Bing copying Google results!

Shamil said:
To me, that's not copying, that an improvement procedure.

The tune would be different here, if the same thing cropped up, but Bing was owned by Apple and not Microsoft.
Click to expand...
Shamil said:
Read what I said. I didn't say it was owned by Apple.
Click to expand...
I think you need more coffee ;)

Shamil said:
How do we know that Bing hadn't already received that search string before the search was done by Google? Can you confirm that all that's happening here is that the toolbar sees the search item, informs Bing. Then Bing checks to see if its there or not, then, submits it to the "Google copy" queue, as per se?

If looks like Bing is use Google as an authoritative source of information.
Click to expand...

Read what I posted before. Google planted fake query into their database. There is no way for Bing to get a string first.
 
Microsoft on Innovation: Cheaters do Prosper !


Bing.cheats.on.google.during.the.search.engine.quiz.Cheaters.do.prosper.webp
 
I've just read the several articles floating around, and here's what I think. It's a brief set of thoughts, but I'll publish a post to my blog on it.

They are not copying Google, directly.

From my statistical and analysis point of view, it looks like those using the toolbar and the browser combination sends information back to Bing, as part of CEIP or experience data. (Google does this, obviously). For strings which Bing is not sure about, it queries an authoritative source of information, e.g. Wikipaedia, Google, WolframAlpha. Google does this.

Search for 'diarea'. Google autocorrects this to diarrhoea, the correct spelling. Bing, on the other hand, does not, but pings Wikipeadia, then displays it first. However, if we define that search term, Bing does not show the autocorrection, but just does it, and shows the user the autocorrected term.

Both of the cases above indicate to me that there is some sort of internal lookup done, to provide the best answer. Is this rather smart? Yes. Google does that. Is this copying? no. If this was copying, then each test case scenario of authoritative and non-authoritative results would be exactly the same. Correlation does not mean causation.

Google's toolbar itself uses your experiences to generate its rankings etc.


On a different case, I spotted what looks like Google copying Bing's results:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:.bing.com/search

Bing's robots/txt explicitly disallows /search. At time of writing, there are 25,400 results, up 400 from yesterday.
 
Onimua said:
I was thinking about hydroelectric and solar power actually. If we suddenly lose oil there will be a scramble to find efficient ways to use another power source. In this instance, should Google have gone down, so would Bing if they were relying heavily on Google's searches. As was mentioned earlier, relying on something in case that suddenly goes away may leave you temporarily stranded, but eventually you'll find new sources and those sources will have step up to the plate to handle the inflow of customers.



But once oil is gone, we can simply just find a new source of power like solar or hydroelectric, and continue on our way to driving/flying/turning on lights and computers.


As side note: In the end, trying to make Google or Bing seem like the only bad guy is a moot point as both companies (and pretty much any large corporation) tend to have shady bits attached to them. I guess it just comes down to who can be the sneakiest about it and in this case it wasn't Bing. :p
Click to expand...
Exactly...google is buying huge plots of land and using all sorts of alternative energy sources and they have redundant servers every where. They are investing monies earned into the future of the company and expanding in what they think is a logical procedure according to the mission of their company.

http://www.google.com/green/

Remember Microsoft is a company which builds operating systems and software to sit on top of them. They have been in the pc game since the beginning of the explosion of popularity for the average person to want one for themselves. http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/voy/museum/pictures/display/0-4-Google.htm

Google started as a project in a school and with a pitch for funds...became a beast. They earned their spot as THE search engine and have paved new ways for a long time.

Whatever other products and services they offer...their search engine still runs on power they pay for, on land which they pay taxes on, with tons of computers they pay for and maintain, that run the cpu cycles to facilitate the search results, which ARE theirs. It's not like they are stealing the info, they are manually indexing the sites and ranking them with pagerank, a system they invented. The results take power and thus money to fetch results out of a query of whatever an end user wants through .....well... the whole internet.

Google search IS their flagship product along with ads. For another company (micro$oft or otherwise) to come along and take those results and use them inline as if they are theirs is straightup fraud and or theft. There is a fine line if you examine what is going on. They are using someones work with no citation of source and calling it their own with no legal consent. All they had to do was say yes we are polling results from google and we are working on an implementation of a "cited from: line" or some crap and it would be legit.

It is a publication and the results are public for use...but to RE-Publish them needs to follow the common rules of publishing. Without explicit written consent from the owner of publications all references must be cited at least that's what I know of as to be the general practices inside of publishing.

For the fact that it is m$, they should already know better..in reverse it would be like google releasing an OS that supported any windows native apps using M$ source code to power the apps and execute the code properly and then saying "nuh uh, nope I didn't do that... that's mine.". I would hate to think they did that...but that evidence looks pretty conclusive to me.

Do they have a real position yet...something that proves they are in exoneration from such a claim?
 
Shamil said:
They are not copying Google, directly.
Click to expand...
Yes they are.

From my statistical and analysis point of view, it looks like those using the toolbar and the browser combination sends information back to Bing, as part of CEIP or experience data. (Google does this, obviously). For strings which Bing is not sure about, it queries an authoritative source of information, e.g. Wikipaedia, Google, WolframAlpha. Google does this.
Click to expand...
So essentially what Bing does is Google stuff to learn about it.
So, using your own words, you agree that Bing is learning from Google.
 
So, Google and M$ go after the very same things, Google has a mobile OS now, a browser, web apps to replace M$ programs and so on, it is called mean business folks.
 
They are using the results of google's flagship product without paying tribute at all ...they ARE stealing. Who cares what either of them has for an agenda as far as products go. What they are doing is wrong and should give credit where is due or cease using it. Does the grounds of accusation have to wrapped and covered with a bow made of red tape with a card that says "your beat" to make it sound like theft of intellectual property?
 
Shamil said:
I've just read the several articles floating around, and here's what I think. It's a brief set of thoughts, but I'll publish a post to my blog on it.

They are not copying Google, directly.

From my statistical and analysis point of view, it looks like those using the toolbar and the browser combination sends information back to Bing, as part of CEIP or experience data. (Google does this, obviously). For strings which Bing is not sure about, it queries an authoritative source of information, e.g. Wikipaedia, Google, WolframAlpha. Google does this.

Search for 'diarea'. Google autocorrects this to diarrhoea, the correct spelling. Bing, on the other hand, does not, but pings Wikipeadia, then displays it first. However, if we define that search term, Bing does not show the autocorrection, but just does it, and shows the user the autocorrected term.
Click to expand...

It still doesn't explain that, when Google went out of their way to find words that were least likely to ever come up and plant specific pages that had nothing really to do with the search term, how those same pages and terms shows up on Bing's results shortly thereafter.
 
Look at your search engine referrals, that will tell you if anyone is using Bing.

They have been accused of sending fake referrals in the past and I think I saw my share of them in the logs too !!
 
Bing toolbar's is NOT SPYWARE ... despite what people say.
It gives you the option to install the Google Spyware.

bing.toolbar.copy.google.option.webp


Kudos to Microsoft Innovation !
 

Similar threads

Gsk8
  • Question Question
XF 2.2 Rich Snippet not working for Google results
Replies
0
Views
348
Gsk8
Gsk8
optrex
  • Question Question
XF 2.2 Google results are title only
Replies
0
Views
641
optrex
optrex
A
Google "Site:" Search Results Constantly Dropping
Replies
16
Views
920
Mr Lucky
Mr Lucky
spirogg
  • Question Question
XF 2.2 google rich results test. Page partially loaded Not all page resources could be loaded. This can affect how Google sees and understands your page.
Replies
9
Views
2K
markoroots
M
P
  • Question Question
XF 1.5 Google results displaying old date on forum category pages
Replies
2
Views
693
PetForums
P
Top Bottom