Techdirt. Stories filed under "relevance" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "relevance"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ 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 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:55:00 PDT The Next Battle: Enabling Information To Find You -- Or Why Yahoo/Microsoft Is A Distraction Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090729/1602385701.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090729/1602385701.shtml anything at all about the Yahoo/Microsoft search deal. It honestly seemed pretty pointless -- much bluster about nothing at all of importance. After talking it over with an editor at Forbes, however, I agreed to write up an op-ed for them about why the deal is misguided, and I wanted to expand on one part of that here. I just don't think there's very much interesting in fighting the last battle over "search" rather than looking at where things are headed. And, on that front, I noted:
People are discovering that information finds them, rather than them going in search of information. Search already works. The next interesting challenge is in improving the way information finds you, rather than the way you find information.
That is the key point that innovators in the internet space are starting to figure out. Information is much more powerful when it finds you (for example, when it's passed along by someone you trust). But that information doesn't just find you by itself. The internet helps, in making it easy to pass along a link or some text -- or to share/embed/etc. some content. But the tools for sharing information need to improve drastically, and that's where the next excitement will come from. It's in enabling relevant information to find you rather than the other way around. And, Yahoo/Microsoft has nothing to do with that at all.

Separately, this is also why I think sites that are trying to lock up content behind paywalls or limited access are making things worse. They're doing the opposite of where the internet is moving. They're making it harder for their information to find you, and they'll discover that this will lock them out of much of the opportunity.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> helping-information-find-you http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090729/1602385701 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:57:13 PDT Is The AP Even Relevant Any More? Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/1442425662.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090726/1442425662.shtml the internet has basically done away with the two key reasons that explain the AP's very existence, which probably explains why they're trying out questionable ideas designed to hold back the power of the internet, rather than embracing it. Could there be a place for a modern Associated Press? Absolutely. But its core purpose needs to be entirely different from what it's been for most of the AP's history. Each newspaper doesn't need to copy the same report from the White House briefing room. Everyone can just link to different reports (including more than just one to give multiple perspectives). The whole reason for the AP's very charter makes little sense these days, and it's time for the AP to come to terms with that, and adapt... or go away.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> do-you-need-it? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090726/1442425662