Bing Now Nearly As Good As Google — Says Microsoft 405
An anonymous reader writes "Harry Shum, who oversees research and development for Microsoft's Bing search engine, believes his company has now matched Google's ability to build software platforms that can harness the power of tens of thousands of servers. — 'For many years, we've really tried to play the catch-up game,' Shum says. 'And now we feel that after a lot of effort, we understand search quality problems better than before, and that if you look at Google and Bing, the quality is beginning to be very comparable.' While his comments might be a little biased, many people do share the same opinion. How do you feel about Bing's search results compared to Google's? For example DuckDuckGo, the privacy oriented search engine, uses Bing's back-end and has gained a small following on Slashdot."
Holy self-reference! (Score:3, Interesting)
I had submissions rejected in the past for referencing Slashdot in them. Have the rules changed?
And while we're at it, would DuckDuckGo's "small following on Slashdot" please enter and sign in with a few posts?
Not So Much a Rules Change (Score:5, Insightful)
...as a lowering in standards. Slashdot is now all about the paid astro-turfing, self-referential brand-building, and manufactured outrages designed to generate pageviews. The founders are gone, and It's Time to Start Running This Like a Business, Goddammit!
Re:Not So Much a Rules Change (Score:5, Funny)
Mod +1 Profitable!
MICROSOFT (Score:5, Insightful)
Your "nearly as good" alternative since 1975.
Nearly as good as TinyBasic
Nearly as good as CPM
Nearly as good as 123
Nearly as good as MacOS
Nearly as good as dBase
Nearly as good as TurboPascal
Nearly as good as CompuServ
Nearly as good as Netscape Navigator
Nearly as good as Unix
Nearly as good as SGI
Nearly as good as Apache
Nearly as good as Java
Nearly as good as MacOS again
Nearly as good as iPod
Nearly as good as VMware
Nearly as good as iPhone
Nearly as good as iPad
Nearly as good as Google search...
The hits just keep coming!
Re:Microsoft confessed? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't get all happy because Microsoft has temporarily decided not to abuse us. It's only temporary.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Bing Crosby (Score:3)
Just the word "Bing" makes me think of that dreary "White Xmas" song that, every year from late October onwards, every shoping mall and large store puts on their PA system in endless loop mode.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
DuckDuckGo [duckduckgo.com]? It works. hat else is there to say?
Re: (Score:2)
hat^H^H^HWhat
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK it uses BSD
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Funny)
Could be worse, it could run on BSoD.
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Informative)
That looks a lot like nginx running on Ubuntu.
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:4, Informative)
That's probably a load balancer rather than an actual web server you're hitting.
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Informative)
Meant to reply to your post, but replied to the AC instead. Anyhow, there's always the DuckDuckGo architecture page [duckduckgo.com] if you want some additional information.
I use nginx for load balancing, proxy, and back end application serving tasks. Works great for all of the above.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why is anyone going to trust a: a biased website or b: give them any clicks? They are deserving of none.
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Insightful)
What the heck are you searching for that you get completely useless results on both Bing and Google?
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people have no idea how to use a search engine.
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Funny)
Some people have no idea how to use a search engine.
And some people search for more complex issues that 'pony midget sex video". (211,000 hits in Google).
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Funny)
It helps if you add the name of the pony you'd like to fuck
pony midget sex video rainbow dash -> 11,200 results
More to the point, use the damn video search if you want videos.
pony midget sex rainbow dash -> 5,770 result
I swear. It's like people have no fucking clue how to find porn anymore.
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Interesting)
And while we're at it, would DuckDuckGo's "small following on Slashdot" please enter and sign in with a few posts?
I've been using DuckDuckGo for some time, primarily for the privacy and lack of filtering based on my previous queries (finding political articles that are *not* slanted toward my bias, for example). However, during this time I've discovered that if I really need to find an answer to something I'm entering a `!google' into my search (which forces DuckDuckGo to use Google). :-\
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I gave it a go recently when it was mentioned as a way to escape the search bubble and eliminating the bias of a search engine knowing too much about you. Was then surprised how on a search for ubuntu it quite prominently gave a link about how ubuntu was an imperfect alternative to windows. It took me back to "get the facts".
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Informative)
I scrolled down a long way and didn't get anything that looked even vaguely like the link you describe. Are you sure it wasn't the advert link (easy to spot, because it's on a yellow background and says 'sponsored link' next to it). For me, this time, that link was to a German company that offers Linux support, but I can well imagine it would be Microsoft on another search.
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair to the parent my very first reaction to the article was to jump on Bing and type "Linux" into the search field to see if it still directed to Microsoft's results first.
Looks like they've cleaned up their act, but the parent is right. For the longest time the search was horrendously biased towards Microsoft products and services.
who told you the reason they were rejected? (Score:3)
i was not aware that there was any sort of feedback mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh, and ignoring what I searched for in favor of what they think I meant.
This was the first thing that irritated me about Google. I think it's been about 2 years now when I
realized that writing stuff in quotes didn't have the effect it used to.
Then they just started auto
correcting you.
Then pushing the "search for {original query} instead" link stopped making a difference.
Then there was the excessive bubbling.
And then my paranoia kicked in when they started merging all their privacy policies and I moved
away from Google for good.
I've been on ddg for some time now and (after getting used to the different api & interface) I have
come to like it and actually a finding it quite powerful.
Something I want to look into though is how much of the search results are organic and which
come from yahoo's BOSS infrastructure.
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:4, Informative)
There is DuckDuckGo's privacy policy which is really it's raison d'Ãtre. But obviously it needs to have good search capabilities as well, or else you won't use it.
And DuckDuckGo does have some good things about it. For example, I searched for, with the quotation marks, "first- and second-century" on Google yesterday. Received a lot of hits with "first and second century". Okay, I thought quotation marks are supposed to deliver exact hits? In fact Google's support page says: "By putting double quotes around a set of words, you are telling Google to consider the exact words in that exact order without any change." Without any change? Apparently not. Well, whatever. So go to the sidebar, click on "More search options", turn on "Verbatim" (since I do not keep any cookies between sessions, this is not a "set it and forget it" thing). Slightly different results, but still mostly "first and second century". So what now? I don't even know. I just gave up and went to DuckDuckGo: Every result that I saw had exactly the phrase searched for.
But Google has their Books search and Google Scholar which are both immensely useful to me.
Re:Holy self-reference! (Score:5, Informative)
Settings
Load/Reset Settings
This page requires JavaScript and cookies to function properly. However, neither are required to change settings. You can use URL parameters [duckduckgo.com] instead of this page. Just set your homepage like this to use your current settings:
You can also load settings from a URL parameter string. Or reset all settings. If you want to turn off JavaScript altogether, try out our HTML [duckduckgo.com] and lite [duckduckgo.com] versions.
Does this help at all?
Re: (Score:3)
I've been using ddg.gg a lot lately and trying as hard as I can to like it.
I like what they say about not tracking users, and if they hold to that, they'll get major positive marks in my book.
That's exactly what I've done, and the position I hold. I went so far as to change ddg to be my home page in all my browsers, instead of Google. For me, a new home page is the first place I go to search, and the search bar is the second. (The awesome bar surprised me the other day with googly results because I mis-moused and hadn't changed firefox's default search provider. That's how un-awesomed I am by that turd of innovation.)
In any event, I will continue to try to use them.
Me, too. Google had many years of being the most powerful engine on the pla
Verbatim search (Score:5, Interesting)
Since discovering the verbatim feature for Google, the search works once more. Most of my searches are now done with it enabled.
Re: (Score:2)
Since discovering the verbatim feature for Google, the search works once more. Most of my searches are now done with it enabled.
"...And we appreciate your continued use of our product after our amended privacy policy became active, John Anderson of 3920 West 182nd St."
Re:Verbatim search (Score:5, Funny)
Thank you very, very much. I didn't know about that feature and the constant miscorrection was driving me insane. No, Google, I don't want pictures of a "boy tucked in bed", thank you.
Re:Verbatim search (Score:4, Informative)
verbatim is a google feature. GP was praising google, not bing.
Let me read it again... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Nearly as good" like "not good as"?
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't this just a function of the number of servers used for indexing? As they get more hits and become more popular, they will likely add more servers and hence the difference that may exist will largely be eliminated.
Which leads to the question, what if a bright FOSS programmer developed a peer to peer application that could use a small slice of millions of mostly idle PC's to conduct and index searches so that internet search wouldn't require commercial enterprises at all? Just think of how few ads we
I gave up on Google search a long time ago. (Score:2, Interesting)
Personally, I started using Bing once Google became incapable of trying to correct my every search. Google, unless my search query is "HowdoIfixmyspacebar," maybe you should consider all those missing spaces as intentional?
But then, I don't have any taste anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bing-o. Google search sucks now that they've made it 'smart', so if Bing isn't even as good as that, it really must suck.
My experience is that Bing has generally been better for technical searches because it doesn't try to 'help' by replacing my acronyms with words that are similar and so common that they completely overwhelm the things I'm actually searching for.
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't try to 'help' by replacing my acronyms
Most of the time that's a useful feature. Yes, if I type 'quick' then pages that say 'fast' are also useful. And in the few cases they aren't, you can put the individual word in quotes to get the exact phrase.
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't search for synonyms of a single word if you put it in quotes. And as for autocorrect, most of the time it's right and when it isn't you just click the link that says "yes, I really meant the less common search term, it wasn't a typo."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I gave up on Google search a long time ago. (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
But whilst G+, Maps, Image search are all as well integrated and continue to work better, both in accuracy of things I want, and speed to get them, why would I bother to change to something that's /almost/ as good. Plus, having saved searches available on the phone to check something after searching on the laptop has been more useful than I thought it'd be. So why use Bing on desktop and Google on phone? Makes no sense.
For now, Google's still the best for what I need it to do.
Re:Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the Slashdot crowd is at least above the average level of intelligence for Internet communities.
Yet even so, they throw a shit-fit over Google.
As far as I understand it, Google uses all of its free (awesome) tools to collect information on you. This is the route you take to work everyday. You like this genre of book. Your wife is a cheating whore. You know, basically a personality profile. They then take this profile and sell it (along with millions of others) to advertisers - or rather, Google sells their service of targeting advertising. So if I really like martial arts movies, I'll see ads from Google.
Let's posit that I had nothing beyond the basic protection of an antivirus and a weekly MBAM scan. No adblock, no NoScript, and I'm running Chrome. After Google's evil plan comes to fruition, I see... advertisements. Which precisely do nothing to me. Sure an ad might give me a suggestion on something I was looking for in the general area, but I'm not going to buy a product solely on the quality of its ad alone. I very rarely buy things at all, anyway.
So what's the big worry here?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Not had an issue with that, and I /appear/ to have some control over that stuff too. There's times to worry about stuff, but finding the route to the nearest Starbucks and having an ad pop up isn't a huge concern to me. If it pops up a coupon automatically and lets me know I can get the same coffee/muffin at a coffee shop 2 doors away? All the better.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, and when Hitler 21k comes to power, he'll happily tap into all that. (not just meaning google). Wait, you didn't seriously think this data was magically encoded in a way that it can only be used a.) by Google and b.) to display ads? Are you really that daft, is that why you introduced your post with bullshit like you did?
For what? For ads. Something that could be argued is detrimental to society to be
Compared to Bing, Google is still king: (Score:5, Informative)
Google is much more serious about search than Microsoft; I have access to Google Scholar, Google Books and several specialized searches that may or may not be useful to you personally, like Reader and blogs.
Also, Google gets me much better results in Image search, than Bing, and generally better results from web searches.
Ballot screen - no Bing. (Score:3)
Not there yet (Score:2)
Bing doesn't give me the results I expect yet.
I tried the ultimate test to compare both search engines: ego-surfing. When I google for my last name, my homepages are displayed first. When I use bing, my mom's linkedin page is on the top of the list. And she doesn't even know what linkedin is, and how come she have a an account there! Epic fail!
All in all, I'd say that googling myself works much better than binging myself.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Searching yourself is a really stupid idea. It provides a key for advertisers and other scam artists to amass personalized information about you in one fell swoop and link it to your machine ID and IP addresses. Once these are sold, you are a sitting duck for identity theft.
All that your experiment says is that google is way ahead of bing in commoditizing your identity.
He is right (Score:2)
Anyway, it's not surprising that Bing is getting more like Google, since they are actively copying Google [zdnet.com].
seems more like google has declined (Score:2)
As more and more people have focused on 'winning' the search results on google, I've gotten more and more 'wrong' results there. Bing has caught up with the google of today, and sadly neither can compete with the google of 4 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
As more and more people have focused on 'winning' the search results on google, I've gotten more and more 'wrong' results there. Bing has caught up with the google of today, and sadly neither can compete with the google of 4 years ago.
That's what comes from using "social" signals in search. "Social" is very easy to spam. Fake reviews, fake "likes", fake "+1s"... [sitetruth.com] The social networks even host the spam for free - no expensive link farm to host and update.
Google tried their "real names" policy on Google+ to put a stop to that. That failed. Then they tried correlating what all their users are doing across all their services. That has over 30 US state attorneys general and the European Union after them. Fail.
No (Score:5, Interesting)
I just tried bing on a list of sample (obscure, complicated) queries that are relevant to me, personally. google found the correct page in 3 out of 4. bing got 1 out of 4.
I wouldn't make any grandiose claims on a sample size of 4. But from a "quick and dirty check" perspective, I won't be trying bing again anytime soon.
BTW: since when are vendor competitiveness claims newsworthy? It always annoys me when stories like this show up on slashdot. Yes, the high-powered $vendor_X executive whose livelihood depends on $product_X has publically claimed that it is equivalent. This is a story? I don't care which vendor you're talking about: the vendor's own claims about relative competitiveness are not newsworthy. Wait for an (impartial) third party to declare that $vendor_X's products, which historically were viewed as inferior to $vendor_Y, are now equal or superior. Or wait for $vendor_X to announce a new feature. Then you have a story.
Not very hard using their tactics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Accurately measuring what you competition can do relative to you own efforts makes sense. Its really all about how many servers are put into indexing and monitoring webpage usage needed to prioritize around webpage "hits", under the assumption that a site with more "hits" is "more important" in some sense.
So, what they're saying is (Score:5, Interesting)
they finished scarfing down Google's search database, and are just working on fine tuning what percent of false negatives to return?
Rule 239 (Score:2)
Rule of Acquisition 239 says: Never be afraid to mislabel a product.
Not willing to use Bing (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't want to see an internet where Microsoft had the controlling share of the search market. I've had enough of them attempting to destroy the market while they controlled the desktop (and I'm still dealing with that).
I use Microsoft's products where it's appropriate and/or necessary, but avoid them where it's anything close to a judgement call. I'm certainly not going to help them gain a new monopoly where they don't currently have one. Keeping them hungry is probably good for the competitive environment.
Search Engines are Sodas (Score:3)
Bing wins on many little details (Score:2)
I actually like a number of little things Bing does that make it useful to me.
For instance, when I search "movies" on both bing and google, I find bing gives me more relevant results on the first page. If I then click the Movies tab at the top it shows info laid out better (IMHO) than if you click on google's "Showtimes for..."
Bing lists movies and their showtimes by theater (with contact info and movie ratings) with a map at the side in a very clean layout.
Google lists by movies instead of theater. It add
missing features (Score:2)
I couldn't find past hour/day/week search settings.
There are probably a lot more, but this was a glaring omission.
From where I sit (Score:2)
Google still offers results relevant to my original search query, Bing does as well but usual far lower down in the results.
As for "Duckduckgo" I approach privacy in an entirely different manner, in other words I don't leave ti to someone to guarantee my privacy, and consider the aforementioned search engine to be disingenuous in claiming a privacy oriented search engine.
Bing is grrreat! if you want...... (Score:2, Interesting)
Bing needs to be BETTER than Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of Bing's problem is that they're trying to be "as good as Google". They need to be better than Google to catch up. Bing still has half the market share of Google. Most of Bing's traffic is from Internet Explorer, where Bing is the default browser. Few people use Bing by choice.
Google has its vulnerabilities. The quality of the business data in Google Places is pathetic. Small businesses complain constantly about Google Places, but it's not their fault. Google can't even get the big ones right. Google Places sometimes thinks Ford Motor Company headquarters is a medical clinic, that WalMart headquarters is a pharmacy, and that Fannie Mae headquarters is permanently closed. It also thinks that Coit Tower, a San Francisco landmark, is a carpet cleaning service. Try searching for Fortune 1000 companies in Google Places. The results for major companies are often just wrong. Google's approach to business locations is still very keyword-oriented, which makes it error-prone and easily spammed. It's quite common for a search for a major company to map to a hotel near their HQ.
These are "Places" queries. If you ask that question of a map system, you probably want to go there. These are queries for which there is a right answer. It's not an opinion. It's not a popularity contest. It's not "social". Google can't handle that.
Bing could win by getting that right. Real data is available about businesses and business locations.
Re: (Score:3)
I would say that is Microsoft's problem in general. They are stuck trying to play catchup with Google and Apple. All their "new" stuff just appears to be attempts to match features that other people have had for ages.
Then they have this weird habit of overcompensating and going too far. Windows 8 seems to be this exactly - they seem to focus on a bunch of features like "runs on tablet!" "has live tiles to keep up to date!". Being on a tablet in itself isn't a feature. Live tiles are just widgets; anyone who
Why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Would anyone use the not quite, but almost as good (according to the developer) product?
Especially when it's Microsoft, because fuck them.
Not touching it (Score:4, Insightful)
I switched to bing about a year ago (Score:3)
Google was creeping me out... it was just too large and it bothered me that the other search giants were dying. So I made a point of using bing as much as possible.
When I started using it... it was worse then google... a lot worse. But now it's about the same.
I still sometimes check google when I'm not finding something on Bing. But increasingly I've found that if it isn't on bing it won't pop up on google either. So they seem about the same to me now.
We should be happy about this... I know lots of people just hate MS for being MS... but do we want only ONE search engine? We need to support alternate engines just to keep a dynamic marketplace.
Never thought I'd say it: go Bing (Score:3)
I was a big fan of Google way back when, very early days. But as Google gets bigger and more powerful I get more concerned, and their privacy and data-snarfing issues don't make me comfortable at all. I don't want companies profiling me.
So, I'm no fan of Microsoft's business practices past or present, or much of any of their software. But I hope Bing provides some competition, just to keep Google in line.
I use DDG as my primary search engine. For a lot of things it works great, and has features that I find useful. When I'm searching for esoteric Linux config questions or equivalent, I reluctantly have to switch to Google, which provides better info. But with change DDG will get better. The fact that they want to be a search engine and not link me into their other "products" is reason enough for me to use it.
Right (Score:4, Funny)
And Zune was every bit as good as the iPod.
Re: (Score:2)
staredown?
I propose a gesture of peace and reconciliation!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I propose that we in the linux community dispatch a team of our disappointment-hardened counselors in order to help him work through the stages of the inevitable grieving process in an efficient and healthy manner...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Startpage is great, and unlike duckduckgo it used googles back end which I find delivers better results
Re: (Score:3)
I think it is good advice to you never to use the word "never" when referring to technology issues.
Who knew that Microsoft or Nokia or even Apple would be in their respective positions when it comes to technology, just a few years ago? Surely, two of the companies I mention did not see it coming!
Re:anecdotally.... (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, if you think Bing is really as good as Google, I'd be really interested in your reasons, instead of some vague ideas about evilness.
Re: (Score:3)
Five years ago, you could search for 'fortune' and see something about BSD fortune in the first page.
I've just searched for 'fortune', and guess what? I got a link to something about BSD fortune in the first page.
Re:anecdotally.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Describing Google as Evil and Microsoft as the better alternative to that seems a little suspect to me. There seems to be a fairly widespread ant-Google campaign going on, and the prevalence of it versus anything they've actually done lately seems extremely out of balance ... almost as if it were being promoted by their competition. FaceBook was caught funding it once .ii I would doubt they or others would drop their plans so quickly. I'm not saying people are annoyed by Google's behaviour, I just think there's a non-grassroots push behind the vast majority of it.
Same with Sony/PS3 (Score:3)
You should see the number of people who boycott Sony for its activities... they buy an Xbox instead...........
People like to take a moral stand but they also like their shiny so they make a stand and then ignore any evidence their new stance is even more insane.
Don't like MS? Go for Apple and claim it is so much more open and less evil... no matter what Apple pulls because else you have to not just give up your shiny but admit you have no morals either.
It is very human.
Re: (Score:3)
you know there is a difference between a rootkit and having root privileges...right?
Re:anecdotally.... (Score:5, Interesting)
There seems to be a fairly widespread ant-Google campaign going on, and the prevalence of it versus anything they've actually done lately seems extremely out of balance
Thank you for saying it.
I've grown wary of Google, but so far I have not yet seen a reason to actually distrust them. For MS, on the other hand, I can't find a reason not to.
Re:anecdotally.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't consider the changes they made very significant, but I had actually always assumed that they aggregated results between their different products. I actually prefer to have a single privacy policy, but I do realize that the potential for abuse is greater with the aggregation. From what I've seen so far though, their is no abuse ... they only do what they said they'd do with the data. Microsoft on the other hand is using extortion tactics to force companies to give them money for producing Linux devices, and makes it extremely difficult for me to buy a laptop without paying for Windows. I'm also very bitter with them over the OOXML travesty among other things. If you don't want Google to track your searches, don't log in for searches. I would like the option to choose whether or not I have search results targeted to my taste though ... I would imagine running a search while not being logged in will also do that though.
Re:anecdotally.... (Score:5, Informative)
Why do all of this when you can just opt out of ad personalization [google.com] or delete your search history [google.com]?
Re:anecdotally.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes microsoft is evil as well, but they don't own 80-90% of web services at the moment.
While I'm no Google fanboy, I recognize that it's a company that gives me not only search results in exchange for my information/attention. It also gives me a fairly good browser, a useful map system and a decent smartphone OS. It was also, if I recall correctly, the first to implement a free web-based office suite and huge inbox storage capacity (2Gb while Hotmail was still limited to 2Mb or 10Mb - I forget). So that's why I use it - someone will use my search information and, frankly, my search history is not the kind of personal information I care about giving away. So I let Google have it and help finance some good products and technologies. Microsoft, on the other hand, rarely gives anything for free, and when they do, it's usually crap. So even if they were equal in terms of search effectiveness, I'd still use Google. For search. Not that I'll ever use Google+, because my personal information I actually care about giving away.
Re:anecdotally.... (Score:5, Informative)
And even if you don't personally use it, they also:
Frankly, I worry about the dangers of their data collection, and I'll probably move away from some of their services because of that, but I still like them as a whole.
Re:I Use Bing for the Picture (Score:4, Insightful)
Google seem to go out of its ways to pissed of long time customers.
Now you're being silly.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Google seem to go out of its ways to pissed of long time customers.
Truth. I've been setting up to quit every google product ever since they instituted this new "privacy" policy where you have to give up your real name, phone number, and bunches of other personal info, and then they cram 'Plus' down their subscribers throats and all that product does is beg for still more personal info. Add to that the tracking of every search ever done being stored forever, as well as every result a subscriber clicks on, along with working to actively bypass every privacy block on every ma
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies can't rely on the ignorant masses to forever stay ignorant of the competition....
This in a thread about MS being "the competition" instead of "companies" is quite a bit surreal.
Re:Search is fungible (Score:5, Informative)
As soon as Google started requiring me to use Javascript in order to see my search results I started to use Bing.
Except it doesn't. There seems to be quite a lot of AC "bing is great" comments on this story - astroturfing a little?
Re: (Score:3)
Google has never required and does not require javascript. Javascript is only used when available for real-time results instead of waiting until you hit enter.
Re: (Score:2)
Definition, shmefinition! Bing is not Google, Google doesn't do evil.... notice a pattern yet? Just negate to decode.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised they didn't use a sniffer like Wireshark to see what it is sending to Microsoft. I mean this is Google they could atleast take a look.
Or is it using HTTPS for the suggested sites feature ?