> I'm missing the point here...when I search MSN for linux, the engine > even links to Google. How's that for information supression? > > I've written a search engine before...scoring and ranking results is > incredibly complicated. Why is it in this area that Microsoft is > expected to know exactly what it's doing, when in all other areas of > software development the zealots are saying it sucks. MSN search just > blows at this point...I don't think there's reason to read too much > into the results. Especially not when you're saying, "well, they > don't return the same results as Google, so it must be a conspiracy to > control information." > > It bothers me how much people are bending over for Google. I think > what they are doing is a lot more dangerous than Microsoft...they are > becoming the defacto standard for what good results of a search > are...doesn't anyone else find that just as scary as big, bad MS? Of > course, though, the Google CORPORATION obviously has all our best > interests at heart, right? I mean, they would NEVER alter their > results for profit, huh? Pffft. > > I'ma go put my tin-foil hat on now, bye. >
That is actually a very good point. Especially larger corporations do have a tendency of following a life of their own regardsless of the tiny leadership people. Some mistakes here and there along the line may have unexpected results later in the future. Most of the time these results appear to be negative unfortunately. Rhetoric Q: Which one do we blame, Bill G. or his corporate lawyers.... I would have 2 answers depending on the timeframe of the question made. I'm still awaiting for my company to get into that point. Then I can retire with a smile. Let's all go back to dmoz.org, where results are dependent on humans. (With their biases) It gives nice variation to the equation. Petri
