[Orion27]

For years now, I have predominately used Google as my search engine. I had taken on faith the Google slogan "do no evil". I have also embraced Google Mail and Google Analytics. Then I came across this Article: Lawrence Solomon: Better off with Bing - FP Comment

I am starting to reevaluate my relationship with Google.

[turtle777]

Wow, although I was not under the (d)elusion that Google was one of the "good guys", this is really fu*ked up.

-t

[dedalus]

I’m not entirely sure why I should take the opinion of some climate‑change denying nut‑job seriously, but what the hell, Orion, you have every right to be as stupid as you want to be.

[Chuckit]

His evidence is rather poor. The fact that one search engine is finding more results on a given topic is not necessarily evidence of anything sinister — popular topics are very often used by the automated Web page makers employed by spammers. This could simply mean that Google is filtering spam better than Microsoft. In fact, his number of pages containing the word "Googlegate" on Bing is so huge that I have to suspect something is wrong there. Can he show that actual, prominent Web sites covering these topics were being penalized? Are the results for these terms on Google worse than the corresponding results on Microsoft? Does anybody actually look at the 69 millionth result of a search term?

Incidentally, try Googling "Googlegate" on Google and Bing — try it yourself. On Google, you will find news stories, blog posts and opinion pieces about the topic. On Bing, you will find (as the first three results) the front page of JR Salzman's blog, www.google.com/ig/gateway and the front page of a blog called Talking About Weather (like Salzman, it wrote about the topic, but the link to the article is well buried), as well as some apparently unrelated article from 2007. If you wanted to inform yourself about Google's "evil," you'd have a much easier time using Google rather than Bing.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by dedalus 

I’m not entirely sure why I should take the opinion of some climate‑change denying nut‑job seriously, but what the hell, Orion, you have every right to be as stupid as you want to be.

All you have to do is compare search results between the two and compare hits. Here's some further reading on the Global Climate Models used by the CRU; American Thinker: Climategate: The Truth Hurts When It Hits You in the Head

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

His evidence is rather poor. The fact that one search engine is finding more results on a given topic is not necessarily evidence of anything sinister — popular topics are very often used by the automated Web page makers employed by spammers. This could simply mean that Google is filtering spam better than Microsoft. In fact, his number of pages containing the word "Googlegate" on Bing is so huge that I have to suspect something is wrong there. Can he show that actual, prominent Web sites covering these topics were being penalized? Are the results for these terms on Google worse than the corresponding results on Microsoft? Does anybody actually look at the 69 millionth result of a search term?

Sure, that may be true. Your argument did cross my mind as well. I put article out there to see how others felt. I think we should be concerned how searches are or not censored. As I said, I am evaluating more closely my search results and will compare them to Bing.

[dedalus]

I did some further research:


v


As you can see, Google China has 59,400 more results than Google US.

Now, compare this to Bing:


v


Bing China has 47,000 fewer results than Bing US.


Hmm.

[Oisín]

But Bing China’s search button seems to say “Search” rather than “搜索” for some reason.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I guess conspiracy theorists will be happy at this news then:

Apple may demote Google in favor of Bing for iPhone search