Disagreeing with Matt Cutts

#1

Post by chris100 » Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 2:11 AM UTC

Disagreeing with Matt Cutts
blog.fairsoftware.net

Re: Disagreeing with Matt Cutts

#2

Post by alain94040 » Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 2:33 AM UTC

[meta] Someone decided to change the title to "Disagreeing with Matt Cutts" and the post got flagged and promptly disappeared from view. Because clearly it's better for debate if you hear only one side of the argument, right?

The real discussion is that Microsoft is spying (legally) on their users behavior. And Google can't call them on it because they do the same, so they cry copy-wolf.

Re: Disagreeing with Matt Cutts

#3

Post by hippieheadcase » Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 3:04 AM UTC

alain94040 wrote: post #2

[meta] Someone decided to change the title to "Disagreeing with Matt Cutts" and the post got flagged and promptly disappeared from view. Because clearly it's better for debate if you hear only one side of the argument, right? The real discussion is that Microsoft is spying (legally) on their users behavior. And Google can't call them on it because they do the same, so they cry copy-wolf.

I'm not familiar with how hacker news works. Who has the power to change the title of a post?

Re: Disagreeing with Matt Cutts

#4

Post by kefs » Sat, Feb 05, 2011, 6:02 AM UTC

alain94040 wrote: post #2

[meta] Someone decided to change the title to "Disagreeing with Matt Cutts" and the post got flagged and promptly disappeared from view. Because clearly it's better for debate if you hear only one side of the argument, right? The real discussion is that Microsoft is spying (legally) on their users behavior. And Google can't call them on it because they do the same, so they cry copy-wolf.

> And Google can't call them on it because they do the same

Didn't Matt categorically deny that Google uses Bing's users' clicks in Google's rankings.

edit: just after the 10:30 mark. http://bigthink.com/ideas/26740