Binggate is Bullshit
kludgecode.com
kludgecode.com
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/20...
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.
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.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torsoraphy&old...
(cur | prev) 03:03, 2 February 2011 Nihiltres (talk | contribs) (26 bytes) (;))
The commit summary is ;)
Just another wikipedian causing mischief.
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?
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.