 
While Google’s own search neutrality has been under question for a   while, no-one has accused them of taking the easy way out (of anything).   Now, after the rather incontrovertible evidence that Google’s sting   operation has uncovered about Bing’s search practices, we are   hard-pressed to think Microsoft is doing otherwise.
The search for evidence of “search result theft” began in December,   2010, months after Google first noticed some suspicious behaviour with   Bing’s results in May of 2010. The search team realized Microsoft's Bing   was picking up Google's results when it showed a top-ranked result for   an obscure query that was identical to Google's. While Google’s search   auto-suggested the corrected search query “tarsorrhaphy” for the   commonly misspelled query ‘tarsoraphy’, Microsoft’s Bing showed the   corrected result as the top ranked one, without any query correction   evident in its other results.
Caught in the act     
             |  
 Tarsorrhaphy on Google |  
 delhipublicschool40 chdjob on Google | 
             |  
 Tarsorrhaphy on Bing |   
 delhipublicschool40 chdjob on Bing | 
 
The Bing Sting operation quite literally planted  search-candy Google  calls “honeypot” for Bing’s snooping eyes, and then  caught them staring.  Google manually assigned results to obscure or  near-random search  queries that didn’t previously offer results, and  then asked a bunch of  its engineers to search for these unique queries  using Internet Explorer  8 with the Bing Toolbar installed. And lo, Bing  displayed the same  search results for the same queries.
After SearchEngineLand’s Danny Sullivan 
revealed   the findings of Google’s ‘Bing Sting’ operation – detailed with   screenshots – Microsoft’s Stefan Weitz, the director of Bing, issued the   following statement to those who asked:
"We use multiple signals and approaches in ranking search  results.  The overarching goal is to do a better job determining the  intent of  the search so we can provide the most relevant answer to a  given query.  Opt-in programs like the toolbar help us with clickstream  data, one of  many input signals we and other search engines use to help  rank sites."
ZDNet wanted to know more, and Microsoft obliged them with a dismissive retort:
"We do not copy Google's results." 
This  denial might have been exactly what Google was waiting for  before  officially stepping in to the fray, for a short while later,  Google’s  foremost search doctors, Amit Singhal, posted this evidence on  Google’s  Official Blog, in a 
post   that was unblinkingly titled: “Microsoft’s Bing uses Google search   results—and denies it”.  The post directly accused Microsoft of snooping   into Google’s search results, using “some combination” of IE8 and Bing   Toolbar, or “possibly some other means” to take Google search results   from users’ computers.
Microsoft’s Harry Schrum questioned the timing of this entire affair on the 
Bing blog,   finding it conspicuously preceding the Farsight Summit for search   quality. His lengthy blog post defended Bing’s search practices in a   similar manner to Stefan Weitz reply, claiming Bing uses “over 1,000   different signals and features in our ranking algorithm. A small piece   of that is clickstream data we get from some of our customers, who   opt-in to sharing anonymous data as they navigate the web in order to   help us improve the experience for all users.”
Schrum went on to call the Bing Sting a “spy-novelesque stunt” that only   generated “extreme outliers in tail query ranking”, referring to the   creation of honeypot search results for result-less search queries.
So, “opt-in programs” like the Bing toolbar help Microsoft to “learn   from [their] collective customers”, and Schrum’s advice elaborates “we   all should.” It’s for perhaps this reason he found the entire Bing Sting   a “back-handed compliment”, probably referring to Bing’s efficacy of   picking up Google’s search results, oops, anonymous user data.
Google’s stance on the issue remains lofty however, with no  compliments  in sight, calling Bing “a cheap imitation” of Google, and  asking “for  this practice to stop.”
“We look forward to competing with genuinely new search algorithms   out there—algorithms built on core innovation, and not on recycled   search results from a competitor.”