| 12:14 am on Jan 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have to disagree, MSN Beta is a big step backwards in web search quality for what I look for.
| 3:07 am on Jan 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Most of us here have a vested interest in the placement in any search engine. If we perform well, we are pleased with the search engine, If we perform poorly we are not pleased.
I am no different.
Beyond that I am pleased that another player adds some diversification in the search market. We all have our own opinion of the player.
I really don't think expressing our opinions on this player is that usefull or helpfull. We can vote on that with our buying habits.
I really wish the search market was split futher, with more players. Can anyone rise up in the current market?
This one is beyond me.
| 10:52 am on Jan 24, 2005 (gmt 0)|
My site is placed very good on the serps, but I still dont like the results, there is no theme indexed in the algo, many sites have good ranking just because they have 1 page on there whole site with the topic searched for and the rest is totaly of topic.
I looks a lot like a beginner search engine and many sites are missing a lot of pages which are not indexed.
| 6:51 pm on Jan 25, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|many sites have good ranking just because they have 1 page on there whole site with the topic searched for and the rest is totaly of topic. |
I don't get that. If the page is relevant to the search shouldn't it be indexed well, regardless of what's on the rest of the site's pages?
It's not perfect but it's better than Google on almost every search I make.
Are the people who hate MSN results measuring against Google's results in ultra-competitive areas? Aren't the Google SERPS practically hand-edited on the most competitive kw's? (not a rhetorical question, I have read that several times on this board)
| 3:48 pm on Jan 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think the msn results are decent.. very respectable.
First of all Yahoo/Inktomi have been doing it for 10+ years. Google at least 7-8 years now. MSN has been at it for what, 12-18 months... thats not much time to build such a large search engine thats already competitive.
Considering the short period of time, I think the MSN results are excellent. And no its not cause we have great rankings, because we don't necessarily. Some good, some bad.
If anything i would say the new MSN results are as good or better then Yahoo already.
| 6:41 pm on Jan 26, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes for just starting out not to bad at all really. One interesting element I find about the results (at least in our sectors) is that there a lot of different sites mixing it up near the top and many of them are smaller, mom and pop type sites. Unlike the other two engines where established sites (a few of them ours thankfully!) just seem to consistently rule.
MSN – “The search engine of the people”?
| 2:25 am on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
MSN's results leave a lot to be desired.
Search "News" for example.
There is no mention of the Reuters website in the top 100.
Even their own MSNBC website is not in the top 100!
I don't think news-record.com shoul be ranked 4th.
The search results shows a over-reliance on domain names and page titles.
| 12:37 pm on Jan 27, 2005 (gmt 0)|
It is unfair to generalise saying MSN is better/worse than Yahoo/Google or vice versa.
It is early days for MSN (as noted above) but they still seem to be developing good SERPs for two word searches in semi-competitive areas (in the areas I watch).
Google still dominates on the long search terms 4+. Generally I like what I see there when I'm looking for tools online etc..
To be blunt, one one is good and certainly not excellent with hyper-competitive results (at least in the areas I watch).
I wonder if the 3 are tweaked so that while they try to compete head-to-head, they actually end up being specialists in different parts of the market (hyper competitive areas vs. 2 words vs. long text terms etc.).