• http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/ Matt Cutts

    Just in case this story is getting attention because of yesterday’s news about Microsoft: if you read the comments on that blog post, one person showed up to say “Amazon wasn’t the first to use item-item collaborative filtering, right? I remember seeing this at Firefly in 1996.” Greg says that Firefly used a different collaborative algorithm, and the original commenter said “Firefly definitely had item-item similarities.”

    Personally, I see a big difference between trying different algorithmic ways to solve a problem vs. sending Google clicks directly to Microsoft, and Microsoft then using that data in their ranking.

  • http://www.michael-martinez.com/ Michael Martinez

    “Personally, I see a big difference between trying different algorithmic ways to solve a problem vs. sending Google clicks directly to Microsoft, and Microsoft then using that data in their ranking.”

    THOSE CLICKS DO NOT BELONG TO GOOGLE. They belong to the users who execute them, and those users are free to share those clicks with whomever they please.

  • http://www.kevin-pike.com Kevin Pike

    Surprised to see only two comments on this story – while Danny is getting beat up for his “BING cheats” story.

    @MattCutts Not sure I follow the “clicks thing”. Couldn’t BING just scrape Google results without clicks?

  • http://www.seroundtable.com/ Barry Schwartz

    Matt, I did not cover this story as a Bing vs Google follow up from yesterday. I just found it interesting that Google didn’t build this from the ground up and used a deviation of Amazon’s algo.

    Again, I don’t think I implied this had anything to do with Bing vs. Google.

    Sorry if you read it that way, but I understand why.

  • http://davelawlor.com Dave_Lawlor

    What I seem to see is Matt seems more concerned with PR than SPAM results lately, Perhaps he should change departments. Way to be proactive on SOMETHING Matt! But hey if I Google 100 terms and only 9 (lol yeah we know it would be way higher) of them return SPAM terms in top 5 I can claim Google has lost the battle against SPAM right? Because 10% is the bar that has been set by Matt and Big G for proving something absolute. Bonus points if more than 10% of those SPAM sites are being monetized with Google Adwords!

    Worry about your results first Google before throwing stones at the competitors.

  • http://www.adrac.co.uk Adrac Ltd

    I agree with Matt on “sending Google clicks directly to Microsoft, and Microsoft then using that data in their ranking”.

    Microsoft have everyright to collect data from the users who use IE browser when the users browse websites directly by typing the URL.

    However, I do not understand why they would just blindly pick up search results from Google as part of their algorithm when ranking websites. The examples shown by Google is a true indication that the search results from Google have a high authority in Bing’s search results.

    Google itslef is currently having problems with their search quality and hope they’re working on it to produce much better search results. So why even bother looking at Google results and not work on improving their own search algorithm.

    Bing truely has some cool features which is well derserved; however the searh algorithm still needs improving to drive better results.

  • http://www.VerticalMeasures.com Arnie K

    I find this a bit interesting. My partners and I were awarded a patent for a recommendation platform that is based on item to item correlations. We were issued the patent in 2000. Long story behind it, but yes we still own it. http://personalizationpatent.com/