21–30 of 133 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google News is an aggregator, hence Rupert Murdoch's problem with it.
Google doesn't make any money off of Google News.
I read half of this. Its late, and I don't have the time or energy to refute point by point every single wrong thing that is written in that half. Its easy to sum up. Yes, Google indexes hundreds of millions of sites. It does so in order for other people to be able to search and find those sites, which is important to their owners. Its a symbiotic relationship, not theft of intellectual property. Google has spent bil…
Also websites can opt-out of having their content indexed. How can Google opt-out of having its search index copied by Microsoft? The funniest argument in this has been "Bing hasn't got the data, Google has an unfair advantage etc" as if Microsoft didn't exist before Google. Microsoft have had years headstart to get their online division doing something worthwhile, but they still can't get it right.
What Microsoft apparently has done is to infer relationships from Gooogle SRPs to various sites by way of information gathered through the Bing toolbar (and possibly other documented and user opt-in channels w/in IE). Using toolbar collected signals is well-established practice -- that's how Google obtains information regarding site performance.
I read half of this. Its late, and I don't have the time or energy to refute point by point every single wrong thing that is written in that half. Its easy to sum up. Yes, Google indexes hundreds of millions of sites. It does so in order for other people to be able to search and find those sites, which is important to their owners. Its a symbiotic relationship, not theft of intellectual property. Google has spent bil…
What happened to the Google line of "the more happy searching people we have online the better" (usually brought out in justification of their android investment)?
Shouldn't the same logic apply? Especially since at least half of the people using Bing aren't doing so voluntarily § shouldn't google be willing to trade that one search for having everyone happy on the internet and consuming more of it?
Is an incremental increase in Bing's search quality really going to take market share away from google? I'm skeptical.
§ 50% of Bing's traffic comes from fb, msn and windows live mail: http://techie-buzz.com/tech-news/google-is-4th-largest-traff...
I read half of this. Its late, and I don't have the time or energy to refute point by point every single wrong thing that is written in that half. Its easy to sum up. Yes, Google indexes hundreds of millions of sites. It does so in order for other people to be able to search and find those sites, which is important to their owners. Its a symbiotic relationship, not theft of intellectual property. Google has spent bil…
What happened is that Google engineers engineered a use case, in which signal from those clickstream appear like a stealing of search results. Or in other words, Microsoft uses Google users behaviour in their ranking algorithm. But that's not unethical, and Google is doing the same thing.
Hmm. It might just be me, but I get the feeling that they aren't exactly fans of Google?!
its easy to proof that im right with that because there are only individuals yelling at each other, its not like google is filling for a law suit against bing for stealing company strategies or whatever a clever lawyer could come up with.
Hmm. It might just be me, but I get the feeling that they aren't exactly fans of Google?!
Here's a hypothesis. I suspect Bing is making use of data that is typed in the toolbar or browser's search box ... not data captured from text typed directly into Google's search page. This might explain why their "honeypot-take" rate was only 8%. This is a subtle point. So ... imagine if you are the coder who wrote this signal collection feature. Would you capture "term in search box,next URL clicked" OR would you capture "if search box search engine == BING or Yahoo or something else then capture term in search box, next URL clicked".
Let me propose an alternative experiment. The test clickers should have clicked on the second or third (or some position N where N > 1) link. This would have demonstrated if Bing is using the actual click information or the search results themselves directly. The former seems completely fair on Bing's part. The latter might be debatable. My point is this ... the Google geniuses fail to distinct these two cases and are muddling it up for the PR drones. This waste everyone's time and productivity. Moreover, they belittle the hard-work of engineers and scientists. It is sad that this is what it has come to.
I read half of this. Its late, and I don't have the time or energy to refute point by point every single wrong thing that is written in that half. Its easy to sum up. Yes, Google indexes hundreds of millions of sites. It does so in order for other people to be able to search and find those sites, which is important to their owners. Its a symbiotic relationship, not theft of intellectual property. Google has spent bil…
Microsoft do NOT steal Google's search results. They use clickstream data from Bing toolbar users to improve their search results. What happened is that Google engineers engineered a use case, in which signal from those clickstream appear like a stealing of search results. Or in other words, Microsoft uses Google users behaviour in their ranking algorithm. But that's not unethical, and Google is doing the same thing.
I doubt they are only targeting Google. But I completely agree, the data is not being mined from Google, it's a relationship for search term a to page b created by the user, not stolen from Google.