MSN Search Engine Favors IIS 565
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."
FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
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 foolish... (Score:5, Insightful)
I laugh at Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google makes money by prioritising quality. Microsoft makes money by prioritising money.
Go figure.
Re:Silly, silly boys (and girls) (Score:5, Insightful)
wow (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Absolutely (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why would i want to do that? (Score:1, Insightful)
They're not suggesting you should. They're saying the rankings in MSN search are affected. And guess what - millions of people use MSN search. Therefore, it will have a significant economic impact.
2. Why would i want to install IIS, when i have a better alternative Mac OS X?
Because you're a business that wants to maximize your profit-making potential. Most places with web sites care about income flow. If you don't have such pages, then don't worry about it.
Re:FTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
-matthew
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I laugh at Microsoft. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:FTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe... "ya know, I think we ought to favor IIS because IIS is our product"?
Re:it's foolish... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IIS imperial domination (Score:5, Insightful)
Banned from where and by whom?
MSN search can do whatever they like. I don't know anybody who actually uses it. Even non-tech oriented people that use IE (against recommendations) set their startup page to something else. Google, mostly, but also "My Yahoo" and their webmail or portal of preference.
Re:FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
"Conspiracy" (Score:1, Insightful)
conspiracies require more than one party
So you're saying that "government conspiracy" should actually be "government policy"? Interesting.
You don't need to assume malice. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I laugh at Microsoft. (Score:2, Insightful)
Amazing how quickly people seem to forget though, and how nobody actually learns from history, even recent history. Microsoft can (illegally) crush any competitor they like by simply tying a product very heavily to Windows, and search engines are no exception. Yet people here think Google is somehow immune to this because they care about quality. When a monopoly in one market is illegally abused to force domination in another market, quality doesn't even enter into the equation. What a naive view. MS have already set their sights on Google; they're dead in the water. And nobody here even seems to know what "antitrust", "product tying", "Sherman act" etc. mean anymore - terms that everyone seemed to know about during the antitrust trial regarding Netscape.
Do we see a significant effect? Is it just chance? (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:"Conspiracy" (Score:2, Insightful)
The IRS is not conspiring to get all your money. It is just company policy.
Re:FTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
News? (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you THINK about TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Six Sigma Geek Says: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silly, silly boys (and girls) (Score:4, Insightful)
selection effect (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:"Conspiracy" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nobody uses MSN. This is a perfect example of w (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IE bias too (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing more pathetic than M.S. doing this kind of thing is the "news media" acting surprised over it.
Re:IE bias too (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
IIS is already irrelevant. (Score:2, Insightful)
In major countries like Germany, IIS is already down to around 3% of the server market [securityspace.com]. Even world wide, most people have the sense to run Apache [netcraft.com]. You can look at the percentages, but every time an IIS farm is rolled out, shortly thereafter, they wise up and drop it for Apache or any other product actually suited for being connected to the network.
Frankly, I'm not sure why this article even made it to Slashdot. Is slashdot or OSDN participating in this year's marketing tsunami [com.com] by doing product placement ads? Please let's go a week without MS articles, there's enough shilling going on in the discussion without them.
Re:Conspiracies of one (Score:3, Insightful)
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 practice, and we know there has never been any suggestion that MS had any issues with those types of descriminator practices. Pattern of behaivour comes to mind.
Re:FTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if you are a "decision maker" who uses MSN Search, you'll see IIS everywhere. It will influence your opinion: you'll think it is more ubiquitous than it is.
Re:Just have your Apache report that it is IIS ! (Score:3, Insightful)
if (UA == MSN_SPIDER) THEN
REPORT JUST LIKE IIS
ELSE
REPORT DEFAULT SERVER GREETING
Re:FTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I laugh at Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
Investors aren't stupid either, they see the trend that people trust Google and they're putting their money on it.
Re:why would u use MSN to search ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A possible explanation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Silly, silly boys (and girls) (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that's true, but do you think their spider is checking the TCP stack on every connection. It's probably just looking at the header the server sends like the grandparent stated. Why look at anything else, until of course everyone hacks their Apache servers to say they are IIS...
Re:FTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, I'm sure that's what they want. So suddenly on Netcraft, it looks like IIS is gaining huge numbers at the expense of Apache.
"See - webmasters are taking advantage of our superior blah, foo, and duh."
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I laugh at Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just have your Apache report that it is IIS ! (Score:3, Insightful)
Increasing marketshare statistics increases your marketshare further. What could be nicer that having your competitors fudge the numbers in your favor at the beginning to give you a head start?
This is why I'm against browser user-agent spoofing as well. UAs are like votes. Stand up, be counted, and leave your UA alone so that the stats work in YOUR favor, and not against you.
Re:IE bias too (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice concise description of the Internet!
Re:Gee... (Score:3, Insightful)
You are forgetting a couple of things. While your arguments are indeed valid, MS will continue to exist due to their insulation from the Karmic Wheel by HUGE PILES OF CASH. So, even if everyone said "fuck MS, I will not give them another dime, I'm moving to Linux" MS will dump a small portion of their HUGE PILE of cash into something that will generate revenue. Even if they did nothing viable, it would take a long time time to deplete their cash stash. I believe they would even make a MS/Linux before we saw their demise. If MS got into the linux game, I believe it *could* hurt many of the distros out now. Could you imagine a linux kernel wrapped in ms proprietary bs? Then they would have most of the advantages of linux [aside from being open] and the advantages of windows [manufacturer support]. Yeah, it would hurt at first [kinda like a skinned knee] but they could get right back into the game. They may be taked down a few pegs, but you are NOT going see MS die anytime soon.
Now I'm convinced it's nothing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A possible explanation (Score:3, Insightful)