By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
disolitude said:
Hapimeses said:

This is reprehensible if true, and it appears it is. It doesn't matter if Google are better or worse, all that matters is that Google's services are being misrepresented as another company's work. That's not on and should be remedied immediately with Google recompensed appropriatelty. That's how business works, like it or not.

Now, does this mean Microsoft, who already have history in copying from others in one shape or another, endorse this sort of thing? Of course not. Microsoft, in this context, doesn't even exist as a thinking entity; this is down to the mistakes and errors of individuals working in one small department of a huge company. When you employ around 90,000 people, a few bad eggs will slip in no matter how you try to avoid it; mistakes will happen. That's clearly what we have here: a mistake that should never have happened. Do you really think theft of this kind would ever be endorsed by a company as huge as Microsoft? Do you honestly think it is standard Microsoft practice to steal from others? Do you, hand on heart, think it's not stupid individuals that cause these problems, but company policy as a whole? Yes? Do you really think that tin-foil hat looks good on you?


I suggest reading the full thread before posting... this was done with the opt-in Bing toolbar which is designed to store user-related searches to taylor its results better to each user.

Step 1. User searched for a specific page on google

Step 2. Bing toolbar tied that search to that specific user

Step 3. Same search yielded same page on bing a week later...FOR THAT USER

Google opt-in toolbar works the same way. If a user used bing to find a page with a specific search, and has google toolbar installed, google will store that data and will show the user the same page with the same search on Google.

So Google is just using PR BS and wasting time here.  I'd suggest they improve their maps section instead as Bing owns them in that department...

I've reread the source, and what you write above is not what I read.