| 9:49 pm on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>Our goal is to release the product within a year.
...sigh... I was so hoping for an October 2004 release date.
| 9:50 pm on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Hopefully no one will complain if we make it better for Internet users and a little worse for SEO’s :)"
That would be great, because I even had dreams about what keyword domains I was ordering.
msndude, one problem here clearly is the tiny index. You've been crawling like mad, and that should truly be an awesome asset for you. A fairly complete, fresh database is a necessity to compete. But one explanation for why these results are so godawful can be found in you not having anywhere close to adequate judgement of linking.
Totally worthless one or two page banner farms rank better than established domains with thosands of pages because the banner farm has the keyword in the domain, while the established site gets no benefit from 99% of its pages because they aren't in the index... no links to see, no content to weigh in a global sense, no way to judge authoritative internal links, and on and on.
This is like skimming the surface... some cream rises, but so does the scum.
| 9:52 pm on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The one year comment is heartening. And, this preview becomes more of a bold initiative rather than a humiliation (regardless of what the truth is... :)
Hopefully by July 2005 this will be ready for prime time. (It wasn't ready for 4am last night.)
| 9:58 pm on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I was hoping for an earlier release date too - I just need something to compete with Google.
Ink/Yahoo is more of a joke IMO than what MSN have launched today (Keeping in mind that this is a test version.)
| 10:32 pm on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Bill Gates: "It'll be later this year that we actually roll out what's entirely our own back end driving the search".
From this ZDNet article [zdnet.com.au] dated June 28th, just three days ago.
| 11:06 pm on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
A search engine needs to serve up relevant and consistent results in order to be useful, this may do with further development but at the moment it sucks, I can't express how bad the results are but IMHO its the badest thing I've seen for years and I don't mean that in a nice way.
I've spotted a few 'this is great posts' and have to question why? There's nothing good about the results being shown at the moment.
On a positive note I do think its good that MSN have come out of the closet and started to make some progress and I hope that they take the comments posted in this thread, go away and come up with something good.
added: all the talk about having keywords in the domain is carp, from researching my neck of the woods it isn't a factor.
| 11:27 pm on Jul 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Hopefully no one will complain if we make it better for Internet users and a little worse for SEO’s :) |
Sorry, I have to complain a little bit. ;)
I hate to say it because I really dislike Microsoft you guys are doing great on most of the searches I did and if you keep that up you may get an other person searching MSN, me, but I did see some problems like to many listing from one site (You should only allow one listing from a site in the top 30 to 45 results) and some spamming sites that use hidden text.
For the results I did like you guys were right on the money and it was better than other search engines like Google or Yahoo.
| 12:04 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
At this point that local searches, those that include a city name, are the best I've seen.
| 12:14 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Plenty of fresh content.
| 12:45 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"I've spotted a few 'this is great posts' and have to question why?"
I think the people that are liking this are the ones with the freak page 1 listings or whose domain shows up for something like 29 of the first 30 results, that kind of thing. I think it will be good for awhile as far as some making money, but after a short time people (everyday searchers) will realize how bad it is and move onto Google or Yahoo. I think they're hoping it's gets released soon so they can benefit from the extra search traffic.
| 12:59 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think some of the people that are mad are the ones that are not in the results!
Results are great for it being in testing and you should not expect it to be the best while it's in testing.
|I think it will be good for awhile as far as some making money, but after a short time people (everyday searchers) will realize how bad it is and move onto Google or Yahoo. |
Most people that search the search engines have no idea which search they are truly searching and most don't search a certain search engine because of they like the results, but because it's easy to get there. The average surfer has no idea what a search engine truly is or know very little.
| 1:35 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yep and Yep.
| 1:38 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
That made absolutely no sense. Of course they use whatever SE brings in the most relevant results. That's why when Google came on the scene it became so popular. Why do you think people went there? Just a search box and fast, relevant results.
"The average surfer has no idea what a search engine truly is or know very little."
Are you serious? Of course they know what a search engine is.
"Results are great"
Maybe for some of your listings but not for the average user.
| 1:51 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
They use which ever search engine that make good business sense. Not because it's the best! Do you really think that the average surfer is using MSN search because it's the best? No! They are searching there because they have MSN as their Internet provider or have Internet explorer! What about AOL? AOL uses Google, do you think that most AOL member's know that or even care? No!
| 2:01 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"They use which ever search engine that make good
People don't search because of "business sense" That statement makes no sense. You're making my point for me. They use MSN because they are currently using INK and they're using AOL because they're using Google. 2 relevant SE's, one of the reasons MSN and AOL picked them to provide search. Now tell me why besides relevant search are people going to Google and why they've been #1 for a few years now if it wasn't for relevant search? People will use whatever SE they feel brings them the most relevant results. Unless you think people like seeing the same domain over and over again in the results and crap sites getting listed above authority sites. You're basing your opinion on this search because you might have a few great listings not on relevancy. Google, Yahoo much better as far as that.
And with your next post explain to me why people have been going to Google.
| 2:36 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I have sites doing way better than they ought to, one ranking horribly and with a directory site's jump url to boot, and I've seen one that in my opinion is pretty much where it ought to be.
What we're seeing now is sort of like the baboon that Jeff Goldblum sends through his apparatus in 'The Fly' - all the parts are there, just not in the right place and with some horrible results.
It's out there now and I hope msn is poring over some of the feedback now in an effort to get it right. I'm betting that the final product will be competitive with G.
| 3:07 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sorry, but after extensive testing, I have to rate MSN's alpha about a 3 (at best on a 10 scale).
My rating has absolutely nothing to do with how I rank.
The quality is just not there, especially considering the technical and financial resources Microsoft has at it's disposal.
| 4:50 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Quote, MSNdude "I also want to call out that the Technology Preview was released quite early; earlier than we would normally debut a product."
I'm wondering what is the relationship between what is delivered in the preview, and what is being delivered on "NEW! MSN Search" today. I don't see any.
| 4:51 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
haven't read all 20 pages of the thread yet (about halfway there) but has anyone pointed out the lack of total number of results?
i imagine it's intentional?
| 5:28 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Results are not that great but it is just starting out and therefore it is too early to make a judgement.
One thing I liked about this is that some of the commercial websites that are doing extremely well on Google are not to be seen on page 1. These are the sites that through years of experience know Google's algo inside out and through careful manipulation have learnt to be at top even though the content, while relevant, is not worthy of page 1 showing.
In contrast, my web pages, that were on page 2-3 of Google because of these sites, are showing up on page 1, ahead of them, as it should be, in my view. ;)</p>
It will be interesting to watch these sites change in response to this new search engine. I am sure they are studying the serps very carefully and moving one keyword from one place to other and so on.
I think competition to Google was long overdue and different algos will help better websites to get more exposure by making it difficult for long-term SEOed sites to be optimized for all the SE's and therefore, block out other sites.
| 5:45 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Sheesh, a few webmasters making goofy public relations posts won't convince msn to commit suicide.
| 7:43 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Ive staed my issues with what ive seen earlier in this post. I cant say if im happy with my placement because Iknow they are nowhere near done crawling the web. SO even though im no.1 now, that might change in a month cause more relevent sites are added.
I like it so far, recognizing there is alot of work to do.
What I would like to see - is that sites from the same base url not be repeated in the first few pages of a search. I would also like to see sites with consistantly fresh content being placed higher then a page that hasn't changed for months.
Relevency is a huge factor I think. Google loses it here. Example. if you do a google search for Lincoln LS Accessory the number 1 listing is for a car wax company. Somehow it doesnt seem highly relevent to me.
I also think the whole backlink thing is a sham and meaningless measure of worth. Lets face it, backlinks are tedious to get, but not difficult to get. They sure are not indicitive of the value of a site. I think its better for the web as a whole and for users if webmaster spend their time improving their sites and not spend their time obtaining backlinks.
One suggestion I have is placing a short list of other optional search terms for users. Meaning, if a user searches for Lincoln LS - then a little box on the right could be placed with the top 5 similar searches - i.e. lincoln ls accessory, lincoln ls review, etc etc. This lets users easily make their searches more specific and direct.
These things make it better for seo and for users. It gives search results more validity.
Ok, im off my soapbox. :-) hope this helps MSN Dude
| 9:37 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"Hopefully no one will complain if we make it better for Internet users and a little worse for SEO’s :) "
If you can pull that off I will love your forever.
Honestly, not to be mean to the SEO guys around here, but I´d rather spend my time making more and better content than making sure I have 15.32% kws in an article...
| 10:25 am on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
>>>>Honestly, not to be mean to the SEO guys around here, but I´d rather spend my time making more and better content than making sure I have 15.32% kws in an article...
Minor point of contention here. The correct optimum figure for keyword density is 17.35%. Try it, you'll like it! ;)
| 12:01 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I like this search engine, a lot.
I think Google has been going massively downhill.
Ok, while I myself haven't encountered spam quite so much, from reading other comments it sounds like spam filtering needs some work, but in general I am impressed.
A search for a term I watch also returns my site first. I am second in Google, but unlike (I'm guessing) most of you my site is non commercial and is a genuine information portal. If you asked anyone who knew about the subject, they would send you to my site or one other site. So, from a user point of view having those two at the top is 100% perfect.
Plus they gave me the top result for my name! :D Making me the most famous Sam Smith in the world. Hehe. Which is good to a point, as Google puts a report with high PR but nothing to do with it's author by that name first.
| 12:07 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
When I search by keywords I get a fair amount of results from my site and am indexed well. (As I should be for the amount of MSNbot hits in the last two months). However, when I type in the actual domain name I get no results. I understand the idea of relavent results but I would like to be in the top 50 with an exact match.
| 12:41 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The pre-alpha MSN search engine is laughable. A search for search doesn't even include G or Y! in the top 100 results. #1 is a Bulgarian search engine. Gimme a break......
| 3:17 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
My 2 cents...
Ok. searching: NC, Widget Making Company
SERPS for my site are as follows:
Current MSN #3 & #5
Alta Vista #4
Lycos #3 & #5
"New MSN" #87
Am I unhappy about this, you betcha! Because I am not in the top 5? PARTIALLY. I am mostly upset at the fact that all other SE known to humankind have ranked me in the top 5, but somehow "THE NEW" MSN has determined that 86 other websites are a better match and roughly 30% of them have nothing at all to do with making widgets in my state on the "new & improved" MSN.
My site contains NO spam, tricks, cloaking, keyword loading, and consise and honest METAS. I have take years building honest links and developing content specific to my industry. So now I get to spend countless (unbillable) hours trying to accomodate ONE search engine that wants to be different.
Bull doo doo. Absolute utter nonsense.
| 3:44 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hopefully no one will complain if we make it better for Internet users and a little worse for SEO’s :)
Everyone who hit the new MSN in the last two days has had their domains marked as "SEO domain", their keywords marked as "SEO competitive", and their search check strategies logged as "SEO intelligence". Sets of domains checked in the same cookie session/IP are now marked as "SEO networks".
Now MS can go ahead with the business of knocking out the SEO content from the SERPs, or taregting it with their search research.
| 4:02 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
would be nice - when you feel that you have dealt with the collection of issue's here and the feedback that you got of your comment from the search page, that you maybe show us the results, and we can help you make it even better. An idea.
Though i have commented what i thought - mainly towards the negative side - i have to congratulate yourself and your team for realising a pre-alpha tester.
| 4:28 pm on Jul 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Great Find :)
| This 252 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 252 ( 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 9 ) > > |