Support NeoGAF

[felipeko]

The fact that they're using complete gibberish words that have literally never been seen before by either search engine means that there is literally no other possible search result that could potentially be returned.

Bing isn't requiring a certain level of relevancy and then returning the result because it meets that level of relevancy. Bing is assigning it a certain relevancy, and because it is literally the only result with any relevancy whatsoever, the result is returned.


The amount that a small group of 20 engineers could influence a real search term is completely negligible. But a previously non-existent term? Of course it works.

That's also, of course, why it only worked for 7 out of the 100 potential terms.

So. The result still has no actual relevance to the query, and again, Bing just shows it because of Google, and you still don't see the problem with this?

I mean, it would be ok if Google search could be crawled, but obviously Google disallow crawling on their pages. So Bing doesn't crawl, doesn't find the page on it's own. It just gets the page that users may be getting on their search through Google, and they don't even check if the page has any relevance to the query, they just show it because you know, Google has it, so it must be relevant.

And you still don't see the problem with this? I'm lost here, i think i'm gonna query for mbzrxpgjys on Bing and see if i can get results about logic. I mean, they can show anything there, if Google wants them to. They won't check if the page even remotely has the term i searched. But yes, it can be relevant if i found it through somewhere else (aka Google)

 

[godhandiscen]

So. The result still has no actual relevance to the query, and again, Bing just shows it because of Google, and you still don't see the problem with this?

I mean, it would be ok if Google search could be crawled, but obviously Google disallow crawling on their pages. So Bing doesn't crawl, doesn't find the page on it's own. It just gets the page that users may be getting on their search through Google, and they don't even check if the page has any relevance to the query, they just show it because you know, Google has it, so it must be relevant.

And you still don't see the problem with this? I'm lost here, i think i'm gonna query for mbzrxpgjys on Bing and see if i can get results about logic. I mean, they can show anything there, if Google wants them to. They won't check if the page even remotely has the term i searched. But yes, it can be relevant if i found it through somewhere else (aka Google)

No, even if Bing was crawling these pages, they wouldn't obtain these result. What the Bing toolbar does is obtaining the result after the user has clicked on it. Therefore, the search query (a string submitted to a query textbox) + search result (page redirected to, as most satisfactory result in the search) is a product of the user, and the Bing toolbar had already made the user agreed to these terms.

Basically, if I went to AskJeeves and they returned only one relevant result to my search terms, and I happened to click on that relevant result, then Bing would gather that information and would add to the weight of that result for that search query. The Bing search algorithm is just doing basic machine learning from user input.

 

[godhandiscen]

It says they don't ship outside the US, but do they actually send a points card or just email the code?

Yep. It worked for me for about 2000 points already, but I eventually got tired of it due to the fact that the Bing toolbar crashed my browser at times.

 

[antipode]

Basically, if I went to AskJeeves and they returned only one relevant result to my search terms, and I happened to click on that relevant result, then Bing would gather that information and would add to the weight of that result for that search query. The Bing search algorithm is just doing basic machine learning from user input.

Except that only works because Bing knows that, like Google and Bing, AskJeeves is a search engine that claims to find relevant web pages. A Bing engineer had to have known that info beforehand and coded it into the algorithm.

Just as an example, imagine that hundreds of Bing users went to Google Blog Search instead of Google regular search. Say they searched for a term like 'ngp':

http://www.google.com/search?q=ngp&tbs=blg:1

Now that first result may be what a lot of people click on. It is a fan blog about the Sony NGP. If you were looking for "blogs about NGP" - this is a fantastic answer!

But if you were looking for "web pages about NGP" - it is a terrible answer. It doesn't even rank in the top 20 results for web pages. If Bing was to use those clicks to rank up the fan blog, it would make its results worse, not better. The same logic applies to people searching on Amazon, GoDaddy, Facebook, etc.

There is no machine learning algorithm smart enough to take all web pages and users in existence and figure out "what a user intends to search for" when they type into a search box. And you don't need one. All you need to do, and what Bing most likely did, is look at Google searches. And that's why Google is claiming that, even for non-rare searches, the similarity of Google rankings to Bing rankings comes from scraping via the toolbar and not an implementation of Google's crawl and ranking algorithms.

 

[Sofo]

"Bing" is dull and lifeless while... "Google" [I presume?] isn't?

Cheap? Forced? Have you actually compared the two to each other?

Maybe not dull, but I simply not like it. In my search engine I don't want pictures, no matter how pretty they are. I want a bar and I want my results. And you have to admit the logo is pretty boring ("dull and lifeless", I was referring to the logo, not to the Bing itself).

 

[dLMN8R]

So. The result still has no actual relevance to the query, and again, Bing just shows it because of Google, and you still don't see the problem with this?

I mean, it would be ok if Google search could be crawled, but obviously Google disallow crawling on their pages. So Bing doesn't crawl, doesn't find the page on it's own. It just gets the page that users may be getting on their search through Google, and they don't even check if the page has any relevance to the query, they just show it because you know, Google has it, so it must be relevant.

And you still don't see the problem with this? I'm lost here, i think i'm gonna query for mbzrxpgjys on Bing and see if i can get results about logic. I mean, they can show anything there, if Google wants them to. They won't check if the page even remotely has the term i searched. But yes, it can be relevant if i found it through somewhere else (aka Google)

You say "the result still has no actual relevance to the query", but that is already flawed. You have a specific definition of "relevance" and seem to be unhappy that Bing things about "relevance" differently.

In this case, there is a statistically significant number of users deliberately taking specific actions over and over and over and over again. To Bing, that says that someone is happy with something. Yesterday, something didn't have any meaning at all. Today, suddenly 20 people are taking the exact same deliberate actions multiple times.

What is "relevance"? Well, in this case it seems like the URLs that these people are deliberately navigating to over and over again imply that wherever the went was pretty darn relevant.

 

[The Faceless Master]

i don't care for Bing other than the free MS points and i don't understand what's bad about this. the toolbar collects data and MS uses the data. i'm a diehard Google user and i even laughed when someone said they use Bing for porn... like... who uses a search engine for porn??? that's what porn blogs are for! preview screens and fast RS/MU/etc... links

 

[Phoenix]

Google isn't one to talk about copying anyway.

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-redesign-actually-mimicks-bing-2010-5
http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/09/go...ts-homepage-by-default-at-least-for-24-hours/
http://strongbeer.blogspot.com/2009/03/create-flowcharts-diagrams-in-google.html

Are you serious? You are going to use the standard diagram art library as a copying argument? Every wordprocessing program that can do artwork on the planet has a similar palette.

 

[Scrow]

wtf is bing and why would anyone use it?

 

[kaching]

I don't give a fuck about you or the fanboys. I just think it's funny to see big companies act like children.

To be fair, there only seems to be a relative few in the Google Search team reacting strongly (Matt Cutts, Amit Singhal) and they're normally rather easy going, rational people. Looks like they might be overreacting here but everyone has a bad day from time to time.

 

[Plumbob]

To be fair, there only seems to be a relative few in the Google Search team reacting strongly (Matt Cutts, Amit Singhal) and they're normally rather easy going, rational people. Looks like they might be overreacting here but everyone has a bad day from time to time.

How is this overreacting? Bing is actively stealing Google's results and displaing it as their own. That's A) underhanded and B) laughable with Microsoft trying to convince people that Bing is a "decision engine" AKA that it has something to offer that Google doesn't. Even if it's not technically theft, that does not make it acceptable.

 

[darkwing]

beginning of the end, remember the Netscape!

 

[expy]

Who here even uses bing?

 

[Zerokku]

Who here even uses bing?

Only on my phone since the google app is trash on WP7 and its default anyways.

 

[dLMN8R]

Bing is actively stealing Google's results and displaing it as their own

No, they're not. Read the thread and catch up.

 

[Gospel]

wtf is bing and why would anyone use it?

Los Links!

(terrible ass commercials)

 

[clip]

Who here even uses bing?

I use Bing. I don't want to give Google any more market dominance.

 

[Gospel]

I use Bing. I don't want to give Google any more market dominance.

Microsoft is a-okay?

 

[clip]

Microsoft is a-okay?

When they're struggling behind Apple and Google, yes.

Just trying to support competition is all.

 

[Earl Cazone]

When they're struggling behind Apple and Google, yes.

Just trying to support competition is all.

and bing is pretty good. i would use it, if microsoft fucking cared for customers outside the US

 

[Cubsfan23]

just used bing instead of google because of this article

+1 MS

 

[Gattsu25]

I don't use Bing because I didn't like the search results it provided when I tested it out for ~ a month.

 

[Nemo]

Bing Video is still better for Porn videos though, someone is putting some great work in there.

Well done person in dark room! Well done

Homepage CHANGED

 

[dLMN8R]

The author of the original article at SearchEngineLand (Danny Sullivan) now basically agrees with everything that I and others have said in this thread, after re-examining the stories from both sides of the argument, looking at more evidence, and talking with engineers from both companies.

http://searchengineland.com/bing-why...usations-63279

 

[raphier]

Homepage CHANGED

wide6.com serves same, even better for purpose.

 

[PhatSaqs]

The author of the original article at SearchEngineLand (Danny Sullivan) now basically agrees with everything that I and others have said in this thread, after re-examining the stories from both sides of the argument, looking at more evidence, and talking with engineers from both companies.

http://searchengineland.com/bing-why...usations-63279

Bing usage + 1.