7227194
story
Comments: 333 +- Your Rights Online: Bing Cashback Can Cost You Money on Monday November 23, @11:38PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbusiness.gif); width:64px; height:54px;
business
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoney.gif); width:84px; height:74px;
money
paltemalte writes "Microsoft and various retailers have teamed up to bring you cashback on purchases made via Bing's price comparison feature. There is a little snag, though — it seems that when you have a Bing cookie living in your browser, some retailers will quote you a higher price than if you come with no Bing cookie in your system."
Related Stories
leverage, n.:
Even if someone doesn't care what the world thinks
about them, they always hope their mother doesn't find out.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Hehe (Score:5, Funny)
Deal with MS, get screwed.
Nothing to see here, move on....
Re:Hehe (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
It is? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is slightly more userfriendlier(ish) than Google.
How is that even possible? Google is a plain white web page with a text box and a logo.
Parent
Re:It is? (Score:5, Insightful)
After the search is where it gets better. The results pages on Bing are way better, and have even caused a stir at Google.
In what way? During the brief period I tried Bing, I was thoroughly unimpressed.
Giving me relevant results is the ONLY thing I care about with a search engine. Bing didn't do as well as Google - end of story. If it had done as well as Google, I still wouldn't have cared - it'd have to provide better results for me to even care.
Parent
Re:It is? (Score:4, Informative)
When I tried bing, it not only didn't give me relevant results, but it stuck me with ads as the first several links - without disclosing the fact that they were ads. It tricked me, and I clicked on one. That is reprehensible behavior, and not the kind of thing I'd expect from a large multinational corporation. I equate that kind of behavior with shady porn sites and the like.
I might add, Google isn't half as good as it was years ago - tech info has become increasingly difficult to find, and any qualifiers (+, -, quotation marks) don't seem to work as well at finding the results as they used to, either. I'd love to use their old search algorithms; that's what made them popular in the first place. They were, in all likelihood, search routines for geeks, by geeks. Only in recent years have they become more "user centric", making geeky things less relevant.
Parent
Re:It is? (Score:4, Informative)
Set your UA to googlebot. Unless the site author has done something really tricky, you see the full page.
Parent
Re:It is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Me too, but they can learn if they want to. And competition can only be good for the search engine market,
Presumably, competition is usually good.
assuming it happens on a decent level.
Ah, sorry, that's where your theory fails.
Parent
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
After the search is where it gets better. The results pages on Bing are way better, and have even caused a stir at Google.
In what way does it get better? I tried Bing a few times, and its results on many test queries were roughly equal to Google's. On some queries, Google was definitely better than Bing. In no case was Bing better than Google. I just compared Bing & Google again with two simple searches to see if there was any substance to your claim, and there was not. Google still has the edge.
The first search was: tilt-integral-derivative. The two engines gave quite similar results for such a clear unambiguous and uncommon term. This implies they are spidering with similar coverage.
The second search was: colonel shakespeare -william. Google's results were clearly more relevant. This implies that Bing's ranking algorithm is still not as good as Google's. Try it with other searches where the search terms are quite common and one occurs overwhelmingly in an unwanted context. Bing borks them.
Parent
Front-end for Wolfram Alpha. (Score:5, Informative)
After the search is where it gets better.
Not really. After re-branding Live Search as "Bing", to leave the baggage associated with the old name, they also struck a deal so that Bing is a front-end for Wolfram Alpha [techcrunch.com] plus whatever Live Search might have had. So to get those results unmodified, you don't have to go through M$ filter, you can go straight to Wolfram Alpha [wolframalpha.com] skipping the middle man. Not difficult.
There are even meta-search engines that can cross-search both Google and Wolfram Alpha for you. For Firefox there is the Goofram [mozilla.org] add-on which lets you search both at the same time. If you're on Opera, Safari or Chromium, there are also search customization options there, too.
Parent
Re:It is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rule of thumb:
All great things are simple, but not every simple thing is great.
Parent
Re:It is? (Score:5, Funny)
He could explain to you why you are wrong, but unfortunately, /. won't let him post his .ppt explaining it.
Parent
Re:Hehe (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually IE was "The Internet".
Bing is OK. I've tested it sometimes and gave me good results, sometimes better than Google. Google is too targeted by SEOs, for examples when searching for reviews one has to skip over a few results to find the meat. There is actually a service called Give my Google back which filters those SEOed sites.
Parent
Re:Hehe (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
"Is this legal" is the wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
The right one is "Will people finding out cost more than lawsuits if it isn't legal". If the answer is yes, don't do it, if no then go on ahead.
Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
The right one is "Will people finding out cost more than lawsuits if it isn't legal". If the answer is yes, don't do it, if no then go on ahead.
Since when is simple price discrimination illegal?
It isn't like the website is charging you more based on any legally recognized actionable causes.
Parent
Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question (Score:5, Funny)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because anyone using Bing cashback at this point is obviously mentally handicapped.
Oh-oh ... incoming chair ... BING!
Parent
Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, what's illegal is deceptive business practices.
They claim to be offering a cash back if you utilize Bing, which implies a discount, where in fact, they are charging a higher price upfront to Bing users and creating a deceptive impression that the cash back is providing a discount of their normal price.
Parent
Re:"Is this legal" is the wrong question (Score:4, Interesting)
This is microsoft we're talking about, I don't think any non-physical action is even CAPABLE of hurting them at this point. They've just got too much money to harm by anything short of either a standard oil style breakup of the company.
Parent
Good luck with that (Score:4, Insightful)
The US Department of Justice can't even successfully hit them with an antitrust suit. Microsoft settled, and then laughed off the settlement. Or else we'd have those APIs at the very least, wouldn't we? [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Instead of complaining, game the system. (Score:5, Insightful)
Find out what sites go higher and what sites go lower in quoted prices. Fake a cookie to maximize savings or delete it altogether if it gets you a uniformly higher price.
That's the behavior I'd expect from /. . None of this Newsweek / Dateline NBC alarmist "They're using COMPUTER MACHINES to scam us!!!" Get on it, people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Instead of complaining, game the system. (Score:4, Insightful)
There! He knows that clearing his cookies solves the problem. Why all this bullshit about being tainted for three months and being afraid to use their service to write a bloody blog post? Does he think the "oh noes teh bing cookeez" are going to trash his blog and kill his hamster too?
He knows, but most people have no idea what cookies are, much less how to "clear" them. So, after reading the article, now you know how most people are getting screwed by some vendors claiming they are getting the customers a discount going through Bing when in fact it could be costing them money.
Also, now that you know, and if you would consider getting Bing cashback at some point in the future, you'd be likely to check if the vendor was charging you more just because you arrived from Bing.
Does everything have to be spelled out for you?
Parent
Disclaimer: TFA author works for a bing competitor (Score:5, Informative)
I read the article; the author works for Bountii which also directs users to places to shop for things. What the article describes is one retailer specifically inflating prices of things when a user comes from Bing. That same retailer could just as easily do the same for links from the author's own site, Bountii. They even go as far to state "At Bountii, we do our best to make sure we always show the lowest available price at a store." It just seems a bit disingenuous to me I guess.
So 'ButterflyPhoto.com' is slime; thanks, got it.
Slimy Bountii (Score:5, Interesting)
And to top it off, he's a competitor. Pretty slimy.
Parent
Re:Disclaimer: TFA author works for a bing competi (Score:5, Informative)
Not surprised, camera shops are one of those things that are commonly operated by scammers. Camera scammers tend to give you a low price for the camera, but try to make you pay extra for the battery that was already included. Sometimes they sell units with no domestic warranty (gray market), and sometimes they won't sell you the camera unless you buy extra warranties or extra accessories. If you refuse to buy the things, they might just not sell it to you. Or just take your money and run.
Check this shop's ratings at resellerratings.com: http://www.resellerratings.com/store/ButterFly_Photo [resellerratings.com]
Parent
Credit Cards? (Score:4, Informative)
Sounds like the hidden credit card tax. Everything you buy is a few cents extra to cover credit card costs. Then you get "rewards" for using your card. Meanwhile everyone else gets 'gypped' 2 cents. Yes, it is different, but still similar.
Re:Credit Cards? (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention the hidden "parking lot" tax. Just as it costs retailers money to take credit cards, it costs them money to have parking space. They fraudulently present this as "free parking" when in fact the cost is hidden in the price of the goods.
Then, drivers think they're getting "free" parking when they aren't, and non-drivers such as myself who have never once used a parking space are 'gypped' untold amounts of money.
And don't even get me started on those leeches who use the so called "free" shopping carts...
Parent
Re:Credit Cards? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Reminds me of Amazon (Score:5, Informative)
I remember a long time ago about a story where Amazon charged more to its returning customers than new ones through a cookie like that.
Anyone has remembers this as well?
Re:Reminds me of Amazon (Score:4, Informative)
That wasn't exactly it, Amazon was testing different price points for items and set a cookie to make sure once your price point was set it remained. However some people noticed if they cleared their cookies they would get a lower price sometimes. The people who got a higher price didn't really have much to say about it. In the end everyone got charged the lowest price even if they thought they were paying the higher price.
Parent
Re:Reminds me of Amazon (Score:4, Informative)
I never heard of that. Besides, why would Amazon need to rely on a browser's cookie to identify returning customers when Amazon requires customers to have an account with them and be logged in before purchases are made?
Because if simply logging in or out changed the prices, you'd know right away something was amiss. If it was cookie-driven, then it would not rely on you having to login and Amazon could always show you the inflated price regardless of your login status.
Parent
Re:Reminds me of Amazon (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Come on, it's obviously the store that's shady (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with Microsoft. From the article: Butterfly Photo set a three month cookie on my computer to indicate that I came from Bing.
So, a disreputable web site is setting a cookie when you click on a sales link. How is this Microsoft's fault again? What does this have to do with Bing?
A/V and photography stores are notorious for ripping off customers, both in-store and on-line. Surprise surprise, you can find these disreputable sites using search engines. Trying to blame this on Bing is like trying to blame your phone book for recommending a sketchy car mechanic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They aren't even suppressing this article! They suppressed a previous article where he meticulously detailed a flaw in the cashback system without giving MS a chance to fix it.
This whole thing is ridiculous and nothing but anti-Microsoft / anti-Bing bashing.
The first thing that came to mind... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The first thing that came to mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
No surprise ... price variations based on cookies (Score:5, Interesting)
No surprise ... price variations based on cookies ... is old news. I remember reading about how cookies resident on the user's machine can cause different quoted prices to appear years ago ... probably five years ago at least. I was able to test it at the time using two browsers with different cookie loads. It's definitely happening. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure it was a /. story years ago that first mentioned it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"When you go to Dell and click through as a home user vs a small business, the prices are different for the same machine!"
Yeah, and my residential phone line costs $25.00/month while my business line costs $120.00/month. There is no discernible difference in service level between the two.
WTF Verizon?
soo... (Score:5, Funny)
Did anyone else notice the story submitter's alias links to a sex toy shopping site?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did anyone else notice the story submitter's alias links to a sex toy shopping site?
If that's what makes him happy.
Maybe he doesn't know that all subby links are tagged rel="nofollow"
Re:soo... (Score:5, Funny)
Nice catch. Most interesting.
You deserve a cookie.
Parent
Name change required, and all will be fine (Score:4, Funny)
My top suggestions are:
Badda-BING
and
Kerr-Ching
Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers? (Score:3, Interesting)
I just had occasion to visit a Microsoft developer's website earlier today. Very rare event, believe me.
After browsing, I always clear out my cookies.
I went nowhere near the Bing "decision engine." But lo and behold, there was a cookie for "bing.com" in my cookie cache before I cleared it.
So, is Microsoft inflating Bing's numbers? Visit any Microsoft site, and you get a Bing cookie counted as a search on Bing? What gives?
Re:Is Microsoft Inflating Bing's Numbers? (Score:5, Interesting)
MSDN's search is powered by bing. So... no surprise?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically it's that old "I'm taking 10% off"? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's for the fake transactions exploit. (Score:5, Informative)
You went to all that trouble to transcribe the PDF without reading the summaries noting that it had to do something else entirely? The takedown letter was for explaining a mechanism to post fake transactions to Bing Cashback [db.org], which could reasonably be described as telling people how to exploit Bing for money.
This is completely separate from telling people that merchants charge Bing customers more.
Parent
Re:Transcribed PDF from Microsoft Legal (Score:5, Informative)
I’ve never bought anything using Bing Cashback, but the balance of my account is $2080.06. Apparently, I placed two $1 orders on January 24th of this year, and spent another $104,000 on October 24th. Let’s see how these transactions might have “accidentally” got credited to my account.
First, we need to try to figure out how transactions get into Bing Cashback. Microsoft posted some documentation here. The explanation of how a merchant reports transactions to Bing starts on page 20. Merchants have a few options for reporting, but Bing suggests using a tracking pixel. Basically, the merchant adds a tracking pixel to their order confirmation page, which will report the the transaction details back to Bing. The request for the tracking pixel looks something like this:
https://ssl.search.live.com/cashback/pixel/index?
jftid=0&jfoid=<orderid>&jfmid=<merchantid>
&m[0]=<itemid>&p[0]=<price>&q[0]=<quantity>
This implementation, while easy for the merchant, has an obvious flaw. Anyone can simulate the tracking pixel requests, and post fake transactions to Bing. I’m not going to explain exactly how to generate the fake requests so that they actually post, but it’s not complicated. Bing doesn’t seem to be able to detect these fake transactions, at least not right away. The six cents I earned in January have “cleared,” and I’m guessing the remaining $2080 will clear on schedule, unless there is some manual intervention.
Even if Bing detects these fake transactions at some point in the future, the current implementation might have another interesting side effect. I haven’t done enough work to say it with confidence, but a malicious user might be able to block another user’s legitimate purchases from being reported correctly by Bing (I only tried this once, but it seemed to work). Posting a transaction to Bing requires sending them an order ID in the request. Bing performs a reasonable sanity check on the order ID, and will not post a transaction that repeats a previously reported order ID. When a store uses predictable order ID’s (e.g. sequential), a malicious user can “use up” all the future order ID’s, and cause legitimate transactions to be ignored. Reporting would be effectively down for days, causing a customer service nightmare for both Bing and the merchant.
Based on what I’ve found, I wouldn’t implement Bing Cashback if I were a merchant. And, as an end user and bargain hunter, it does not seem smart to rely on Bing Cashback for savings. In our next blog post, I’ll demonstrate some other subtle but important reasons to avoid using Bing Cashback.
Parent
Re:Doesn't work for me (Score:4, Insightful)
Same here, I get the lower price with or without cookies. Seeing as the article was written by a Bing competitor it's a way for them to get exposure.
* Step 1: Write article saying M$ is evil /.
* Step 2: Submit story to
* Step 3: Profit!
Doesn't matter if it's true or not
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Could MS be liable in a class action lawsuit if it explicitly offered or otherwise encouraged this practice? This story could have teeth.
What makes you think that MS encourages a practice that makes prices LESS appealing using its search engine?
I'm more inclined to believe the official statement that it was a mistake (i.e. item went on sale at some point but got updated wrong in the Bing index).
Maybe the shop was truly giving an higher price but that's a totally absurd practice. I would have understood if they had given a price that with the 2% cashback was the same than without (the price appears the same to the costumer and the shop cashe