business and smart science."
I never argued either way about it being or not being smart business (I think it is).
As for the science, there's no science. I'd be applauding them if they were trying new algorithms that give more relevant results than Google's, but they aren't. Instead, this multi-billion dollar behemoth is training its algorithm to return the results of its rival. In some circles, that's called cheating...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eh, it's kinda in the air
I think it's another microsoft would allude to being as good as google when they obviously aren't.
it still points out that we need search engines to do better than they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SkyNet ...
Maybe the two tool bars might start making their own queries. Maybe the tool bars from Google, Bing and Wolfram Alpha will join together as a distributed SkyNet, become sentient and gives us a truly innovative search experience.
I can hardly wait for the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless Google does something more, what's wrong with complaining?
Also, it's a little ironic that you are calling out Google's "decreasing relevance" in an article about one of their largest competitors copying their algorithm. Clearly Bing doesn't think Google is relevance is decreasing. The fact is, there's a lot of money to be made by gaming Google's results, much more money than Google will ever make by having "perfect" results. They will forever be in a race with an army of black hats and reacting to the next SEO game. Content farms are just the latest example. In a year, we'll be talking about another one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Childish? Not according to you awhile back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Childish? Not according to you awhile back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Childish? Not according to you awhile back
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search needs more competition!
I'm all for Bing taking the search engine result page on Google as a reference or "signal" because I'm tired of arbitrary changes and algorithmic adjustments on Google and websites being at the whim of Google's profit machine.
Come on $5 billion every three months isn't enough Mr. Matt Cutts? How many other puppy dogs are you going to kick this week?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dogpile?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dogpile?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out of line
Google called Microsoft out on it. True, they said some stuff in a way they shouldn't ("cheated" doesn't really apply), but the results they posted speak for themselves. I'm not saying what Bing is doing is wrong or anything, but if Bing feels the need to include Google searches into their own, that is basically the opposite of saying Google isn't relevant.
'This seems like the latest in a series of indications that Google has moved past the innovation stage into the "protecting its turf" stage. That would be a shame. '
Really? It was talk. Bluster. A "ha ha we 'caught' you with the hand in the cookie jar' kind of moment, that honestly, I think indicates that Google is still king of the hill.
Again, it's not so much that your points aren't valid insomuch as you're (in my opinion, obviously) over-reacting way too much to this. If the trend continues then I'd be wrong, but I'm not sure it will go down the 'protect its turf' path as you think it will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: out of line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: out of line
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously?
Google simply needs to drop it's legacy business model and sell more t-shirts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so does this mean that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've run across this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Key logging?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought copying an idea was ok, but not actual work? Isn't that what you've been saying since like... uh... forever? So it's not ok for Google to have used a *research* but it's ok for M$ to literally use someone else's work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe the intent was to point out Google's hypocrisy. The example of Kleinberg's research was used to demonstrate that neither act of "copying" was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Never said it was not okay for Google to build on Kleinberg's work. Just as it's fine for Microsoft to build on Google's work. And you're wrong to claim that they're "literally using someone else's work." They're not. They're watching clickthroughs to improve their own algorithm. That's not copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google's revelation, at the least, demonstrates why its not surprising that the search quality from these two studies should turn out to be similar for both search engines when in fact they intrinsically might be substantially different. As someone said, this is like using someone else's notes for one's study. Except, that someone else might have done hours of study and organization that made their notes unique and gave them a potential comparison advantage; by also copying their notes without their permission, another student is bolstering his/her performance and making it seem comparable, while putting in a comparatively poorer effort in studying the subject matter and preparing for the exam. To continue with the contrived analogy, would it be surprising that both students scored similarly in the exam? Does it matter that the pilfering student also studied from other sources? How does one really identify the better student in this case? (And, isn't being better one of the most important attributes that drives one to use one search engine over another?)
It's very easy for someone not even in the class to pass judgement about the childishness of the star student in this scenario. After all, one didn't really put in the effort to gather the notes to understand the value of the effort that went into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
competitors compete by copying/matching
Outside of the tech world we can see this with Walmart and Target. Both companies send associates into each others stores to monitor prices to remain competitive with the other. Same with how both companies will allow double coupons (store coupon + manufacturer) and will match all competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for the feedback
I think the difference is that Google crawls the open web, but we won't fetch pages that are blocked by robots.txt. Meanwhile, even though Google's search results pages are blocked by robots.txt (and thus not open information on the web to Bing), Microsoft was taking clicks on Google's search results, sending them to Bing, and then Bing was using them in Google's rankings.
I think the real danger here is that if an engineer on my webspam team works for a year and releases a new classifier with better search results--Bing shouldn't get that work for free. Bing should have to develop their own algorithms; otherwise the web is poorer as a result.
That said, I take your feedback, and I'm passing it around within Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks for the feedback
A few different things here:
1. Doesn't it feel at least slightly hypocritical for Google to use robots.txt here?
2. Who owns "clicks"? That information is not Google's alone. If a user is willing to share that info with Microsoft, is that wrong? If so, why?
I think the real danger here is that if an engineer on my webspam team works for a year and releases a new classifier with better search results--Bing shouldn't get that work for free. Bing should have to develop their own algorithms; otherwise the web is poorer as a result.
This is the part that I don't get. Can you explain why you think this is the case? I mean, by the same argument, I could say "if I develop a website with tons of great content for years, Google shouldn't get that work for free. Google should have to develop their own content; otherwise the web is poorer as a result."
I just don't buy this argument that you have to reinvent the wheel to build a better wheel. It's the same argument that says leads to slower innovation. So I disagree that the web is "poorer" for it.
In fact, the argument that the web is poorer for tis is predicated on the idea that Google's own rankings aren't that good. If Microsoft can improve on Google's rankings, what's wrong with that?
That said, I take your feedback, and I'm passing it around within Google.
As others have said, it would have been a lot more effective to point this out jokingly, such as "even Microsoft agrees that Google's search results are the best," rather than to accuse them of "cheating." I just don't see how it's cheating at all, and for a company that relies on building off of the works of others (and, yes, adding tremendous value on top of that) to suggest that others shouldn't be able to do the same really feels hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thanks for the feedback
I would argue that it's pretty simple - if you use someone else's stuff when they don't want you to use it, that's at least unethical. Similarly, published research is published because they *want* people to build on top of it. Hence there's no ethical issue in using it.
I also think people are missing the whole innovation issue. If Google's goal is to stay ahead of their competition, and their competition is copying everything they do (which is not the case here, but this is an example), then Google should have all of their engineers work on ways to stop their competition from copying them - and no engineers should work on improving the search algorithm. How would that be good for the industry?
Put another way - imagine A learned from B, and B learned from A - then no one would learn anything, and search results would stagnate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thanks for the feedback
Okay. I write a review of a book, and quote sections of it. You don't like my review. Is it unethical? According to your argument it is. I don't believe so.
I don't believe just making use of one work to create something better is automatically unethical. Why do you?
I also think people are missing the whole innovation issue. If Google's goal is to stay ahead of their competition, and their competition is copying everything they do (which is not the case here, but this is an example), then Google should have all of their engineers work on ways to stop their competition from copying them - and no engineers should work on improving the search algorithm. How would that be good for the industry?
I think you're misunderstanding how innovation tends to work. Even if you have people copying your results, they can't copy the deeper process (do a search on my writeups on "cargo cult copying" to get a better understanding of why).
If Microsoft is really just copying Google then Google has a tremendous advantage, and will keep it by continuing to innovate. Worrying about what the other guy will do is a loser's game.
Put another way - imagine A learned from B, and B learned from A - then no one would learn anything, and search results would stagnate..
That's a total strawman, as it makes the simplistic and obviously incorrect assumption that all learning is encapsulated in what A learns from B and what B learns from A. The real world is not like that.
We've pointed to multiple studies over the years that suggest the ability of companies to build on the work of other companies actually creates GREATER innovation, not less innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thanks for the feedback
This debate cracks me up. To see this on a blog full of people that defend entertainment content infringement is just too funny. Karma?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thanks for the feedback
No, really the ethics are the exact opposite of that. It is telling someone else what they can or cannot do with publicly available information that is immoral.
Public information is a commons: to presume to control people's access and use of it is to unjustly restrict their personal freedom.
Also, restriction of good information is not a something we could will as a universal rule: we would all lose with no need to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google not doing themselves any favours
ps. we won't mention the whole copying their entire image (homepage) thing last year - we'll put that down to wanting to be one of the coolkids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are all Confusing Things
There are two aspects to search
1) Crawling (information gathering)
2) Ranking (making relevance judgement)
This debate focuses on Bing copying Google's relevance results where in fact the experiment was setup to show that Bing is using Google's results to crawl new sites.
How does google know of new domains that have not been added to its index? It uses Google toolbar and picks up a new site when the user visits.
Bing does the same thing.
I dont see the controversy. G is playing a political PR game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whats wrong
In all search engines, a big component of ranking is
"user tells search engine what is relevant to them"
by means of result clicks, or toolbar, or incoming links to a page..
here.. Google sets-up a fake relevance connection, and a user who (maliciously) tells Bing: "this page is relevant to a this keyword"
Of course bing picks it up. Bing is listening to USERS, not GOOGLE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Childish?
Think of it this way - when you prepare to write an article, you use all sorts of sources to put your data together. This is techcrunch or some other competing website noticing that every time you write an article, you source techcrunch (sometimes a little, sometimes a lot).
So, Techcrunch says "Techdirt uses OUR analysis and research and articles as a source - we must be THAT GOOD!" and then go on to say how techdirt must be in a sad state if they have to use techcrunch's research, and they should really go do the work themselves.
Yeah, everyone knows that all reporters quote each other anyway, so its not really relevant, BUT its great press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Childish?
Sure, and if they had done that, that would have been cool. But they didn't. They claimed that Microsoft "cheated" and implied that it was illegal.
I even said a few comments above yours that they could have mocked that Microsoft used Google too, and that would be a reasonable response. Implying that the company did something "bad" is just silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If so, please go to Google.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I bet, as we speak, someone is running s script to generate a website along the basic theme of "Drivers" "Dell" "NVidia" "Download" in some permutation, filled with part numbers and driver codes for every piece of hardware ever.. Just to saturate the search engines a little more, send more people back down the line to "extremefreedrivers.ru.com.not.a.scam.com" where they will be encouraged to download the "Driver Helper" virus, i mean, utility. The spammers can put nearly infinite pages to work defeating the one or two truly good results because it works for them.
And i think, much like so much of my email spam, it will eventually be dealt with. better algorithms, clever page-readers and link checkers, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
I read the details, and I'm sorry, but I just don't see why this is so wrong. I certainly don't see a reason to "retract" the article. Microsoft is building off the work of Google. How is anyone worse off here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
Within a day of doing my first post on Techdirt some time ago, it was mirrored on a dozen Techdirt ripoff sites and other shifty SEO-gaming aggregator pages and such. I was happy! Even if the sites suck, it meant that much better of a chance that people would read my work - and some fancy lookin' Google results on my name. Fine by me!
You'll notice that there isn't even have a copyright notice or terms of use anywhere on this website. Mike has said several times that he encourages people building off the content here, and doesn't give a damn about anyone copying it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
Yup. Exactly. Plenty of sites already do that, and it's cool. Everything I write is public domain and free for anyone to improve upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
Furthermore, that just means Microsoft is watching EVERY click you make, possibly even the encrypted one's. Thank god I don't use IE for important stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike I usually almost ALWAYS AGREE with you but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think they're singling out Google. Even if the user would've searched on any other search engine and then clicked on a link from the results, MS's toolbar would've used that information as part of future results returned to users searching Bing for that same keyword. This is perfectly allowed in my book - they're smart for doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Succinct
Just to show google, in my own insignificant way, what I think about their childish behavior with this incident, I've decided to be childish and change my FF search provider to Bing.
Whiners are weiners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Succinct
Good luck with that crappy results. Ooh- to be really childish you could make yourself one of those WWJD bracelets: "What Would Google Do"? Prolly that's how M$, sorry Micros~1, called that particular routine of their algorithm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing innovative has come from M$ ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is the best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is the best
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Both are searching and not creating something new
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comic strip says it all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2004/20040708.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta admit
But Mike's right. That's a childish attitude.
To take the test analogy that's been thrown around, if your concern was "Who is the best student in the class?", then yes, cheating would be wrong. But if your concern was "Can we (as a class) answer all the questions as completely as possible?", then complaining that your hard work on one question was piggybacked by someone else is...well, childish.
Possessiveness misses the point.
Google's response in words was immature. But words, tss. Let's hope their actions - what really matters - will speak better of them though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gotta admit
DumbAss
In business there is no such thing as class lets all answer completely
should not be in the classroom either you fucking moron
you must be a product of outcome based education
DumbMotherFUcker, I wish I could watch G gordon Liddy
Slap you in the face for being such a bottom punk ass bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miss the Point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Miss the Point
Heh. And if you think that will actually create a billion dollar search company, that shows where you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd be pissed if I were Google and I'd have more than a few nasty words to say. I'd say you guys have a fairly narrow focus here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any intellectual property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any intellectual property?
Nope. No problem. We've said it hundreds of times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any intellectual property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW - there is absolutely no evidence of Google copying Bings search results - any why would Google do that when Bing returns poorer results?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DUH I am surprised you can manage to turn your PC on and get to a Browser to type anything in ...
STUPID FUCKING COCKSUCKER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't this the same?
So Google used other web pages to feed a search engine algorithm without asking/apologising or even admiting it cheated these pages out of its users... and now google complains someone else did it to them?
I'm not saying Microsoft is much of a innovative company nowadays, but come one! This is exactly what started google to becoming the giant it is today!
(remember msn.com? I wonder if google used links in MSN.com to feed its own search engine...)
ps: Even better is that for google not to feed of your own page of weblinks you have to add a tag for it to ignore it... That's like having to remind someone not to "steal" your own work!
ps2: I'm not against google/microsoft doing this (it is public information after all). I'm against the hipocrasy of calling other for doing what you yourself do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this the same?
What Microsoft is doing is snooping on IE explorer users' actions when using Googles search engine and copying and adding the Google search data returned into Bing.
That is a double wammy.
First IE snoops on what its users are doing, and returns data on what they are browsing back to Microsoft without their knowledge in most cases - a major privacy issue (note Google only keeps peoples Google search records of people's use of their service, so they don't monitor your PC).
Secondly, Theft of information in this way is illegal. A parallel to this is in the copyright of street maps. Various companies publish street maps of say Boston. These companies do not have a copyright on the street layout of Boston itself, but they do have a copyright on their data. In other words others can also publish street maps of Boston, but they have to go out and do the survey themselves or buy the survey data from someone who has. They cannot just copy someone else's street map without licensing it. Map publishers are wise to Microsoft-Bing-like thefts and like google routinely put nonexistent information in their maps in order to detect this type of illegal copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't this the same?
and what MS is doing now is straight up ripping off google,
what If I jsut copied win 8 and called it New 8 and started selling it with my own company ?
Thats exactly what these cocksuckers at MS are doing
Of course you are likely a Homosexual with that faggot ass attitude anyway
Dumb Brother Fucker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google=Big Crybaby
What does it say about Google and its products when it resorts to illegitmate publicity stunts to protect its marketshare!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Love the Kleinberg Ref
Very intelligent post, kudod. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Love the Kleinberg Ref
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the robust and bellicose response Microsoft has come up with is a clear indication that Microsoft knows it is culpable - if you get caught red handed and can't deny it, then make as much noise as possible to distract attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who uses bing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who uses bing?
and Microsoft and Bing sucks Cocks...
I had to laugh when they had that pepsi challenge type of commercial and they were actually able to pay a few imbeciles to say they liked Bing Better than Google.... DUH
fuck that, they would have had to offer me a 60 million dollar 4 year contract to say that fucking moronic bullshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your article seems very bias to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
damn mother fuckers installed bing bar on my PC even though i specifically clicked on hide update.. Fucking MS Bastards, I wish I could watch someone like saddam hussien slaughter their families in front of them for ripping off google like that... Fucking assholes... It would be like FORD selling trucks and when you went to buy one they ran next door to chevy bought a truck ran back with it pulled off chevy emblems and glued some ford ones on and then said " OK HERE IS YOUR NEW FORD TRUCK" ...
Goddamned stupid fucking MS cocksuckers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poorly written
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That algorithm is property of Google who, in turn, make the results derived thereof a matter of public interest. Bing, on the other hand, is using a similar algorithm of their own to find search results and does not claim credit for the content within those web pages, merely that they have found results that match your query.
The part where this gets hairy is that they use Google (and thus their algorithm) to double check their answers without giving credit where it is due. This means that they think their search results are not accurate enough to compete with Google so they, instead, run it through Google to make sure on each search. When they get it right, then they are simply using their own information and algorithm. When they get it wrong, what do they do?
If the answer to a wrong algorithm is to rely on Google, then what happens when Google ceases to exist (if ever)? Then you are left with a company (Microsoft) who has a partial product that simply leeched on Google. Maybe then they'll start working on perfecting their search algorithms.
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft should at least give credit in the form of "These search results were brought to you by us...and Google helped make sure they're good." Either that, or make their search engine stand alone and able to give the results it gives without using Google.
Now... perhaps there might be another entity (I think I may have stumbled across some of them in my time) that wants to make use of all search engines and compile them all on one page. That's fine, because the ones I've seen show little icons like "This result is from YAHOO, this one is from GOOGLE, this one is from ASKJEEVES." That's cool. They are genius for using the public information of others while still giving credit where it is due. It's not a hard concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Totally Agree
BING REWARDS! I cash in my search points every couple months for $20.00 Giftcards through Amazon.com
Got to love Microsoft's Bing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fucking Moron that wrote this article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE does it taste good ?
Oh and just for those who are faggot inclined, such as yourself, Does bills shit taste good ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]