God knows, an ordinary bug wouldn't make a page "look bad". I take it you didn't look. That's why you don't know how different the pages were.
Ah, but you're going well beyond presumption. You've already convicted MS.
Oh, I would love for this to go to trial for a conviction because I know that's what they'd get. BTW, I suppose in your mind Saddam Hussein is absolutely innocent of torture, rape, murder and use of chemical weapons on his own people.
This is the same Google that considers search engine optimization bad -- but doesn't hesitate to give preference to its own ads.
Google tries to paint a true picture of what's on the web, so it tries to deny people with optimization knowledge better ranking despite the site's actual popularity. Google never sold search rankings and all ads are prominently labelled as ads.
Now if you want to go into what Microsoft has done, that's going to be a very, very long post.
Google tries to paint a true picture of what's on the web, so it tries to deny people with optimization knowledge better ranking despite the site's actual popularity. Google never sold search rankings and all ads are prominently labelled as ads
And guess what: The California Senate passed a measure recently to ban Google -- your model of "ethics" -- from threatening the privacy of users:
"The No. 1 Web search company's Gmail service, which will be supported by advertising and free for users when it launches for the public, is currently in beta testing.
Google had intended the service to scan e-mail for key words and concepts and use them to place targeted advertisements in personal messages."
Which just goes to show that you're a lamer hypocrite when it comes to your choice of targets: "Google Good, Microsoft Baaaaaaaaaaaad..."