Techdirt. Stories filed under "bing" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "bing"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Mon, 8 Oct 2012 10:49:07 PDT Microsoft Sends Google A DMCA Notice... To Block Microsoft's Bing Search Engine Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03500520637/microsoft-sends-google-dmca-notice-to-block-microsofts-bing-search-engine.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121008/03500520637/microsoft-sends-google-dmca-notice-to-block-microsofts-bing-search-engine.shtml completely bogus DMCA notice from Microsoft (sent by one of its partners on its behalf) that tries to take a bunch of legitimate news sites out of Google's index, on the mistaken claim that they violated Windows 8 copyrights. But, even more ridiculous is an aside mentioned in the article, that some other DMCA notices appear to target Bing, Microsoft's own search engine. Indeed, they're not that hard to find. If you look up DMCA notices asking Google to remove links to Bing, Microsoft shows up quite a bit:
If you dig down, you can find out the specifics, such as this DMCA notice sent on May 23 of this year, sent by Marketly on behalf of Microsoft, supposedly to stop the infringement of Office 2010. It lists out 997 URLs that it wants Google to take out of its search results, including a link to a Bing search. Given that Microsoft owns Bing... you'd think it would remove that search first. What's even more amusing is that if you go to the link in question on Bing... it's still there.

Yes, this is yet another silly move by an automated system, but it once again highlights some of the ridiculousness involved in DMCA takedowns for search results.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> you-can't-make-this-stuff-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121008/03500520637 Fri, 25 May 2012 05:06:00 PDT Odd That Microsoft Demands Google Take Down Links That Remain In Bing Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/18190719071/odd-that-microsoft-demands-google-take-down-links-that-remain-bing.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/18190719071/odd-that-microsoft-demands-google-take-down-links-that-remain-bing.shtml copyright transparency tool, which lets you dig into the details of all the search takedowns that Google gets. As people start to play around with the site, some interesting things are coming to light. Lots of people noticed that the number one copyright holder requesting takedowns from Google search was... Microsoft. While some have suggested this is an attempt by a competitor to worsen Google's search rankings, that's difficult to believe for a variety of reasons. If Microsoft were issuing bogus takedowns, that would certainly come to light pretty quickly.

However, what is interesting is that you can use the new system to play around and notice that Microsoft doesn't always seem to take down from its search engine, Bing, the same links that it orders Google to takedown. As we noted in our original post, there's been plenty of talk suggesting that Google isn't fast enough in taking down things upon DMCA request, but the company claims that they average less than 11 hours -- and considering that they're processing over 1 million takedowns per month (and are checking them by hand), that's pretty impressive. How long does it take Microsoft to take content down?

Well, you would think that if Microsoft is sending a takedown notice to Google to remove a site from its search engine, that it's almost certainly letting Bing know to remove it too, right? Why wouldn't it. But if you do some digging, you can find sites that Microsoft has ordered taken down from Google, but which are still available via Bing. Here's just one example. If you look through Google's transparency report, there's a specific search takedown request that was filed on May 11, so not too long ago. You can see the full ChillingEffects notice here as well. The takedown was sent, on behalf of Microsoft, by a company called Marketly, who appears to send a large number of takedowns, according to the Google data. In this case, Marketly had sent a takedown to Google demanding the removal of a bunch of URLs from its index concerning a variety of XBox 360 games, including DiRT 2. The 20th URL listed goes to a page on TorrentRoom.

Now, if you take that URL and put it into Google and Bing, you get two very different responses. First, there's Google:
Okay. As per the takedown, clearly Google has removed that URL from its index. Now how about Microsoft:
Whoops! There it is. Now, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that if Marketly is sending a takedown to Google to get such a link taken out of its search engine, on behalf of Microsoft, that it quite likely is issuing the same kind of takedown to Microsoft's Bing (hell, you'd perhaps think that Microsoft could just pull the link without a takedown). And yet... the site, which Microsoft supposedly wants to disappear, is gone from Google, but found easily on Bing.

This would suggest that, either Marketly and Microsoft decide to leave up certain infringing content on Microsoft's own search engine while taking it down from Google... or that Microsoft certainly isn't that fast at doing removals. And yet, why don't we hear the people who always bitch about Google complaining about Microsoft?

Of course, the data is also revealing some other interesting "issues" with Microsoft's takedowns. Kurt Opsahl, for example, noticed that Microsoft sent Google a takedown, you can view here, which claims that previous takedown notices, also from Microsoft, are in fact, infringing. This one was also sent by "Marketly" and suggests that they don't do much research to make sure the sites are legitimately infringing before issuing takedowns.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> how-about-that... http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120524/18190719071 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:00:00 PDT DailyDirt: Just Another Day On The Job Michael Ho http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2245024801/dailydirt-just-another-day-job.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090508/2245024801/dailydirt-just-another-day-job.shtml
  • Gizmodo's Brian Lam recounts his handling of the "lost&found" iPhone4 with Steve Jobs, where Lam regrets being too greedy in pursuit of a good scoop. Apparently, he didn't ask himself: "If today were the last day of my life, would I want to do what I am about to do today?" [url]
  • A former Microsoft employee describes his experience working on Bing... in a not-so-favorable light. The grass is always greener? [url]
  • Five rock-climbers/engineers scaled down the Washington Monument to assess its damage -- and had some fun while doing it. Interestingly, there's a Society of Professional Rope Access Technicians that certifies rappelling experience for dangerous jobs like that... [url]
  • To discover more interesting business-related content, check out what's on StumbleUpon. [url]  
    • By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     urls-we-dig-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090508/2245024801     Fri, 4 Feb 2011 04:10:00 PST Microsoft Highlights Why Google's 'Cheater' Accusations Ring Hollow Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/15413212956/microsoft-highlights-why-googles-cheater-accusations-ring-hollow.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/15413212956/microsoft-highlights-why-googles-cheater-accusations-ring-hollow.shtml response to discovering that Microsoft used clickstream data from users to help improve the relevance of their own search. Microsoft's Yusuf Mehdi has now written up a much more detailed response from Microsoft's point of view, in which it again clarifies that contrary to Google's statements, Microsoft is not "copying" Google's search results, but merely using clickstream data as one of many (Microsoft says approximately 1,000) variables in improving search relevance. Microsoft does take one cheap shot: noting that, technically, the "honeypot" trick that Google used to uncover this certainly appears to be a form of "clickfraud." That is, it was a trick designed specifically to manipulate Bing's search results.

    But the key point is made towards the end:
    We have brought a number of things to market that we are very proud of -- our daily home page photos, infinite scroll in image search, great travel and shopping experiences, a new and more useful visual approach to search, and partnerships with key leaders like Facebook and Twitter. If you are keeping tabs, you will notice Google has "copied" a few of these. Whether they have done it well we leave to customers. But more importantly, we take no issue and are glad we could help move the industry to adopt some good ideas.
    That's the point that I tried to make in the original post. History has shown that innovation occurs via competition, and part of that competition often involves competitors building on each other's work. A few months back, I wrote a review of the excellent book Copycats by Oded Shenkar, which makes this point very, very clear. Innovation happens when companies build on each other's work. But, what you learn is that it's not just about "copying," it's about all of the players learning, innovating and expanding the overall market. Just straight up copying rarely does enough to make a difference (in fact, we've discussed this problem in the form of cargo cult copying, where companies just copy some superficial aspect, and discover that it's meaningless). That's clearly not what Microsoft was doing here.

    In the comments to our original post, someone made the comment, in defense of Google, by saying if what Microsoft did was okay, then couldn't he just go out and say "I've got a billion dollar search engine idea!" and then just copy Google's results. But, of course, if anyone actually thinks this through, they'd realize that copying Google's search results is not a billion dollar search idea. Assuming that, tomorrow, we launched a "new search engine" that gave the identical results to Google, almost no one would use it. Why would you? There's no real advantage to doing so. And for people who already use Google, it's probably much more integrated into their lives, with Gmail, Google Docs and more. The search results themselves are not the "billion dollar idea." It's the overall execution.

    Hopefully Google learns from this and realizes that it has learned plenty from watching Microsoft as well, and complaining about Microsoft using clickstream data is a waste of time. Focus on continuing to innovate, Google, which'll probably mean learning more things from Microsoft, in addition to what you're doing yourself.

    To be fair, Matt Cutts also has a put together a decent response, where he points out that the real issue here may be disclosure -- in that Microsoft did not clearly disclose that it was using clicskstream data (and especially how it was using that data). That's a perfectly reasonable point, but it was not the original point that Google raised. I agree that Microsoft could and should be much clearer in its disclosure -- but that's a totally separate issue. Cutts also explains why he thinks that Microsoft really is "copying," but again, even if we grant that premise (which I don't think is accurate), I still don't see why that matters. Copying and improving is a part of the innovative process. Google should embrace it.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     good-for-them http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110203/15413212956     Tue, 1 Feb 2011 12:10:00 PST Google's Childish Response To Microsoft Using Google To Increase Bing Relevance Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/11022312911/googles-childish-response-to-microsoft-using-google-to-increase-bing-relevance.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/11022312911/googles-childish-response-to-microsoft-using-google-to-increase-bing-relevance.shtml that Microsoft uses Google results as a part of its overall relevance algorithm. Basically, it looks like for users who have the Bing toolbar installed, Microsoft aggregates some search information, perhaps including Google results, and weighs them (only partially) into its own algorithm.

    This seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. Google's search results are public and as an established player in the market, almost every comparison of alternative search engines, including Bing, compares it to Google. So, making use of Google data to improve its own rankings seems like a rather smart move.

    Remember, too, that Google's own search algorithm is based on viewing what people are doing online and coming up with a ranking based on that. How is that any different than Microsoft viewing a variety of information online -- including Google's own search rankings -- and using that as the basis of its own rankings? But instead of recognizing that this is all perfectly reasonable, Google starts acting like the RIAA, accusing Microsoft of "cheating" and doing something that is potentially illegal. It even pops out this line from Amit Singhal, a Google Fellow who apparently oversees Google's search ranking algorithm.
    "I've got no problem with a competitor developing an innovative algorithm. But copying is not innovation, in my book."
    As if Google hasn't copied the work of others in the past? The very basis for the original Page Rank was "copied" from Jon Kleinberg's research and then built upon that work. It was not a direct copy, just as Microsoft's search results are not a direct copy. For Google to attack a competitor for using open information on the web -- the same way it does -- seems like the height of hypocrisy. It's fine for Google to crawl and index whatever sites it wants in order to set up its ranking algorithms, but the second someone looks at Google's own rankings as part of their own determination, suddenly its "cheating"?

    This seems like the latest in a series of indications that Google has moved past the innovation stage into the "protecting its turf" stage. That would be a shame.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     get-over-it http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110201/11022312911     Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:05:40 PDT Microsoft Back To Trying To Bribe People To Use Bing Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/03135011132/microsoft-back-to-trying-to-bribe-people-to-use-bing.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100923/03135011132/microsoft-back-to-trying-to-bribe-people-to-use-bing.shtml Bill Gates brainstorm from back in 2005 -- turned out to be a dismal failure, and pointed out how recent research shows how little some companies understand incentives. However, Microsoft is apparently back at it again, creating a somewhat different loyalty rewards program for Bing users. While I'm sure it will appeal to some folks, something about this just makes me think even less of Bing. It makes me wonder: if they need to pay me to use it, is it because they know the experience just isn't as good as the competition?

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     if,-at-first,-you-don't-succeed... http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100923/03135011132     Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:02:56 PDT Pakistan Orders Internet Ban On Google, Yahoo, Bing, Hotmail, YouTube, Amazon & MSN Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/1454299938.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100623/1454299938.shtml Facebook and YouTube be blocked -- but supposedly both bans had been lifted. Then came the news that there were attempts to put Facebook's founders on trial, potentially for a death sentence, because some users had posted stuff people in Pakistan didn't like. The latest, sent in by Ali, is that a Pakistani court has ordered a whole bunch of popular websites be blocked from access. You may have heard of a few of these: Google, Yahoo, Bing, MSN, YouTube, Amazon and Hotmail. Who are they missing? Ebay? Twitter? I'm sure those will be blocked soon enough...

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     have-fun http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100623/1454299938     Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:12:00 PST Microsoft Tries To Silence Revelation Of Bing Cashback Flaws; Leads To Revelation Of Other Problems Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1839216938.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091114/1839216938.shtml demanded a blogger remove a blog post about flaws in Bing's Cashback offer (Microsoft's attempt to bribe users to search via Bing instead of Google). One of the methods for the cashback offer involved pixel tracking, and blogger Samir Meghani noted that this was easily gamed to post fake transactions to your account. He also noted problems with the way Microsoft used sequential IDs, allowing potential scammers to "deny cashback rebates to legitimate users by using up available order ID numbers." Instead of dealing with these flaws, Microsoft lawyers sent a cease-and-desist and forced the blog post offline. I'm actually quite surprised this hasn't received a lot more attention.

    In the legal nastygram, Microsoft's lawyers claimed that because Meghani had tested the flaws out himself, he was likely guilty of violating "various laws relating to computer intrusion, unauthorized access and unauthorized use of information," while suggesting that his actions could result in criminal charges. That's ridiculous, of course. He didn't actually scam the company -- he was just exposing a flaw. This is legal bullying to silence someone for pointing out a rather basic security flaw in Microsoft's program.

    But, of course, even though Meghani was silenced on that issue, it doesn't mean he has to be silent on all of the flaws in Bing's Cashback program, so his latest (found via Slashdot) is that various retailers that offer "cashback" via Bing purchases are showing higher prices if you search via Bing. In fact, the price people can pay if they do certain searches on Bing is higher than if they'd gone direct:
    So, if I go directly to butterflyphoto.com, I pay $699 with 0% cashback. If I use Bing Cashback, I pay $758 with 2% cashback, or $742.84. Using Bing cashback has actually cost me $43.84, giving an effective cashback rate of -6.27%. Yes, negative cashback! Is this legal? False advertising? I don't know, but it's pretty sketchy.

    The problem doesn't end there. Using Bing has tainted my web browser. Butterfly Photo set a three month cookie on my computer to indicate that I came from Bing. Any product I look at for the next three months may show a different price than I'd get by going there directly. Just clicking a Bing link means three months of potentially negative cashback, without me ever realizing it. I'm actually afraid to use their service even just to write this, because it may cost me money in the future. If you've been thinking about trying out Bing Cashback, you may want to rethink that.
    Microsoft responded and called this "an isolated instance" that it had missed with its tools that try to prevent merchants from gaming the system this way. Still, perhaps rather than sending out legal nastygrams and PR pablum to people discussing these things, Microsoft should focus on actually making sure that Bing's Cashback bribery program actually works correctly and safely.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     touchy-microsoft http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091114/1839216938     Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:15:33 PDT Microsoft's Ad Agency Sued For Violating Product Placement Patent With Bing Ad Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0140246031.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090828/0140246031.shtml death of the captive audience, it's no surprise that product placement has become more and more popular. But would you believe that ad agencies are trying to patent forms of product placement? Apparently, big ad firm WPP is being sued by a company for violating its patent in an ad campaign run for Microsoft's Bing search engine. The patent in question (6,859,936) is for "a method and system for producing program-integrated commercials." Basically, the idea is to use the actors and sets from a TV show to film a regular commercial spot, and then run that during the show itself. Yes, someone got a patent on that. Why? Who the hell knows. This is a perfect example, by the way, of how just because something's "new" it doesn't mean it's not obvious. It's just that it's so obvious most people wouldn't even bother thinking about patenting it.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     product-placement-patent?!?! http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090828/0140246031     Tue, 9 Jun 2009 05:42:00 PDT That's One Way To Grab Search Traffic Carlo Longino http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090608/0953565164.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090608/0953565164.shtml knocking off Yahoo than Google, which it looks to have already done; others still pointed to all the next great search engines that have emerged over the years, and failed to unseat Google (remember Cuil?). But none of us mentioned Microsoft's apparent efforts to grab lots of search traffic by making Bing better at delivering porn results. There's been a minor flap over the way Bing displays videos in search results: users can access videos directly from the Bing site, and play a thumbnail version of them by putting their mouse over a preview image. This means that companies, schools or anybody else who wants to block the porn with web filters would have to block Bing completely (Microsoft has given a workaround, but it's pretty cumbersome). The uproar comes despite the fact that it's not all that different to the results delivered by other engines when searching for porn, although Bing seems to be a bit more, uh, comprehensive. While this sounds like a juicy mistake, the more cynical out there might see it as an intentional effort by Microsoft to grab search-engine market share by making Bing great for porn surfers. After all, it only delivers the videos -- and other sexual content -- to users from certain countries, so it seemingly is possible for Microsoft to keep at least some of it out. But with all the attention Bing's grabbed because of the uproar, and not to mention the traffic from porn surfers, it's hard to imagine they're too bothered.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     we've-got-porn! http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090608/0953565164