• Bert (unregistered)

    RE rate limiting, I'd rather be locked out for the rest of the day than for the rest of the month.

  • Anon (unregistered)

    Best bit ever!!

  • Anon (unregistered)

    Since when is 5,000 a much higher number than 3,000?

  • Robert Morson (google) in reply to Anon

    It's 66% larger. That sounds like a lot to me.

  • derp (unregistered)

    Soo, someone didn't test locally and foisted a smutbot upon unsuspecting corporate chat users? One could do worse, I guess...

  • The Mole (unregistered)

    And rather than fixing the simple bug they decided to start again?

  • The Mole (unregistered)

    And rather than fixing the simple bug they decided to start again?

  • Kuli (unregistered) in reply to Anon

    5,000 is much higher than 3,000 in this case since you can still use resources from less heavily used days. For instance, if on weekends days nobody's gonna search, you'll have more than 200 open searches for every remaining week day. In reality, you'll get a daily limit of a multiple of 100.

  • davesol (unregistered) in reply to The Mole

    That's what i was wondering - isn't that TRWTF?

  • D-Coder (unregistered)

    Bang bang Bing!

  • Guest (unregistered) in reply to davesol

    Especially after finding the bug. Apparently it's easier to start over instead of add the missing 'n'.

  • Howard Richards (google) in reply to Guest

    Especially after finding the bug. Apparently it's easier to start over instead of add the missing 'n'.

    My thoughts exactly. Perhaps Suzie needs to rethink her career choice.

  • Jim B (unregistered)

    bada bing, bada boom

  • David Green (unregistered)

    Bing's content filtering is awful. At a previous job (school system), we had to block Bing outright because of its inability to effectively filter content.

  • Suzie (unregistered) in reply to Howard Richards

    Suzie here, I rebuilt it for Google because Bing's filtering appeared nonexistent. I didn't explicitly disable adult content filtering, the adult content filtering just sucks. :)

  • RichP (unregistered)

    Hmm, I think fakeyrat used to use a similar system.

  • EmptyJay (unregistered) in reply to D-Coder

    My reading of that exactly!

  • CrazyEyes (unregistered)

    Suzie is correct. The last time I used Bing (accidentally, when my browser was not set up to use Google as the default engine when I typed queries into the address bar) I tried to install WinRAR. I'm aware that it's silly to do that when 7zip exists, but this was a while ago and this illustrates how bad Bing's content filtering is quite perfectly. If I searched "winrar" in Google, the first result was rarlabs.com, the development team that makes WinRAR, as you would expect. If I searched it in Bing, the first results were all fake malware sites which were falsely promoted to fool users -- I had to scroll down to find the RARLabs website.

  • Am I high or are you? (unregistered)

    BING'S CONTENT FILTERING IS AAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

    "... ... Back in the day......." oh. It was bad back in the day. I'm old enough to remember Google being lousy at that too. That was before it was evil.

    Well, I just went to Bing (safe search on moderate, the default) and searched "Bing". First hit, Bing. All the other hits on the page, Bing related. No pornstar.

    Searched "winrar". First hit, RARLab. Hits all RAR download-centric, featuring some of the bigger file hosts (feh, but eh).

    Take off the Larry Page Roman Soldier Helmet once in awhile and look around. You might see something new.

  • Sole Purpose of VIsit (unregistered) in reply to CrazyEyes

    That's not actually "content filtering," that's "content ranking."

    (Full disclosure -- ex-employee of Bing.)

    Generally speaking, the "magic sauce" that goes into one web search engine is pretty much the "magic sauce" that goes into another one. There are definitely exceptions to this: for example, if I want to search for John Oliver videos, I search -- on Google -- for "youtube john oliver." Doesn't work too well on Bing, for some reason.

    I do, however, suspect that a lot of the "Google does no harm, Bing is the instrument of Bill 'Satan' Gates" is the product of confirmation bias.

  • Mr. Punchline (unregistered)

    All I think after reading that is "Budda boom budda Bing!"

  • Sole Purpose of VIsit (unregistered)

    On a completely unrelated note, btw, it's a fact that "content filtering" for naughty NSFW stuff is a real pain for every single search engine out there.

    Why?

    Well, let's imagine that a search for "Larry Page" comes up with five unexceptionable results, including the inevitable Wikipedia page, above the fold, and one rather dodgy link involving Russian prostitutes. (This is not at all unlikely in the general case. Over here in the UK, the Daily Star used to retain a prostitute who had changed her name to "Mary Whitehouse" just to embarrass a well-known anti-porn crusader.) Now, here's the thing.

    As Google, you cannot take that link down. (Well, there are legal channels, but they take forever.) You are not allowed human intervention, because of course that is not what a benign search engine would do. Therefore (sans legal efforts, as above), all you can do is to re-weight the signals used by your ML algorithms. (Which theoretically helps everybody else in the same position as Larry or Mary.)

    This is not a thought experiment. It actually happened to a very senior manager at Microsoft whilst I worked at Bing, and it was left to stand.

    Content filtering is a very tricky business, and believe me, every single major search engine out there pours sweat and blood into getting it right.

  • Suzie (unregistered) in reply to Sole Purpose of VIsit

    I'm just gonna throw this out there, if your search Engine doesn't filter pornhub, you didn't try hard enough.

  • Sole Purpose of VIsit (unregistered) in reply to Suzie

    Well thrown.

    Now give us a three to seven word search (this being the typically parametized length), and let's all check the relevant search engines.

  • Klimax (unregistered)

    I don't think I have ever seen porn or malicious links in Bing's search. Especially no pornhub and I had quite few terms that would likely include it.

    Note: Moderate filtering aka default.

  • Sole Purpose of VIsit (unregistered)

    I feel also obliged to admit that, every time I try one of those Google vs Bing "best of five query-responses" things, I come up with Google beating Bing by 3-2.

    Google has the edge. But that's a far cry from the weirdo anti-Bing attitude that almost everybody I know has.

  • Sole Purpose of VIsit (unregistered)

    On what I hope is a more entertaining note, Microsoft was the only company I have ever worked for that require me to sign a legal form which (paraphrased) instructed me to "search out any and all porn that you feel is relevant to your work." I imagine this is common across search engines. And, for the record, Russian porn is about five times more prevalent than any other sort of porn, search engine wise.

    Now, back to the OP. Suzie should never be allowed near software again. Her implementation was, as the OP repeatedly implies, dreadful. Her eventual solution was questionable.

    And anybody who unleashes an amateurish chat-bot hack without at least a field-test of, say, five or ten queries -- in this case, one or two would probably have shown up the flaw -- is TRWTF.

  • ScrapingInfinity (unregistered)

    Remember when Microsoft put out the campaign "Bing and Decide"? So I tried searching for "Expression Blend" in both search engines. Google came back with hits about the developer tool. Bing came back with biscuit mix recipes.

  • NotMyTempo (unregistered)

    An engineer at a firm I used to work for went searching the internet for the Unix manual page for the "bar" command. The search for "man bar" produced a pretty fair amount of NSFW results.

  • Slack-Cutter (unregistered) in reply to Sole Purpose of VIsit

    Cut Suzie some slack, no one got hurt and we got an entertaining story out of a spelling mistake. Apart from the spelling mistake, I don't see anything wrong.

    I was expecting the story to go along the lines of some big-boss pointing to his computer:

    "Look! Look! Someone is hacking my machine! I was in the middle of explaining how !! ANGRY I was when someone hacked my account and started uploading my messages to the internet. It's doing it again!"

  • TheCommoner282 (unregistered)

    Shouldn't something like that happen every time someone uses it and therefore would have been discovered on the first test or did they really make the change on productivity and didn't test their implementation? If so, that is the real fail.

  • Spammmm (unregistered)

    Someone needs to implement some sort of spam filtering in here...

  • Quite (unregistered)

    Sounds like someone's been watching The Bing Bang Theory.

  • Ex-lurker (unregistered) in reply to Spammmm

    Didn't you read the article's title? The spammer just wanted to make a demonstration that not every bot is naughty in that sense. He's apparently very mindful of bots' reputation.

  • Horatio (unregistered)

    I wouldn't classify any anti-Bing attitude as 'weird'. You want one search engine, with reliable results. Google is reliable. Bing is not reliable. It's not being weird to consistently use the best search engine in existence, and the standard anti-Bing attitude comes from Bing consistently not be the best search engine, but still being subject to Microsoft's fetish for collecting your information (that's why DuckDuckGo has popularity, because it actually offers a reason to use it).

  • Dan (unregistered) in reply to NotMyTempo

    Or when a friend of mine wanted miniature drawer pulls, so he searched for "tiny knob".

  • WTF (unregistered)

    Reminds me of when I set up an image search add-on for our company hubot and for some crazy reason didn't turn safesearch on. I tried it out myself once and declared it fit for the rest of the company to try. Of course the first try brings back some risqué lingerie that happened to have the same name as one of the other employees, and I quickly learned how to turn on safesearch for the image api.

  • (nodebb)

    So many payday ads????

  • Nes (unregistered) in reply to Sole Purpose of VIsit

    I want to point out, that I searched winrar on bing just now.... and the top result was some random weird untrustworthy site... the SECOND one was rarlab. Then there were about fifty other shady sites >.>

  • Cyber (unregistered)

    Just use DuckDuckGo!

  • Super Genius (unregistered) in reply to Sole Purpose of VIsit

    How about only show NSFW/porn results if the query has "porn" or "nsfw" in it?

  • Axel (unregistered) in reply to Cyber

    Tried DuckDuckGo. Didn't like it. Simple Google searches often give you the info you need in the preview; I don't even have to click a link. DuckDuckGo searches just spat out a bunch of previews that said, "click here to learn about [search string]." Then half the time they didn't even have what I needed. After days of frustration, I went back to Google.

Leave a comment on “A Naughty Bot”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article