| 7:44 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
haven't sat as well in ms beta as we have in the other two. However, given the respective traffic levels, I suppose this means we'll go from X searches a day down to 0.3 searches a day.
Of course, based on X = 40 or less on a consistent basis, abd based on the niche not being commerce related, it ain't nuthin' but a thang.
| 8:09 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't see any beta search on search.msn.com
Must just have been a test.
| 8:20 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't see any beta results, just same old Y driven stuff. Gives new hope to me though and to the other sites penalized or banned from Y. Beta loves my site!
| 8:25 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I've seen the beta go live all day here.
| 8:39 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The MSN beta results are changing a lot lately.
My website was ranked #1 for a certain keyword for a few weeks. This morning it was on #2 and when I checked this evening, my website didn't show up in the first 250 results. I hope this will just be temporary, but if the results can change so suddenly, this makes msn beta very unreliable for webmasters. One day you get lots of visitors and another day nothing.
What do you think of this?
| 8:59 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Another issue with MSN beta is that most of the sites in almost all topics have only around 5-10% pages crawled as compared to Google. [I have arrived at this conclusion after checking most of the authorative sites in different industries]
For most of my sites, msnbot has crawled almost all the pages, but only 5% shows up in the beta. Same must hold true for other sites as well, as I believe.
I hope that they release a full version of the beta when they launch next week, if they do.
Edit Reason - Spelling correction
[edited by: Imaster at 9:25 pm (utc) on Jan. 14, 2005]
| 9:35 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The comparision between MSN Beta and Google with the site:domain.com for Yahoo, Cnn, washingtonpost.com, Superpages, among others would shock most with respect to number of pages crawled.
How in the hell is it on par with Google if it doesn't even have 10% of pages crawled for a majority of the sites. I seriously can't believe MSN Beta has over a couple of billion pages indexed.
[edited by: Imaster at 9:36 pm (utc) on Jan. 14, 2005]
| 9:36 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It seems negativity is setting in. :(
I am very excited about seeing a third player among the SEs.
Google: Old tried and true site
MSN: Newer sites, that Google is missing
Yahoo: Somewhere in between
This diversity can only be good for the searcher and the webmaster.
2005 is going to be awesome! :)
| 10:07 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Regarding number of pages in the index, beta only has about 2,500 out of about 60,000, while Google "claims" to have them all...but Google's sandbox has them buried deeply in the SERPS, except for obscure search phrases. But I can't WAIT for beta to go live because for 50 important pages, beta has us #1 (or 2), so I anticipate our beta traffic (when fully live) beating Google traffic, even though beta has only 4% of our pages indexed.
| 10:35 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I can't really tell if it's because of MSN but our traffic has been spiking high for a couple hours and then back down to normal again etc...
It doesn't seem like it's sticking for very long. Just short bursts of traffic here and there.
| 10:35 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
When I do a search for my key phrases, msn beta shows two to three times as many results in the "results 1-10 of x" line. Whether or not this is for real is another question.
If MSN is going public with the new SE, I sure hope I can hang on to the great positions I have now.
| 11:43 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Edit Reason - Spelling correction"
..that's gotta be a first on internet forums...
| 2:12 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I hope this is true. I'd say MS is making a mistake, but I guess there's a lot of pressure on them to get it out the door. I have yet to use MSN beta successfully for even one search session. Maybe it's working for generics good enough though. Hard to say.
However, given that the initial users will be the users who were clueless enough to keep using msn in its yahoo version, I'd say that group of searchers aren't going to notice a lot of difference, so in a way it's not a very risky move. Of course I don't see how they'll get new searchers in yet, maybe they'll improve it live?
We'll see, I'm still trying to figure out the recent algo tweak they did, distinctly different type of results, quite a significant difference from what I'm seeing, though some stuff hasn't changed. We'll see.
I am happy for one not for profit site I do, we're top there for a term I've never been able to get them in with the others, that should help a bit.
I hope the little bird giving inside information is more accurate than the last little bird that said to expect a big google update last fall. Probably is, but we'll see. I also welcome more pressure on Google, I think they really slipped majorly this last year, from being a truly admirable market leader to just sort of plain old product that isn't really going to wow anyone.
Now if Yahoo would just start putting some real resources into their search, they have exactly the same indexing problems people are seeing with MSN beta, incomplete, dropped pages, etc. It really looks like currently no search engine is actually able to handle today's web, at least not in the way google handled it from about 2000-2003. That's complete, total indexing, all the time. Of all pages.
| 3:10 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yeah if the search engines would just index every page from every site, they would probably come up with better results.
But I guess indexing that many pages get's pretty hard to do.
I installed a search engine and spider on my site and just around 5,000 pages was hard on it. I can see how hard it would be to index and search 5 billion would be. And on top of that, get good results at the same time.
| 3:36 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
<< But I guess indexing that many pages get's pretty hard to do. >>
Yes, it does. But considering how many of those are spam, the real trick is to start figuring out more creative ways to get rid of it. that means putting down the programming tools, and putting on the thinking caps. And maybe the solution won't be only a programmed one. Spammers know this works, it's how they do it. At some point search engines will have to also learn this.
But that's their job, that's what they do. When google came long nobody was indexing 1 billion pages, and they didn't really have much problem until they hit 4 billion. Maybe it will take a new company to come along who won't have problems with 10 billion, or 20. If these guys think that they are worth a few billion dollars each, then they should be able to figure out the problem. Of course, I don't think they are worth that, and I'm starting to doubt that they are able to figure the problem out.
| 3:54 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think I'll reserve judgement. I am really looking forward to some good old fashioned competition between the SE's ... but so far, I'm not seeing what some of you seem to be so excited about.
Rather than check my own results, I decided to actually "go shopping". I found mostly spam and affiliate sites on the first page of results for my first attempt. Very frustrating. Pretty good results on the second page though.
Then I decided to "go travelling" ... same thing pretty much.
Then I checked some of my own keyword phrases and although there are a lot of sites using every SEO trick in the book ranked at the top of the pack ... they are at least relevant sites.
I'm not terribly impressed so far, but hopefully they will improve with time. I'll keep an open mind.
The spam really does bother me though and I think it is going to be pretty easy to manipulate results. Content doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with rankings ... but titles, headings and URL's sure do!
| 6:04 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't understand..to me it doesn't seem better..relevance on a lot of my searches seem weak. I don't think that enough data is logged as the keywords run down hill quick!
| 6:20 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think Bill may surprise us with a full fledged index next week. :) Maybe what we have seen yet is the only the tip of the iceberg.
Maybe I think this way cause Microsoft's not dumb to launch a feeble search engine to the mass especially after they have taken Google head-on
| 7:49 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A member from another top website mentions "he's heard from an high level MSN contact the new MSN search engine currently being beta tested will move to the main MSN Search site on Feb. 1."
Am not posting url because its a blog and posting blog urls is against the TOS. Anyone needs the url, sticky
| 10:58 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, I'm seeing beta results in main MSN Search.
Thank you Microsoft. Pretty nice new year's gift!
The search duopoly held by Google and Yahoo is coming to an end. 2005 is the right year to see some healthy and "evil" competition.
| 11:53 am on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Saw it live (finally)
Atlanta, 6:30 am, 15th.
(flu-infested insomniacs unite!)
| 1:23 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Seeing beta results on msn.com
| 1:26 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And it's fast...i mean servers are good!
| 1:36 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
And the new results are gooooooooood!
Weightage is given to keywords in domain name....
Ok msn u got my applause :)
| 1:38 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I still haven't been able to see it...I wonder if only certain IP address blocks are seeing it?
| 1:43 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, that could be it.....maybe some ip blocks are seeing it...
I'm see it for sure......
like they said, it will be rolled out slowly this week
I am surprised & impressed by the speed of msn search ....not as fast as google but almost.
| 2:01 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
You can see it if you use firefox - it shows on the msn dot com page. It is still not showing on IE - not is it supplying results.
| 2:05 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Unless you are the top level business guru of the top investment firm in the world then I don't think any of us are qualified to speculate accurately on how this will affect Google. Yes, I think Google is an awful search engine now, can't find a damn thing! BUT - being good at something isn't what makes you top ...
It's only the Webmaster community that cares (or even knows) about the upcoming change. 95% of search engine users will have no clue and will continue to use Google. Our website traffic will increase due to the change but I can't say that this will impact users for a very long time.
| 2:10 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I can also confirm I am seeing it in Firefox. Besides Brett what Brett said, I also heard from another reliable they were planning to go live on the 15th. I think barring any major glitches, we will indeed see them go live 100% this weekend.
| 2:14 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Another issue with MSN beta is that most of the sites in almost all topics have only around 5-10% pages crawled as compared to Google. |
Personally I have found the MSNBot to be the hardest working and the index to be the quickest updated. Within 24 hours of me launching a site, they had over 500 pages of it showing on Beta. Google still has 1 (the main page) after seven days.
I have found that MSNBot has a certain "dislike" for dynamic pages ... strangely, this includes those that use mod_rewrite to appear static ...
|But considering how many of those are spam, the real trick is to start figuring out more creative ways to get rid of it. that means putting down the programming tools, and putting on the thinking caps. |
It's so strange isn't it? The majority of "PHD's" (no offense to the better educated amongst us) never seem to be able to think outside their box - they tend to think that programming will always win when it is not programming they are fighting against, it's human creativity and that's something you can't learn in a school.
| 2:21 pm on Jan 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I use mod_rewrite on a couple sites and MSN sucks down those pages like they're candy.
| This 245 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 245 ( 1  3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ) > > |