| 5:17 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am also on a Mac using Safari and I can see the sliders. Have you turned java on?
| 5:20 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
IMHO, the only people who will benefit from MSN dropping Yahoo's natural results in favor of their own are people who couldn't do what was required to rank well with Yahoo/Overture. You're pleased with your "new" rank on MSN? Don't take any naps ... as soon as they collect as much data as GGL and YAH have, you'll be back where you started.
You rank differently not because your site is finally being recognized for the jewel that it is, but because you have less competition ... a smaller set of sites to offer as results.
For the rest of us, now we must allow a new, sometimes abusive bot into our sites, figure out yet another type of algorithm and optimize for it, and add yet another vendor who will soon be selling us a new opportunity to spend even more ad dollars.
This does not add to the results already available, it forces us to now try to figure out (and soon to pay) MS and OVT and GGL instead of just OVT and GGL.
We're not getting any more eyeballs than we had when they were using YAH/OVT results ... it's the same people going to the same search engine ... and it's just another overhaul of our code and expense for us.
| 5:25 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Promis, yep Java is on, using Safari v. 1.2.3
Where are these sliders supposed to be?
| 5:32 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
you need to click the "Search Builder" link, then "Results Ranking"
| 5:34 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
esllou, thanks... there they are.
| 5:38 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Now that I have found them... what is the point of having them? I consider myself somewhat more experienced then the average user as I make my living on the www making sure my sites rank well....
How many people will actually use this feature? Maybe if it works well it should be mentioned somewhere?
Yikes seems like a major waste of MS employee time to develop something like this. Not that they can't afford it...
| 5:40 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|You rank differently not because your site is finally being recognized for the jewel that it is, but because you have less competition ... a smaller set of sites to offer as results. |
Actually, MSN Search Beta yields anywhere from 1x-3x the competition that Google does for about 80% of the terms we target as a firm.
| 5:42 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Try searching for: more evil than satan
| 5:51 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is bs, I though Micro$oft would come out first ;)
I am happy as it seems that my original post with the phrase "Still, I am sorry to say this, but msn beta is junk. " has become famous. Thats good, maybe that post will rank high in the msn serps.
Back to reality, what's wrong with everyone here congratulating MSN for adding some competition in the SE world. What, are you guys blind?
Micro$oft's LAST wish is to have competition. Read your history a bit, Microsoft relies on amazing marketing and illigal monopoly technoqies to become the SOLE player in an industry that it likes. If you think that MSN is launching a new search just to make the world a fairer place, then think again.
Second, the results ARE junk. As many people pointed out in this thread, and I did in another previous one, it isn't rare to see tons of duplicate pages in the top serps. Thats just BASIC mistakes; I wouldn't release a beta if it can't distinguish between replicas. Microsoft is scared (how high is Google's stock now?) and are hurying as much as they can.
I suggest that everyone at Webmasterworld forms an alliance and works their hardest to learn how to fool MSN's search, so that by launch date in January, we have full control of it and do whatever we want with the serps.
[edited by: WebGuerrilla at 7:04 pm (utc) on Nov. 12, 2004]
| 6:03 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Here here, Hugene.
|Actually, MSN Search Beta yields anywhere from 1x-3x the competition that Google does for about 80% of the terms we target as a firm. |
Your industry is targeted for inclusion before others, and where YAH and GGL would have shown different SERPS due to content and relevance, you're just seeing MS's "relevancy-filtering" at work ... and poorly, at that.
Now, you get to compete with junk sites in your industry! Yay!
| 6:25 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|What is it they're doing that you're not able to? |
Be the National Widget Organization vs Podunk Widget Information Company.
| 7:01 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hugene. Yup, MS will try to monopolize SE as they've done in the past in countless other areas--wouldn't anyone else? However, don't lose sight that G is darn close to being a monopoly in the SE arena, so why not welcome more competition? Seems that having three instead of one big player is only a positive for everyone.
| 7:05 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
GGL is around 50%, YAH/OVT at about 27%, and MSN is currently around 14%.
Not to mention the dozens of other SEs out there.
Hardly a monopoly, and certainly not an MS-type corporate monopoly, but rather a preponderance of the evidence suggests that GGL has gained their market share because they provide value in a service that people approve of, and they work tirelessly to add to that value.
| 7:13 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Difference in Google and MSN:
MSN lists new sites and I am able to find information on such.
Google is an archive of old sites.
If I want to find a new movie, song, or event, I'll search MSN or Yahoo!. If I want information on something that has been around for awhile, I'll search Google.
I know people want to rip the MSN results, but Google is much worse these days. I'm not talking competitive keywords, I'm talking everyday searches. Try searching for recent events, new movies, or new artists. Good luck finding them on the first 30 pages. I saw a new movie by a major motion picture company being outranked for the name of their movie by forum posts that mentioned the movie name once. MSN is already ahead in my opinion.
| 7:19 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
we all know how Micr$oft operate, Bill gates has never ever hidden the fact Ive even seen him on TV stating he goes for the competitions throat.
They in the least are honest about it you know Micro$oft will in the end turn around and bite you. You CHOOSE to deal with them knowing all the facts.
Google on the other hand claims to be your friend then dumps on you from a great height.
So why are you so upset?
We need M$N to give the Googles of the world a good kicking.
Well done Micro$oft we badly need some competition.
Just whens it going live?
| 8:06 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
G needs competition. Competition is good and at the current rate of growth, Micro$oft is one of the few able to enter the game!
| 8:13 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I just checked The New Era in Microsoft Search.
- Using MSIE on MacOSX a search for "Microsoft" returns 5,808,143 results.
- Using Safari on MacOSX a search for "Microsoft" returns 1 result (microsoft.com).
- Using MSIE on MacOSX a search for "Bill Gates" returns 3,197,414 results.
- Using Safari on MacOSX a search for "Bill Gates" returns 1 result (microsoft.com/billgates/).
- Using MSIE on MacOSX a search for "Apple" returns 50,618,398 results.
- Using Safari on MacOSX a search for "Apple" returns "We couldn't find any sites containing Apple".
- Using MSIE on MacOSX a search for "..." returns any number of results.
- Using Safari on MacOSX a search for "..." returns "We couldn't find any sites containing ...". ("..." = anything not microsoftish)
Thanks for the New Era Preview.
| 8:20 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
One thing I have noticed thats a bit weird, the home page of my site ranks well but no other page shows in the serps.
They appear to be in the index but just not showing.
Any one else?
| 8:24 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm seeing a heavy reliance on the homepage as you are essex. Not seeing many interior pages ranking well.
| 8:30 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Your industry is targeted for inclusion before others, and where YAH and GGL would have shown different SERPS due to content and relevance, you're just seeing MS's "relevancy-filtering" at work ... and poorly, at that. |
It's pretty presumptuous to assume that you know what industries my company is involved in...
Who's to say that the additional competing pages aren't relevant? The SERPs look fairly relevant to me - more relevant than Google, in fact.
|Now, you get to compete with junk sites in your industry! Yay! |
Do you even -use- the search engines? Google is currently the biggest perveyor of garbage results between the three (and mind you, MSN Search Preview is just that - still a Beta Preview).
Not saying that we don't manage sites that rank high on Google, but the majority of their SERPs are crap listings manipulated onto pages 3+ by two day-old SEO "experts" and sites that just got lucky.
PageRank relevance seems to have died a very slow death over the past 12 months. I sure wish they'd prove me wrong with a newly structured index that knocks everyone on their asses.
This seems to be the adopted International Dodo Call for anyone who doesn't rank high on [search-engine-name-goes-here].
| 8:42 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hypergeek, it does not matter what industry you are in. If you are seeing a greater representation of competitors in the new index than in the older indexes, then it's quite simple: MS crawled your industry more extensively than other industries. Ergo, they have more results for that industry, be it food processing or fashion design or construction.
BTW, we rank very well in every engine (usually top 10 and often several in the top 20 in a result set up to many millions) except for beta MSN where we are non-existent. Do you claim that this is an SEO failure? That would not be logical, unless your feelings about the "junk" GGL and YAH are spitting out are the results of indifferent SEO that only MSN has been able to recognize and properly castigate.
On the contrary, if a site is ranking well with betaMSN and not ranking with the others, it seems clear that this is NOT the result of good SEO, but rather, as I described, that the MSN index is so small that there are few options for it to display.
Big fish in a little pond, knowwhatImean?
| 8:56 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Well said bears5122, couldn't agree more.
Google's sux these days.
| 9:02 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
HyperGeek, so true, the overwhelming majority of complaints about "non-relevant junk SERP" tend to be from those that aren't benefiting from current algos.
| 9:36 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am flabergasted, I just cant understand
HyperGeek, don't jump to conclusions. I am number 1 for my keywords on G and Y and have been even before I learned about WebmasterWorld and SEO. You know what the secret is: quality content, lots of it, and people linking back to me on their own. The only tips I had were from G's tips page for webmasters.
Then msn beta comes out, and a SPAM web site is first for my key words and I am on the 3rd page, well, I think there is somethingwrong wit the search.
I suggest you read a good book called the New New Thing, where Netscape's Jim Clark describes how representatives from Micro$oft met with him and basically told him to walk with them or get ready to leave the game. He refused to walk with them and the rest is history, once again. You NEVER choose to deal with Micro$oft, THEY choose to deal with you.
|You CHOOSE to deal with them (micro$oft) knowing all the facts. |
| 9:58 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
We can sit here and argue til we're blue in the face about good vs bad SERPs, and we'll all be correct for the keywords/industries we're concerned about.
What I'm bothered by is the layout.
They've got a big orange "Web Results" at the top, with "1-10 of XXXXXX' in small print beneath it. But then they spit a bunch of advertising at you.
Note to MSN Search Team: those are not "web results," and they're not the first listings your algorithm found in the index. Those are paid ads. The opaque "SPONSORED SITES" off to the far right isn't noticeable enough, and it's disingenuous to list those under the "Web Results" heading. Why lie to your users? What do you hope to accomplish? Isn't there enough anti-Microsoft mistrust out there already?
You'd think at this point they'd be going out of their way to be completely transparent and call a spade a spade ... or in this case, an ad an ad.
Yahoo is no better, and Google does the same thing when AdWords show across the top, so here's a great opportunity for MSN Search to distinguish itself. Let's hope they jump on it. All it takes is to move that orange "Web Results" title down below the ads (and make the SPONSORED SITES text more visible).
| 10:08 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I agree with pleeker's observations.
dertyfern, if a site does NOT rank well with GGL and YAH, but DOES rank well with betaMSN, then what do you think the technical reasons are for that?
If a site DOES rank well with YAH and GGL, but NOT with MSN, then what do you think the technical reasons are for that?
MSN has fewer sites in its index than either GGL or YAH. Any arguments about that?
1 site in 500 has better chance at a top 10 position than 1 site in 1,000. Any arguments about that?
Just because those of us who DO rank well in GGL and YAH are commenting about the amount of "junk" in betaMSN does NOT mean that we're crazy.
I will accept arguments about that last one ... :)
Lastly (really), it's not a matter of whether you want to advertise with MSN or not, and they know it. If you are in a competitive, big-buck business, you MUST advertise with MSN. Currently, we are fortunate that the ad dollars we spend with Overture/YAH work for us on MSN. Soon, MSN will drop OVT/YAH ads, and we will have to spend ADDITIONAL dough to advertise with MSN for the EXACT SAME EYEBALLS! We advertise with MSN because any serious business simply has to do that. It's the screwing our ad budgets will get without ANY ADDED VALUE that has my panties in a bunch.
[edited by: StupidScript at 10:14 pm (utc) on Nov. 12, 2004]
| 10:12 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'll second that layout comment, Pleeker.
You'd think, for a company that pretty much forced everyone to conform to the CSS standards that their browser supported, they'd have implemented it a bit better on their own, brand-new search engine.
Not everything has to be bold. lol
| 10:31 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
agree with keeping sponsored ads well marked - I would also suggest allowing at most just two ads on the top like G does and none on the bottom regardless of the query, this way you keep the serp nice, clean and uncluttered and less looking like one big advertisement.
| 10:32 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
StupidScript, I'm not SEO savy enough to answer your questions as to the reasons why a site would rank well in one SE versus another and I would think that even if I were, there would be numerous different reasons.
However, the rankings of my sites vary depending on SE and my personal successes and failures in each doesn't make for relevant or non-relevant SERPs by any of the SE. My point is the center of the SE world doesn't revolve around us and our sites, as many tend to believe.
| 10:44 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
dertyfern, I agree with you.
If MS was offering a unique service, or one that was clearly ... and I mean slap-you-upside-the-head clearly more valuable than current offerings, I wouldn't have anything to comment on.
But they aren't.
They are tired of paying YAH for their results and their ads, and they want us to pay them directly. We still need to advertise on YAH. We still need to advertise on MSN. Now it will cost at least twice as much to do that, with no added value: same eyes, same demographics, same layout, eventually the same SERPS, if they are serious about developing an accurate algorithm. The only difference is that we double our payment, and MSN gets half.
That's not sharing the pie ... that's licking the rim to ruin it for the others. That's not competition, that's stealing market share. It's not right.
What do you think, msndude? What's the "right" explanation?
| 10:51 pm on Nov 12, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Not unless MSN is twice the price of Yahoo!
If you are paying Yahoo already, then as they provide MSN with the results that people click on you are therefore simply paying Yahoo for the traffic from MSN also. So you can't be paying double.
Sorry to be pedantic about it! :)