Which obviously are different. After this, I pretty much stopped reading (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/microsofts-bing-uses-google-search.html). The said "recycling" only happens if you seem to be using some settings of IE8 / Bing toolbar (does someone actually use a toolbar?).
But the media putting it simply as Bing copying Google results is what I can classify as being bad Journalism.
5 comments:
I think you missed a critical point. Google was not saying that Bing and Google are linked in real time. Their experiment showed that after they did the Google 'nonsense word' searches in Internet Explorer, it took several weeks before Bing would start to incorporate the data. So for the results to match up, either you or someone else needs to do a Google 'nonsense word' search several times in Internet Explorer, and then check back several weeks later to see if Bing has now incorporated it.
Sorry but I think your method is inexact.
The synthetic query mentioned in Google Blog post is a fake result the Google engineers associated to a strange string.
They somewhat "forced" a result (a randomly chosen page) to appear in response to a query containing a non-existent word.
Please note that the page is not related in any way to the query.
And then they found THE SAME RESULT associated to THE SAME KEYWORD in Bing.
If this is true, we can surely admit Bing copied results from Google.
The Bing Toolbar theory is more complex to prove... but the only way of stealing those data is using a software running on client's computers.
You should have read the rest of the article. Your lack of attention and haste to speak about things you don't understand makes you look foolish. Bad journalism is writing about something you haven't read, in my not so humble opinion :) I'm sorry. I'm being a jerk. I guess I'm a little irritable today. I just think that Google definitely nailed Microsoft on this one.
You have no idea what you're doing. Google had to enter in fake results for random terms on their own engine first, you obviously can't do that, and then it would take weeks of generating hits on it with IE to make it show up on bing.
Thanks for posting sensible comments. I did re-read the Google post to get idea of what the experiment was for. Being not an 'expert'. But I guess I know the difference in what I am doing and what Google did in their experiment. My 'rant' on bad journalism was not on Google but on the media that just spreads wrong idea of the whole situation. My purpose of posting the random search on Google and Bing was to just say that it was not just 'copying' as someone who skims through the news articles would get the idea.
At a second thought, I feel even my title is a bit sensational.
Post a Comment