Microsoft Edge hardcodes an image search overlay bringing competitor adds to a ecommerce website near you

[ravenge]

Hi Tech Enthusiasts,

I encountered this issue today and felt compelled to find somewhere to discuss the topic and try to raise awareness so this is my first post on the forum.

Recently, I discovered that Microsoft Edge has a reasonably new feature called "Visual Search" which hard-codes in the browser (not website html) a button overlay that displays on images on your website. This button does the bing equivalent of "Google image search" and displays a sidebar with search results including shopping listings for visually similar items. It is now on by default and whilst individual users can opt to turn it off, as a website owner / developer you have no control over this element.

This appears to have been a feature since version 96 of edge but perhaps it wasn't so obvious until Microsoft added Sidebar recently in Version 107.

An example from lttstore.com:

Quotes

Quote

Rodrigo.Queiroz on answers.microsoft.com:
There isn't an option for the website owner to disable the visual search for Edge users, only for the users to disable it locally.

You can leave your suggestion to Microsoft on the Feedback Hub to add a string that allows the website owners to disable the Visual Search feature on their websites.On Edge can select the three dots on the top right corner > Help & Feedback > Send Feedback or open the Feedback Hub on the Start Menu or use the shortcut WinKey + F.

 

My thoughts

Personally I'm quite frustrated by the intrusion. As I'm responsible for a number of small business e-commerce sites this presents a number of problems and sets a bad precedent for browser companies to inject their own advertising into privately owned websites.  (They have also recently done this for the Chrome download website).

 

We invested heavily into creating approved designs and layouts for our various brands/sites and this is being modified by factors outside our control for users on Windows' default browser. 

 

Microsoft is essentially forcing competitor advertising into our websites. There is no recourse for me to remove the functionality, no analytics for what referral traffic I'm generating for other businesses and no reimbursement for paid ad clicks generated.

 

Interestingly enough, there appears to be hardcoded exclusions. For example the feature is disabled when image searching on google.com (presumably to avoid litigation) but you can trick the browser into showing the feature by proxying the google image search through the translate tool which goes to show it's just a domain whitelist.
 

This feels anti-competitive and I'm wondering if its even legal?

Is this what we can look forward to expecting from Microsoft / Bing / GPT results in the future? 

Quote

[satire/fiction]

user> Hey Bing, I'm looking for a backpack, I heard the ones from LTTstore.com are good? 

bing> Don't lie to me, the LTT backpack is not good. The best backpack is this one here for 59.99 with free shipping from competitorwebsite.com. 

user> Are you sure? I heard pretty good things about the functionality and durability of the LTT backpack

bing>  You are a thief and a liar and deserve to die.

Don't get me wrong, the user should always have the choice to do an image search (this has been a feature in chrome's right click context menu on images forever) but it should not be possible to inject/overlay/alter information on an otherwise privately owned website that hasn't opted into including the feature.

What if Google decided to use chrome to place adwords banner ads in your website to direct traffic to paid clicks but not giving you a cut of the action, any control over the types of ads shown or the ability to disable the feature?

As it stands there is no recourse for me to remove the functionality, I have no analytics for what referral traffic I'm generating for other businesses and I can receive no reimbursement for paid ad clicks generated.

 

I can't be the only one that thinks this should not be acceptable but I would love to welcome your thoughts/ideas/discussion.

Thanks!

 

Sources

https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftedge/forum/all/prevent-microsoft-edge-from-adding-visual-search/25d46445-4311-4edb-8c30-70902549f814

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/deployedge/microsoft-edge-relnote-archive-stable-channel#version-1070141824-october-27

https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-is-displaying-multiple-edge-ads-on-googles-chrome-download-page

Backpack – Linus Tech Tips Store (lttstore.com)

 

[thrasher_565]

who uses edge...

[ravenge]

2 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

who uses edge...

10-15% of desktop users worldwide and growing. Besides this, if Microsoft can get away with it, why wouldn't Google introduce the same behavior in chrome if its commercially beneficial?

 

We use edge in our work environment because it is simple to administer with 365 and microsoft endpoint manager and the authentication and synchronization between Microsoft apps is very convenient. 

In my personal life for better or worse, I would typically use chrome like most people.

[jagdtigger]

4 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

who uses edge...

The ones who used IE, who dont know any better they shouldnt, the r=1 users.

[Isuck Assimov]

Finally an easy way to find all the "small (and large) business e-commerce sites" that use our product photography illegaly :'D

Time for some IP lawsuits

[Isuck Assimov]

10 hours ago, ravenge said:

As it stands there is no recourse for me to remove the functionality, I have no analytics for what referral traffic I'm generating for other businesses and I can receive no reimbursement for paid ad clicks generated.

 

I can't be the only one that thinks this should not be acceptable but I would love to welcome your thoughts/ideas/discussion.

Thanks!

You can simply adjust your webserver to not show visitors any content when they visit your sites via a certain browser.

the HTTP_USER_AGENT header is not foolproof and can be changed by the user but it should allow you to block any EDGE user unless they try to circumvent that restriction (which wouldnt really benefit them so why would someone do that only to get additional ads on that site)

[Stahlmann]

8 hours ago, thrasher_565 said:

who uses edge...

I have a better question? Why use anything else? I unironically think it's the best and most feature rich browser around.

 

I don't really see the issue here. I think some people just think they're entitled that the out-of-box experience should mirror exactly what they need. I for one think more features is actually better. And i don't think it's too much to ask someone to go through all the settings of an app and configure it to your liking at least once after just installing it or starting to use it.

 

10 hours ago, ravenge said:

This feels anti-competitive and I'm wondering if its even legal?

You just described how this feature automatically searches for alternative products and shows these to the user. This is exactly the opposite of anti-competitive behavior. If you're trying to market your product in a vaccuum then what you're doing is anti-competitive.

 

10 hours ago, ravenge said:

Is this what we can look forward to expecting from Microsoft / Bing / GPT results in the future?

The future is now. You can already ask bing chat to straight up recommend products for your use case. Or if you ask it about a certain product, often it will also mention alternatives.

 

10 hours ago, ravenge said:

Don't get me wrong, the user should always have the choice to do an image search (this has been a feature in chrome's right click context menu on images forever) but it should not be possible to inject/overlay/alter information on an otherwise privately owned website that hasn't opted into including the feature.

Sorry to break this to you but that is how most of the internet works. Ever heard about ad blockers?

 

10 hours ago, ravenge said:

What if Google decided to use chrome to place adwords banner ads in your website to direct traffic to paid clicks but not giving you a cut of the action, any control over the types of ads shown or the ability to disable the feature?

As it stands there is no recourse for me to remove the functionality, I have no analytics for what referral traffic I'm generating for other businesses and I can receive no reimbursement for paid ad clicks generated.

 

I can't be the only one that thinks this should not be acceptable but I would love to welcome your thoughts/ideas/discussion.

So you're speculating about a malicious advertising system that google might or might not implement at some point in the future based on a shopping tool that can be completely disabled and basically just shows users alternative products? This really seems like a strech to me...

 

I really hope some day the "hate edge" meme will die down. Most Chrome users would probably be happier with Edge, but simply don't bother giving it a chance. They rather hate on current Edge because they know Edge was bad 5 years ago and IE was even worse before that.

[grg994]

11 hours ago, ravenge said:

There is no recourse for me to remove the functionality, no analytics for what referral traffic I'm generating for other businesses and no reimbursement for paid ad clicks generated

You probably don't even want to imagine what Brave (browser) tried to pull off with referral traffic a few years ago: https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1269313200127795201

And it was not any legal issues which led them to stop it but only the protest of their userbase.

 

But here I guess this this is an Edge feature which users do want. And the browser is running and rendering things on the users property (computer).

[Doobeedoo]

Hm I've had this for while.

[ravenge]

15 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

I don't really see the issue here. I think some people just think they're entitled that the out-of-box experience should mirror exactly what they need. I for one think more features is actually better. And i don't think it's too much to ask someone to go through all the settings of an app and configure it to your liking at least once after just installing it or starting to use it.

It's not about adding features its about retrospectively changing the appearance of websites by default and not providing an opt-out for web site owners. No issue whatsoever with the capability of reverse image search, or users choosing to download browser extensions, or enable optional functionality. On some of my images, there is already an interactive element or detail (eg magnifying glass) in the same place as the new Microsoft visual search button so I would have to put up with a janky double button or re-design that element to avoid conflict with the current version of this visual search button. In the past this practice has been associated with malware (does anyone remember browser search/toolbars) and is labelled browser hijacking but was usually done with dodgy 3rd party software, not the 1st party browser.

 

An extreme example would be: If I wanted to build a website about dogs but someone at Microsoft only likes cats, so the edge browser was programmed to block all pictures dogs on any website and insert a link to an alternative website about cats before showing it to the user. I think we could all agree that this shouldn't be allowed.

 

15 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

You just described how this feature automatically searches for alternative products and shows these to the user. This is exactly the opposite of anti-competitive behavior. If you're trying to market your product in a vaccuum then what you're doing is anti-competitive.

No it would be anti-competitive for a large corporation to highjack legitimate traffic and divert it toward their own revenue stream of paid advertising. At least this was the point I was trying to make with that comment.

 

 

15 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Sorry to break this to you but that is how most of the internet works. Ever heard about ad blockers?

This is not true, most of the internet does not have ads injected by a 3rd party without consent. Ads are usually placed by choice by the website owner as revenue source.

 

 

15 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

So you're speculating about a malicious advertising system that google might or might not implement at some point in the future based on a shopping tool that can be completely disabled and basically just shows users alternative products? This really seems like a strech to me...

Well I demonstrated that Edge has begun to do exactly that? There is no recourse for me to remove (or as you say completely disable) the functionality, I have no analytics for what referral traffic I'm generating for other businesses and I can receive no reimbursement for paid ad clicks generated. 

 

 

15 hours ago, Assimov said:

You can simply adjust your webserver to not show visitors any content when they visit your sites via a certain browser.

 

Its not really a useful solution for most to simply delete 5-15% of their revenue stream. 

 

I recognize as a consumer it might not be apparent, but advertising / marketing cost to put your product in front of a potential buyer online accounts for 30% or even up to 50% of the sell price of the product in some cases. (EG producing marketing material and paying Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc to present the product in relevant markets).  For some products we sell online, Google takes home more money than we do on the product sold, even though we invent, design, manufacture and distribute the product. (As a wholesaler, this is regularly the case when selling to bricks and mortar stores as well.)

With this in mind hopefully you can consider how damaging it may be for a company like Microsoft or Google to take advantage of that effort and double-dip by placing competitor advertising in-situ to generate more clicks in their pay per click advertising space.

 

[Arika]

???

 

 

[Stahlmann]

8 hours ago, ravenge said:

An extreme example would be: If I wanted to build a website about dogs but someone at Microsoft only likes cats, so the edge browser was programmed to block all pictures dogs on any website and insert a link to an alternative website about cats before showing it to the user. I think we could all agree that this shouldn't be allowed.

 

No it would be anti-competitive for a large corporation to highjack legitimate traffic and divert it toward their own revenue stream of paid advertising. At least this was the point I was trying to make with that comment.

No one is hijacking anything. No one is targeting specific products or things and is deliberately steering anyone in a particular direction. You're basically just thinking of the most horrible way a feature like this can be used and use that train of thought to convince everyone it's bad but you completely disregard the benefits this feature brings to the consumers.

 

8 hours ago, ravenge said:

This is not true, most of the internet does not have ads injected by a 3rd party without consent. Ads are usually placed by choice by the website owner as revenue source.

And they can be removed by the browser and / or an adblock extension without the website owner's consent.

 

8 hours ago, ravenge said:

Well I demonstrated that Edge has begun to do exactly that? There is no recourse for me to remove (or as you say completely disable) the functionality, I have no analytics for what referral traffic I'm generating for other businesses and I can receive no reimbursement for paid ad clicks generated. 

What about this shopping popup is paid advertisements? It's just the bing search engine looking up similar products. You're speculating on how Google might do something like that but with paid ads. But this shopping tool doesn't serve paid product promotions. It just saves the end-user time in looking up alternatives and doing a quick check that they're not getting ripped off.

 

8 hours ago, ravenge said:

Its not really a useful solution for most to simply delete 5-15% of their revenue stream. 

 

I recognize as a consumer it might not be apparent, but advertising / marketing cost to put your product in front of a potential buyer online accounts for 30% or even up to 50% of the sell price of the product in some cases. (EG producing marketing material and paying Meta, Google, Microsoft, Amazon etc to present the product in relevant markets).  For some products we sell online, Google takes home more money than we do on the product sold, even though we invent, design, manufacture and distribute the product. (As a wholesaler, this is regularly the case when selling to bricks and mortar stores as well.)

If you're complaining from a business point of view, you're talking to the wrong crowd. This forum consists of enthusiasts who mostly care about what's good for the consumer, not what's good for the marketing or sales teams.

 

8 hours ago, ravenge said:

With this in mind hopefully you can consider how damaging it may be for a company like Microsoft or Google to take advantage of that effort and double-dip by placing competitor advertising in-situ to generate more clicks in their pay per click advertising space.

I personally care about the consumer side of things first and foremost. And for consumers this tool can be very useful. And if it's annoying, users can turn it off. People have used extensions like Honey for years, which do the same or similar things. Why is it a problem now? Because the clickthrough revenue is going to Microsoft instead of Honey? How does that make a difference to you?

[ChuckFeed]

you have absolutely no right to complain about any changes made in proprietary software, since you neither own nor control it.

if you have a problem with that, consider ditching proprietary software, or writing your own proprietary software.

the only way you can be in control is if the software you use is free, or made by yourself.

richard stallman would be sad if he saw this (or perhaps happy because proprietary software is getting more unusable which makes people move over to free software)

[GoodBytes]

Not news. This has been there since over a year ago. Visual search is pretty handy to find similar pictures online. It can be disabled from settings.

 

Click bait title, as well, are not allowed in the Tech News Section.

 

--- Thread moved to Program, Apps, and Website ---

[ravenge]

12 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

Not news. This has been there since over a year ago. Visual search is pretty handy to find similar pictures online. It can be disabled from settings.

 

Click bait title, as well, are not allowed in the Tech News Section.

 

--- Thread moved to Program, Apps, and Website ---

October isn't over a year but I take your point.

 

I don't disagree that visual search could be useful I just disagree that browsers should be allowed to visually alter content of websites to inserting their own advertising unless the user opts in. And that's what's happening here!

[GoodBytes]

16 minutes ago, ravenge said:

October isn't over a year but I take your point.

 

I don't disagree that visual search could be useful I just disagree that browsers should be allowed to visually alter content of websites to inserting their own advertising unless the user opts in. And that's what's happening here!

Feb 2022. And no, it's not advertising. It does the same as downloading the picture you clicked, and drag and drop it into Bing. Just, without having to download the image, and well a single click.

 

If it's not enabled by default, no one will know.