On the Official Google Blog, the tech company has accused Microsoft’s Bing search engine of stealing its search results from Google. Other sites reproduce search engine results all the time, though it’s probably bad form if not illegal to reproduce them without credit whatsoever. Of interest in all this is the way Google caught the miscreants: with made-up words.
The engineers at Google created about 100 made-up words and phrases that real users were unlikely ever to come up with on their own, such as hiybbprqag. They then caused Google to return one or two particular, recognizable results for each query, such as a seating chart for a theater in Los Angeles for the above word. Using computers with fresh installations of Windows, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8 browser, and the Bing Toolbar, they searched for the false words and phrases on Google and on Bing. After a few weeks, the exact results from Google started showing up on Bing. These words were not on the resultant pages themselves; the only pages on the entire Internet linking to these pages would have been those Google search results.
Google’s operative theory is that Microsoft uses the Bing toolbar or something else to monitor what users are searching for, even on other search engines such as Google.
This high-tech method of catching copycats has some decidedly low-tech precedents. Dictionaries, encyclopedias and even maps have a long tradition of fictitious entries, both for the lexicographers’ amusement and to provide evidence in case of copying. In 2005, it was leaked that the latest edition of the New Oxford American Dictionary had a false entry somewhere in the E’s. After quite a bit of detective work by a number of amateurs, the New Yorker reported that it had been discovered to be esquivalience.
esquivalience—n. the willful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities . . . late 19th cent.: perhaps from French esquiver, “dodge, slink away.
After publication of the dictionary, the website dictionary.com fell for it, publishing the definition and citing Webster’s¹ New Millennium dictionary. (It’s not still up, sadly.) Such a fake entry, following the usage of the New Yorker article, has been termed a Mountweazel, after another such entry in the 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia.
So it seems that Bing’s esquivalience made hiybbprqag a Mountweazel.
Link (Google blog)
Link (New Yorker article)
Extra credit (Wikipedia entry for Fictitious entry)
1. It may interest you to note that “Webster’s” is not trademarked for dictionary names. Any old fool can call his dictionary that, and many do. Don’t ever start a speech with “Webster’s defines compassion as…” — you will look ignorant and hackneyed.