http://searchengineland.com/google-bing-is-cheating-copying-our-search-results-62914

Because Bing is ripping off Google's results.

Of course, the real interesting thing is... yes it seems really immoral, but immoral doesn't mean illegal, so I don't know how Google will respond.

All the computers at my uni have bing as the default search engine.

It's ****ing bollocks.

I don't even use bing. I think it's kind of annoying actually. Google all the way. Yahoo & Ask.com a distant second. Bing's not even on the list.

Sounds like it's a win for webmasters that optimize mostly for google anyway.

The sensationalism of this article is overwhelming.

MS tracks clicks and search terms with features in IE that openly say they're tracking them to improve their own search results. Those features can easily be turned off by the user if they don't want to use them. If those clicks or search terms relate to Google instead of some random web site, MS should just toss them?

A much less sensationalist approach to this is to say "MS collects data from sites users visit to improve its search results, which also includes Google sites" rather than "MS is stealing search results from Google!"

Thanks Darth, I came here to say that. This is not "stealing results" from Google at all.

Darth: It has nothing to do with the collection of data. It has everything to do with the fact that they're using Google's rankings of those search results to generate its own, even if said rankings should in reality not even be listed.

They're using them indirectly by collecting data from IE users that have opted in to the data collection program. It could just as easily be tracking clicks from other search engines or other websites.

Precisely.

Also, MS's response, which basically says exactly what Emon and I are saying: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2011/02/01/thoughts-on-search-quality.aspx

Yes, it could just as easily be ripping off Yahoo as well back when it was a search engine too, is that supposed to magically make this morally okay?

I prefer Bing for maps but Google for everything else. I do a lot of deliveries for work & Google always ****s me by trying to send me the wrong way down one-way streets. Bing never makes that mistake (for me).

People use Bing?

You're missing the point. They aren't ripping off search engines, they are collecting metrics from their users.

But if they don't put exceptions in their metrics to explicitly ignore all data relating to competitors, they're immoral! lol

Collecting visited sites is one thing. They would have to specifically write code to correlate what they searched for on Google and connect that to what they click on. This isn't a matter of filtering out Google data at all. They would have had to specifically write it TO do what it is doing with Google's results. Herp a derp.

this isnt really any more immoral than one store sending an employee to a competitor to "price match"

I use both, but google more. I started using bing a while ago when I got that damn google redirect virus. I don't have it anymore so I still use both

That is a terrible, incorrect analogy.

This is like going to some professional service place, like a lawyer, and after you visited, a competitor comes up to you and asks you what you asked the lawyer, and what their response was. And then using that information to bolster their lawyer services, rather than going to college.

its a mild form of corperate espionage not exactly immoral and certainly not illegal, and considering bings popularity not very useful.

yeah its a bit underhanded but you make it sound like they stole the cure for aids.

Do any of you people actually opt to allow microsoft to record all the sites you to to?

Really? Because I can think of an easy way to get that kind of data from a user using any kind of search engine or web site.

Log what user types into the IE address bar, then log what link the user clicks on after that. If user has IE's address bar set up to search Google, then user types in a word, browser searches Google for that word, user clicks on top link (or another link), IE logs that and sends it back to MS. Same thing would work for any other search engine, or if the user was just typing in a web address.

Another way would be to watch for text box inputs, log them, and relate them to link clicks made after the form with the text box was submitted.

Not saying they use either of those two methods, cause I don't know what they use, but both of those methods could get that kind of data and wouldn't have to be tailored to any specific site.

I'll address why it's neither.

1. The test Google did invalidates your first idea. They didn't use the address bar, they used the form on the website.
2. We can only hope and pray they don't use the second method. The security implications of simply recording all data entered into any text box is a ridiculously scary proposition. One could easily grab usernames/passwords this way, and even have a website tied to it. If THIS is true, it'd be even worse than what is being discussed here.

I will never support Bing based on the sole fact that is it embedded into certain android phones with no readily available option to remove it. (other then rooting, which will still cripple the phones search function) Bloatware maximus. Put that trash on windows 7 phones where it belongs, but keep it the hell away from my android device.

1. Where does it say that? Article just says they searched for those terms, doesn't say how they searched for them.

2. Doesn't mean they'd log everything. It's easy to ignore passwords, simply don't log data entered into password fields. They could also ignore strings of X length or longer to keep from logging stuff like message board posts. Hell, they could even set it up to ignore all form data if a password field is present on a page. Plus, it fits in with what their opt-in text says:

Not all important fields are marked as passwords. Not even all sites mark password fields as passwords anyway. Frankly, collecting form data like that is scary. I think they should be liable for saying it is anonymous if that level of collection is going on. There's no way you COULDN'T tie it to someone given the right data.

Not to mention, you have to understand how they would need to correlate the information. They would:

A. Record what was entered in the search box.
B. Record the result they clicked on, and combine that with the previous form data.
C. Record the page they end up on.

It's not like they just type "Massassi" and connect Massassi with the http://massassi.net URL. They would need to detect what result they clicked on so they can add it to their own. Google's results pages are not plain site URLs, they are redirects with Javascript.

I like how you plugged the site, there. Very clever.

-Anyways, nope, I've never used bing in my life. I didn't know people actually did, really, much like I assume people no longer ask Jeeves.

A couple people mentioned Yahoo search, but isn't that powered by Bing now?

I'm not sure how clever plugging massassi.net on forums.massassi.net is, but yeah

Yes, we're talking about Yahoo before it was Bing.

When Bing brings back 30% cash back, I will start using it to get to eBay and other places to buy crap.

ive never heard of bing

What?!