

Binggate is Bullshit  - brudgers
http://www.kludgecode.com/?p=24

======
luigi
No, it's not. Harry Shum admitted this morning that the behavior was due to
using users' clickstream as a signal.

[http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/20...](http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2011/02/01/thoughts-
on-search-quality.aspx)

Here's where Bing is wrong: Bing should not be using clickstream data from
Google searches as a signal. The core offering of Google search is getting
used by its competitor, without any citation. That's wrong.

If you were to take the core asset you're supposed to produce, source code,
from another developer and pass it off as your own work, would that be right?
Oh, but you didn't know it came from another developer? Doesn't really matter
anymore, as you've been called out on it. Admit that you were wrong and fix
the situation.

~~~
tjpick
Google's search engine serves up content from other people's sites. And
advertises against it.

Is that right?

I'm handing this one to microsoft. They found a simple, elegant source of
improving their results. Tough shit that it's at google's expense.

------
mukyu
The English wikipedia has a redirect at [[Torsoraphy]] that was created hours
ago. [1] Google observed this behavior months ago.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torsoraphy&old...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torsoraphy&oldid=411505089)

~~~
basugasubaku
See also the revision history
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torsoraphy&act...](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torsoraphy&action=history)

(cur | prev) 03:03, 2 February 2011 Nihiltres (talk | contribs) (26 bytes)
(;))

The commit summary is ;)

Just another wikipedian causing mischief.

------
joh6nn
oh, for the love of god! "gate" is not a goddamn suffix! you do not add it to
things to connote scandal! this is not an acceptable practice; it's down there
with "irregardless" and "should of". stop doing it!

------
va1en0k
the whole story seems pretty odd and odious. two giant corporations having a
catfight, even a catfight on twitter

I have no idea why would Microsoft "stole" results from anyone. their
statistics research goes too far, but theft seems like a way too stupid action

are handwaving and odious flame wars part of a new Google's "startup"
strategy?

------
jdp23
Great observation about Wikipedia's behavior. Wow, it turns out that Google
isn't the only one who can correct spelling errors! Who knew?

~~~
brudgers
According to the Searchengineland.com story, the smoking gun is that Bing does
not offer a correction for "torsoraphy" yet returns the Wikipedia article.
[http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-
copying-...](http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-
search-results-62914)

But the difference is really in what they do after they get the results from
Wikipedia. Google searches for the term returned by the Wikimedia engine and
offers it as the intended spelling. Per the screenshots, Bing returns the
Wikipedia page, a page related to it's contents (long island surgery) and the
results from Amazon (plus whatever else isn't shown).

Bing appears to offer broader searches when faced with ambiguity, whereas
Google takes the results of the Wikimedia engine as gospel.

~~~
thelema314
I don't think either google nor bing searches for the term in wikimedia. I
think google spent time finding this misspelling, and bing is sitting on the
shoulders of a giant, capturing the same effect with their clickstream
analysis.

