Their assertion was not "bing is using clicks on google search and only google search." The assertion was just "bing is using clicks on google search." They've demonstrated that pretty conclusively.
Bing has never denied using clicks on google search. They have, in fact, admitted to using clicks in general before Google even began their experiments. Given that information, why should it be surprising that Google Search, as one of the most-clicked sites on the Internet, has a big impact on that?
Surprising or no, it's clearly pretty controversial. If you are using click data like this, you have to know that you'll end up essentially copying Google. People only click on the results that are there, and Google puts them there.
Of course it's controversial. Someone made a deliberate decision to stir up controversy over this. It's easy to make some controversy if you just use the right words. Words like "Cheating" and "Copying" are great for that.
If you really want examples, just watch Fox News or MSNBC for fifteen minutes. You'll probably see at least one or two examples in there somewhere.
You can't decide to reason through induction on one set of variables (all searches, not just "hzzxsqqdga", are copied by Bing) and leave it out on another (click data on all websites, not just Google, are copied by Bing).
The phrasing of "bing is using clicks on google search" implies that google search is a single case (I could likewise claim "bing is using clicks on duckduckgo") that does not extend to others.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that "bing is using click data"? The fact that google.com is in a lot of that click data is a questionable decision and the root cause of all this drama.
Yes. Why can't people grasp this very simple idea before opening their mouths and spreading this FUD. I see even pg fell for this.
The only way the words "Bing copies google" would be justified is if MS were directly querying Google on certain keywords and ripping off search results. Google have provided no evidence to suggest this. I expected the commmenters of Techcrunch to be unable to grasp this, but it seems that HN is often like this too.
To be fair, I think that claim would be justified if they were "merely" grabbing the Google SERPs their users happen to receive, turning them into ranked lists of URLs, and using that data some way.
It would even be justified if they were harvesting click data only from Google (or explicitly treating that click data differently), because then they're just doing the last one, but obfuscating it: it would be like refusing to bribe a politician directly, but instead making a large "investment" in a corporation they own.
It's not a justified claim if they built a mechanism that genuinely gathers interesting data, and would continue to do so in Google's absence. I think Microsoft is claiming this, but their responses have been so murky that it's not 100% clear. Google certainly hasn't produced evidence that renders this version implausible.
