| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 37 ( 1  ) || |
|Interview with Bill Gates about Google|
"Google is our main competitor"
| 1:47 am on Oct 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yahoo News article [news.yahoo.com]
|On his first-ever trip to Israel, Gates praised Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israel's contributions to the global high-tech market. In interviews with Israeli TV and newspapers, he also answered questions about Microsoft's fierce competition with Mountain View, California-based Google. |
"We are not afraid of Google, but there is intense competition between us. Google is our main competitor, brilliant people work there, but Internet search engines are still in a terrible state compared to where they could be," Gates was quoted as saying in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot.
[edited by: rogerd at 5:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
[edit reason] fix link [/edit]
| 6:03 am on Oct 30, 2005 (gmt 0)|
This is clearly about opinion rather than real facts.
I remember a not-that-scientific test made on common searches.
You take 50-100 basic search terms, then query MSN, GG and Yahoo, then do a human review for all websites shown on the first SERP for each engine and rate from 1 to 10 relevancies.
fact is the 3 engines are similarly relevant (or not relevant) on the average - period.
MSN's algo is very close to Google’s and Yahoo just does not have the technologic background to keep it up so they rely on human review....which is not anymore organic search in my opinion.
My site does better on Google but I find MSN usually as relevant as Google.
They both have their weaknesses but saying that MSN is a catastrophe compared to Google is just untrue, not facts.(Talking about dot com, I dunno about .de, .co.uk)
Not only I find MSN very close to Google, but at least they do not play the update game with ranking fluctuations such as Google does - because that my friends is called Marketing, they know they have more traffic and people make money out of their engine, so Google takes advantage of it and do anything they can to entertain the average webmaster for weeks or months - so they keep on talking about Google here, Google there.
The only problem with MSN is the low traffic - Yes that is a problem - However it may depend on the industry.
A position of #1 on MSN will likely bring more traffic than a #8 on Google.
To give you an example of one of my friends marketing manager in a very competitive industry (they get 120,000 unique per month): Their position of #2 on MSN is providing more traffic that their position of #5 on google for the same keyword. At the same time they are ranked #6 on Yahoo for the same ultra competitive term and there they get less traffic than both Google and MSN separately.
I'm trying to throw 2 cents...but with facts, not that I like MS ... I think Google craves for ultra dominance and money as well - No good guys only businessmen and share olders.
| 7:27 pm on Nov 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I just look forward to MSN's Longhorn project. Sure MSN's results are not IMHO anywhere near as close as Googles. If I can spam MSN using White Hat and get great results in 2 weeks whilst being left in the sandbox for Google (unless using more agressive techniques... ahem), then MSN still needs a lot catching up to do as far as I'm concerned.
I think Bill has got some way to go, however I think he will definitely get there and I sincerely hope he does, as we need to see a more competitive search arena. I also think that a more competitive search environment will mean that there will be less focus on SEO, Google and more focus on search engine marketing doing the reputation of webmasters and professional online marketers a world of good.
| 10:03 am on Nov 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think google's search results are rubbish - in addition to them being very slow to index new sites.
MSN was rubbish a couple of years ago, but things have changed.
I am in the UK and I wanted to send free MMS (multimedia) messages to a mates mobile phone.
I went to google, I entered "free mms" as the search term - #1 a news article from 2002, #2 some company selling some mms service, #3 a forum, #4 a site that claimed free mms in the text but was just an affiliate site.. and on and on.
I went to msn - #1 a site that let me send free mms.
I've seen the same with other subjects - google keeps giving me pages *about* and textually *related* to the thing i want - but never actually the thing itself. Which perversely is what MSN used to do.
| 8:08 pm on Nov 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Do you have a small site with thick content pages - eg 50-100 pages with perhaps 500+ words on each page - I would imagine MSN might be good for you. "
Yes, that fits my profile and I do well on MSN.
People love to say that MSN gives useless results etc.
From where I am looking it seems that Google has all the problems and not MSN. Duplicate bugs, Canonical bugs and of course "the sandbox"
These are not small issues and they are affecting thousands (probably millions) of webs.
IMO, these really are desperate problems that google has now and are aparently making little progress in this area.
These bugs alone are causing more havoc in the Google SEPRS than for example the spammers are in MSN!
| 12:54 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
" I am sure 30 years ago Bill gates said we would never need more than 512k RAM? "
It was 12K not 512K.
| 2:23 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Actually it was 640KB. This was the addressing range of the original PC (1024KB less areas set aside for bios, video, etc.)
| 4:23 pm on Nov 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Anyway, if the search traffic was more evenly distributed webmasters wouldn't get hurt so bad by updates and algo tweaks. |
Exactly we need a 33.3% split between the main players .. my european site where yahoo is weak has went down like a stone with Dagger while my english site was only midly affected due to a stronger yahoo presence.
| This 37 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 37 ( 1  ) |