Patterico's Pontifications

Anyone remember Netscape Navigator?

Yeah, Bill Gates made sure that you don’t.

Icy Texan (958677) — 2/1/2011 @ 11:44 pm

Fantastic. Now I have two ways not to find what I’m looking for.

Cooter (f1ab34) — 2/2/2011 @ 12:31 am

Anyone remember Netscape Navigator?

As a matter of fact I do. It was the GUI browser that came after Mosaic.

Blacque Jacques Shellacque (e09322) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:22 am

i’m unaffected…. i use AOL.

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 2/2/2011 @ 2:59 am

Not So much.

From What I understand, Microsoft is analyzing not what Google Serves Up, but what links IE Users click. (Probably across all search providers, but of course Google couldn’t test that out by inserting garbage results into other search engines.)

Rather than copying Google’s results, MS is looking at which link a human found most relevant of the ones returned by Google.

Tony Hooker (26c430) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:04 am

1.

Anyone remember Netscape Navigator?

Yeah, Bill Gates made sure that you don’t.

Comment by Icy Texan — 2/1/2011 @ 11:44 pm

I do.. and in fact, I’m using it right now to type this comment. Except it’s not called Netscape anymore, it’s called Mozilla Firefox. But it’s the same program.

Incidentally, I love Microsoft’s response, “We do not copy Google’s results [into Bing].” Technically true (they copy what their users click on into Bing) while ulimately misleading (Google is by far the most-used search engine, so the overwhelming majority of their users’ clicks on search engines will come from Google, thus what they copy into Bing is mostly Google’s results).

Robin Munn (1bccbe) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:29 am

But they are not Google results by strict design. If some other engine was suddenly more popular tomorrow, then Bing would use mostly THOSE results.

Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:32 am

BTW, see http://ilias.ca/MozillaNetscapeRelationship for details on how Netscape became Mozilla, if you’re interested in browser history.

Robin Munn (1bccbe) — 2/2/2011 @ 5:33 am

The complaint is nonsense. If you click on a link, why shouldn’t MS count the click in the results of a potential new search. That’s what they do. What does Google do?

results not algorithms (bcf6a9) — 2/2/2011 @ 6:04 am

If you click on a link, why shouldn’t MS count the click in the results of a potential new search. That’s what they do. What does Google do?

Since Google doesn’t write the operating system or the browser, it has to come up with its own heuristics.

Some chump (e84e27) — 2/2/2011 @ 6:29 am

Yeah, with user data. Many people know Google collects user data. Why not use it to improve search results as well as earn more money from push advertising.

results not algorithms (5e5d98) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:10 am

No, Microsoft is watching their users. And taking notes on what they do and what they search for.

mojo (8096f2) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:35 am

Yeah, with user data. Many people know Google collects user data.

Whose users? Google collects data from its own users; there’s nothing wrong about that. Microsoft, it appears, collects data from its competitors’ users.

Some chump (4c6c0c) — 2/2/2011 @ 7:54 am

Its data mining…. lol…

G (ce0c1b) — 2/2/2011 @ 8:12 am

Whose users? Google collects data from its own users; there’s nothing wrong about that.

You must be joking – Google has mapped out almost the entire world’s houses, businesses and gov’t offices without asking for anyone’s consent, and has repeatedly been fined by collecting user data without consent, selling said user data without consent, and doing just about everything else under the sun that oculd be construed as illegal invasions of privacy. That is just one of the many reasons why their scumbag former CEO (Eric Schmidt) was finally ousted two weeks ago, he had made so many telling statements regarding their real intentions that he was deemed to be a liability to the company for the future.

Want a two – minute history lesson? Here’s a hilarious cartoon vid detailing Schmidt’s vision for what Google really is all about – enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ouof1OzhL8k

Don’t be evil, my arsehole – they’re the epitome of evil.

Dmac (498ece) — 2/2/2011 @ 8:15 am

“Microsoft, it appears, collects data from its competitors’ users”

You gone a little far here. It would appear the Bing toolbar allows the collection of user data regardless of what search engine you’re using. If you loaded it, you’re still a user of Bing.

In that article, these are the conditions “We gave 20 of our engineers laptops with a fresh install of Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer 8 with Bing Toolbar installed. As part of the install process, we opted in to the “Suggested Sites” feature of IE8, and we accepted the default options for the Bing Toolbar.”

Its sort of like complaining that you’re being filmed outside your home from a public street. You know who does this in real life… Google maps.

results not algorithms (ea4bfa) — 2/2/2011 @ 8:17 am

I’d feel sorry for anyone other than Google.

Google doesn’t respect others’ copyright laws, why should anyone respect theirs?

headhunt23 (c35715) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:09 pm

Hmmm, I’m going to have to do some thinking about whether or not I could create an infringement claim against Microsoft…

SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:14 pm

This has nothing to do with copyrights–reading the linked article reveals that the issue is the Bing Toolbar and IE8’s Suggested sites are telling Microsoft what links you’re clicking even if you’re using another search page like AltaVista or Google. Every integrated browser and toolbar can be set to automatically send your history to Google/MS to determine where you’ve been to help refine their search engines–the issue here is that you can’t watch what users click on competitor’s search results according to their handshake agreements. Anybody surprised by this must have been shocked by the Wikileaks dump showing that we do spy on other countries at embassies.

In all this makes Google look petty–the kings of search act like spoiled children and scream “cheater!” when their dominance is questioned. What’s more, they published their findings, which were a pathetic “7 to 9” out of 100 hits, on the day of Microsoft’s search engine summit to say they’re a low-rate copy. Finally, Google is emphasizing the “cheater” storyline because it’s an easy headline to use in the PR war (a trick they learned while working with Beijing)–if this was really a question about privacy and not spying on your neighbor then Google cannot take the moral high ground at all without deleting their entire Street View archives first.

Roger Membreno (90a763) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:41 pm

Really, Roger, you are convinced that there is no copyright infringement involved?

SPQR (26be8b) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:48 pm

I don’t know SPQR it would seem to me like there shouldn’t be.

It would be like taking a product and without knowing the ingredients; making a similar product and calling it another name.

Like Coke and Pepsi …

Lord Nazh (693977) — 2/2/2011 @ 1:59 pm

SPQR, what possible copyright infringement could there be?

Milhouse (d84b40) — 2/2/2011 @ 4:38 pm

if Google spent even a fraction as much effort in keeping jihadi videos off of YouTube as they do in pursuing this sort of thing, there wouldn’t be any on their service to motivate and recruit new terrorists.

Google can FOAD.

redc1c4 (fb8750) — 2/2/2011 @ 11:50 pm

I do.. and in fact, I’m using it right now to type this comment. Except it’s not called Netscape anymore, it’s called Mozilla Firefox. But it’s the same program.

Uhhhh, not even close, dude.

Among the more obvious differences, NS had a mail client built into it, while FFox uses a separate add-on abortion of a program called “Thunderbird”

I say “abortion” because it’s more poorly implemented than anything of M$’s — and that’s not easy.

Out of the last 4 major upgrades, two have completely screwed the pooch, requiring a full uninstall, then re-install to get ANY functionality back out of it. Attempts to report these serious issues are “disappeared” very conveniently from their forums.

NS was based on the same Mosaic design/coding, but it was substantially different from either Mosaic or FFox.

BTW — you folks do realize that both Opera and AOL basically are defacto “shells” for IE, in many ways…? I found this out when I discovered that both would not work on a system where the IE was fakakta and non-working. Discussions with AOL tech support led to them making me aware of this, and Opera was similarly revealed…

Both are substantial alterations (neither tends to have the massive security holes IE is prone to) but, in general, if IE ain’t working, the other two aren’t likely to be, either.

Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:46 am

#

The complaint is nonsense. If you click on a link, why shouldn’t MS count the click in the results of a potential new search. That’s what they do. What does Google do?

Comment by results not algorithms — 2/2/2011 @ 6:04 am

I’m not sure you understand.

Google doesn’t track my clicks on websites Google doesn’t own. They don’t have a program running to send that kind of data to them about my behavior. They have algorithms that intelligently sort through what’s online.

The fact is, if everyone did what bing is doing, we would not have effective search engines because this process can (and will) be exploited.

You compared Bing’s behavior to public streets, but that’s unfair. I bet 99% of people who are using IE to search on Google didn’t know that what you type and click is sent to Microsoft. Pray that MS doesn’t have another hotmail type security failure, because a lot of people’s searches would become public knowledge, and I don’t think this is anything like walking across a public street.

It’s true, Google sucks in many instances, but that’s not really relevant to this issue.

Also, Firefox is indeed the current iteration of Netscape. It’s obviously massively different, largely because Mozilla decided to focus on the browser and forgo the Mozilla suite.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 9:55 am

Tee hee!! Standing up and facing off MS is no picnic. They are coming at you like an army of ants. Poking, prodding every nook and cranny.

Larry Geiger (1df7d6) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:01 am

Fantastic. Now I have two ways not to find what I’m looking for.

*sigh*.

Back in 2000-2002 there was a meta-search engine “Infind” — for “inference find”, @ http://www.infind.com — Yow.

Friggin’ best #%@##^$^&%#$%$%&$@#%@ search engine EVER.

Rarely did it not have what I was actually specifically looking for on the first page. There were almost no exceptions where it wasn’t to be found on the second page.

Put in the word “ford” for example, and one of the first entries was the site for FMC… not a list of 4oo Ford car and tractor dealerships, THEN the entry for FMC.

Folded as a part of the dot-com bust, and searching has been a pain between the cheeks ever since.

IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:02 am

Also, Firefox is indeed the current iteration of Netscape. It’s obviously massively different, largely because Mozilla decided to focus on the browser and forgo the Mozilla suite.

Yeah, and Windows7 is the current iteration of IBM’s OS/2 Warp…. LOL. What, hey, they’re both based on the original PC-DOS/MS-DOS code!

No, they’re entirely different tracks starting from the same base, with entirely different development crews. They are related, yes, but there is no direct line of decent.

You’re saying your great-great-great-grandfather’s great-uncle (back in 1830s Austria) is the same as you, or pretty damned close to that.
😀

IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:36 am

They don’t have a program running to send that kind of data to them about my behavior.

As far as you know. You’ve never installed the Google toolbar, I hope.
😀

IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (c9dcd8) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:38 am

They are coming at you like an army of ants. Poking, prodding every nook and cranny.

An army of ants up my ass. That explains the burning sensation every time I use IE.

Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:39 am

No, they’re entirely different tracks starting from the same base, with entirely different development crews. They are related, yes, but there is no direct line of decent.

You realize that your first sentence contradicts your second, don’t you? ** sigh **

SPQR (26be8b) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:41 am

No, they’re entirely different tracks starting from the same base, with entirely different development crews. They are related, yes, but there is no direct line of decent.

Firefox stemmed from the Mozilla suite. It’s a much more narrow project than Netscape and Mozilla, but it’s the same legacy.

Win 7 is the current iteration of OS/2. In fact, when you look at how OS/2 tried to merge two concepts of OS, and have special secured modes, it’s not that radical of a concept. And MS was involved in OS/2’s initial development. I bet some of the same people worked on both.

Wow I am a geek.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:50 am

As far as you know. You’ve never installed the Google toolbar, I hope.
😀

Touche, and no, I most certainly do not run special search toolbars, even though half the crap I install begs me to allow one.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:51 am

Also, IBM and MS share patents quite a lot.

Dustin (b54cdc) — 2/3/2011 @ 10:53 am

Mozilla is an open source direct descendant of Netscape.
history of browsers

Chris Hooten (24973f) — 2/4/2011 @ 2:02 pm

2/1/2011

Google: Bing Is Ripping Off Our Search Algorithm

35 Responses to “Google: Bing Is Ripping Off Our Search Algorithm”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out