Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft The Internet

MSN Search Engine Favors IIS 565

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the kinda-surprising-i-guess dept.
Scud writes "It appears that if you want to rise up in the rankings over at the MSN search engine you would do well to host your page on IIS. Ivor Hewitt has done a study and it appears that by using IIS, you are likely to increase your odds of a higher listing by several percent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MSN Search Engine Favors IIS

Comments Filter:
  • IE bias too (Score:5, Funny)

    by akadruid (606405) <slashdot@@@thedruid...co...uk> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:28AM (#12347759) Homepage
    It's clearly biased towards Internet Explorer too, the results I get back in Firefox are mostly irrelevant blogs and pages full of adverts.
    • Re:IE bias too (Score:4, Insightful)

      by birge (866103) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:42AM (#12348579) Homepage
      This is pretty ridiculous. There is no way to account for the million other variables that could confound this, such as:

      1) Maybe it is Google discriminating *against* IIS, not Microsoft for.

      2) Maybe there is a correlation between things like website type (i.e. corporate vs. .org) and use of IIS, and MSN is discriminating for or against that other, correlated variable.

      • Re:IE bias too (Score:3, Informative)

        by cortana (588495)
        > Maybe it is Google discriminating *against* IIS, not Microsoft for.

        He said that the distibution of servers from Google's results matched those published by Netcraft (http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_surv ey.html [netcraft.com]) very closely.
  • FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Reignking (832642) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:29AM (#12347762) Journal
    So what's going on? I have no idea, I doubt it's all a big conspiracy... but some possible explanations spring to mind: Perhaps the MSN search has simply been coded by developers used to talking to IIS machines and so it just does that job better? Perhaps the MSN spider is taking advantage of some specific IIS features to provide enhanced indexing?

    In other words, there are some explanations out there other than "MS is biased and there's a conspiracy and they are trying to take over the world"...
    • Re:FTFA (Score:3, Insightful)

      by misleb (129952)
      Well, MS *is* biased. That much should be obvious. There is really no way around that one. Is there a conspiracy? Why not? Would it be all that astounding? I mean, all it takes is for one exec to say, "ya know, I think we ought to favor IIS because IIS (insert some lame justification here)."

      -matthew
      • Re:FTFA (Score:4, Insightful)

        by coolGuyZak (844482) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:46AM (#12347989)
        "ya know, I think we ought to favor IIS because IIS (insert some lame justification here)."
        Maybe... "ya know, I think we ought to favor IIS because IIS is our product"?
      • Re:FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WoodstockJeff (568111) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:48AM (#12348010) Homepage
        Is there a conspiracy? Why not?

        No, there is no conspiracy. There may be a company policy , but conspiracies require more than one party. MSN is part of Microsoft, so this isn't the case.

        Now, if Yahoo or Google were doing it, too, that could be a conspiracy.

        • Conspiracies of one (Score:4, Informative)

          by coyote-san (38515) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:13AM (#12348269)
          You can have a "conspiracy of one" if that person acts in multiple roles.

          As an example, let's say that one person is a company's bookkeeper and CFO. (This isn't uncommon in small companies.)

          As a bookkeeper she cooks the books to cover her embezzlement.

          As CFO she prepares false financial documents for her company and its investors.

          One person, criminal acts in two roles, so in many states she can be charged with conspiracy in addition to embezzlement.

          BTW, this isn't a "conspiracy" in the legal sense since it's not a crime to give preferential service on the basis of web server. It's sleazy unless it's fully disclosed, but it's not a crime unless they actually sell the search engine as an unbiased tool.

          • "BTW, this isn't a "conspiracy" in the legal sense since it's not a crime to give preferential service on the basis of web server. It's sleazy unless it's fully disclosed, but it's not a crime unless they actually sell the search engine as an unbiased tool."

            This would not be true if it having a higher status in the search engine meant more hits which meant more business. It could be argued that that was a discriminatory practice that could be quantified as a loss in dollars. Or possibly a monopolistic prac
    • Re:FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Otter (3800) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:49AM (#12348023) Journal
      The different results for "Linux" were noted here the day the new MSN beta launched and explained a minute or two later -- the MSN ranking algorithm weights the domain name much more heavily than Google does, which is why MSN favors Linux.com and Google goes for Red Hat.

      My guess is that the server differences are somehow correlated with something weighted differently in their rankings. As someone else noted, the real test would be switching the server on which a site is hosted and seeing if its rank changes.

      Or if that's too much work, one could also argue that Google ranks IIS down!

      • by learn fast (824724) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:44AM (#12348603)
        You could just change the HTTP Server header that Apache sends out. Someone should try it for a few weeks and see if it really makes any difference.

        If you have mod_header installed, just add the below line to httpd.conf:

        Header set Server "Microsoft-IIS/6.0"
      • Re:FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by .com b4 .storm (581701) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @12:04PM (#12348791)

        Or if that's too much work, one could also argue that Google ranks IIS down!

        The problem with that is that Google (for now?) has zip, zilch, nada, and nil to gain directly by ranking any given server up or down. Google does not distribute or sell web servers, nor have any direct stock in any particular server and its success or failure. Microsoft, on the other hand, makes a web server - and if their search engine adjusts ranking in any way based on the presence or absence of that web server, that is rather fishy.

        One could argue, of course, that Google has a stake in certain web servers (i.e. ones not controlled by companies like Microsoft) by virtue of them keeping the WWW open, and thus providing a viable arena for Google's search technology and money-making adverts. That's a bit different, though, and I'm not aware of any indication that Google favors open source web servers (or whatever) in their results.

      • Re:FTFA (Score:3, Interesting)

        by huge colin (528073)
        Or if that's too much work, one could also argue that Google ranks IIS down!

        As it well should. As much as anyone may not like to admit it, IIS is bad for the Internet.
    • Re:FTFA (Score:3, Insightful)

      by badfish99 (826052)
      In other words, the other explanation is "Microsoft are yet again using undocumented features of their own software to give themselves an advantage over their competitors"
    • by FunWithHeadlines (644929) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:14AM (#12348285) Homepage
      "Perhaps the MSN spider is taking advantage of some specific IIS features to provide enhanced indexing?"

      In other words, there are some explanations out there other than "MS is biased and there's a conspiracy and they are trying to take over the world"... "

      It's called plausible deniability. "Why, no, we had no idea this would happen. You say it's an interaction with an IIS feature that causes this to happen? Heavens to Betsy, we never thought of that."

      Microsoft people aren't stupid, and they ARE trying to take over the computer world, or haven't you been paying attention to what they say and what they have done? The engineers that built MSN Search would certainly be aware of any interaction that fits with IIS features to provide enchanced indexing. They would have been all over it from the beginning. And a side-effect means that IIS sites come out higher? Great! It's a feature that benefits us, they would think.

      Of course MS is biased. Of course they would have noticed this. Of course they like it.

  • it's foolish... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hruske (791821) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:29AM (#12347768)
    ... to think ms wouldn't use all it has. Obviously it hasn't yet learned from google, that being evil is bad. And bad guys get punished.
    • Re:it's foolish... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MoonFog (586818) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:46AM (#12347992)
      In what world? Seing how MS has been allowed to do basically whatever they want in the US .. why would they suddenly change their ways? The bad guys clearly do not get punished.
    • by davids-world.com (551216) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:02AM (#12348161) Homepage
      Sounds plausible at first, but if you look at his figures you see that the author didn't run a lot of queries, and that the difference between the google/Netcraft and the MSN ratios for Apache vs. IIS is not huge (68:20 vs 64:26).

      Leads me to think: is it significant? That is, can we exclude (to a reasonable certainty, that is, p>0.95) the possibility that the effect seen cannot be attributed to chance or some other criterion MSN uses?

      Ivor says at some point The initial set of words indeed showed a significant difference between the results from Google and the results from the Beta MSN search..

      But what does he mean? I would be interested in what kind of significance test was applied, what the exact results were. Just looking at the ratio of percentages doesn't tell me enough... One should go back at the original data (seems provided, good) and check if the effect is actually trustworthy or just, in Ivor's words, "Odd. Pure coincidence perhaps."

      Before seeing some analysis of significance, I don't believe anything...

      • by Swanktastic (109747) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:40AM (#12348561)
        Believe it...

        First off, I looked at the difference in means for Apache rankings in MSN and Google. 61.5% (MSN) vs. 64.3% (Google) for 970 observations [www.ivor.it] Right there, you ought to be able to eyeball it and see significance. But, to make sure, here are the results of a t-test which checks the likelihood that two matched sets have different means (forgive the crappy formatting):

        M G
        Mean 0.615061856 0.642948454
        Variance 0.01100624 0.008740111
        Observations 970 970
        Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
        df 969
        t Stat -10.51551356
        P(one-tail) 7.26569E-25
        t Critical one-tail 1.646427658
        P(two-tail) 1.45314E-24
        t Critical two-tail 1.962415113

        As you can see, the P is 1.45 x 10^-24, which at least makes us think the results are not pure coincidence. I don't intend on speculating on the causality, though...
  • by bigtallmofo (695287) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:29AM (#12347771)
    Is there any truth to the rumor that having a picture of Bill Gates on your site makes you #1 in your category?

  • by Blitzenn (554788) * on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:29AM (#12347778) Homepage Journal
    And who is the silly person who would expect it to be otherwise? Have you actually been listening to the news at all over the past decade? Have you learned nothing? The real story would be if the ranking did not rise if it were housed on an IIS server. Otherwise it's a nothing, I would have assumed that.
    • by Binestar (28861) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:34AM (#12347856) Homepage
      IMO the true test would be to take his site which is hosted on Apache, move it to being hosted on IIS and watch and see if his ranking goes up or down after the next time it is indexed.
      • IMO the true test would be to take his site which is hosted on Apache, move it to being hosted on IIS and watch and see if his ranking goes up or down after the next time it is indexed.

        And then you would also need to move it _back_ to Apache to see if the ranking declines again.

      • by b1t r0t (216468) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:18AM (#12348318)
        Actually, what would be even better is to configure his web server to report itself as IIS in the headers it returns. That's the only real way to know what a web server is running, unless you want to parse server-created error messages, or exploit vulnerabilities in the server itself.
  • by the_mutha (177709) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:30AM (#12347784)
    ... and they still think they can beat Google to the game. When are they going to realize that what made Google so successfull was the fact that is has been so unbiased in all ways imaginable, including not accepting payments to get higher rankings.

    Google makes money by prioritising quality. Microsoft makes money by prioritising money.

    Go figure.
    • Google is definately at the top in the search engine business, no doubt about that. The current MSN search is a total piece of crap. But I've tried the beta, and honestly its not that bad, sure its no google yet, but I don't really think that matters.

      Most search engine users are very fickle, they don't care who provides it as long as the thing works, and this is why I think google may be in trouble in the future. MSN.com is the default page for just about every windows machine, if MS gets something th
    • This should be easily defeatable by OSS projects by changing the server id string whenever an MS search bot indexes it.
    • Google makes money by prioritising quality. Microsoft makes money by prioritising money.

      As a publicly traded company, Google's priority is delivering returns to investors, just like Microsoft's, don't fool yourself for a second into believing that not to be true. What I think you are trying to say is how Google and Microsoft get to that common priority.
      • by Pecisk (688001)
        Google is a company which publicy trade only a small tiny part of their shares. Most of them still belongs to founders, as they don't seem to even try to sell them.

        So... No. It is not that way you state it.
      • Yes, and in the day of Enron and MCI Worldcom, could it be possible that Investors see value in being "responsible"?

        Investors aren't stupid either, they see the trend that people trust Google and they're putting their money on it.

      • All companies exist to make money. Google has the phrase "don't be evil" in their vision statement. I presume they put that there to remind all their employees that it's possible to make money and not have to resort to evil tactics.
    • by fatted (777789)
      Google makes money by prioritising quality. Microsoft makes money by prioritising money.

      Seems to be working out for MS though, doesn't it!
    • by drsquare (530038) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:55AM (#12348088)
      Actually, what made Google successful was its simplicity and the recognisability of its name and website. Its results are as crap as anywhere else. Remember, quantity != quality.

      Google makes money by prioritising quality.

      Google seem to make a lot of money from click-fraud and advertising, hardly noble ways to make money. At least Microsoft are honest about their profit-seeking, you don't get any of that sanctimonious "we're not evil" crap.
  • ...you gotta do something to pump up your buggy, non-mainstream [netcraft.com], insecure [secunia.com] webserver.
    • Duh, 20% of market share does not make a product mainstream. And if you think 2 security advisories is a lot compared to Apache [secunia.com]'s 24.

      If you were joking or being sarcastic well you went right over my head....
      • selection effect (Score:3, Insightful)

        by coyote-san (38515)
        Apache freely issues advisories and patches. It will issue an advisory if even one user faces a minor risk.

        Microsoft (and nearly all other proprietary software companies) tries to hide problems to protect their perception in the marketplace. You usually only see advisories for major problems that will become public knowledge anyway, and numerous other fixes are piggybacked on the big ones.

        But beyond that advisories don't really address the quality of a product. They're one metric, but nothing more.
  • Absolutely (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:30AM (#12347788)
    My page is titled "San Andreas Radio" and if you Google it, comes out #1 or #2 every time.

    MSN it and it comes out about #7. Either they're being paid to reduce its rank (it's a bit subversive), or they don't like the fact I'm hosted on Linux, or they simply don't have a very good search engine.

    If I put the exact unique title of a page into an engine, I expect that page to be #1.
    • Re:Absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zero_offset (200586) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:39AM (#12347906) Homepage
      MSN has your example listed as #2 at the moment.
      It comes out #6 on AskJeeves and Teoma, and #5 on Gigablast.

      My god, CONSPIRACY!

      In fact, the only place I could find where you come out #1 is on AOL.
    • Google put a lot of weight in the title but why must every search engine. I am sure Microsoft is evil but this don't prove anything.
    • The plural of anecdote is not data. My page on Alexandre Dumas [cadytech.com] comes out first on MSN [msn.com] but second on Google [google.com], even though it is listed on a Linux box.
    • Re:Absolutely (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jim_Maryland (718224)
      Running your query without quotes returns:
      (You do mean this link(San Andreas Radio [tinyted.net]), right?)

      MSN - 3rd

      Google - 3rd
      With quotes around it:

      MSN - 2nd

      Google - 1rst
      With a + (plus sign):

      MSN - 2nd

      Google - 1rst
      I'm not sure where #7 came from (unless others have done repeated searches on this too). Do we know what Rock Star Games is using for their web server then to know if the IIS preference comes into play in this case?

  • Mirror site: (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bananatree3 (872975) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:30AM (#12347791)
  • I think I have never used MSN search in my life. I suppose other people do, but how many? Anybody know MSN search share percentages?
  • by Dancin_Santa (265275) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:30AM (#12347793) Journal
    The control over what webserver you will use is typically limited by your hosting provider. While many provide the choice between Unix-based servers and Windows-based servers, many do not.

    For those who use hosts that do not provide these services, I don't think it appropriate to think that they are simple SOL. Rather, the better quality your website provides, the more relevant it is to the topic you discuss, the better it will fare in any search engine. The type of webserver you are using becomes nothing more than the tiniest fraction of your search ranking.
    • by MarkusQ (450076) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:05AM (#12348198) Journal
      The control over what webserver you will use is typically limited by your hosting provider. While many provide the choice between Unix-based servers and Windows-based servers, many do not.

      Have they gone ahead and implemented that thing about assigning you a hosting provider at birth then? What a shame. Back in my day, we used to be able to pick our hosting provider based on what they provided and what they charged for it.

      Ah, the good ol' 1900's.

      --MarkusQ

  • by Phil246 (803464) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:31AM (#12347804)
    if it favours iis machines, it makes it that much easier for virus writers / script kiddies to play about with them if it displays them in preference to other web servers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:31AM (#12347809)
    To be conclusive, it needs to be a controlled experiment with the same text and same outgoing/incoming links.

    Just the webserver alone changing. This can happen by taking a popular site and then changing what it reports to the MSN search robots.

    But until such an experiment is done, the data is open to too many interpretations.
  • MSN is out of beta (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alienfluid (677872) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:31AM (#12347810) Homepage
    The link to MSN search on the main story links to beta.search.msn.com. It should be noted that MSN Search is out of beta for a while now - the correct links should be http://search.msn.com [msn.com]. It's not like it's Google or something - trying to keep everything in beta for years to escape criticism.
  • by w0lver (755034)
    It's really unlike MS to skew things towards their products... I'm sure it's a mistake or a "Linux Zealots" distorting the facts...
  • by incuso (747340) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <osucni>> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:32AM (#12347820)
    My site is first or nearly first in google using relevant search terms. But in MSN it never shows (even if listed). Maybe also the use of PHP is harmful for MSN ranking? M.
    • by Shadarr (11622)
      My site is a webcomic/rant site that uses some fairly... colourful language. Apparently MSN search has a porn filter, so we get all sorts of traffic from porn searches that didn't turn up any porn. In fact, MSN search is our number 2 referer, beating out every marketing campaign we've ever done.

      If you search MSN for things like "anal fucker", "hardcore sites", or "why is leah remini fat now" there's a good chance UAC [uacomic.com] will be right there on the first page. And our site is PHP and Apache all the way.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:32AM (#12347823)
    For years now, the company where I work has had all it's Apache systems reporting that they are IIS 5.0 systems. Just a quick change in a single file before compiling and there you go!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft has its own search engine? When did this happen? This is the first I heard of it. I have never heard one of my friends say, "Hey just MSN Search it!"
  • by Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:35AM (#12347874)
    This is the most shocking news I've heard since I found out Pro Wrestling was fake!

    - Crow T. Trollbot

  • by rdmiller3 (29465) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:36AM (#12347878) Journal
    and this is "news", why?
  • evil (Score:3, Funny)

    by hey (83763) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:36AM (#12347883) Journal
    Well, MSN never promised they wouldn't be evil.
    So it seems fair to me.
  • by speters (523864) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:36AM (#12347884) Homepage
    Just change the server response line if the GET or POST comes from Redmond, WA to say you are some version of IIS. I can already see the recommendations coming from the SEO folks.
  • wow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SComps (455760)
    Apparently it's a very slow news day. In the interests of being remotely on topic.. (yes my karma will suffer dearly for this)

    Why would this be any real surprise to anyone? MSN being MS is obviously going to give preferential treatment to their own products. This may be by design or strictly because IIS servers respond to some proprietary (yes I said it) requests that other servers won't.

    I don't necessarily see it as an evil thing, but it's not entirely philanthropic either.
  • What you are saying is Google is still the best search engine out there?

    Thanks, MS, for clearing up that confusion.

    Seriously, it's like these guys are out to do as much evil as they can get away with.
  • ...to use the Google search engine. I mean, sure it's expensive to use MS's engine, but by paying that extra bit to use Google, I get less evil results. And no ads, placed by people that are paying Google, either!

    Give me a damn break. It's MS's own freakin' web site, and they can do what they want (assuming this study is even really exposing causation, rather than correlation). No one is paying MS to be neutral in any way, any more than they are paying Google or Yahoo, each of whom tilt results according
    • The problem is that, if you the client (the searcher) search on a website that gives emphasis to hits that have paid you in some fashion, that's dubious. One of the early Google tricks was to get the sponsored links out of your face and denoted as such. In this case, however, it's actually worse*, because the sponsored links are being unfairly weighted for something utterly unrelated to content.

      * Assuming it's true. This claim seems rather strong. Microsoft has no reason to do this without publicizing
  • That explains it (Score:2, Informative)

    by guru42101 (851700)
    One of our clients has a web app hosted on an IIS box and their main website hosted on apache. The web app ranks higher than the main website when doing a search for them.
  • Did anyone anywhere claim that their results WOULDN'T do this? That they would be the premiere unbiased source of accurate search results, playing no favorites? Nobody forces anyone to use it, so don't.
  • Don't they realize that Google became the top search engine because the results were good? If they mess with results then people won't use MSN Search, and then the bias won't have the desired effect on web hosts. Its really a win-win for the anti-MS crowd that they do this.
  • by rabtech (223758) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:47AM (#12347999) Homepage
    Most of those useless keyword, domain parking/hijacking, and spam sites out there run on Linux+Apache because the owner can host thousands of those domains fairly inexpensively, and that's the key to all spam: minimization of operating expenses so you only need 1 out of 100,000 users to click/buy to turn a profit.

    These sites don't have any real content, they just point to other sites and/or exist to spam you with advertisements. Some of them have googlebombed their way higher into the rankings.

    My guess is that MSN does a slightly better job of filtering those useless sites out of the index at the present time, OR the "googlebombing" techniques they use aren't as effective with MSN's indexing. Since they almost exclusively use Apache that would have the false appearance of favoring IIS.

    This is just a guess, but it seems plausable.
  • by n6kuy (172098) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:48AM (#12348008)
    ...Googled for anything using MSN!
  • Updated report (Score:3, Informative)

    by orv (398342) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @10:52AM (#12348051) Homepage
    Tha article actually links to an older smaller version of the analysis. There's a more comprehensive wordlist at: http://www.ivor.it/goog [www.ivor.it]
  • Remember, the guys working on the MSN search engine certainly use IIS to host their intranet sites, and whatever internal webservers they use to test against are probably IIS as well, at least in the most cases. They are likely to consider bogus results for their own sites (both internal and external) more critical... that's not malice, that's just human nature. Even if they consciously work against that, they're more likely to notice problems there first.

    And search engine tweaking is more an art than a science. It's an evolutionary process, with feedback loops and strange attractors. So if there's any difference in the behaviour or design of Apache or IIS that would be visible to a search engine, it's likely to lead to a slight bias in favor of the server software that the servers they pay more attention to run.
  • IIS/Apache - No diff (Score:3, Interesting)

    by christoofar (451967) on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:02AM (#12348163)

    The only difference in the HTTP response is just that IIS adds headers and that IIS has that stupid HTTP Continue on handling SOAP via ASPNET.

    Just telnet to almost any Apache web server and type GET / and then to an IIS server and do the same thing. Look at the top. Almost all non-IIS web servers return no default headers.

    Microsoft.com:

    HTTP/1.1 200 OK
    Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:56:20 GMT
    Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
    P3P: CP="ALL IND DSP COR ADM CONo CUR CUSo IVAo IVDo PSA PSD TAI TELo OUR SAMo C
    NT COM INT NAV ONL PHY PRE PUR UNI"
    X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
    X-AspNet-Version: 1.1.4322
    Cache-Control: private
    Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
    Content-Length: 23027

    redhat.com

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0
    .... blah blah
    • by Lukey Boy (16717)
      Funny, I get this from Redhat:
      HTTP/1.1 200 OK
      Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:46:19 GMT
      Server: Apache
      Set-Cookie: Apache=206.116.84.10.2859511145303800; path=/; expires=Sun, 25-Apr-1
      0 15:46:19 GMT
      Cache-Control: max-age=21600
      Expires: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:46:19 GMT
      Last-Modified: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:38:11 GMT
      ETag: "fdd9d-37b1-4266d9d3"
      Accept-Ranges: bytes
      Content-Length: 14257
      Content-Type: text/html
    • by bedessen (411686)
      You are wrong, but not for the reason you think.

      When you telnet to port 80 and type "GET /" you are sending a HTTP 0.9 request. That was the first version of the protocol and is all but extinct. That version of the protocol had no such thing as headers, so if the server follows the HTTP 0.9 spec, you will never get any headers. Apparently IIS does not speak HTTP 0.9 very well.

      However, if you use a valid HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 request: "GET / HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: example.com\r\n\r\n" you will get all the headers.
  • Makes sense (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sloppy (14984) * on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @11:21AM (#12348348) Homepage Journal
    Think of it as "social proof" -- if a website occasionally becomes unresponsive every once in a while (perhaps due to a slashdotting), then it must be very popular, so it's probably the one you want.

    It's just coincidence that there happens to be a bias that makes IIS-hosted sites measure higher by this metric. ;-)

  • by meatball_mulligan (633993) * <r_mexico@comca s t .net> on Tuesday April 26, 2005 @02:35PM (#12350437)

    Try typing "online music".

    On Google the top two references are iTunes and iTMS. On MSN you'll have to go through a few pages before you'll see anything about iTunes.

    Yeah, I trust Microsoft to provide unbiased search results. Sure I do.

    m.m.

% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis

Working...