| 8:26 pm on Nov 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
no, i dont want to phrase it better, i want to use it as my kids would when using it for homework. Even with that phrasing and a basic search like that should produce useable results at one and two. It was the first search i did to test the New Scientists experts exertion that this is now worthy of top marks. I didnt do a second test.
| 6:14 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The results are indeed funky with the query "shakespeares first ever play", but that's not the way your kids should type it. Even if they did, hopefully they would click on the top result, which is: "DID YOU MEAN: shakespeare first ever play". Then the results seem fine to me. They are also fine for the query "Shakespeare's first ever play".
| 9:04 pm on Nov 21, 2004 (gmt 0)|
touché SoapyStar! ;)
I agree that the results are not quite ready.. but making that one work shouldn;t be too difficult!
| 8:27 pm on Nov 24, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Numerous sites were ravished by G$'s deliberately dishonest SERPs. But those who were not so affected usually like to insult and mock the victims as if whiners. |
So now that the M$ beta reveals just how dishonest the G$ SERPs are -- as many white hat G$-stripped sites are now appearing in the M$ beta SERPs where they should be -- does it seem that those mocking accusers are now the real whiners? In the face of actual HONEST SERPs, are they now the ones who are they epitome of what they had arrogantly enjoyed mocking?
Maybe someone should do like they did and arrogantly tell them to "stop whining and just buck up" to go figure out their SEO for better placement in the (currently) HONEST SERPs of the M$ beta. Or, just tell them some other similarly and extremely insulting statement, just like they've often used against the G$- victims.
And it could be very sweet justice when this M$ beta -- with its currently HONEST SERPs -- gives G$ the thrashing with a splintery two-by-four on its raw flesh that the betraying G$ so deserves.
<Moderated by Dixon - changed use of language>
[edited by: Receptional at 5:02 pm (utc) on Nov. 24, 2004]
I appreciate the reasoning behind the moderator's editing the above post I made.
In doing the best that one could do in that situation, the resulting impact of the edited message did cause it to lose a little bit of its meaning and intent.
There are those who are "ravished" and those who are not. The idea of "non-ravished" individuals attacking "ravished" individuals -- just because the attackers themselves never saw the "ravishing" -- is as offensive as if the attackers also "ravished" the victims AGAIN.
As matter of clarity as to what word I actually used (because I never use bad or foul-mouth language), one need only to look up the replacement word "ravished."
Even G$ offers a link with the definition.
My heart is so full with compassion for all "ravished" victims.
And I do understand and appreciate the moderator's attempt to find a happy medium in this situation.
| 6:52 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am interested in why you chose PicSearch for your image search. Yahoo search is clearly the leader (o.k., I am biased :-), in image search today. Why fund a new, less relevant, smaller, less fresh, company to enter a space that you will eventually want to dominate.
Image search comprises at least 15-20% of all search clicks today, and will become increasingly important in certain market segments (celebs and pop culture, sports, travel, shopping, adult, TV) over the next couple years, especially as broadband takes off. Both Google and Yahoo provide better product today, why outsource to PicSearch for your results?
| 7:32 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Hello msndude. |
I am interested in why you chose PicSearch for your image search.
I guess MSN didn't have the time to create their own image search engine, but are desperate to launch their new service at the earliest, hence
- outsource it in the initial stages (just like PPC is outsourced to overture)
- then eventually make their own system
- replace it!
| 8:56 am on Nov 25, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|Why fund a new, less relevant, smaller, less fresh, company to enter a space that you will eventually want to dominate |
Because if it works they'll buy it to save time? Just a hunch ;)
| 8:51 pm on Nov 28, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I still don't see any improvement in the SERP's
Duplicate domains in the same results.
Too much emphasis on keywords in domains instead of which sites are "important" Hyphonated keyword packed domain names go to the top.
.com and other country domains mixed in with non US country specific searches.
Sites with .com and other domains getting double inclusions.
It's not as good as the present MSN SERP's if they go live with this I'm buying shares in Google.
| 6:08 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I think MSN should send out press release articles to start some negative publicity for Google. That's right, kick 'em while their down. Check some of the threads on Google news and you will find some fine examples of some of the really screwed up things G is doing. There are some examples of searching for official names of oganizations and not finding the websites in the G results.
Powdork gave this example in a recent thread:
search for: breast cancer foundation of arizona
There is only one website and organization with this official name, yet they cannot be found on Google and can be found at the top of every other engine.
I know MSN has distributed (either directly or indirectly)some finely crafted articles in the past that got good national distribution in the past. I think some negative articles could help create a public buzz.
"Google it up" or "just Google it" has become a phrase people use to refer to searching for something on the internet. Word of mouth is very powerful, maybe some articles could get people talking about what they can't find on google.
| 7:47 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Oh yes, the natural SERPs G$ are very irrelevant these days.
The only authority site in my keyword, as linked by media, universities, etc. cannot even get below 50 anymore in G$. And a "pro-keyword.com" media site -- that is even listed in the G$ NEWS service -- is 100s higher than 500 (yes, five hundred) in the dishonest natural SERPs of G$.
You can't get any more absurd than that. But maybe G$ will find a way to outdo itself and get even worse.
| 8:04 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I find Google is still ok , great in fact but let's face it, it all depends where your own site is positioned that determines a like or dislike of a SE.
One thing's for sure if the results in some areas ARE off key they'll fix it as soon as they can because the share price depends almost entirely upon their reputation.
| 9:21 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
dodger said "it all depends where your own site is positioned that determines a like or dislike of a SE"
Google may look god to you, probably due to your statement above, but the fact is that many authority sites are completely missing, the url problems, page jacking, false duplicates, etc. are causing this.
How good would you think google was if you were looking for one of those authority sites and couldn't find it?
If someone is searching for the exact name of an organization and can't find it in google, though it used to be #1 and they can find it on other search engines, they will eventually stop even trying to find it on google.
This is a great time for msn to use this type of info in nationally distributed articles written by a third party.
Looking for something important? Don't use Google you may never find it!
| 9:46 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm now seeing improvement in the new MSN search, the results are more relevant and they're obviously tweaking the algo to get rid of the disappointing results including those based on hyphonated keyword domains alone. That's right.... the site has to be reasonably "important" to get into the top results.
| 9:54 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Dead on my3cents, Since the big switch in googles organic listings many awesome sites are buried. Not just in competitive markets but informational sites. I was at a search engine conference and spoke with a higher up google rep working with the organic listings....he said
"all search engines are struggling with this"
Oh really! lets go msn
| 10:00 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Yeah the results look alot cleaner than Yahoo and Google. They also must have done something to speed it up as well, cause the serps are loading at least 2 times as fast as they were a week ago.
Launch this thing already MSN!
| 10:37 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Do a search for shakespeares first ever play
is this better than msn lol
| 10:43 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Something is going on with the beta search today...It was reporting results from the regular search engine a few times today...Something must be in the works...Hopefully this new beta search will be showing up on regular msn search in the next few days!
GO MSN you have my full support! Launch already will ya? :>~
| 11:31 pm on Nov 29, 2004 (gmt 0)|
bak70 - good one! yeah i am sure thats getting searched as much as prescription diet pills! lol!
| 2:35 am on Nov 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Today's results, Wow. Relevant site after another in the Top 10 in my keyword. This new beta is still looking very good.
| 3:50 am on Nov 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The company I work for is an agent which searches the internet for travel products from suppliers, compiles them and then offers them to clients for a commission. Internet searching is what we do - all day long...
I can tell you that now Google and Yahoo don't even come close to MSN Beta as a tool to find recent and relevant products and companies. MSN Beta has literally halved the time it takes us to find products and companies. This is because of two main reasons:
1.MSN Beta displays recent websites in its results
2.MSN Beta also displays smaller websites (which sometimes offer the most relevant products)
There is no doubt that in our specialist industry (an area in Travel), which is quite large, MSN Beta is miles ahead.
I'm not about to do tests all day in other areas (that I know nothing about) so I assume those who say Google still has the best results are doing just this. Either that or they are ignoring MSN Beta's superiority because their sites rank well with Google. Or maybe it is only the Travel industry that MSN provides the best results...? :-)
| 10:09 pm on Nov 30, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Being in the travel biz as well, I can say that the new MSN search is very friendly to our site. We also do very very well in Google (about 85% of our se traffic comes from Google).
The serps in the new MSN beta have us in even better places then Google does. We are almost entirely ignored by Yahoo, only serps for long phrases show our site in Y while we average 6th place for our most important keywords in Google with many showing up in 1st or 2nd position.
Can't wait for it to go live....
| 6:53 am on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Come on MSNDude!
Get this thing to the public allready. I need to make enough money to pay for the bandwidth your crawler is using every month. The results are good enough allready.
Would be nice of you to get it out before Christmas which would make me feel better about wasting all this bandwidth for over 6 months. I could afford to get my kid's something nice for Christmas this year.
I like the results. No spam in my area. Let's roll it out....
| 3:20 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
couldn't agree more! the serps are definetely waaaaaaay better than what MSN is currently displaying with the Yahoo crap. we deal in some pretty spammy categories, online prescriptions, contact lenses, and others.
Make this thing live already!
| 6:04 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
o where o where is MSNDUDE o where o where is he.....definitely likin the beta
| 8:15 pm on Dec 1, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The beta was better yesterday than today. Whatever changes were made between then and the time I write this post, it dropped a little bit in quality. Still somewhat good, but it lost some things. Hopefully, the beta can be brought back to yesterday's better SERPs.
| 11:10 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I'm not sure what they're doing right now but I am suddenly very disappointed with SERPs.
In addition they seem to have lost almost all of our pages on a lot of sites and the page URLs seem to have been altered. They are now removing the last "/" on all directory URLs.
They seem to be tracking all clicks now too.
I'm not sure if there is also problem with 301 redirects as some of our additional domains are now showing instead of the main domain.
Overall, a complete and utter mess for us. I may have to remove all our additional domains from IIS.
| 11:19 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
petehall, make sure you aren't seeing the inktomi/yahoo results instead. (see the other thread - lots of jumping around between beta/inkyahoo results today).
| 11:23 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Right now, the beta search is spitting out Yahoo results from where I am sitting.
| 11:27 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Hope this changes - it's making me feel ill!
| 11:28 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
nzmatt - thank god it's not just me that's feeling very sick!
These have to be the Yahoo! results.
(breaths a sigh of relief - thank you for pointing that out)
| 11:32 pm on Dec 2, 2004 (gmt 0)|
MSN Please stop torturing me - I give in!