Coffeehouse Thread

18 posts

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

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    YearOfThe​LinuxDesktop



    this screenshot says it all...

  • User profile image
    Lloyd_Humph

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

    best thing ive seen in ages!

    Lloyd

    If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    cynthia399

    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.

  • User profile image
    zian

    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.

  • User profile image
    Kevin Daly

    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.

     

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    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.

  • User profile image
    BlackTiger

    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.

    If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    YearOfThe​LinuxDesktop

    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.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    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?

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    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?


    Try the search

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    blowdart wrote:
    Try the search


    My bad.

    In which case

  • User profile image
    ClydeJ

    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

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    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...

  • User profile image
    Rory

    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.

  • User profile image
    Royal​Schrubber

    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... Tongue Out





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

  • User profile image
    Kevin Daly

    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.

  • User profile image
    ddewbofh

    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. Smiley

  • User profile image
    Kevin Daly

    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 Smiley
    (Well, actually I might, but people would justifiably get mad at me so I'd better not)

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.