From Google Blog: Bing is copying Google Search results

In doing basic search optimization, I've always focused on Google results, yet mindful of the fact that Yahoo uses Bing to power their search results, and Yahoo still being a major part of search in the Philippines.

It's difficult enough to figure out the intricacies of the Google Search algorithm, but reading that Bing copies Google's search engine results just validates what I thought was the right thing to do. You optimize for Google, more or less you're optimized for Yahoo & Bing. It's not best practice, but it's what you resort to with clients who are not willing to pay the extra buck for more fine-tuned search optimization.

Read the story below, then read Bing's response: http://searchengineland.com/bing-admits-using-customer-search-data-says-google-pulled-spy-novelesque-stunt-63162

Tell me what you think.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Microsoft’s Bing uses Google search results—and denies it

2/01/2011 02:56:00 PM

By now, you may have read Danny Sullivan’s recent post: “Google: Bing is Cheating, Copying Our Search Results” and heard Microsoft’s response, “We do not copy Google's results.” However you define copying, the bottom line is, these Bing results came directly from Google.

I’d like to give you some background and details of our experiments that lead us to understand just how Bing is using Google web search results.

It all started with tarsorrhaphy. Really. As it happens, tarsorrhaphy is a rare surgical procedure on eyelids. And in the summer of 2010, we were looking at the search results for an unusual misspelled query [torsorophy]. Google returned the correct spelling—tarsorrhaphy—along with results for the corrected query. At that time, Bing had no results for the misspelling. Later in the summer, Bing started returning our first result to their users without offering the spell correction (see screenshots below). This was very strange. How could they return our first result to their users without the correct spelling? Had they known the correct spelling, they could have returned several more relevant results for the corrected query.

This example opened our eyes, and over the next few months we noticed that URLs from Google search results would later appear in Bing with increasing frequency for all kinds of queries: popular queries, rare or unusual queries and misspelled queries. Even search results that we would consider mistakes of our algorithms started showing up on Bing.

We couldn’t shake the feeling that something was going on, and our suspicions became much stronger in late October 2010 when we noticed a significant increase in how often Google’s top search result appeared at the top of Bing’s ranking for a variety of queries. This statistical pattern was too striking to ignore. To test our hypothesis, we needed an experiment to determine whether Microsoft was really using Google’s search results in Bing’s ranking.

We created about 100 “synthetic queries”—queries that you would never expect a user to type, such as [hiybbprqag]. As a one-time experiment, for each synthetic query we inserted as Google’s top result a unique (real) webpage which had nothing to do with the query. Below is an example:


To be clear, the synthetic query had no relationship with the inserted result we chose—the query didn’t appear on the webpage, and there were no links to the webpage with that query phrase. In other words, there was absolutely no reason for any search engine to return that webpage for that synthetic query. You can think of the synthetic queries with inserted results as the search engine equivalent of marked bills in a bank.

We gave 20 of our engineers laptops with a fresh install of Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer 8 with Bing Toolbar installed. As part of the install process, we opted in to the “Suggested Sites” feature of IE8, and we accepted the default options for the Bing Toolbar.

We asked these engineers to enter the synthetic queries into the search box on the Google home page, and click on the results, i.e., the results we inserted. We were surprised that within a couple weeks of starting this experiment, our inserted results started appearing in Bing. Below is an example: a search for [hiybbprqag] on Bing returned a page about seating at a theater in Los Angeles. As far as we know, the only connection between the query and result is Google’s result page (shown above).


We saw this happen for multiple queries. For the query [delhipublicschool40 chdjob] we inserted a search result for a credit union:

The same credit union soon showed up on Bing for that query:


For the query [juegosdeben1ogrande] we inserted a page of hip hop bling jewelry:


And the same hip hop bling page showed up in Bing:


As we see it, this experiment confirms our suspicion that Bing is using some combination of:

• Internet Explorer 8, which can send data to Microsoft via its Suggested Sites feature
• the Bing Toolbar, which can send data via Microsoft’s Customer Experience Improvement Program

or possibly some other means to send data to Bing on what people search for on Google and the Google search results they click. Those results from Google are then more likely to show up on Bing. Put another way, some Bing results increasingly look like an incomplete, stale version of Google results—a cheap imitation.

At Google we strongly believe in innovation and are proud of our search quality. We’ve invested thousands of person-years into developing our search algorithms because we want our users to get the right answer every time they search, and that’s not easy. We look forward to competing with genuinely new search algorithms out there—algorithms built on core innovation, and not on recycled search results from a competitor. So to all the users out there looking for the most authentic, relevant search results, we encourage you to come directly to Google. And to those who have asked what we want out of all this, the answer is simple: we'd like for this practice to stop.

Posted by Amit Singhal, Google Fellow

Google Search Options: How will the search evolution change SEO?

It's been only a while since I really immersed myself into learning search engine optimization (SEO). And like a lot of things, the more you learn, the more you realize you have to learn. And rules are changing each day.

The rising importance of "real-time"-ness of information online, due to phenomena like microblogging (Twitter, Plurk) and link sharing services (Digg, StumbleUpon, etc.), have brought about a revolution in online search. When Google seemed to have lost it's monopoly on search, there are signs that they are back with a vengeance.

Google just announced new search service in the form of Google Search Options. Their official blog writes, "Our first announcement today is a new set of features that we call Search Options, which are a collection of tools that let you slice and dice your results and generate different views to find what you need faster and easier. [...] We think of the Search Options panel as a tool belt that gives you new ways to interact with Google Search, and we plan to fill it with more innovative and useful features in the future." 

Watch this video by Google to demonstrate some of its features:

Aside from time-based search options as an answer to Twitter search tools, the most interesting for me was the Google Wonder Wheel. Think Google search meets mind mapping. It's just way cool!

Now the question on my mind, and I must admit I have no ready answer for, is: how will this change SEO? Anyone who'd like to offer some answers? I'd love your comments.

Similar Images: Search Beyond Keywords (From AdAge Digital)

What if you could use Google search to find a crime suspect by using a composite drawing created from witness accounts? What if you can find using Google the artist or photographer of a beautiful picture you got from somewhere? What if you can easily check online on Google if your copywrited photo or logo is being used elsewhere on the Web? 

Today, you can't quite yet. But maybe soon. Google is starting to go beyond keywords to do search. The article below describes Similar Images, a developmental feature of Google search that uses image-recognition technology to refine searches. It doesn't elminate yet the need for the right keywords but it's a good start. Imagine when you didnt need to have a good handle on language (and keywords) to find what you were looking for online. How will search optimization be done when that happens?

-----------------------------------

How to Search Without Words

Google's Newest Tool Shows Search Still Evolving

Posted by Hashem Bajwa on 04.22.09 @ 02:46 PM

Hashem Bajwa

Google Labs this week launched a new product called Similar Images, which allows users to search for images using others images instead of words. Until now searching for images with Google meant using text entered into a search bar to describe things, the results of which are only as descriptive as the words entered into the query and the words found on the page where the image is indexed by Google.

Google Similar Images changes that. With this feature, after entering in what one is looking for, the results all have a link below them that will find other images like that one. It uses image recognition technology to read the image and match it to others.

Another example of this is TinEye, a search engine that lets you upload your own image and then it matches it to other images on the web including ones that have been highly distorted or edited.

An important thing about both examples is that search is still evolving and even with Google's dominance there are new innovations to come. It also shows image recognition can be used accurately on a large scale when combined with search.

Here's an example of Google Similar Images at work:

When searching for "paris" one will get results for everything from the Eiffel Tower to Paris Hilton. After clicking the "Similar Images" link underneath one of those image results it will refine the results to just images that match that one specifically. Google Images also has a feature that will then display those photos according to whatever color is chosen.

~~~
Hashem Bajwa is digital strategy director at Goodby, Silverstein & Partners in San Francisco. He also writes the Brain Sells Blog.

From AdAge Digital: Search 3.0 -- Ey it's Social Netowrking!

It's only been a few months that I've started getting into search optimization and search marketing. I'm learning a lot in the process but I'm learning that there's more to learn. Just when I was getting the hang of metatags, keywords, rankings, pay-per-click, and Google Analytics, AdAge Digital drops a bomb: search has gone beyond search engines!

My interactions with the Google Asia team also taught me that the link to traditional advertising and a brand's online properties is search. Consumers' response, after seeing a billboard or ad, is to go online and search for additional information about what they've seen. I believe this, and this is the reason I believe in search marketing more than online display advertising. You get a better response from a consumer who actively looks for you online rather than interrupting someone who's mind is checking out his social networks or chatting away online.

What experts are realizing is that netizens are not only going to search engines for this. Gone are the days when you need to rely on anonymous information from the general online public (search engines, public forums & reviews). Because netizens are so connected to people they know via social networks (and this extends to instant messaging, email & blogging contacts) they tend to tap into these networks to "search" for information. And more often than not, somebody volunteers it. Trust tips the balance. And it's this trust that marketeers have to learn to hone if they want in.

Happy reading!

==========================================

What Social Media Means for Search

It's Not Just What's on a Page or Who Links to It; It's How It Relates to Users' Personal Networks

by Peter Hershberg 

Published: March 30, 2009

Peter Hershberg

A young woman in Chapel Hill, N.C., wakes up sweating. Her air conditioner has died. She knows she wants a new one, but she wants one that will be energy-efficient, easy to install on her own, reliable and not too expensive.She hops online and types, "I need a new A/C today; I have $250 to spend -- help!" into Twitter, which in turn feeds automatically into her Facebook status. She immediately begins to receive replies in both channels from friends with advice on retail outlets, air-conditioner brands and how to stay cool with no A/C. She also sees an @ reply on Twitter from a national big-box retailer letting her know its Chapel Hill location has new air conditioners in stock, as well as a link to the section of its website that shows air conditioners for under $250.

This is the new face of the "search" experience online. The separation between search and social media is melting away, and a new paradigm is taking hold. Finding the right content is as much about whom it comes from as where you find it. By building a network of credible sources via social media, we're able narrow our "searches" to a select group of people whom we trust.

For brands, this means a host of new challenges and opportunities are emerging beyond the traditional search channel.And how far it's come: When search began, marketers used paid search and SEO to make content findable on their own web pages.

SEARCH 1.0

The first wave of search engines was focused on pages and the content within them. They ranked results based solely on the number of times a particular keyword showed up in the page content or meta data.Of course, that method proved relatively easy to game by embedding high-volume, high-demand keywords such as "Britney Spears" on a site over and over again, regardless of whether those keywords were actually relevant to the content on the page. Such unethical, "black hat" methods irked quality marketers and brands and frustrated consumers who struggled to find relevant information.

SEARCH 2.0

With the launch of Google, the focus shifted to the network. Google looked at not just the content of sites but also the links among them, which established authority. Under its PageRank concept, links were "votes" for particular pages. Quality also became important -- how relevant a site's landing page was to the search query.While links alone are helpful, Google proved it's also useful to have context, to know who's linking to the content and why. And just as Google values certain links and content over others, you may value what your friends/colleagues are doing differently than the activities of random people on the internet. That's where social media begins to change things.

SEARCH 3.0

In Search 3.0, relevance is determined not just by what's on a page and what surrounds that page but how that data relate to your personal network. As more and more people connect to each other through social networks, the resulting social graph is proving extremely powerful in helping users filter the data coming at them.

We're already seeing this play out in some of the sites and services many of us use today. Sites collect specific types of information and let their users filter and search that information based on their personal networks.

Twitter started as a way to issue personal status updates to your friends, but is morphing into a search engine that allows you to tap into the "now" -- what's going on now? What's the groundswell of sentiment around a topic?

Facebook began as a way to see more information about people you were going to school with. Now it's become a way for friends to share interests by becoming fans of brands and lifestyles and posting articles, opinions and information.

In many instances, these sites have started to surpass Google for specific information searches. When you look for video, do you go to Google first or do you go to YouTube? (Demand for video content has made YouTube the No. 2 search engine, ahead of Yahoo.)When you want to learn about someone you've met or are interviewing for a job, do you go to Google first or do you find out if the person has a LinkedIn or Facebook profile?

So what does this shift mean for brands, marketers and advertisers?

If 1.0 was about making sure the information within individual pages of your site could be found, and 2.0 was about making sure your site was optimized within a network of related sites, then 3.0 is going to be about finding ways to reach individuals by using their social graphs. That means reaching people where they're already sharing, linking, publishing and tagging, and becoming another node on their social networks by interacting with them and adding value to their experiences online.

Full-service search engines aren't going to go away; they still serve a very important centralizing role. Ultimately social-media properties such as Facebook and Twitter will be indexed by the major search engines on a more regular basis, filling the need for "real-time" search and offering more-relevant content.But as traditional search begins to converge with social media, a robust presence in and understanding of social media will be a requirement of marketing in the Search 3.0 universe.

The three kinds of online connections

Marketers need to be aware of the different types of personal networks emerging through social media

DIRECT CONNECTIONS: People who are connected based on the relationships they've built in the real world. This is the hardest network for marketers to get into, because it implies some level of connection and trust.

INTEREST GENERATORS: People who don't know each other personally, but share an interest or perspective. On Twitter, these are the people you "follow." They may or may not reciprocate your interest, but you filter based on your desire to hear more of their voices.

EXPERIENCE SHARERS: Other people who have done something you're interested in, whether it's someone who bought a book you're interested in, someone who stayed at a hotel you're considering or someone who has tested different air conditioners. The interest/connection is fleeting, but it's often much farther down the so-called "purchase funnel" and can have a big impact on sales.