Innovation
"But copying is not innovation, in my book.”
That depends predominantly on your legal budget, doesn't it?
Google has accused Microsoft of copying its search results, after running a "sting operation" that indicates Redmond's Internet Explorer software is tracking what searchers find on Google and using this data to tweak results on Bing. Microsoft indicates this is indeed happening – but on a small scale. Google first made the …
Not really, Google were keeping abreast of the marketplace and noticed something "suspicious" that they wanted to check out.
It is like supermarkets using mystery shoppers to check out the competition mixed with the old Victorian naturalist habit of "making shit up" in their tales of far away places to check if others were just copying their work.
Ah, so I was "keeping abreast" of my neighbour's habit of subathing in the nude...when the coppers were called and found me in the tree at the end of my garden, using a pair of binoculars?!
Dammit! I knew there was a better phrase than simply "spying"!
> So lets get this straight Google was snooping on Bing's search results when they noticed that Bing was snooping on Google's search results.
No, Google noticed that certain results returned by Bing was a too close match to Google results. To verify this they created search queries and this verified that the Bing toolbar was spying on endusers.
"Android, you might argue, was fashioned after a certain Apple handset"
That's a rater, erm, "interesting" assertion, care to elaborate? Android is a Linux distro which, according to Google, had been in development for quite a while before the iPhone came out. Given the timeframe, I would say that either Google can be trusted on that, or they work very fast indeed. And it's not like Android and iOS have much in common either. You could even argue that some of the features that iOS gained with subsequent version were actually "fashioned after" Android features that the original iOS lacked and that the users wanted.
Now the design of the first (HTC-made) handset on which Android was shipped might have been following the trend, set by the iPhone *among others*.
elaborate on *among others*. iPhone was released middle of 2007, first android came end of 2008. Only programming the basis of a phone OS doesn't make the OS, no user cares really about what's under the UI as long as it work properly. Nokia had the best basis in its Symbian and that didn't help. I'm pretty sure that Google worked very hard in between 2007 and 2008 to replicate the good parts of iOS.
While checking your inciting answer I came across
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/05/20/google.io.keynote.says.jobs.vision.is.draconian/. It's funny it seems that the future looks mostly monochromatic given the surge in android phones on the market. it's good for the competition. And makes the iPhone more special again- after all not everybody is driving Mercedes.
Paris, because she knows she can aks google-God to check the verity of her answer
They're all just phones. It's down to personal choice: iPhone users like the interface on their phone, I like the fact that I can watch iPlayer and DiVX's on my Galaxy S and my friend likes his Nokia because it's tough as hell, cost £10 and has a torch on top.
As for "And makes the iPhone more special again- after all not everybody is driving Mercedes.", that statement says way more about you than it does the iPhone.
Now, can we leave the phone talk please?
"[Android] had been in development for quite a while before the iPhone came out"
are you trying to say the iphone development started *just* before it came out??
It was in development about 4 years before it came out, at least.
and everyone know what the early Android interface looked like. (pre june 2007)
anyway, back on topic... google were looking at bing to see if they should be copying what they are doing and found out that bing was already at it. imitation/flattery
This post has been deleted by its author
"It's all the SEO wankers that flood Google with their crap price comparison and associated shopping bollocks that makes it harder and harder to find anything useful."
That type of worthless crap was extremely annoying, definitely, but it seems to have come down quite a bit (though it's far from disappeared) since around the middle of last year- I'd guess around the point that Google rolled out their "Caffeine" update.
This post has been deleted by its author
SEO by definition is gaming the system and cheating to get the page you want to the top of searches.
If you mean you advise clients on how to construct *useful* web pages that get to the top on their own merit without playing keyword games (and similar), good for you. I wouldn't call that SEO.
If, on the other hand, you do any gaming of keywords or content specifically to increase page visibility (especially for searches the page does not directly relate to), you are part of the problem.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
I am curious, when innovation stagnates to duplication and replication, what lies at the end of that?
Splitting the atom? No.
Parallel Quantum Universes? No.
Reruns of Gilligan's Island for all eternity and eating nothing but Kentucky Fried Kitten - for all eternity? Probably.
The experimental method is horrible and very weighted to suggesting something that may not be true. So Google insert a single result to a frivalous query that would not be made under normal circumstances. Click on said frivalous result as it is top then it starts appearing on Bing.
However why not try clicking on the second result and seeing if having ignored the first result that appears at the top of Bing?
Or even better do the search then type a completely different url into the address bar and see if that appears on bing?
And having done these try doing the search, click on the top, back out after 5 seconds and click on the second result. What would appear top on Bing?
All they have demonstrated is that MS are tracking your route when surfing and trying to use it to add relevance to their search, not that they are directly copying Google. Which as it stands seems like a sensible metric to use, if however they are copying Google then they will clearly never get better than Google.
All reads like a very very cheap shot from Google to me, either that or their engineers really are too lazy to come up with a decent test.
What are these people going on about Pagerank and algorithms? A large part of why Google's ranking is good is because they have ton of users (and employees) clicking through the links: more (and better) clicks = higher rank.
Without the users this is impossible for Microsoft to match, so no wonder they have to resort to less traditional methods..
Let's not forget that until the user base really picked up Google was quite bad at ranking and was easily outperformed by Alltheweb or even Altavista. It caught on due to its simple interface and less intrusive text ads.
I am shocked. Absolutely aghast and speechless.
There is a website, SearchEngineLand, dedicated to search engines?
Well, it's OK,. the site has suffered the El Reg effect and is not returning pages at present, so that's OK. I will have to go to the Google cache and ..... oh, that's a circular argument, isn't it!
Mines the one with the MSDN book on Search Engines for Profit
> The Google toolbar, for instance, collects urls used to calculate Mountain View's famous PageRank.
No it doesn't.
Google compile a list of URLs by just crawling the web, and calculates PR by analysing the links between them. The toolbar isn't involved, or required.
What the toolbar *does* do is tell you the PR of the page you're viewing. That's kinda difficult to do without telling Google which page that is. Google say they don't use these URLs for any other purpose, and I'm not aware of anybody providing any evidence to the contrary.
How can bing a pure crap search engine get awsome search results in over a 4 month period?
IT CAN'T!! and it can only do that by sending click data from google.
I have never liked bing but honestly would return to bing once in a while just to barf and giggle on the search results. Bing does not use any scientific method at all and must rely of click through data from google.
Microsoft you are a big pile lump of poo.
First we learned that MS forgot how to implement IMAP in its WP7 phone thingy, now we learn that it can't do search properly either and is scraping results off Google.
Two bad points in two days, that must be a record of sorts.
In any case, I'm interested in finding out what I may read tomorrow.
Meissen copied china, bringing the technology to Europe. There were countless European knock-offs, but the finish line came when the chinese started selling copies of Meissen wares.
Google has so much room for improvement that Bing can't become the best by copying it. Maybe they could do a deal with Baidu?
Company sees how users use publicly-open, profit-making service in order to improve its own product. Sounds like it's only one of a basket of metrics they use, too, which is why Google only got a few of the tests to work out as they wanted.
Amusing to see Google complaining about other people using available information in the pursuit of making money. I'm bemused they went with the accusations when their case was so relatively weak, as well.
Don't forget MS's long standing practice of using bots to flood server logs with fake referrers and IE user agent strings that make it look like people have found your site thanks to searching MSN/Bing.
They've been pulled up about this before and claim it's just a method to verify the site in question is real or some such nonsense. It's done purely to make MSN/Bing show up in Analog and other stats tools that show search engines in pie charts and other graphs.
So MS give their users 'fake' results in the form of old Google photocopies, and then they give websites fake perceptions of how much they're relying on the search engine. This is MS, not some Internet scam run by a known conman operating out of a south-Pacific island.
It was more like:
1.) Invite users to enter into an opt-in data collection exercise
2.) Report people's search terms and then the URL they click on (i.e. the link that the user deems most helpful)
3.) Feed this information into your ranking algorithms.
Note, at no point in these steps has Bing spoken to Google, nor does it really need to know which search engine was used.
In this case, Google staff entered the opt-in data collection exercise, fed obscure fake search terms and clicked links. As the search terms were so unusual, Bing couldn't provide a natural match (neither would Google without faking them), and most likely fell back to the opt-in data, which was tainted.
Some might say that they're copying Google's search results - but another way of looking at it is that users are essentially providing a search term, and a URL which they decided was most appropriate.
The lessons from this seem to be 1) never install anyone's browser toolbar and 2) don't run Chrome. If you don't want your info being uploaded. I stopped using Chrome when it uploaded info to Google that caused it to merge some of my accounts that I wanted to keep separate. It also stuck one of my email addresses on my blogger page then, and not the correct email. Google just works too had at gathering and correlating information about users.
"Microsoft is now accusing Google of using a form of click fraud to set up its Bing Sting" ..
"What Google did was clever, I'll give them that. They basically took a bunch of nonsensical words, like xlgr493, and then modified their own algorithm to point the search query for that particular word to a real site. So xlgr493 refers to kittycat.com.
Then about 20 of them went to their houses at night, and, probably over a glass of merlot, started using the Bing toolbar to query Google for that particular nonsensical word. Then the next day they showed that if you searched for that nonsensical word on Bing, the faked site would appear as the first result" ...
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2011/02/microsoft-says-google-used-click-fraud-to-pull-of-bing-sting/1
Microsoft Bing vice president Harry Shum:
"What we saw in today’s story was a spy-novelesque stunt to generate extreme outliers in tail query ranking,
Yes, but can't we that assume your business model isn't based on successfully hitting 'a few outliers'? Getting caught shoplifting at the Pick 'n' Mix counter doesn't mean you don't have 40,000 tins of red salmon and chopped ham in your living room!
This should be intresting, if anyone has looked at my previous post they will notice i quite like MS in most aspects so with that in mind im calling this whole thing BS!
Yup theres more at work then meets the eye, no doubt both companies have been a bit naughty but the reason i call BS on this story is because Bing is a pile of shite
Ive tried it several times and it never brings up what i want, somehow, with googles ability to read my mind it usually gets almost everything i search in the top 5, Bing will be in the top 5 also... top 5 pages that is.
So yes, not all as it seems me thinks.