Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Scripps Employees Called 'Hackers' For Exposing Massive Security Flaw
Bing caught copying search results from Google
Google first suspected foul play in May 2010. By October 2010, with Bing results beginning to look uncannily like Google's, it knew something had to be done about it -- and so, in true, nerdtastic style, Google set up a sting to prove that Microsoft was actually behind the wholesale mimicry of Google's search results.
Google injected "synthetic" results into its search engine -- fake queries and results that no real user or engine would ever generate. Then, on D-Day, December 17, about 20 Google engineers were asked to run the test queries with Internet Explorer 8, Bing Bar and Suggested Sites. By December 31, some of these fake results began appearing on Bing. See the examples after the break -- it's damning.
For a full discussion of Bing's antics, and what repercussions Microsoft might have to face, read the original Search Engine Land post.
One of Google's 'sting' queries
A few days later, the same result on Bing
[Images unceremoniously borrowed from Search Engine Land]
Comments
17
Subscribe to commentsrichard.gaileyFeb 1st 2011 12:39PM
Ooops! This will be an interesting one to follow.
JM977Feb 1st 2011 12:45PM
Extraordinarily misleading headline. If you use either Suggested Sites or Bing toolbar, it explicitly states it will send information to Microsoft about what sites you are viewing (and not in some pages-long use policy, but specifically in a dialog box before you allow it to do so). Nobody has provided any evidence whatsoever that anything illegal is being done.
And on the other hand...does anyone care?
Sebastian AnthonyFeb 1st 2011 12:57PM
@JM977 OK OK, I'll bite. How is the title misleading? Bing is copying Google's search results (using the toolbar and Suggested Sites).
SilverWaveFeb 1st 2011 10:26PM
@JM977
Well yes we do - Google is so good MS copy their results!
So why would anyone use the second rate service?
Stupidity or ignorance, pick one.
Well in your case both obviously.
Android underlingFeb 1st 2011 12:53PM
I noticed a similar trend with Google! Everytime Bing introduces a useful search feature, like infinite scroll on images, or vertical navigation..... it tends to show up on Google soon afterwards.
Mike ComierFeb 1st 2011 1:17PM
@Android underling there's a difference between duplicating features to stay competative and duplicating data from proprietary search algorithms. Instead of trying to use results from their own work, they are simply piggy-backing of Google's search engine to develop better results. In essence, they're copying from the math test of a kid in front of them.
DrakkenfyreFeb 1st 2011 3:45PM
@Android underling
Google's incessant copying of Bing pisses me off.
I don't prefer Bing, but the constant changes Google make irritate the hell out of me. Bing does something, Google does it later. Bing does something else, Google does it, too.
Even when a feature comes out that recieves OVERWHELMINGLY negative response (check their feedback messageboard) they go ahead with it anyway. Like that damn Java fade-in. It irritated the hell out of most people. They tested it, people hated it, they put it out anyway. Even more people hated it. "Let's make people wait every single time they go to our page to click on links!" Those 1-second delays over and over again added up over a day of clicking on those links. Like to get to your mail? Unless you have your inbox favorited, enjoy a one-second fade in each time. It's like having a simple page wasn't enuf. They had to make it "fancy" to compete with Bing. It's gone now, but very, very few people liked it. Google went ahead and put it out.
They seem to be scared of Bing taking any of their traffic away from them. Let's be honest, the average person is going to go to Google 9/10.
JoshFeb 1st 2011 1:51PM
@Sebastian Anthony
Which is EXACTLY what those tools are meant to do. It is meant to use user data to improve its search results. Google does the same thing, just not as explicitly. It may not be as easy to do, but you could do the same to Google using Bing results.
Google's search results are manipulated all the time. Google Bombs in particular show it is not difficult to do. The researcher manipulated a tool from a competitor to make it do things it wasn't meant to do.
I love Google. I use Android. I've been a Gmail user since week one of the invite only beta. This reeks, though. It's being twisted by everyone in a way that will only lead to Microsoft dumbing down its tool and, in effect, weakening their search suggestions. All this does is hurt the end user and the companies trying to make money off the web.
Chirag SanganiFeb 2nd 2011 6:53AM
@Sebastian Anthony
There's a fine line between users allowing Bing to monitor their usage and Bing copying Google's indexes outright by the millions. The article clearly states that Bing does the former, through the Bing toolbar, with the users permissions. And not just Google, Bing probably considers other search engines too. I cannot recall, but Bing is supposed to have almost a 1000 such different types of sources. And might I add that this is a clever heuristic (as opposed to Google's recently-criticized algorithm-driven approach); if an user of Bing hits upon something that's not currently in Bing's indexes, then Bing adds it to improve their results. What's wrong with that? Microsoft stated that Bing doesn't outright copy Google.
What's worrying is that A) Google manipulated search results when it stated it never had the capacity to. B) Hitting out on Bing for actually having come up with something innovative to address long-tail queries and SEO spam. In the end, the customer wins by this technique. If Google doesn't like that, then they have a problem indeed.
In my opinion, this is a ploy to divert attention from the recent noise about degrading quality of Google's results. An accusation of Bing automatically makes Google the saint which is, of course, what it wants.
Yes, I do use Bing, simply because I was tired of Google and found Bing to be much superior, frankly, for general usage.
Android underlingFeb 1st 2011 3:56PM
@Drakkenfyre 9/10 do not go to Google to search, that would mean they had 90% of the market. They only have 60-70%
SilverWaveFeb 1st 2011 10:23PM
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.
Yeah yeah but is anyone surprised?
MS couldn't beat them so they cheated... well of course they did they are MS its what they do.
i use blekkoFeb 1st 2011 11:46PM
I wonder what MS will do to copy the google mobile search results....
Sebastian AnthonyFeb 2nd 2011 7:46AM
@Chirag Sangani Hey! Thanks for the great input.
It could certainly be a FUD-spreading exercise on Google's behalf. No doubt its main opposition is now Microsoft, and it's going to take some clever maneuvering to get around the behemoth.
RadmanFeb 2nd 2011 12:52PM
It's nothing new for Microsoft - they did that way back when when they ripped off Seattle Computer Products DOS. Thanks to daddy's shady lawyer tactics.
jmsnFeb 5th 2011 11:05AM
wasn't bing supposed to be different and better than google's "search overload"?
smartalekFeb 13th 2011 6:29AM
And yet another reminder (were any necessary) that "intelligence" ≠ "smarts" or "wisdom."
This setting up of bogus search-results is -- or should have been, to anyone with even a marginally-functioning brain -- painfully obvious as a defense mechanism for Google.
(In fact, I'm very surprised to find, in the post above, what seems to me a fairly strong implication that they had not been doing so all along, or at least long before this specific suspected threat from MS showed up.)
It is a well-known fact (well, at least it's known by me, and I'm neither an infotech expert nor involved in any of the relevant fields) that the publishers of dictionaries, atlases, maps, telephone directories, and other such compendia have used perfectly analogous mechanisms for decades.
That MS didn't anticipate this, and try to defend against it in some way, does not speak well of their basic smarts.
(As to what it says, if anything, of their legality, morality, and ethics -- or lack thereof -- I'll leave it to those who actually know about such things to determine, or at least discuss.)
Sebastian AnthonyFeb 13th 2011 6:30AM
@smartalek That's a very good point, re: other encyclopaedias :)