[IMAGE] Microsoft should hire better ​webmasters..​. seriously.

this screenshot says it all...

I... I think im about to wet myself...

best thing ive seen in ages!

Lloyd

YearOfTheLinuxDesktop wrote:



this screenshot says it all...

If you actually go to the site listed, none of the above text appears on the page or in the source.

cynthia399 wrote:



YearOfTheLinuxDesktop wrote: [snip] this screenshot says it all...

If you actually go to the site listed, none of the above text appears on the page or in the source.

I wonder if Google's database hiccuped for a moment.

The equivalent search result in Live Search displays completely different text for the same page:
 Spyware scanning and removal tool, with realtime system monitoring. Beta version is free to download and use. [Windows]

As already pointed out the embarrassing text doesn't appear anywhere on the page, or in its title, or in any metatags.

Could it be that Google are playing silly buggers? Surely they wouldn't, they can't afford to compromise the integrity of their search results.

Very very strange. (I'm currently assuming an early bit of text written by...er, a  child or non-English speaker? that was mysteriously cached).
This might actually suggest a very interesting difference in the way Google and Live Search handle results.

 

Kevin Daly wrote:

The equivalent search result in Live Search displays completely different text for the same page:
 Spyware scanning and removal tool, with realtime system monitoring. Beta version is free to download and use. [Windows]

But that's not exactly accurate either. Defender has been out of beta for a long time now.

Kevin Daly wrote:



The equivalent search result in Live Search displays completely different text for the same page:
 Spyware scanning and removal tool, with realtime system monitoring. Beta version is free to download and use. [Windows]

As already pointed out the embarrassing text doesn't appear anywhere on the page, or in its title, or in any metatags.

Could it be that Google are playing silly buggers? Surely they wouldn't, they can't afford to compromise the integrity of their search results.

Very very strange. (I'm currently assuming an early bit of text written by...er, a  child or non-English speaker? that was mysteriously cached).
This might actually suggest a very interesting difference in the way Google and Live Search handle results.

It's just a G's "pre-paid" result. That's why no such text in page source.

BlackTiger wrote:

It's just a G's "pre-paid" result. That's why no such text in page source.

I don't think they're sponsored. usually sponsored links have a blue background.

YearOfTheLinuxDesktop wrote:



BlackTiger wrote:It's just a G's "pre-paid" result. That's why no such text in page source.

I don't think they're sponsored. usually sponsored links have a blue background.

I call shenanigans, photoshop anyone?

blowdart wrote:

Try the search

My bad.

In which case

This description seems to come from the Open Directory listing for Windows Defender.

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Freeware/Security/

Which has also been picked up by Alexa's directory.

http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&Mode=general&CategoryID=5457&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity&R=True

ClydeJ wrote:

This description seems to come from the Open Directory listing for Windows Defender.

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Freeware/Security/

Which has also been picked up by Alexa's directory.

http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&Mode=general&CategoryID=5457&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity&R=True

That's interesting...

now, it was easy to spot in this case because we're all pretty much interested in Microsoft's technologies, but how do you trust Google's results in any other category now?

Like medical information or current events or... I'm wondering if I should bring this up with legal...

PaoloM wrote:



ClydeJ wrote: This description seems to come from the Open Directory listing for Windows Defender. http://dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Freeware/Security/ Which has also been picked up by Alexa's directory. http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&Mode=general&CategoryID=5457&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity&R=True

That's interesting...

now, it was easy to spot in this case because we're all pretty much interested in Microsoft's technologies, but how do you trust Google's results in any other category now?

Like medical information or current events or... I'm wondering if I should bring this up with legal...

The way I look at it, we have a couple problems:

1. No idea at all why Google is using the dmoz description - that's just... weird. My guess is that Google isn't going to care, either.

2. Going the legal route might take a long time. It needs to be done with Google, but for dmoz - I think we need a friendlier approach.

I emailed the directory editor for the security section, asking if he had any idea why Google was picking up their description for our product.

If he has no idea, then I'm going to provide him with a new description. Whether it gets posted or not is another issue...

But, yeah - if you're already on it, contacting legal regarding Google would be a good idea. I think we're being grossly misrepresented there.

I think the cause of the problem in somebody, gifted with unusual amount of black humor, that wrote 10 thousands links to Windows Defender with that description to confuse google engine. Somebody should notice google anyway...





Enter "french military victories" and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. They included nice little spell checker...   </joke>

It gets better: Look at the description for AVG Free Edition on dmoz, then try Google and Live Search.

Once again that doesn't seem to be anywhere on the actual page (unless it's from an earlier version), so it looks like dmoz is the source.

Mind you, at least that one doesn't make Grisoft look like idiots.

It looks like at least 2 search engines are using dmoz (and other 3rd party sites?) as a source of descriptive text depending on unknown conditions which obviously vary between them.

On the evidence of the Windows Defender entry that's as good an idea as the Encyclopaedia Britannica using Wikipedia for fact checking.

Anyway, you might want to hold off on the legal approach, since it appears that whatever it is, Microsoft are doing it too.

Kevin Daly wrote:

On the evidence of the Windows Defender entry that's as good an idea as the Encyclopaedia Britannica using Wikipedia for fact checking.

You've got to be flipping kidding me, say it isn't so. That's one of the most disturbing things I've heard today and considering that I'm watching a documentary about living with RealDolls that's pretty disturbing.

ddewbofh wrote:



Kevin Daly wrote: On the evidence of the Windows Defender entry that's as good an idea as the Encyclopaedia Britannica using Wikipedia for fact checking.

You've got to be flipping kidding me, say it isn't so. That's one of the most disturbing things I've heard today and considering that I'm watching a documentary about living with RealDolls that's pretty disturbing.

Um, to clarify: I'm not saying that the Encycopaedia Britannica does use Wikipedia for fact checking, just giving it as an example of something that would be a bad idea.
I wouldn't want to cause any confusion on that score
(Well, actually I might, but people would justifiably get mad at me so I'd better not)