homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Bing Search Engine News
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: mack

Bing Search Engine News Forum

This 245 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 245 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 > >     
New MSN Search is LIVE
We are seeing a rollout of MSN new search

 3:20 pm on Jan 14, 2005 (gmt 0)

continued from: [webmasterworld.com...]

It looks like it might be tied into their lateset Windows update.

Results look very good so far, Look out Google!


The Dr



 8:22 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

"The latter [yahoo] charges $300 for a CHANCE to enter their directory. Really."

I don't know, one of my sites gets consistent top 10s, often number ones, for keywords between 5-20+ million on yahoo, I think yahoo decided it was an authority site or something. Of course, valuable lesson, just because you rank number one for 8 million results doesn't mean you get much traffic from that.


 9:21 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm right Tigrou :)

I'll start a thread about a year from now, before and after MSN usage. Actually if you want to put a wager on it, i'll be more than happy to take your money. The window is open.

I was hoping with all the money they had, they could come up with a better product but i was wrong. Not hard to see, just open a few browsers and do a little searching or just search with the new MSN for a week or two, that'll tell you all you need to know. Some people see the Microsoft name and think they can do anything or compete in any market they get into. Just not true. Tivo is one example. Do we need to talk about their browser? Security nightmare, it's why Firefox is making moves on them. Why did they extend their relationship with Yahoo's Overture into June 2006? I remember an article where they were supposed to do that on their own this last summer. They're behind in the game, have become followers not leaders. Trying to play catch up at this point.

"Yahoo is (for now) the best of all three,"

And they're using a lot of what? Inktomi as a foundation, what MSN is giving up.


 9:40 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm right Tigrou :)

Awfully sure of yourself.

I wouldn't count MSN out. While they are lacking in areas, this is still VERY early on and they have come lightyears in a relatively short time. In another year, with more data, I think they will have a definite contender.

They are by far the freshest which is sorely needed right now with the G's "sandbox" or whatever you want to call it, and Yahoo's snail's paced indexing.

With a bit more in the way of spam filters, and possibly a slight turn of the link pop knob down a bit, they could easily trump both G and Y.


 10:33 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Think about it. If MSN produced the same results as Google, users wouldnt bother with it and would stick to Google.

This way they build their own engine with their own Algo and produce a much better set of results, for once which are relevant to the search term.

Anyone not in the index can pay per click just like the way Google provide it.

The only people here that are knocking MSN are the ones that have had it to good for to long in Google and quickly realise that MSN will do some damage.

Bring it on MSN, at last we have an alternative. Cant wait for them to switch on the UK


 10:38 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

2x4 - I take your point. The Yahoo Dir is probably a pretty good way of starting to select authorities in each KW field.

But also it may never be explicitly stated, but it is left to assume that the $300 investment is required to play in the real SERPs in Yahoo. e.g. all results are shown but extra weight is giving to those in the dir. It's a fair price for serious sites. I'd expect (maybe wrongly) that since that weighting skews the results, Yahoo would have to put less weighting on that if more SEs would out there. Said another way, you can skew the results a lot if little real competition, less if more real competition.

TrustNo1 - Heh! Like your style if not your argument.

I would easily accept a bet that MSN gains at Google's expense this year. Nothing in this game is certain, many factors could skew it but better than average odds.

So "Let's go." $50?

Probably against TOS to say more so sticky me and we'll find a neutral arbitrator.

I think you may have though missed my 2nd point:

On top of MSN gaining some market share, it is not that MSN will become the much beloved and now bereaved "Google of 2002". It is that they will shake up the scene and force competitive moves by Google & Yahoo towards making the consumer more happy no matter the SE they use.

Still MSN will be the only one throwing significant new marketing budget at the marketplace (for now.)


 10:41 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think a wager of backlinks may be more appropriate. :)


 10:58 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I like money better :)

Not following on how they will gain market share or shake up any scene. It comes down to relevant results and users will go with the SE they feel gives them that. Doesn't matter how much money you throw at it, if you don't have the product to back it up. I know a lot are liking the new MSN just because it likes their sites for now, or they're having bad luck with Yahoo or Google. But it comes down to this. Are you going to be using the new MSN for your everyday surfing? Right now the new MSN would be my 4th choice. I'm sure they'll make improvements as time goes by, they have a lot of work to do to make a strong third. I'm pulling for them, i would like to see 3 strong players. But as it stands, i don't thing they're quite ready for prime time, but they're doing it anyway. I see it as a downgrade from MSN/INK and i think the usage numbers will bear that out. Time will tell.


 11:06 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Some of you are not paying attention to what I and some others have posted here.

Several of our pages are the #1 search result in Yahoo, Tahoma, Mama, Ask, and Google for 2 years and we have never paid a dime for any placement.

These pages are not listed at any level except "site:" on MSN beta. They are effectively blacklisted.

If you bother to read what others have written here, there are hundreds of authority sites that are missing from MSN serps, this has been reported numerous times, and nothing is done.

How anyone can claim that the MSN results pages are relevant when they miss the hundreds of authority sites reported here by others is astounding.

They need to fix MSN beta or their 4% market share will drop below 1%.


 11:12 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

I think this post deserves repeating:

...they have come lightyears in a relatively short time. In another year, with more data, I think they will have a definite contender.

They are by far the freshest which is sorely needed right now with the G's "sandbox" or whatever you want to call it, and Yahoo's snail's paced indexing.

With a bit more in the way of spam filters, and possibly a slight turn of the link pop knob down a bit, they could easily trump both G and Y.

Spot on Philospher...


 11:42 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

csnet ... you open up a lot of questions, part of me feels that think have you have a divine right to be in the MSN results .... authority site? really depends on what you want .... if I search for widgets i may just want to buy new widgets not read every able piece of information on it link ..... really depends on what your site is about......


 11:48 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

Just one other point to make here ... let's not assume that you average joe looks in detail at the product/service, search engines in this case often people use what is thrust in front of them admittadly Microsoft are a bit late in the day entering the arena and the search results are mixed at the moment however they certainly have the resources to thrust their prucduct in peoples laps so to speak! .. IE was a fine example of this! And without doubt they will get better as time goes by!

The Grizzler

 11:50 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

csnet - I am genuinely intirgued as to what constitutes an authority site and why those that feel they have authority sites should be perplexed why their site is not listed competitively in the new msn beta.

Authority: An accepted source of expert information or advice

Accepted by whom? Google perhaps? Inktomi? Webmasters? Authors?

For an information site, I understand what may constitute an "authority site", ie. large well established on topic site with many (what must be) genuine backlinks and possibly some contribution or vote from leading industry figures. However, regarding a retail site, what constitutes an authority?

Just because a large site selling lots of products has been around for some time at the top end of google would not in my opinion make them an "authority site". Backlinks in these circustances are usually link exchanges or paid for links and not genuine "votes" for a quality site.

FWIW my site is retail, quite large for it's sector, 2K+ pages and although young (18 months) keeps 7 people employed. For the last 6 months we have enjoyed great rankings on Yahoo/Msn, Jeeves and now the new msn beta. Google, conversely ranks us high only for unusual small money keywords.

No doubt there are many information site webmasters who rightfully feel aggreived that msn beta doesn't give them a higher ranking at the moment, but I think there are also many retail site webmasters who pompously think that it is their right to be ranked highly and complain on WW and other forums that this new search engine is just no good.

I welcome another credible medium and will work hard to maintain/improve our rankings, but I do not believe I have a right to high placement based on the length of time I have been "liked" by Google.


 11:56 pm on Jan 18, 2005 (gmt 0)

csnet - I realise that you are discussing more SEs than Google, but for the most part I don't want to see the authority sites that Google calls authority sites. They tend to be directories by a different name. Why do I want to search/click twice to get a real result for my search?

MSN, it seems, has a different way of sorting authorities (or whatever they use for their version of hilltop). The best thing about MSN to my eye is that they haven't turned into the "dynamic directory of directories" that Google now is.

Please don't take this as any kind of personal jab csnet. I have no idea if your sites fall into the common directory cum authority site. I just hope all the ones that do are ignored by MSN.

ps the bet is being taken care of offline :-)

[edited by: Tigrou at 12:05 am (utc) on Jan. 19, 2005]


 12:00 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

not sure if anyone already verfied this, but I was at a microsoft seminar this afternoon and the presenter broke the news that the search would be going live today at 2 pm pacific time, however it would still be in the beta status for several weeks.


 12:03 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I agree the 'authority siteness' is in the eyes of the onlooker and not the site owner!


 12:03 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

rivi2k - Nice catch. Seems you're the first one with this.

Any more details? What does 3 week beta entail?


 12:36 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

The Grizzler - Great post, exactly! 100% agree with you.

The listings on Google are dire frankly. Out of date and not content related mixed with googles policy of sandboxing sites to help increase PPC income. Links are not King, content should be.

With google, its like saying i would only use the shop down the road that has been open for years and not try the nice new modern design one just opened because it hasnt been open long enough.

Time for Google to start updating on a regular basis all content sites.

Its the webmasters that have been sitting on loads of traffic for years that now have to start working on content for MSN rather than link exchanges if they want to feature.

rivi2k - any idea of time scale for msn.co.uk or is this what you refer to?


 1:03 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Grizzler, our site is not a commercial site (no product sales). It is a site with extensive collections of images, video clips, and text about a few pop culture personalities, "historic" posters, crazy contests, original artist song lyrics and wma clips, etc.

My wife and I are retired concert promoters, who have not stopped promoting. lol

I know most of the web masters here are selling products, and if MSN beta is doing well for them great. The problem is that users use a SE for other things beyond product searches. It is the non-product search area where MSN is weakest IMO.

For example, in the pop culture field, hundreds of sites simply cannt be found with MSN beta that are the top sites on Yahoo, Teoma (Ask), Mama, and Google.

As I said, using a two keyword search for an actress name produces SERPs where our site is #1 on all the other SEs and the actress commands 8 out of the top 10 positions. On MSN beta, this actress gets only 3 results in the top 10, and the top result for her is bizarre - it's a tobacco company links page with the actress name combined with "cigar". It's gross!

In any case, MSN is opening an excellent promotional opportunity for the competing SEs by providing a SE that does not produce usable results for the kinds of searches people do.


 1:36 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Csnet, I wonder how many searchers actually want to buy music, books and posters etc of your singer, rather than find the 'free' info that your site would seem to offer.


 1:42 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Ever tasted 'sour grapes'?


 1:49 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

sorry for the delay in my response, the presenter was referring to the engines operating in the united states and canada, I wasnt able to stick around for the whole seminar and get any further details..but from what information I was able to get from him before it started it seemed like they were excited to launch worldwide, and the beta period was simply a way for them to regress the system if everything doesnt go to plan.


 1:54 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Several of our pages are the #1 search result in Yahoo, Tahoma, Mama, Ask, and Google for 2 years and we have never paid a dime for any placement."

Ok, that's interesting. I do a site, niche, very relevant in its topic area, have never been able to get it into top 50 for 2 word keyword phrase in Google or Yahoo. Many people would be happy to find this site using that keyword phrase. It's currently bouncing between 2 and 4 in MSN beta. So this site is finally going to get some recognition, it's very old domain, I've been working on it as a freebie for years, so there's only a certain amount of time and resources I can put into it.

On google, that 2 word keyword phrase returns many fascinating sites where you can buy products related to let's call it widget x. And that mention or have reviews of our site. But no sight of our site.

Using your logic, I guess msn beta is the best search engine out there, and google and yahoo both suck. But wait, yahoo has decided another site I do is an authority for its topic area, but google still has most of it in some weird sandbox type purgatory even though I've done everything by the book to help googlebot out. So I guess that means that msnbeta and google suck. For a while msn beta really liked that site, had it number 1 for target keywords, then it changed its mind and decided only a vaguely related page for target keyword was the real page. But then again, for some other weird keywords, that site is number 1 in google, but not in msn hardly at all. So I guess that means that msn beta and yahoo suck. Hmmm. Scratches head. I think it's good to have 3 main search engines. And hopefully one day there will also be a non-profit one, like a library, that will only rank information type sites, no commercials ones unless you specify that in your search.

So it seems that all 3 are best, but all three also suck, since they can't agree. Or maybe they are different, and use different things to determine where your page ranks, and you can't make them all happy at once with any guarantee, although you can always try.

Personally, I think all 3 suck this year, they are all having major failures consistently that have not been fixed, msn beta is most excusable because it's a baby. Google's failures are beyond excuse as far as I'm concerned, and yahoo really just doesn't seem to care very much, a lack of care that is reflected in webmaster's disinterest in yahoo, reflected in almost no yahoo forum postings anywhere on the web.

[edited by: 2by4 at 2:18 am (utc) on Jan. 19, 2005]


 1:56 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

I'm very surprised Microsoft hasn't marketed the launch more!

Maybe they do plan to bring users to it through other means...

Will be interesting to see how the stats move. Can only get better from appox' 4%.


 2:04 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

If a person doesn't know what an "authority site" is in their niche, they should take up a different profession.


 2:08 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Steveb, have you ever heard the word 'subjectivity'?

It has a large part to do with what each individual (and G$$gle) considers an 'authority site'!


 2:20 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

-Csnet - so people should able to find your site in the event that they are searching for ‘extensive collections of images and video of the actress without the cigar’ - that is not gross. Having lots of old content does not make you an authority on the specific subject.

We have a collection of "blue widgets" and we market them on the internet for other people to find it and buy them. The collection of ‘blue widgets’ is not that small around 250 widgets, but the entire collection is about these "blue widgets", not cigars. I am the authority on new MSN and no one on Google unless I pay them 40 cents PC and then some savvy webmaster decides to put Ads by Google on their page for keyword "blue widgets" but their site is about 'sour grapes' so when people finally click on that add from the 'Grapes page', I as the Authority have to pay for it to the authority that allows to display the add. I see you point about the devotion to quality content, but to my opinion MSN has the best one about the widgets that I have.


 2:23 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

>>> "Csnet, I wonder how many searchers actually want to buy music, books and posters etc of your singer, rather than find the 'free' info that your site would seem to offer"

None of the sites MSN found are selling music, books and posters etc.

Apparently MSN beta believes searchers want to buy cigars. Of the 3 sites MSN beta found, the top #1 "authority site" (sic) on the actress is a tobacco company's link page. In the #2 spot, only the original CBS-TV site, unchanged for 3 years, has content about the actress. The 3rd site is a site with a few pages that mentions the actress in a show that never aired in the U.S. That site has not been updated in a year.

What these 3 sites share in common is that none of them have links to any site in the network of independent sites, message boards sites, photo sites, blogs, and official sites that comprise the fan communities for these genres, where users can find current, up to date information about the personalities.

MSN beta has dreadful results in this area.


 2:29 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Steveb, have you ever heard the word 'subjectivity'?"

If a person is too dumb to not be able to be objective, they deserve whatever happens.

A person would have to be a complete blockhead to not objectively know what an authority site is in their niche. Disputing the value of authority is nonsensical.

The only issue is the search engine's ability to accurately discern true authority.

[edited by: steveb at 2:29 am (utc) on Jan. 19, 2005]


 2:29 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

"Having lots of old content does not make you an authority on the specific subject."

I agree. That's what is so vexing. Our site has clips and/or stories about every professional gig the actress has done in the past 3 years, including 4 different jobs in the last 8 months. No other site is even trying to be as current.

That is why I believe Yahoo placed us in their directory a couple years ago immediately after our first request, and why we have been the #1 site on Yahoo, Teoma, Ask, Mama, and Yahoo ever since for this two word actress name search.


 3:14 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

Whats the point in having three different search engines which consider the same sites "authoritiy" for every search?
Any SE that does'nt supply what the searchers are looking for will eventually fail or have to be improved. (no matter who promotes it).


 3:51 am on Jan 19, 2005 (gmt 0)

zero smpathy for "authority" sites not in the new MSN.

Why? because many of the "authority" sites in my area, as far as G and Y are concerned, are dated, stale, and suckling off their former glory.

Having a new engine come along and shake things up is a good thing. M$ isn't my favorite organisation around, but that's irelevant. I wish a "Big New Engine" would launch with new algos, new results, and big fanfare once a year.

It would do much to democratise the web.

Any time something as keystone as a Search Engine (or an Operating system, for that matter) becomes too dominant, the tech and the flow of information suffers. It would be like saying 1 librarian gets to determine what books an entire nation gets to access.

Competition is good. Monopolies and Oligarchies are bad. Deal with it.

This 245 message thread spans 9 pages: < < 245 ( 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Bing Search Engine News
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved