Bing Attacks Google Shopping With “Scroogled” Campaign, Forgets It’s Guilty Of Same Problems

Bing is attacking Google over its shift to a pay-for-play shopping search engine through a new “Scroogled” site, pledging that Bing has “honest search.” Great campaign, if it were true. It’s not. Bing itself does the same things it accuses Google of. It’s also another indictment of how little the FTC is doing to protect consumers from “search results” they might not realize are ads.

Google Shopping Goes All-Ads

Earlier this year, Google changed to a “paid inclusion” or pay-to-play model of accepting listings for its Google Shopping site. Phased in over the summer, as of October 17, only merchants who pay appear in the search engine, within the US (the change will expand globally over the coming year).

The change is remarkable for two reasons. First, it was a complete reversal of Google’s long-standing fight against paid inclusion programs, something it once labeled as evil. It also hasn’t resulted in a massively improved shopping search as Google promised. I’ve covered both in detail in my stories below:

Bing’s “Scroogled” Campaign

Enter Bing, which launched its Scroogle site attacking Google over these changes:

The site highlights the change at Google to an all-ad system and how this shift may harm consumers:

Google admits they’ve now built “a purely commercial model” that delivers listings ranked by “bid price.” Google Shopping is nothing more than a list of targeted ads that unsuspecting customers assume are search results. They call these “Product Listing Ads” a “truly great search.”

We say that when you limit choices and rank them by payment, consumers get Scroogled. For an honest search result, try Bing.

There’s also a blog post out from Bing today making similar charges and attacking Google over a lack of clear disclosure:

Shoppers visit the site they have used for years, conduct what they think is a “search,” and get a set of rankings that look like the objective results Google delivers elsewhere. Meanwhile, the lawyers at Google are now calling it a “listing.” They even call out – hidden behind a disclaimer or buried in a footer — “Payment is one of several factors used to rank these results.”

Comparing The “Honesty” Of Google & Bing

I’ve been one of the biggest critics about Google’s change, which has indeed been largely under-the-radar. Unfortunately, Bing is hardly in a position to be lecturing Google about poor disclosure and charging for listings, when it has the same issues.

Here’s a search on Bing for “lego death star,” which brings up Bing Shopping results inserted into the listings:

 Here’s the same search on Google, which also inserts its shopping results:

The key difference is that Google’s results have a “Sponsored” disclaimer over it, one that even expands with more information if you over over the label (though few likely do this). Bing has no such disclaimer, despite the fact that some of its listings come through merchants paying to appear.

Let’s drill into both, now seeing what appears within the shopping search area itself. Here’s what Bing shows:

The arrow highlights a new disclosure that Bing has added as part of its attack on Google, a reassuring statement that says:

Payment is NOT a factor used to rank search results in Bing.

As I’ll explain, payment is indeed a factor, which to me makes this disclosure for consumers untrue. But first, let’s look at what Google does:

Off to the right, Google has a “Why these products?” message, which appears to be Google’s attempt to meet the US Federal Trade Commission requirements for disclosure of paid inclusion listings. If you click on it (which again, few are likely to do), you get this further explanation:

It says:

Products and offers that match your query. Google is compensated by these merchants. Payment is one of several factors used to rank these results.

Bing’s own disclaimer is clearly keying off of Google’s disclosure, using similar language to highlight that at Google, while payment is a factor used to rank results, at the honest search engine of Bing, it is not.

Can Consumers Tell What’s Paid For?

Back on the Scroogle site, Bing also stresses that this type of disclosure is so unclear that consumers can’t be expected to tell what’s paid and what’s not, comparing Google Shopping and Google News together:

I’d be applauding Bing for making this point, something I stressed to the FTC myself with my letter about poor search engine disclosures earlier this year, but instead I find myself in the odd position of having to point out that Bing makes this point better through its own poor disclosure.

Bing’s Lack Of Disclosure

How can consumers know what’s paid and what’s not? If that’s the issue Bing is concerned about, it not only fails to explain this at Bing Shopping but worse suggests that payment isn’t involved, when it is.

How does Bing Shopping get its results? Despite a 1,000 word blog post explaining all that’s wrong with the Google Shopping model, Bing never explains the Bing Shopping process. Nor does the help page at Bing Shopping explain this. That new disclaimer doesn’t explain it, either. It implies that Bing Shopping somehow lists all relevant merchants for free. That’s not the case.

If you’re a merchant, and you know where to look (a place a consumer almost certainly won’t stumble upon), you get to this page about getting listed in Bing Shopping:

The page highlights that there is currently only one way to get listed in Bing Shopping, which is to submit to Shopping.com, which lists people who agree to pay.

Bing’s Pay-To-Play Program

In other words, if you want to be in Bing, you have to pay — exactly like Google. Moreover, the page says that merchants doing this will get:

Higher visibility: Paid offers will be highlighted throughout Bing Shopping, including search result and product pages.

Higher visibility in search results? You mean you’ll rank better in search results, by paying to be listed? In the search results that Bing just told consumers that payment isn’t a factor?

Now as it turns out, after talking with Bing today, it’s not as simple as all that. But from a consumer standpoint, which is what this entire campaign that Bing has launched is about, it does appear Bing is being completely hypocritical, based on information out there in the public view.

Bing Responds

I put all this to Bing director Stefan Weitz. First up, how can Bing launch such an attack on Google’s all-paid model when it apparently just removed the free submission option that it used to offer. That page above, that I mentioned about getting listed, says this:

At this time, we are not accepting new merchants for this program. Please check back periodically for updates pertaining to on-boarding. In the meantime, new merchants may list their products through our partner Shopping.com, whose results appear on both Bing Shopping and the Shopping.com network.

That restriction, the dropping of the free listing program, was just added to that page in the past few days (it wasn’t there when I looked last week), though apparently it started back on September 12.

Bing: Free Submissions Closed Temporarily

Weitz said that the program has only been dropped temporarily, something he said Bing did last year, as well, just ahead of the holiday shopping period, to better protect the quality of its results from merchants who might try to get into the rush period with duplicate products. Plans are to restore this after the New Year.

Ironically, this is the same argument Google has used about not taking free listings — that it will supposedly lead to better quality, so Bing’s “temporary” closure seems to support Google here.

Bing’s temporary closure also raises alarm bells given how last year, several major “Black Friday” sites found themselves mysteriously dropped for nearly a month, just before Black Friday hit:

Bing: Most Shopping Results Aren’t Paid

Weitz also said that the most listings within Bing Shopping come from merchants who are already in the free listings program and through Bing’s crawling of the web. “We don’t get paid for the majority of products in there,” he explained.

All that was news to me. All that would be news to any consumer, because as I’ve covered, Bing doesn’t explain how Bing Shopping works to consumers. To merchants, the implication is that it’s pay-to-play through Shopping.com (and that’s definitely that case for any new merchant who comes right now).

The Payment As Ranking Factor Issue

What about that claim to consumers that at Bing Shopping, “payment is not a factor used to rank results.” Clearly some merchants only get listed because they paid to be included in Shopping.com, which in turn got them listed in Bing. Payment isn’t the primary factor for ranking well, but it is a factor for these companies. If they didn’t pay, they wouldn’t have a chance to rank at all.

“There’s paid inclusion and there’s pay-to-rank,” Weitz said. “That’s a far different scenario than having to pay Google to be there,” he explained.

The point Weitz’s is trying to make is that with Google, if you don’t pay, you have no chance of ranking at all, because you don’t get included at all. With Bing Shopping, paying is one way of being included, but not the only way, so he doesn’t count that as a ranking factor.

He further stressed that Bing doesn’t know how much people are willing to pay to Shopping.com, so payment is further insulated from having an impact.

“The fact someone did pay to be in Shopping.com, to us, it looks just like any other [non-paying] merchant. To us that someone paid does not effect the ranking in those organic listings,” Weitz said.

Weitz even further argued that technically, paid inclusion isn’t even happening at Bing since Shopping.com merchants don’t pay until someone’s actually clicked on a link and gone on to purchase an item.

What about the section in the Bing “getting listed” page that talks about gaining higher visibility by paying, something that also gets covered in the Bing Merchant Integration Guide:

Higher visibility is again touted, including “exposure within Bing’s editorial content.”

Weitz said this isn’t about ranking better but instead that merchants might get pulled out as a “sponsored offer” highlight or in other ways. That may be the case, but it sure reads to potential merchants as if using Shopping.com means they’ll rank better.

Weitz also told me, “We need to do a better job explaining the shopping system” to consumers.

Payment Is A Factor; Doesn’t Control Ranking With Either

Overall, Weitz makes some good points, but I still think the claim that payment isn’t a factor doesn’t hold up. Even if only some people are paying to be included, that payment is still a factor in whether they’ll ultimately rank.

In addition, Google — and it reconfirmed this for me — isn’t just ranking merchants first because they pay the most. As with all of Google’s ads, how much an advertiser will pay is one of several factors that controls if they’ll rank better.

But the Scroogle site misleadingly — and in multiple ways — suggests that Google simply ranks merchants by payment. For example, a video on the site has this segment saying results are sold to the highest bidder:

That’s just not true. Results are sold; only those who pay are included, but it’s not high bid wins.

Why Isn’t The FTC Enforcing Its Consumer Guidelines?

This leads to what I feel is the far bigger issue, that consumers may find it difficult to understand what’s a paid listing or not at Google, Bing or any number of search engines, despite the FTC having guidelines that are supposed to help here.

It’s so bad that twice now, we’ve had Google competitors publicly attack Google over supposedly poor disclosure despite having bad or no disclosure themselves.

In June, Nextag CEO Jeffrey Katz penned a well-cited letter in the Wall Street Journal attacking Google’s supposed lack of consumer transparency. He was unconcerned that Nextag itself wasn’t doing, as best I can tell, the proper disclosure of its paid inclusion program required by the FTC. My article from then explains more:

Now we have Bing attacking Google over disclosure, and it’s deja vu. Bing Shopping does paid inclusion. Until last week, it wasn’t disclosing this in a way that would seem to have met the FTC guidelines. This week, it’s arguably doing misleading disclosure, as part of a campaign to attack Google about disclosure?

I asked Weitz if he felt Bing was doing disclosure as required by the FTC. His response? He needed to check with Microsoft’s lawyers.

Wrong response. The correct answer is yes, because if you’re a search engine, then your executives should absolutely know 100% that your company believes it is doing the required disclosure. Google certainly does. Whenever I’ve asked, or seen them asked about this topic, they’ve said yes.

That doesn’t mean that everyone will agree that consumers feel Google’s disclosures are useful, of course. But at least it tries, in many places. That competitors who don’t even try at disclosure attack Google on the topic is mind-boggling, depressing, a sad indictment that the search engine industry really doesn’t seem to care about the FTC’s rules.

Then again, why should they? The FTC doesn’t. It’s never taken an enforcement action over its disclosure guidelines despite the rules being on the books for the past 10 years. I can’t even get the FTC to formally admit they’re looking at the issue despite rumors it might be — and probably only are because of my letter to them this year.

Google’s Change Is Disappointing

I’ll leave with two takeaways from all this.

First, that Bing has stumbled in its attack doesn’t take away from the fact that Google has dramatically changed from an inclusive shopping search to one that’s motivated about payment.

As a searcher, you won’t find products sold directly through Amazon on Google Shopping because Amazon won’t pay. That’s a loss for searchers, and one that Google could fix by ensuring that Amazon and any important merchants are carried for free (Bing, by the way, tells me it does carry Amazon for free).

It’s a shame that Google has moved away from its inclusive roots. Again, my previous stories that cover this more:

By the way, Google’s statement today about the issues that Scroogle raises pushes back on this:

Google Shopping makes it easier for shoppers to quickly find what they’re looking for, compare different products and connect with merchants to make a purchase. With new 360-degree, interactive product images, social shopping lists and a fast growing inventory of more than a billion products worldwide, Google is a great resource for shoppers to find what they need, at great prices for their loved ones this holiday season.”

As for disclosure, it said:

Google Shopping results are clearly labeled “sponsored” on our search results pages as a clear guide to users

Lack Of Consumer Protection Is Disappointing

Second, the fact that competitors feel empowered to attack Google on this topic despite their own failures is, as I said, an indictment of the FTC.

The agency has spent so much time focusing on anti-competition issues that it’s neglected the basic definition of what a search engine is, what search listings are and how those are properly disclosed.

As I said in my letter to the FTC in June, without those type of definitions, trying to undertake an anti-trust review seems futile:

Now that Google is turning former search engines like Google Product Search into paid inclusion/advertising products like Google Shopping, the definitions are even more important — and not just for the handful of competitors claiming an issue with Google but for the millions of consumers that use these search engines sometimes without clear disclosure of why they get certain results….

I understand that the FTC has been mostly involved at late investigating whether consumers are being harmed by possible anti-competitive actions of Google. However, the FTC also has a role in protecting consumers from misleading and confusing advertising across all search engines. A review of your guidelines would be especially helpful given changes in the space now and perhaps necessary for any proper anti-trust review you’re doing.

More about the FTC’s role with guidelines can be found in my stories below:

Finally, one last note. I was somewhat surprised Bing went with the “Scroogled” name given that until earlier this year, there was a long-standing “Scroogle” search engine that started out way back in 2003 as a protest over ranking changes at Google seemed designed to some by Google to boost its bottom line. It felt like Bing could have come up with a different name.

Related Topics: Channel: Consumer | Features: Analysis | Google: Google Shopping | Legal: Regulation | Microsoft: Bing Shopping | Top News

Sponsored


About The Author: is a Founding Editor of Search Engine Land. He’s a widely cited authority on search engines and search marketing issues who has covered the space since 1996. Danny also serves as Chief Content Officer for Third Door Media, which publishes Search Engine Land and produces the SMX: Search Marketing Expo conference series. He has a personal blog called Daggle (and keeps his disclosures page there). He can be found on Facebook, Google + and microblogs on Twitter as @dannysullivan.

Connect with the author via: Email | Twitter | Google+ | LinkedIn



SearchCap:

Get all the top search stories emailed daily!  

Share

Other ways to share:
 

Read before commenting! We welcome constructive comments and allow any that meet our common sense criteria. This means being respectful and polite to others. It means providing helpful information that contributes to a story or discussion. It means leaving links only that substantially add further to a discussion. Comments using foul language, being disrespectful to others or otherwise violating what we believe are common sense standards of discussion will be deleted. Comments may also be removed if they are posted from anonymous accounts. You can read more about our comments policy here.
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=512945366 Jaimie Sirovich

    I don’t think this is correct. In most shopping engines, the price is per-category or per-category-per-price-bracket, etc. Otherwise it’s ‘relevance.’ With Google, the bid influences your rank. This is my understanding. I no longer actively manage PPC campaigns anymore, but my understanding is that you submit the feed as you did historically, and then bid on parameters of the feed. In other words, the more you pay based on those parameters, the more you’ll rank to some degree. What else would bidding higher do? Does it go to the Red Cross? :) Of course if your ad doesn’t perform well, Google won’t want to give you impressions because they’ll also make less. It’s revenue maximization. This makes more sense with ads you write, though. Products are commodities.

    The difference is, with the other engines, you either participate or you don’t. With Google, you’re paying for better ranking.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=512945366 Jaimie Sirovich

    This is my interpretation as well. Paying to be included is not the same thing as paying to rank. I know it’s not bullet proof and Danny makes some interesting points re: “can’t rank,” but I see what MS is saying and I largely agree with it.

    I’m also not sure why any consumer wouldn’t just want the lowest price from a reputable retailer. When I used Froogle/Google Products/Shopping/Whatever, the first thing I’d do was sort by price + shipping and then scan for the lowest row from a retailer I recognized. The way it is now, I don’t think it’s as clear what’s going on. This is about money, pure and simple. That’s OK, but I don’t think it’s about spam or quality.

    If this is really about spam, Google has ample equipment to deal with that from their repertoire of algorithms, ideas, and patents. They could use collective intelligence to weed out bad vendors based on boatloads of implicitly provided (back buttons) and explicitly provided (bad reviews) data.

    They’re free to do what they want, and there’s nothing that screams illegal or immoral here on Google’s part (they point out it’s sponsored), but MS has a point. I’m still going to click through to Google Shopping, click the SKU I want, and sort by price. As can anyone. So there!

  • http://ftc.gov/ MonopolizedSearch

    http://advertise.bingads.microsoft.com/en-us/bing-merchant-faqs

    “Throughout the year, we have accepted free feeds from merchants
    and we continue to include free listings from those merchants in our
    Bing Shopping program today. However, like last year, to ensure a
    quality shopping experience for consumers during the holiday season, we
    have temporarily stopped accepting free feeds from new merchants. After
    the holidays, we will again reopen our program to accept free feeds from
    new merchants.”

    Anyone comparing the product results of Bing and Google side by side will clearly see that Bing offers consumers more choice, especially on obscure product searches. Although Bing is not accepting free feeds from merchants now, they have in the past and will after the holidays. By combining paid, free and crawled listings, Bing certainly provides a better overall shopping experience for consumers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Martin/508010100 Michael Martin

    BTW is this “Epic Dinner” Alan? I can’t tell without any comments that invoke “asshat” ;)

  • Guest

    None of this is really surprising. Google is not some benevolent force. It’s a company making money. Consumers are almost always scr*d anyway.

  • treepodia

    None of this is really surprising. Google is not some benevolent force.
    It’s a company making money. Consumers are almost always scr*d anyway.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=512945366 Jaimie Sirovich

    For what it’s worth, I see it exactly the same way as you do =)

    Impartial inclusion is not the same thing as impartial ranking IOW. Danny’s right that MS is a bit hypocritical, but I see a huge difference.

    That doesn’t mean the ad campaign isn’t stupid, though. If a bunch of educated marketers can disagree over this, 99% that layman don’t give a shit, get it, or care.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=512945366 Jaimie Sirovich

    Still curious what you think Danny. This is something I’m studying. Not trying to argue. I just see a _huge_ difference if I’m not mistaken. I know you mention it, but I come to different conclusions.

  • Alan

    LOL comment deleted! sad really. This made me wonder about my old comments. Went over a few of my old comments and a month or 2 down the track and search engine land deletes them. I guess they don’t want to look like they are the Google police so they wait. http://searchengineland.com/who-has-search-engine-marketers-backs-no-one-we-need-lobbyists-121882 Oh right maybe SEMPO didn’t like it.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Bing didn’t make clear this was a temporary change until after I wrote my article. Before I wrote it, it had stopped taking feeds back in September and only recently added a short note (mentioned in my article) saying nothing about this being temporary.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    It’s very unclear that paying just ranks you better at Google. Do a search there, say for “Lego Death Star,” and it’s products that are ranked by relevance (and it is relevance), not merchants. Go into a product listing, and the list of merchants seems to be ranked by how much people are willing to pay. But it’s not like you don’t get a list of them, as well as the ability to sort by price (which for many is going to be the top factor), so Bing suggesting that all of Google Shopping is just people who pay the most ranking tops for a product search — I just don’t see that.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    Bing is absolutely calling Google out for a lack of disclosure, and I’ve highlighted this several times. It talks about “unsuspecting” consumers making assumptions they are getting “search results” rather than ads on the opening page of Scroogled, as just one example.

    Right now, Shopping.com is — and has been — absolutely a requirement for getting into Bing Shopping since mid-September, since the free program was closed.

    As for not showing up if you don’t pay enough on Google, that’s not actually how it works — and when you do a search for products, you are indeed getting actual products ranked by relevancy.

    Everything I’ve written in terms of Bing is fully documented. Sorry you disagree with my findings, but I stand by them — nor as anyone from Bing sent any type of further statement or comment after this appeared.

    Make no mistake — I disagree with Google’s exclusionary practice of paid inclusion, and I’ve written about that many times. Heck, my focus on it has probably helped enable BIng in the way it did, which is fine.

    But if it was going to attack, do it right. Don’t attack when you’ve just shut down your own free submission system and when you self-admitted say that consumers can’t really understand how your shopping search works and that the only way you know if you are doing disclosure as required by the FTC correctly is after you consult with lawyers.

    Imagine if Bing had dropped paid inclusion entirely for the holiday shopping period. Now that would have been a real challenge to Google.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1134296118 William Parris

    I manage CSE/Shopping campaigns and while they do have a minimum bid per category you can and are encouraged to bid above minimum (on a SKU and Category level) to improve rank.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1134296118 William Parris

    In my experience this is exactly what Bing does. If you are sending a feed to both Bing and Shopping.com, Bing will use the Shopping.com result (identifiable by reviewing how these URL’s are tagged when you click through). They are not all that different than Google – they want to get paid.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=512945366 Jaimie Sirovich

    Do you have a source for this? That would put it to bed :)

  • Kent Riddersholm Nielsen

    What’s up with all the slants? Will all the Bing lobbyists please raise their hands? Joking aside, I found the article very informative.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    I commented on this more below, but the “pay to rank higher” doesn’t seem to be that straight-forward with Google Shopping. In general, Google’s ads already have a quality score aspect to them, so some of the people ranked first may not be the highest bidder (something that Bing well knows, and a similar system that it uses for its ads). In addition, Google Shopping searches seem to focus on listing products rather than merchants first. So you search, you get a product that’s most relevant to your search (exactly as the results list says will be the case), then when you drill in, you get a list of matching merchants for that product — and it’s that list where paying more may be a factor in ranking higher.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    It’s not pro-Bing people. It’s anti-Google people. You have a contingent of people who simply do not like Google. They don’t really care about overviews of issues, of whether all players are doing things right — it’s simply knee-jerk “I hate Google, and if you don’t hate them, I hate you.”

    I didn’t like Google’s paid inclusion shift at all, felt it went against the things Google said in the past and still hasn’t delivered what it was promised. I’ve written about all that many times, including within this piece. But I felt Bing didn’t exactly come into that debate as a shining example of how to get things right, so despite my displeasure with Google’s change, Bing still felt due for criticism.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=512945366 Jaimie Sirovich

    Well in any textbook relevance algorithm — forget all the other stuff Google does — there’s the keyphrase ranking algorithm — be it Okapi BM25, Cover Density, more exotic language models, etc. that decides the order of the results. In addition to that, most rankers also add in some level of ‘global’ Karma that multiplies in regardless of the user’s indicated keywords, and sometimes only when a user’s indicated keywords include a particular set of words. Some figure in some level of personalization. I’m sure Google does _all_ of this.

    The revenue maximization figures in at the end as ‘karma’ and probably only affects the final relevance value nominally. However, that’s probably just enough that my Macbook I’m shopping for will be from a vendor without the lowest price.

    Of course it’s not in Google’s interest to show me an ad for a Mesothelioma attorney when I’m searching for a Macbook and relevance is the biggest factor.

    The question is whether it’s OK to show me a product without the lowest price because of a Mesothelioma-like bid. To me the lowest prices are relevant. What do you think?

  • grs_dev

    ***COUGH****BULLSHIT***COUGH***

  • grs_dev

    Even when you are proven wrong you refuse to admit that you just tasted your own shoe! @klippers:disqus just told you that he is not paying to play in the program, and you completely dismissed his statement and spun it back to serve your own points…

  • grs_dev

    Brian it’s December 2012, get with the times. Even Google couldn’t keep a straight face when it claimed that Bing was “stealing” their search results…
    Bing gives me better results consistently, but that’s just me.

  • grs_dev

    @dannysullivan:disqus a temporary suspension of accepting new merchants is not synonymous with the exclusion of existing ones. Please stop misleading readers. The need not explain anything because there is nothing to explain. They owe you nothing.

  • grs_dev

    @google-1f653bbc9e4ce09ef93715253abd7b62:disqus I agree with the second paragraph in your post. Microsoft could have definitely used its dollars wiser in this space, but then again seeing the kind of reaction they’re getting from the blogosphere and folks like @dannysullivan:disqus, maybe this little scroogle thing might have a lot bigger ROI than I can imagine.

  • grs_dev

    @cjvannette:disqus hey each one of these mega money troves is allowed to have a silly year end project to burn through some left over funds in some budget. Google did the “honeypot” operation, bing is entitled to their own silly…

  • grs_dev

    You know the cheapest price could be in your local store somewhere right around the corner from you and not online! Hell you could even pick it up right there and then and not have to wait for shipping! LOL…
    If you have become so myopic that you can only see the world through google or bing then you are missing out on a whole lot of stuff and you deserve to be scroobingled!

  • grs_dev

    @dannysullivan:disqus “Payment is NOT a factor used to rank search results in Bing.”

  • grs_dev

    @Brad right on!

  • grs_dev

    @dannysullivan:disqus I have to give you credit for criticizing google for going the pay to play strictly route.

  • grs_dev

    “Don’t be evil”

  • grs_dev

    Not accepting new merchants doesn’t exclude existing merchants from participating. I simply don’t get why are you even implying that?!

  • Brian Hartman

    Did you look at the evidence? Google created search terms *specifically* to track if Bing was copying their results. It was proven. You can look at the evidence yourself.

  • David Jaeger

    If you were right, then Bing shouldn’t prioritize your Shopping.com feed over your Bing Merchant account, but SURPRISE – they do! They clearly make money off of the partnership, and therefore should abide by the rules to at least disclose.

  • grs_dev

    @google-152500e2021830ff278272a14162b0cc:disqus I actually did and I understood the point it tried to prove. Did you? The exact same scenario would have had virtually the exact same effects had bing conducted the so called “honeypot”. I would have criticized Microsoft if they tried to pull the same baseless claims too.

  • Brian Hartman

    @grs_dev:disqus It *wouldn’t* have worked if you did it the other way around, because Google wasn’t mining Bing’s results. If there is any evidence to the contrary, Microsoft should present it, as Google has.

  • grs_dev

    The way google uses its toolbar and desktop installables to “pickup signals” from users is well documented. Feel free to research them. Toolbar, Chrome, etc…

  • http://www.ccmoore.com/ CC Moore

    Couldn’t agree more Danny, again though a sign that they are taking more and more advantage of their position

  • Hacker For Hire

    The number of Microsoft shills posting in this thread is quite hilarious. Danny, please check their IP’s. I’m guessing they all originate from either Microsoft or one of their shill companies.

Get Our News, Everywhere!

Daily Email:

Follow Search Engine Land on Twitter @sengineland Like Search Engine Land on Facebook Follow Search Engine Land on Google+ Get the Search Engine Land Feed Connect with Search Engine Land on LinkedIn Check out our Tumblr! See us on Pinterest

 
 

Click to watch SMX conference video

Join us at one of our SMX or MarTech events:

United States

Europe

Australia & China

Learn more about: SMX | MarTech


Free Daily Search News Recap!

SearchCap is a once-per-day newsletter update - sign up below and get the news delivered to you!

 


 

Search Engine Land Periodic Table of SEO Success Factors

Get Your Copy
Read The Full SEO Guide