Bing Sets The Record Straight


Recommended Posts

Bing have recently made a blog post about the recent allegations that Google have made about the decision engine copying it's search results.

I was unable to attend the Farsight conference yesterday but watched events unfold online and wanted to take a moment to share some thoughts and make sure everyone is clear about a few things.

It was interesting to watch the level of protest and feigned outrage from Google. One wonders what brought them to a place where they would level these kinds of accusations.

Before we explore that, let me clear up a few things once and for all.

We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop. We have some of the best minds in the world at work on search quality and relevance, and for a competitor to accuse any one of these people of such activity is just insulting.

We do look at anonymous click stream data as one of more than a thousand inputs into our ranking algorithm. We learn from our customers as they traverse the web, a common practice in helping to improve a wide array of online services. We have been clear about this for a couple of years (see Directions on Microsoft report, June 15, 2009).

Google engaged in a ?honeypot? attack to trick Bing. In simple terms, Google?s ?experiment? was rigged to manipulate Bing search results through a type of attack also known as ?click fraud.? That?s right, the same type of attack employed by spammers on the web to trick consumers and produce bogus search results. What does all this cloak and dagger click fraud prove? Nothing anyone in the industry doesn?t already know. As we have said before and again in this post, we use click stream optionally provided by consumers in an anonymous fashion as one of 1,000 signals to try and determine whether a site might make sense to be in our index.

Now let?s move the conversation to what might really be going on behind the scenes.

Bing was launched nearly two years ago to break new ground and help move the search industry in new directions. We have brought a number of things to market that we are very proud of -- our daily home page photos, infinite scroll in image search, great travel and shopping experiences, a new and more useful visual approach to search, and partnerships with key leaders like Facebook and Twitter. If you are keeping tabs, you will notice Google has ?copied? a few of these. Whether they have done it well we leave to customers. But more importantly, we take no issue and are glad we could help move the industry to adopt some good ideas.

At the same time, we have been making steady, quiet progress on core search relevance. In October 2010 we released a series of big, noticeable improvements to Bing?s relevance. So big and noticeable that we are told Google took notice and began to worry. Then a short time later, here come the honeypot attacks. Is the timing purely coincidence? Are industry discussions about search quality to be ignored? Is this simply a response to the fact that some people in the industry are beginning to ask whether Bing is as good or in some cases better than Google on core web relevance?

Clearly that?s a question that will continue in heated debate as long as there is a search industry. Here at Bing we will continue to focus on our customers, and try to provide some great innovation for consumers and the industry.

Yusuf Mehdi, Senior Vice President, Online Services Division

source

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/973010-bing-sets-the-record-straight/
Share on other sites

Always love to watch Microsoft lie through their teeth to save face. It's almost like theater!

Google wipes the floor with Bing any day of the week. Get over it, MS, and stay out of the consumer market.

Oh you mean how Google constantly lies about not manipulating their search results? Or how they claim that they didn't realize WiFi data was being collected on their cars?

All corporations lie when they can.

Then why does Google spend so much time copying Bing?

What the hell could they copy from Bing? NOTHING.

Unless, of course, you're talking about backgrounds or something.

Google's search results are better than Bing. Always have been, always will be. <Snipped>

Edited by Anaron
Google's search results are better than Bing. Always have been, always will be. <Snipped>

Not for me. For everything I've searched for, both Google and Bing give me similar results. The only reason I use Google is purely out of habit (since well it's been around for the past 13 years or something).

Maybe you need to learn how to use a search engine...Oh but first, please get rid of the word "Educated" from your name.

Edited by Anaron

I like how they call the honeypot "click fraud" LOL

Stay classy MS you got caught

Umm...20 or so Google engineers consistently clicked a wrong search result - the so called honeypot sites to generate those "signals"*. That is by definition, a type of click fraud. I guess your dislike for anything Microsoft is taking over reason.

*Even then Google's sting only managed to succeed 9% of the time, what does that tell you?

Umm...20 or so Google engineers consistently clicked a wrong search result - the so called honeypot sites. That is by definition, a type of click fraud. I guess your dislike for anything Microsoft is taking over reason.

This. People are blinded by their brand loyalty to google here. Google was in the wrong, get over it people.

What the hell could they copy from Bing? NOTHING.

Unless, of course, you're talking about backgrounds or something.

Google's search results are better than Bing. Always have been, always will be. <Snipped>

Google just upgraded Marketplace for android that has a feature similar to what Xbox marketplace have had for years now. So yea, Google copies a lot from Microsoft.

Edited by Anaron

What the hell could they copy from Bing? NOTHING.

Background images, sidebars, image search layout... There are loads of things that Google have copied.

As for search results, I switched to Bing a long time ago and haven't missed Google at all. The search results that Bing gives are just as good as Google's and often better.

Seems a shame that Google have to rely on click fraud to trick people like you into thinking that MS copied them ;)

Umm...20 or so Google engineers consistently clicked a wrong search result - the so called honeypot sites to generate those "signals"*. That is by definition, a type of click fraud. I guess your dislike for anything Microsoft is taking over reason.

*Even then Google's sting only managed to succeed 9% of the time, what does that tell you?

Perhaps it's just one of those days, but can you explain to me exactly what Google's supposed "click fraud" is?

Perhaps it's just one of those days, but can you explain to me exactly what Google's supposed "click fraud" is?

Simple:

1. Google installs the Bing toolbar (which sends back some information to improve Bing search) on several computers.

2. Google generates fake Google search pages and has people clicking them.

3. Bing toolbar reports on these links and the way users are responding to them back to Bing.

4. Bing's algorithm decides to include similar search results when used with the same queries.

5. Google claims Bing copies its results.

The fact is that the information sent back by the Bing toolbar is EXPLICITLY said to gather data to improve Bing search. If it starts seeing a sudden association with a given link, it "learns" about this and presents it as a result. This same technique is often used by spammers to increase the Google or Bing ranking of their pages.

Perhaps it's just one of those days, but can you explain to me exactly what Google's supposed "click fraud" is?

20 Google engineers opted in to an anonymous customer feedback program in Bing Bar. The Google engineers then proceeded to search for the honeypot using the nonsense keyword. When the search results appeared, they clicked on the link/honeypot. They did this over and over.

Microsoft was flooded with messages of the form:

"A user searched for saldjkfaldkfalaldkf and eventually clicked on the link ABC.COM"

So, what did Microsoft/Bing do? They figured out (using statistical machine learning algorithms) that for the search saldjkfaldkfalaldkf, users wanted ABC.COM.

It's as simple as that.

Perhaps it's just one of those days, but can you explain to me exactly what Google's supposed "click fraud" is?

Click Fraud is when fake clicks are generated usually to increase ad revenue or bring a website to the top of the search results even though they don't deserve it. What Google did was use IE with the Bing Toolbar installed (which Bing says that they purposely use to enhance their search results) to, over a period of months, click on "wrong" results in Google searches. Bing interpreted this as "user searched for this and clicked on that, therefore it must be relevant." It then updated its search results (after the months of clicking) to note this trend. Now the Bing results matched Google's because that's what the Google employees kept clicking.

Edit: Meh, I type slow.

20 Google engineers opted in to an anonymous customer feedback program in Bing Bar. The Google engineers then proceeded to search for the honeypot using the nonsense keyword. When the search results appeared, they clicked on the link/honeypot. They did this over and over.

Microsoft was flooded with messages of the form:

"A user searched for saldjkfaldkfalaldkf and eventually clicked on the link ABC.COM"

So, what did Microsoft/Bing do? They figured out (using statistical machine learning algorithms) that for the search saldjkfaldkfalaldkf, users wanted ABC.COM.

It's as simple as that.

Mate I wish I could rep that, actually makes perfect sense.

Click Fraud is when fake clicks are generated usually to increase ad revenue or bring a website to the top of the search results even though they don't deserve it. What Google did was use IE with the Bing Toolbar installed (which Bing says that they purposely use to enhance their search results) to, over a period of months, click on "wrong" results in Google searches. Bing interpreted this as "user searched for this and clicked on that, therefore it must be relevant." It then updated its search results (after the months of clicking) to note this trend. Now the Bing results matched Google's because that's what the Google employees kept clicking.

Edit: Meh, I type slow.

Which ends up the same, Bing takes the results from Google and uses them :whistle:

Which ends up the same, Bing takes the results from Google and uses them :whistle:

The point of the toolbar is that it uses results from WHEREVER and uses them, presumably the humans clicking on the links have filtered the contents and know that is related to what they are searching for...

Is there a source for the "20 Google Engineers" though?

Here it is: http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/01/google-accuses-bing-of-cheating-piggybacking-off-its-search-r/

The point of the toolbar is that it uses results from WHEREVER and uses them, presumably the humans clicking on the links have filtered the contents and know that is related to what they are searching for...

You'd be pretty surprised :rolleyes:

The honeypot showed that it can bring completely irrelevant results to the engine (not a good thing) and they showed examples where Google automatically "fixes" spelling errors, sometimes they can be wrong and it would bring irrelevant results to Bing that way too

Either way, I'm still using Bing. I distrust Google more and more these past few years. They're about as shady as you can get, and I have a feeling the Trojan Horse will be sprung in the next few years.

Their complete lack of user privacy and their attempt to cover up the WiFi incident has put them at the bottom of the barrel as far as I'm concerned.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Would you please fix your graphics. They are outdated and don't fit the article.
    • The Light of Life? We actually do glow till our Death, study finds by Sayan Sen Image by Rafael Rendon via Pexels A study by researchers at the University of Calgary has found that living organisms produce an extremely faint light known as ultraweak photon emission, and that this glow appears to drop significantly after death. The research was published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry in April 2025 and quickly drew widespread attention, leading to more than 200 news stories about the findings. Ultraweak photon emission (or UPE), sometimes called biophoton emission, refers to tiny amounts of light released by living cells as a result of normal biological activity. A photon is the basic particle of light, and researchers say every living system examined so far, including plants and animals, has been found to emit these photons. The glow is far too faint to be seen by the human eye. “I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras,” says Dr. Christoph Simon, PhD, one of the authors of the study and a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy in the Faculty of Science. “It is a fact that living beings glow. It’s a very weak glow, but it’s there and visible with very sensitive cameras.” According to the study, the light involved is extremely weak, ranging from 10 to 1,000 photons per square centimetre per second across a spectral range of 200 to 1,000 nanometres. For comparison, a nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and is commonly used to measure wavelengths of light. Detecting emissions at such low levels requires highly specialized equipment. To study the phenomenon, researchers used electron-multiplying charge-coupled device (EMCCD) and charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras. These imaging systems are designed to detect extremely small amounts of light, including individual photons, while minimizing background noise. The technology allowed researchers to capture signals that would otherwise be impossible to observe. The team worked with the Human Health Therapeutics Research Centre at the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) in Ottawa to examine photon emissions in mice. Researchers took two-hour exposure images of the animals before and after death and compared the results. “We saw that the level of light that they emit – this biophoton glow – is distinctly different between living and dead animals,” says Dr. Daniel Oblak, PhD, an associate professor in Physics and Astronomy and the corresponding author of the study. The images showed a clear decrease in photon emissions after death across the entire body of each mouse. According to the researchers, this provided direct evidence that living and dead tissue produce different levels of ultraweak photon emission. “It’s a very small amount and it’s, of course, very tricky to detect,” Oblak says. The study grew out of discussions between Simon, whose research interests include quantum biology, and Oblak, whose work focuses on detecting light for quantum communication experiments. Quantum biology is a field that explores whether processes described by quantum physics, which studies matter and energy at very small scales, may also play a role in living systems. “Since I work as a quantum physicist on light detection for quantum communication, I thought that experimentally we have a lot of the tools to be able to detect the light,” Oblak explains. The researchers also investigated UPE in plants and found that the light changed in response to stress. When plants were exposed to higher temperatures or physically injured, their photon emissions increased. Chemical treatments also affected the glow. Among the substances tested, the local anesthetic benzocaine produced the strongest emission response when applied to injured plant tissue. These findings suggest that ultraweak photon emission is closely linked to biochemical and metabolic activity inside living organisms. Metabolism refers to the chemical reactions that allow cells and organisms to stay alive and function. Because these reactions change when an organism experiences stress, injury or disease, researchers believe UPE may provide a way to monitor those changes. The researchers stress that the glow is a physical and biological phenomenon, not a metaphysical one. Oblak says more research is needed to understand exactly how the light is produced and what information it may reveal about the condition of living tissue. “We must understand what that is to figure out what’s happening,” he says. “If we can understand how that relates to certain influences on the body – stress, diseases – then that could be used as a diagnostic tool.” The researchers believe the technique could eventually help scientists study health and disease without invasive procedures. Because UPE can be measured without adding dyes, markers or labels, it may offer a way to monitor whether tissue is healthy, damaged or alive. In plants, it could help researchers better understand how organisms respond to injury, heat and other forms of stress. While the work is still in its early stages, the study demonstrates that ultraweak photon emission imaging can provide a non-invasive and label-free way to observe biological activity. Researchers say the approach could become a useful tool for studying vitality, stress responses and other important processes in both animals and plants. Source: University of Calgary, ACS publication This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Damn, I loved this show back in the day.  
    • Rufus 4.15.2393 Beta 2 by Razvan Serea Rufus is a small utility that helps format and create bootable USB flash drives, such as USB keys/pendrives, memory sticks, etc. Despite its small size, Rufus provides everything you need! Oh, and Rufus is fast. For instance it's about twice as fast as UNetbootin, Universal USB Installer or Windows 7 USB download tool, on the creation of a Windows 7 USB installation drive from an ISO (with honorable mention to WiNToBootic for managing to keep up). It is also marginally faster on the creation of Linux bootable USBs from ISOs. A non-exhaustive list of Rufus supported ISOs is available here. It can be especially useful for cases where: you need to create USB installation media from bootable ISOs (Windows, Linux, UEFI, etc.) you need to work on a system that doesn't have an OS installed you need to flash a BIOS or other firmware from DOS you want to run a low-level utility Rufus 4.15.2393 Beta 2 changelog: Add RISC-V 64 support to UEFI:NTFS Improve the guards for using the "silent" option Improve the ability to cancel during write retries Improve progress reporting for compressed image extraction Fix unrestricted XML entity expansion and integer overflow in ezxml parser (courtesy of @esadowski4) [GHSA-55r2-34wg-8mv9] Fix "silent" Windows installation failing at 75% in most cases [#2960] Fix a crash during boot when using UEFI:NTFS on Snapdragon X based ARM64 platforms [#2934] Fix the first WUE option always being checked by default [#2965] Fix an infinite loop when using Windows ISOs that contain multiple WIMs Fix "Enable runtime UEFI media validation" checkbox not always being properly enabled Other WUE improvements/fixes for OneDrive removal and username validation (with thanks to @christian8641) [#2984, #2991] Download: Rufus 4.15 Beta 2 | 1.9 MB (Open Source) Links: Rufus Home Page | Project Page @GitHub | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      hhgygy earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      515
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      83
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      74
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!