• http://jalaj.net/ jalaj

    Obviously there is Google’s yet another intention behind revealing this sting-operation. Flooding Bing with Black-hat SEOs. Carried a full blog post at http://jalaj.net/2011/02/03/hiybbprqag–the-search-engine-game/

  • http://onetidbit.wordpress.com/ Bharath Radhekrishna

    There’s nothing new Googlr Read newtons 3rd law so that you can understand how the world will be. You copied Apple iPhone and iPad concepts and design and make them in your own way. Now Microsoft copied you. So google engineers shout now. This is law of karma…:-)

  • GoogleLuva

    I mentioned exactly this idea to google engineers years ago. I asked them what was to stop MS, or Yahoo or any of the other competitors at the time using google rankings to inform their own ranking algorithms. They claimed it couldn’t be done, wouldn’t work, yadda yadda (it is obvious that it would work).

    Now the google crybabies are bitching about it. Boo hoo.

    Google’s entire codebase runs on linux, to which they have contributed next-to-nothing. When they start coming close to giving back to the public domain an amount equal to their benefit, maybe I’ll have time for their whiny engineers.

  • http://www.entrepreneurshipsecret.com EntrepreneurSecrets

    The game is getting interesting. Lets see who wins

  • http://www.entrepreneurshipsecret.com EntrepreneurSecrets

    The game is getting interesting. Lets see who wins the competition

  • Hannah

    Bing- Because It’s Not Google

  • http://www.marketing-jive.com J Nimetz

    “And if that storm gets people focused on demanding better search quality, I’m happy” I agree. Personally I have found results in Google to be getting progressively worse over the past three years. Search and more importantly relevancy in search is difficult, no question. Google probably does it better than most. Everyone has a different semantic map which makes it difficult to consistently provide relevant results. In addition relevancy is in the eye of the beholder. I for one do demand better search quality. Blekko is a breath of fresh air. Thanks for the post Danny.

  • BarryF

    “Google has proudly claimed over the years that it cannot manipulate search results” …except for the “one-time” code that can be added and removed at will???

    What a hopelessly one-sided article.

    P.S. IE9 is faster than Chrome

  • http://www.karamveer.com jimkarter
  • http://www.benedelman.org Ben Edelman

    Here’s a twist others haven’t yet flagged: Google itself previously praised and endorsed this same technique.

    In http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum80/21-1-30.htm , Google’s Matt Cutts (then posting under pseudonym GoogleGuy) wrote as follows:

    “It’s my personal, unofficial belief that using toolbar data in the future to augment our crawl is not only a good idea, but specifically allowed by the original policies we posted.”

    “A good idea” indeed — a good idea then, Matt said, when contemplating Google using this method. But now that Microsoft uses this very method, suddenly Google argues it’s improper.

  • mdo1979

    Google should take a look inwards before they propose that others should stop copying their innovations. What have they even innovated? Adwords? Nope, they stole that from Overture (and had to pay Yahoo for it later). Android? A pretty direct ripoff of IOS with tech overtly stolen from Sun and changed just enough to not have to pay them. Instant? Yahoo did that years earlier. Buzz? Nope, even the name was ripped off. How about Google’s new look? Strange, that looks an awful lot like Bing. Where would Google be now if they weren’t able to copy a lot of brilliant ideas?

  • http://cid-029332c9a14106b4.profile.live.com/ John Repa

    NVRAM, you’re silly. Go sit in the corner with the other conspiracist, you’ll spot them by their tinfoil hats.

    As for the subject at hand, I’m more dishearted by Google’s actions than I am Microsoft’s. Grow up.

  • Philly wiz

    It seems clear that MS is not using Google rankings directly, but is incorporating what sites users actually click on. I believe the long term impact of this will be detrimental to users. Here’s why:

    Suppose hypothetically, Bing and Google both incorporated website choices made by users of any search engine. Eventually, search results from Bing and Google would converge to the same results – the rankings determined by user choices. Doesn’t matter whether one engine is better than the other, the results will be eventually virtually identical. Therefore, there will be no motivation for a search engine to improve its algorithms – there would be no long term impact on the results. That discouragement of improving algorithms sounds like a negative to me.

    The exception to this would be for brand-new search terms or new websites; the engine that incorporated new information the quickest would have a short term advantage

  • http://www.blogbizbuzz.com Joan Stewart

    Thanks Danny,

    Interesting article, I personally feel the more on-board the greater the possibility of accurate data. Sometimes the copycat will smooth out wrinkles that the originator missed or overlooked.

  • ThatsNachoCheese

    wonder if hiybbprqag is an acronym taking a shot at Bing.

    any guesses?

  • http://thebitbot.com/ Publishing…

    Ohhhhhhhhhh….so THAT is why Bing is called a decision engine…because it looks at everyone else’s search results and then \decides\ on which one to display in it’s \queries\…LOL!!!!!

  • FMJohnson

    FM, I was speaking about the company in general as the source. I think you understand that. I also think most people understand it, as well.\n
    I did understand that and I’m sure everyone else understands it as well. But companies in general can’t be a source.

    I don’t think an attribution like that would pass muster if a blogger at the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal used it. (The White House told me… Procter & Gamble told me…)

    Something like (for example) a source at Google told me… or a friend at Google told me… would sound a little more buttoned up.

  • Darren Forster

    Microsoft have copied quite a lot in the past anyway, so why stop? Windows was copied from the WIMP (Windows Icon Mouse Pointer) system from Apple, which even Apple copied from the Xerox WIMP system on photocopiers. Microsoft happily took Java and incorporated it into IE without Sun’s permission until Sun forced them to stop, and then created their own version of Java, which worked very similar to Sun’s, and yet the ironic thing is Microsoft get really annoyed when people don’t have genuine Windows on their computer.

    Maybe Google should put something into their search engine that detects where the user came from previously, and if it was Bing then send them somewhere else (like maybe Google?), that would stop Bing piggy backing onto Google’s hard work.

    This is plagurism, it is like me reading a book, liking bits of the book and taking bits for my own work and not giving credit to the author of the book.

    One thing that is quite funny is now if you use them test search terms that Google came up with, they now both come up with links to these news articles on both Bing and Google, so even though Google have now removed the honeypot pages, they still exist.

  • http://holisticsearch.co.uk Peter Young

    Am I the only one that thinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

    Surely much of Google’s success is based on copying the successes of other search engines. Further to that I can’t help thinking that Google need to make sure they have their facts 100% spot on in this, otherwise they are in danger of causing some real issues for themselves.

  • meb0

    “Is It Illegal?

    Suffice to say, Google’s pretty unhappy with the whole situation, which does raise a number of issues. For one, is what Bing seems to be doing illegal? Singhal was “hesitant” to say that since Google technically hasn’t lost anything. It still has its own results, even if it feels Bing is mimicking them.”

    Isn’t that the same claim for and against all internet piracy? ‘The copyright holder hasn’t lost anything by pirating. nothing was stolen, just copied’

  • Darren Forster

    @meb0 – Probably is illegal – it’s similar to me going to a library and photocopying a book, walking away with the photocopy and telling the author of the book that I didn’t steal the book, just photocopied it.

    The author would be pretty annoyed at me and probably sue me for breaking copying laws.

    Even though it appears nothing is stolen, Google are losing advertising revenue, as the adverts that show up on Bing will be Bing’s adverts which they’ll get paid for, and yet the results will be Google’s which they won’t be able to show they’re sponsored links, although with the amount of Google sponsored links around it’s probably not going to make much difference over all.

  • http://www.fijiwebdesign.com/ Fiji Web Design

    I found this post quite misleading. The results are what they are because the experiment was designed to produce those results. I’ve wrote a more detailed explanation here: http://www.bucabay.com/search/bing-copies-google-results-experiment-fixed/

  • http://www.clintoncimring.com Clinton Cimring

    I think we all know that Bing has been copying Google. I’m glad Danny finally called them out on it.

  • http://www.atmedia.net/KlausRusch/ Klaus Johannes Rusch

    What started as a technical and ethical issue has somewhat turned into a legal debate, not the least because of Harry Shum’s comments that Google doesn’t the clickstream data and therefore doesn’t have a say in how this gets used. Even if you assumed for a moment that this technically clever use of Google referral data is “legal” it is quite obvious that Google considers the use of clickstream data that contains Google Search URLs plagiarism and doesn’t want another search engine to use this data.

    One possible solution, putting the Website owner in control, is the application of the Robots Exclusion Protocol to clickstream data. Hopefully this heated debate will eventually lead to search engine and toolbar developers putting their heads together and implementing a solution for fair use of clickstream data.

  • http://whiterabbitexpress.com White Rabbit Express

    they’re climbing in your Windows(TM), stealing your search results…

  • Garth

    Actually, Bing had the auto correct feature BEFORE Google, google copied Bing in that aspect, the side bar search sort aspect, and the background image, along with the ‘unlimited’ scroll feature, it’s a bit dumb to think that if your web crawler picked something up, another search engine’s shouldn’t.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QPSEXIOS45QYFSNSFF2IOKI4TM Quoter

  • http://twitter.com/yellowiconscom Yellow Icons

    Nice article! Always wondered why our website is never listed high in bing for keywords http://www.yellowicons.com