Comments on: The New & Improved Microsoft Shuffle http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=new-microsoft-shuffle Thinking the unthinkable, pondering the imponderable, effing the ineffable and scruting the inscrutable Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:20:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-13331 Rob Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:04:05 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-13331 @mistacko, Wow, that was a mess. It looks like that got scrambled somewhere along the way. I suspect the syntax highlighter plugin. I updated the snippet so it correctly shows what Microsoft used, and what I tested. Thanks! -Rob @mistacko, Wow, that was a mess. It looks like that got scrambled somewhere along the way. I suspect the syntax highlighter plugin. I updated the snippet so it correctly shows what Microsoft used, and what I tested.

Thanks!

-Rob

]]> By: mistaecko http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-13310 mistaecko Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:15:45 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-13310 Well it's more than a year after the browserchoice 'incident' and I may point out that the copy of the algorithm in your blog post has the var names mixed up (see 'c') :D Well it’s more than a year after the browserchoice ‘incident’ and I may point out that the copy of the algorithm in your blog post has the var names mixed up (see ‘c’) :D

]]> By: Plaats hier software gerelateerd nieuws! - Page 20 http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3284 Plaats hier software gerelateerd nieuws! - Page 20 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:36:54 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3284 [...] Unie verplichte keuzescherm altijd Microsoft's browser als eerste laat zien. Willekeur Weir ontdekte begin maart al dat het door Microsoft gebruikte algoritme allesbehalve willekeurig was, maar in het [...] [...] Unie verplichte keuzescherm altijd Microsoft's browser als eerste laat zien. Willekeur Weir ontdekte begin maart al dat het door Microsoft gebruikte algoritme allesbehalve willekeurig was, maar in het [...]

]]> By: hm http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3281 hm Tue, 20 Apr 2010 03:44:21 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3281 I wonder why MS is allowed to control the ballot screen, shouldn't it be ran by someone else, EU itself perhaps? I wonder why MS is allowed to control the ballot screen, shouldn’t it be ran by someone else, EU itself perhaps?

]]> By: Yet Another Browser Choice Fail http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3272 Yet Another Browser Choice Fail Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:35:50 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3272 [...] Microsoft’s “browser choice” ballot page in Europe, which in its debut used a flawed algorithm when attempting to perform a “random shuffle” of the browser choices, a feature [...] [...] Microsoft’s “browser choice” ballot page in Europe, which in its debut used a flawed algorithm when attempting to perform a “random shuffle” of the browser choices, a feature [...]

]]> By: fred bloggs http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3224 fred bloggs Mon, 15 Mar 2010 10:25:46 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3224 Each party fetches the script separately from Microsoft. There are a couple of opportunities for bias in this situation: 1. What is stopping a man-in-the-middle attack from altering the ballot script? 2. It's impossible to be sure that every single instance of the script served to clients is the same. The script could be varied based on knowledge of the geography of the requestor (mined from the IP number), or perhaps just alter a small percentage of the scripts that are served to introduce a bias. I'd be astonished if Microsoft was practicing Item 2 (because of the risk to their reputation if caught, relative to the small potential for benefit), but thought I'd mention it anyway as part of trying to explore the entire infrastructure, looking for points at which fraud could be practiced. -- recherche Each party fetches the script separately from Microsoft. There are a couple of opportunities for bias in this situation:

1. What is stopping a man-in-the-middle attack from altering the ballot script?

2. It’s impossible to be sure that every single instance of the script served to clients is the same. The script could be varied based on knowledge of the geography of the requestor (mined from the IP number), or perhaps just alter a small percentage of the scripts that are served to introduce a bias.

I’d be astonished if Microsoft was practicing Item 2 (because of the risk to their reputation if caught, relative to the small potential for benefit), but thought I’d mention it anyway as part of trying to explore the entire infrastructure, looking for points at which fraud could be practiced.

– recherche

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3218 Rob Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:51:22 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3218 @Noam, I think we should put to bed the idea that Microsoft's original random shuffle algorithm is acceptable in any browser. It may work better in some than others, or with some sort algorithm than others, but I have yet to see it actually produce reasonably random results. In the case of the browser ballot case I tested only the simplest quality of the outcomes, namely whether each browser occurred equally often in each position. I tested whether the positions were uniformly distributed. That is a necessary condition of a good random shuffle -- and in the case of the browser ballot might be all that is needed -- but it is not a sufficient condition for a good general purpose random shuffle. What you want in the general case is that all possible combinations are equally likely. Otherwise, I could just treat the array as a circular array and rotate it in order: 01234, 12340, 23410, 34012, 40123, and have perfectly uniform distribution of positions with only 5 different unique permutations. Now that might be fine for a browser ballot, but imagine the trouble if you did a random shuffle of a card deck that way! (In other words, take the top card and place it at the bottom of the deck and call it good enough.) What you really want is for all of the N! (in our case 120) different permutations to have an equal chance of occurring. So uniform distribution of all possible orderings of the array. I did a quick test of 1,000,000 iterations, looking at how often each of the 120 orderings occurred, and it is clear that the Microsoft shuffle is not doing a good job, even in Chrome. I also added a column for the Fisher-Yates shuffle on Internet Explorer, for comparison. Combination IE Firefox Chrome Fisher-Yates 01234 508 66200 15645 8467 01243 3327 3939 15654 8356 01324 3449 33188 15651 8232 01342 22644 1869 15710 8306 01423 1946 7636 15501 8359 01432 2938 3900 15712 8326 02134 701 32996 7890 8301 02143 5665 1982 7818 8303 02314 5556 16625 7759 8247 02341 11109 956 7797 8367 02413 788 3876 7924 8384 02431 1457 1940 7881 8202 03124 1956 16483 15696 8235 03142 18477 995 15663 8414 03214 3383 8478 7676 8460 03241 6876 474 7761 8192 03412 9648 1970 15485 8321 03421 3888 995 7776 8403 04123 3394 15433 7705 8356 04132 2871 7713 7798 8197 04213 488 7702 3789 8371 04231 949 3912 3915 8447 04312 13749 3946 7910 8336 04321 6783 1944 3993 8289 10234 497 66488 15657 8328 10243 3346 3905 15633 8310 10324 3548 33155 15510 8366 10342 22446 1947 15520 8171 10423 1878 7621 15552 8385 10432 2943 3903 15798 8509 12034 717 33495 7800 8247 12043 4623 1960 7827 8337 12304 3287 16637 7864 8317 12340 44916 968 7829 8317 12403 2468 3857 7949 8401 12430 5604 1907 7873 8366 13024 2424 16611 15612 8389 13042 13596 996 15752 8406 13204 1976 8260 7916 8441 13240 27321 470 7781 8439 13402 7779 1887 15457 8165 13420 15609 948 7864 8310 14023 2441 15738 7762 8351 14032 1998 7638 7827 8329 14203 1958 7999 3917 8401 14230 3854 3927 3762 8254 14302 13617 3839 7547 8239 14320 27391 1953 3887 8270 20134 750 33267 7806 8429 20143 5689 2030 7679 8240 20314 5648 16630 7859 8344 20341 11326 994 7872 8386 20413 728 3818 7781 8255 20431 1458 1929 7975 8365 21034 720 33345 7806 8232 21043 4715 1896 7738 8360 21304 3418 16677 7863 8236 21340 45101 983 7846 8465 21403 2430 3894 7710 8120 21430 5914 1967 7877 8273 23014 4679 8338 7696 8263 23041 9371 501 7838 8330 23104 2426 8377 7913 8332 23140 37102 464 7894 8315 23401 4836 965 7850 8401 23410 19535 931 7777 8175 24013 713 7913 3892 8106 24031 1497 3891 3874 8472 24103 3384 8018 3862 8331 24130 5829 3947 3894 8514 24301 6880 1938 4001 8463 24310 27276 1948 4074 8383 30124 2004 16620 15642 8217 30142 18677 977 15598 8083 30214 3409 8358 7822 8484 30241 7066 487 7882 8412 30412 9888 1924 15554 8238 30421 3924 987 7724 8273 31024 2429 16573 15690 8225 31042 13381 1010 15565 8413 31204 2066 8257 7725 8382 31240 27326 513 7806 8301 31402 7912 1999 15530 8359 31420 15493 1067 7975 8409 32014 4612 8302 7814 8412 32041 9434 508 7766 8342 32104 2400 8345 7730 8362 32140 37043 466 7875 8406 32401 4919 1002 7743 8353 32410 19341 987 7630 8426 34012 7749 3950 7889 8307 34021 4780 1985 3947 8292 34102 9866 3945 7862 8393 34120 19658 1908 3816 8351 34201 3860 1991 3761 8220 34210 15367 1916 3946 8448 40123 3478 31351 7719 8296 40132 2800 15675 8029 8380 40213 478 15780 4021 8320 40231 1006 7823 3892 8350 40312 13676 7915 7800 8344 40321 6850 3928 3945 8413 41023 2449 31019 7730 8224 41032 2025 15620 7736 8401 41203 1901 15444 3865 8446 41230 3924 7959 3838 8383 41302 13743 7858 7737 8417 41320 27417 3871 3949 8293 42013 688 15562 3971 8336 42031 1446 7942 3912 8209 42103 3548 15564 3778 8311 42130 5895 7807 3913 8385 42301 6815 3881 4015 8187 42310 27509 3838 3981 8328 43012 7716 7808 7751 8389 43021 4906 3952 3890 8369 43102 9640 7779 7900 8249 43120 19477 3865 3940 8360 43201 3931 3886 3966 8309 43210 15746 3754 3928 8362 And it doesn't end there. There are other tests you might want to apply, a whole battery of them, to fully test a random shuffle algorithm. The browser ballot case only required (IMHO) the simplest quality -- uniform distribution of browser positions. Other uses might require additional qualities, including lack of correlation across shuffles. (Otherwise I could just repeat the same 120 permutations in order, over and over again.) Because of that I would always recommend to use a tried-and-true algorithm like Fisher-Yates over something that "seems to work" but has not been rigorously characterized. @Noam, I think we should put to bed the idea that Microsoft’s original random shuffle algorithm is acceptable in any browser. It may work better in some than others, or with some sort algorithm than others, but I have yet to see it actually produce reasonably random results.

In the case of the browser ballot case I tested only the simplest quality of the outcomes, namely whether each browser occurred equally often in each position. I tested whether the positions were uniformly distributed.

That is a necessary condition of a good random shuffle — and in the case of the browser ballot might be all that is needed — but it is not a sufficient condition for a good general purpose random shuffle. What you want in the general case is that all possible combinations are equally likely. Otherwise, I could just treat the array as a circular array and rotate it in order: 01234, 12340, 23410, 34012, 40123, and have perfectly uniform distribution of positions with only 5 different unique permutations. Now that might be fine for a browser ballot, but imagine the trouble if you did a random shuffle of a card deck that way! (In other words, take the top card and place it at the bottom of the deck and call it good enough.)

What you really want is for all of the N! (in our case 120) different permutations to have an equal chance of occurring. So uniform distribution of all possible orderings of the array.

I did a quick test of 1,000,000 iterations, looking at how often each of the 120 orderings occurred, and it is clear that the Microsoft shuffle is not doing a good job, even in Chrome. I also added a column for the Fisher-Yates shuffle on Internet Explorer, for comparison.

Combination IE Firefox Chrome Fisher-Yates
01234 508 66200 15645 8467
01243 3327 3939 15654 8356
01324 3449 33188 15651 8232
01342 22644 1869 15710 8306
01423 1946 7636 15501 8359
01432 2938 3900 15712 8326
02134 701 32996 7890 8301
02143 5665 1982 7818 8303
02314 5556 16625 7759 8247
02341 11109 956 7797 8367
02413 788 3876 7924 8384
02431 1457 1940 7881 8202
03124 1956 16483 15696 8235
03142 18477 995 15663 8414
03214 3383 8478 7676 8460
03241 6876 474 7761 8192
03412 9648 1970 15485 8321
03421 3888 995 7776 8403
04123 3394 15433 7705 8356
04132 2871 7713 7798 8197
04213 488 7702 3789 8371
04231 949 3912 3915 8447
04312 13749 3946 7910 8336
04321 6783 1944 3993 8289
10234 497 66488 15657 8328
10243 3346 3905 15633 8310
10324 3548 33155 15510 8366
10342 22446 1947 15520 8171
10423 1878 7621 15552 8385
10432 2943 3903 15798 8509
12034 717 33495 7800 8247
12043 4623 1960 7827 8337
12304 3287 16637 7864 8317
12340 44916 968 7829 8317
12403 2468 3857 7949 8401
12430 5604 1907 7873 8366
13024 2424 16611 15612 8389
13042 13596 996 15752 8406
13204 1976 8260 7916 8441
13240 27321 470 7781 8439
13402 7779 1887 15457 8165
13420 15609 948 7864 8310
14023 2441 15738 7762 8351
14032 1998 7638 7827 8329
14203 1958 7999 3917 8401
14230 3854 3927 3762 8254
14302 13617 3839 7547 8239
14320 27391 1953 3887 8270
20134 750 33267 7806 8429
20143 5689 2030 7679 8240
20314 5648 16630 7859 8344
20341 11326 994 7872 8386
20413 728 3818 7781 8255
20431 1458 1929 7975 8365
21034 720 33345 7806 8232
21043 4715 1896 7738 8360
21304 3418 16677 7863 8236
21340 45101 983 7846 8465
21403 2430 3894 7710 8120
21430 5914 1967 7877 8273
23014 4679 8338 7696 8263
23041 9371 501 7838 8330
23104 2426 8377 7913 8332
23140 37102 464 7894 8315
23401 4836 965 7850 8401
23410 19535 931 7777 8175
24013 713 7913 3892 8106
24031 1497 3891 3874 8472
24103 3384 8018 3862 8331
24130 5829 3947 3894 8514
24301 6880 1938 4001 8463
24310 27276 1948 4074 8383
30124 2004 16620 15642 8217
30142 18677 977 15598 8083
30214 3409 8358 7822 8484
30241 7066 487 7882 8412
30412 9888 1924 15554 8238
30421 3924 987 7724 8273
31024 2429 16573 15690 8225
31042 13381 1010 15565 8413
31204 2066 8257 7725 8382
31240 27326 513 7806 8301
31402 7912 1999 15530 8359
31420 15493 1067 7975 8409
32014 4612 8302 7814 8412
32041 9434 508 7766 8342
32104 2400 8345 7730 8362
32140 37043 466 7875 8406
32401 4919 1002 7743 8353
32410 19341 987 7630 8426
34012 7749 3950 7889 8307
34021 4780 1985 3947 8292
34102 9866 3945 7862 8393
34120 19658 1908 3816 8351
34201 3860 1991 3761 8220
34210 15367 1916 3946 8448
40123 3478 31351 7719 8296
40132 2800 15675 8029 8380
40213 478 15780 4021 8320
40231 1006 7823 3892 8350
40312 13676 7915 7800 8344
40321 6850 3928 3945 8413
41023 2449 31019 7730 8224
41032 2025 15620 7736 8401
41203 1901 15444 3865 8446
41230 3924 7959 3838 8383
41302 13743 7858 7737 8417
41320 27417 3871 3949 8293
42013 688 15562 3971 8336
42031 1446 7942 3912 8209
42103 3548 15564 3778 8311
42130 5895 7807 3913 8385
42301 6815 3881 4015 8187
42310 27509 3838 3981 8328
43012 7716 7808 7751 8389
43021 4906 3952 3890 8369
43102 9640 7779 7900 8249
43120 19477 3865 3940 8360
43201 3931 3886 3966 8309
43210 15746 3754 3928 8362

And it doesn’t end there. There are other tests you might want to apply, a whole battery of them, to fully test a random shuffle algorithm. The browser ballot case only required (IMHO) the simplest quality — uniform distribution of browser positions. Other uses might require additional qualities, including lack of correlation across shuffles. (Otherwise I could just repeat the same 120 permutations in order, over and over again.) Because of that I would always recommend to use a tried-and-true algorithm like Fisher-Yates over something that “seems to work” but has not been rigorously characterized.

]]> By: Information Technology LeaderThat wasn’t supposed to happen: IE usage share steady since choice screen http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3217 Information Technology LeaderThat wasn’t supposed to happen: IE usage share steady since choice screen Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:00:24 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3217 [...] As Weir posted on Saturday, Microsoft’s revised code is now about as fair as it gets, with each of the top five browsers getting 20% placement, plus or minus only a few thousandths of a point. As a suggestion for the future, Weir pointed out the irony of searching for proper programming methodologies using, ironically, Google Search. [...] [...] As Weir posted on Saturday, Microsoft’s revised code is now about as fair as it gets, with each of the top five browsers getting 20% placement, plus or minus only a few thousandths of a point. As a suggestion for the future, Weir pointed out the irony of searching for proper programming methodologies using, ironically, Google Search. [...]

]]> By: Conectados en Red » Blog Archive » Microsoft corrige sistema de selección de navegadores para usuarios europeos de Windows 7. http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3216 Conectados en Red » Blog Archive » Microsoft corrige sistema de selección de navegadores para usuarios europeos de Windows 7. Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:29:05 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3216 [...] El pasado fin de semana, Rob Weir detectó que el código javascript usado para la selección de navegador había sido actualizado. Después de probarlo dijo sentirse finalmente satisfecho. [...] [...] El pasado fin de semana, Rob Weir detectó que el código javascript usado para la selección de navegador había sido actualizado. Después de probarlo dijo sentirse finalmente satisfecho. [...]

]]> By: Did Microsoft's 'Browser Ballot" break because of Copy'n'Paste code? | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3214 Did Microsoft's 'Browser Ballot" break because of Copy'n'Paste code? | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:29:32 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3214 [...] on its own that’s nothing special. But what’s interesting is that Rob Weir spotted that if you do a search for “Javascript random sort” on Google (or Bing for [...] [...] on its own that’s nothing special. But what’s interesting is that Rob Weir spotted that if you do a search for “Javascript random sort” on Google (or Bing for [...]

]]> By: Microsoft поменяла алгоритм перемешивания в Windows-окне выбора браузеров | Николай Муляр http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3210 Microsoft поменяла алгоритм перемешивания в Windows-окне выбора браузеров | Николай Муляр Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:39:53 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3210 [...] алгоритм, как утверждает все тот же Роб Меир, равномерно распределяет шансы [...] [...] алгоритм, как утверждает все тот же Роб Меир, равномерно распределяет шансы [...]

]]> By: Jose_X http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3209 Jose_X Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:32:35 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3209 Noam Gal, if you mean that the old 0.5-rand() algorithm appears to have a more even distribution from the trials (is this what you mean?), it could be because the quicksort routine does produce an even distribution for it. It would not be unusual that Chrome would use quicksort (although other algorithms could also exhibit this property). This observation was covered in a number of comments in the first article. There was even a link to someone that ran a bunch of trials with the old algorithm on various standard sorts, and you can clearly see that quicksort has an even distribution (the others did not). Noam Gal, if you mean that the old 0.5-rand() algorithm appears to have a more even distribution from the trials (is this what you mean?), it could be because the quicksort routine does produce an even distribution for it. It would not be unusual that Chrome would use quicksort (although other algorithms could also exhibit this property). This observation was covered in a number of comments in the first article. There was even a link to someone that ran a bunch of trials with the old algorithm on various standard sorts, and you can clearly see that quicksort has an even distribution (the others did not).

]]> By: Noam Gal http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3206 Noam Gal Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:57:22 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3206 Strange - running both of your tests in Chrome yielded a much more even results. I haven't checked their p-value, but even with the 50/10000, most table cells are between 180 and 230. I wonder how Chrome manages to run the "wrong" algorithm in a somewhat more random way. Strange – running both of your tests in Chrome yielded a much more even results. I haven’t checked their p-value, but even with the 50/10000, most table cells are between 180 and 230. I wonder how Chrome manages to run the “wrong” algorithm in a somewhat more random way.

]]> By: Microsoft changes EU browser ballot shuffling | Cell-Systems http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3204 Microsoft changes EU browser ballot shuffling | Cell-Systems Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:27:35 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3204 [...] Weir noticed the improved algorithm last Saturday. “Sometime last week — I don’t know the exact date — Microsoft updated the code for the browser choice website with a new random shuffle algorithm,” Weir said in an entry on his personal blog. [...] [...] Weir noticed the improved algorithm last Saturday. “Sometime last week — I don’t know the exact date — Microsoft updated the code for the browser choice website with a new random shuffle algorithm,” Weir said in an entry on his personal blog. [...]

]]> By: Microsoft Loses Impact in the Web Despite Unfair Ballot Placements | Boycott Novell http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3202 Microsoft Loses Impact in the Web Despite Unfair Ballot Placements | Boycott Novell Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:22:04 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3202 [...] that Microsoft’s browser ballot was rigged (either intentionally or not [1, 2, 3]), has more to say on the subject: First, I’d like to thanks those who commented on that post, or sent me notes, offering [...] [...] that Microsoft’s browser ballot was rigged (either intentionally or not [1, 2, 3]), has more to say on the subject: First, I’d like to thanks those who commented on that post, or sent me notes, offering [...]

]]> By: Browser-Auswahl: Neuer Algorithmus sorgt für gerechte Verteilung bei der Programmanzeige im Windowsblog | Am Puls der Microsoft Betriebssysteme http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3201 Browser-Auswahl: Neuer Algorithmus sorgt für gerechte Verteilung bei der Programmanzeige im Windowsblog | Am Puls der Microsoft Betriebssysteme Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:05:37 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3201 [...] einem neuen Blogbeitrag bestätigt auch Rob Weir die Aktualisierung und teilt mit, dass es bereits vor einigen Tagen [...] [...] einem neuen Blogbeitrag bestätigt auch Rob Weir die Aktualisierung und teilt mit, dass es bereits vor einigen Tagen [...]

]]> By: Microsoft makes changes to its EU browser ballot screen « JCXP.info - The Ultimate Windows Information Site http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3200 Microsoft makes changes to its EU browser ballot screen « JCXP.info - The Ultimate Windows Information Site Tue, 09 Mar 2010 06:53:18 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3200 [...] Chrome. He also claimed that Opera was given an edge over Firefox. After the recent change, he made a blog post acknowledging that he saw the [...] [...] Chrome. He also claimed that Opera was given an edge over Firefox. After the recent change, he made a blog post acknowledging that he saw the [...]

]]> By: EU browser ballot screen “fixed” | Browser Watch http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3199 EU browser ballot screen “fixed” | Browser Watch Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:07:13 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3199 [...] updated the code for the browser choice website with a new random shuffle algorithm” Weir wrote on his [...] [...] updated the code for the browser choice website with a new random shuffle algorithm” Weir wrote on his [...]

]]> By: Rob http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3198 Rob Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:58:10 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3198 Hmmm... maybe knowledge of algorithms is more widespread than I realized. See, for example, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4RRi_ntQc8 Hmmm… maybe knowledge of algorithms is more widespread than I realized. See, for example, this:

]]> By: Oops! Microsoft browser ballot not random ! http://www.robweir.com/blog/2010/03/new-microsoft-shuffle.html#comment-3197 Oops! Microsoft browser ballot not random ! Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:37:43 +0000 http://www.robweir.com/blog/?p=813#comment-3197 [...] but they fixed it... The New & Improved Microsoft Shuffle [...] [...] but they fixed it… The New & Improved Microsoft Shuffle [...]

]]>