Hiybbprqag!

[silverfox]

Google kicks Bing in the nuts.

Google has accused Microsoft of cheating, following an investigation known as the 'Bing Sting'.

Google engineers created 100 nonsensical queries such as "hiybbprqag" and inserted a fake result for each.

Within weeks, the same results began to appear on its rival Microsoft's Bing search engine.

Microsoft denies copying Google and accused Google of conducting "spy-novelesque stunts".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12343597

[FormLetter]

How did they "insert a fake result"?

[silverfox]

Google arranged for the nonsense word to point to a Los Angeles theater seating plan on its search engine

[Pseudolus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry

Fictitious entries, also known as fake entries, Mountweazels, and Nihilartikels, are deliberately incorrect entries or articles in reference works such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, maps and directories. Entries in reference works normally originate from a reliable external source, but no such source exists for a fictitious entry.
The neologism Mountweazel was coined by the magazine The New Yorker based on a fictitious entry for Lillian Virginia Mountweazel in the 1975 edition of the New Columbia Encyclopedia.[1] Another term, Nihilartikel, is of uncertain origin, combining the Latin word nihil, "nothing" with German Artikel, "article".[2] There is also the specific term trap street.

[Number7]

From the article:

"A search for 'hiybbprqug' on Bing returned a page about seating at a theatre in Los Angeles. As far as we know the only connection between the query and result is Google's result page," he said.

It looks like Google returned a result that had nothing to do with the fake word that was entered in. Then, the same made up word produced the same result on Bing.

[Defying Gravity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_(computing)

It's my understanding that they defined the results for a nonsense search to see if Bing would produce the same results.

[Pseudolus]

Hmm... taking copyrighted works that other have spent a lot of time and money putting together and re-purposing them en masse for their own profitable purposes? Good thing Google would never do anything like that.

[silverfox]

Originally Posted by Pseudolus

Hmm... taking copyrighted works that other have spent a lot of time and money putting together and re-purposing them en masse for their own profitable purposes? Good thing Google would never do anything like that.

The authors of those books stand to profit as well, but carry on.

[mlschop]

I remember reading about map makers used to add fake streets in their maps so they could easily see if they were being copied.

[mlschop]

Google's search results are publically available. It's not like MS has hacked Google and stolen their algorithm. If you were trying to take market share away from a #1 giant, wouldn't you use the public information they provide?

I chalk this up as a M$-hate story.