| 4:41 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I don't know what MSN likes, but it's substantially different than G and Y.
For my site, it works out well. In MSN, we have the number three spot for the main kw that has anything to do with what our .org does, (out of 3,654,933 results). In G and Y, we're 40-50. It doesn't make a lot of difference, because once you add a country specific, we're at the top in all the SE's, and we have a few hundred text heavy pages that bring in traffic on a hundred different querys every day, mostly on G, but all the same.... we really rock in MSN and I really don't know why. It crawled the h*ll out of the site for months before it went out of beta. It likes us.
Even though Bill is evil, we'll take his serps.
| 5:48 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
our main topic that we rank 2 on google is out of 11 million results, and we generate a very high % of our new traffic from that single term along with another single term which G&Y like us in, but not msn. msn very rarely crawls us, especially the main pages, and im sure there's something to be done about it, but i just havent figured out what
| 6:41 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
MSN's choice of hoops phrases for their commercials are an example of how basically no one there has put any thought into this search engine. If you advertise a phrase, your results for that phrase should at least be not ludicrous.
They think a marketing phrase is a product, when the marketing phrase itself makes the product look even worse than it is.
They really should just start over, and this time put some thought into the product.
Windows Me is the Magna Carta compared to MSN Search.
| 6:48 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
MSN is keeping me alive at this point. Since the Google update killed my rankings, MSN still has me listed in every category almost at the top, which is where I was with Google a month ago. I have no problems with MSN at all at the moment.
| 9:25 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Whilst I selfishly like the MSN results it has to be said they are patchy at best.
When I search in my field the the top 2 or 3 returns are OK then it is as if they have said
'**** it that'll do' and they show almost anything remotely connected.
You can see results on the first few pages that you have to go back 10 or 20 on Google to see!
A lot of sites still appear to be missing as well
| 10:03 am on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
| 3:36 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I have the same problem. I have an authority site, #1 on Yahoo and Google for main keyword phrases, that doesn't show up until page 3 on MSN.
I have a ton of on-page and off-page optimization. Hopefully MSN will get it right soon.
| 7:17 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I'll give em credit for a fast indexing of new pages, but their ranking and understanding of what a page about looks more like a 2 year old created the algo
| 7:25 pm on Mar 4, 2005 (gmt 0)|
...oh for heavens sake, they can not even count right.
First page results for a main keyword phrase:
Web Results 1-8
Second page results:
Web Results 11-20
Where's 9 & 10?
Why can not not display 10 results for the first page? Is it to hard to count to 10!?!
| 12:16 am on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
MSN is a superb search engine. The SERPs provide Fresh up to date results time after time. Great job.I absolutely love the the search engine!
The only down side to this search engine is that they currently dont have enough share of the market - latest report showing just 13% for MSN v 22% Yahoo and 47% Google.
I think if MSN can cut a few deals and feed other search engines with their results data rather than Yahoo or Googles they could up their market share and become a major player.
Advertising the engine alone will not be enough. It will help but some serious deals need to be done if you ask me.
Currently a crap position in Google can provide a webmaster with more hits to their website than a top one in MSN can. As the reports indicate, Google has at least four times MSNs current market share.
As i say, MSN is superb imo but it does need that extra market share to make the impact they want
| 12:46 pm on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
MSN is trying hard to show different results from those of Google and Yahoo, but there are some objectives experiments.
For example, I was looking for a specific scientific paper. My search terms were (without quotation marks) “author1 author2” + the last two words of the title of the paper.
Google: 4.800 results, and the first one is a link to the paper.
Yahoo!: 286 results, and first one is a link to the paper.
MSN: 404 results, and the paper is nowhere.
| 3:25 pm on Mar 5, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes but i could show you just as many examples of current data that MSN has found that Google and Yahoo hasnt.
1. MSN best results most times - just lacks market share
2. Google - fair results - biggest market share
3. Yahoo - poor results full of spam & doorway pages
| 11:18 am on Mar 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i realise nobody here is a newbie when it comes to search engines so i really have a hard time understanding how anybody can say objectively msn is serving great or better results than the big two. It isnt and thats a fact. It may have indexed a site the other two didnt, it may rank your site better than the other two, but you cannot do a broad range of searches and look at the top 20 results and actually say they are doing as good or a better job than the other two. They arent.
| 11:23 am on Mar 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I still rate them
but IMO Google seem to be sliding back at an alarming rate. We'll see...
| 11:32 am on Mar 6, 2005 (gmt 0)|
is not a joke is a c....p,oh by the way i show yesterday there spot on a UK channel,wonder what has to do msn with a crocodile?(are they go on business with Lacoste Tshirts?) they should better use Danbo in the next spot.
| 3:05 am on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well, personally I think the quality of SERP is:
1. Google - Good authority sites
2. Yahoo - Mix of Authority sites & SEOed sites
3. MSN - Small non-Authority sites
Traffic I get for my new content sites:
1. MSN - 55%
2. Yahoo - 45%
3. ...other search engines
6. Google (0.5%)
Those sites are 2 - 11 months old.
| 3:59 am on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yes, but i'm not laughing either.
Week before beta went live I was on top, the day it went live my domain shows only, NO PAGES or SYNOPSIS.
Pinheads at MSN claim I'm indexed, so I asked them to PROVE IT and send me links to page content.
The new MSN is just a steaming pile of....
| 7:27 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I have a ton of on-page and off-page optimization. Hopefully MSN will get it right soon. |
Think about what you have said for a minute :)
| 9:11 pm on Mar 7, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|but you cannot do a broad range of searches and look at the top 20 results and actually say they are doing as good or a better job than the other two. They arent. |
Ha HA! I've run circles around you logically!
I don't do broad ranges of searches to determine some "goodness index" of MSN search vs. the other engines. I make searches when I'm...actually..searching..for something.
Now when I do searches on the keywords that make me money, depending on the week I oscillate between page 1 and page 3-4. What I see on the MSN results are mostly the pages that IMO, people searching for that keyword should hope to find. There's a few scraper sites BFA, but a lot less than I see on G.
I don't doubt for a second that MSN is failing on certain queries that are very important to some of you. Plenty of us disagree, and in this forum we are told we are liars and hypocrites, because "obviously" MSN results are not as good as Google. I use Google a lot myself and I guess I'm going to have to break it to the rest of you...Google ain't that great either.
| 1:00 pm on Mar 8, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|Are too. |
Ha HA! I've run circles around you logically!
yes, you have me totally stumped. Of course limiting searches to a few 'personal' searches and money words will yield the best cross section for an unbiased appraisal of cross engine relative status. How did i miss that one. Doh!
| 3:58 am on Mar 10, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"cross engine relative status?"
what in the world are you talking about? My post actually describes a simple, specific evaluation of MSN search without violating WebmasterWorld TOS.
If you have some sort of methodology for your "broad range of searches" that amounts to a meaningful evaluation, please share it.
| 4:04 am on Mar 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I have the same problem. I have an authority site, #1 on Yahoo and Google for main keyword phrases, that doesn't show up until page 3 on MSN. |
It may be a long shot but try updating a lot of stuff on your home pages or adding several new pages that are easily spiderable by MSN (meaning not too deep into your site but linked-to from the home page). Make it look to MSN like you're updating your sites regularly ... this has been raised as the possible holy grail to MSN.
Only time will tell if its accurate but I have a living example to point to. I am also # 1 out of 7 million on Google. I am also Page 3 on MSN. So was this other guy. However he just completed a complete site redesign when MSN released its new search and he shot straight to # 1 on MSN. Redoing his site made MSN believe his site was relevant, maybe? Since he has a very large established side with thousands of pages, MSN probably also considered it "good content". A brand new site with 100% new content and WOW its got 2,000 pages too. Put the two together and this may be why he jumped so much.
Likewise... for the first few weeks MSN went live with the new search, we were updating our site pretty frequently. Adding new articles. Etc. Im referring to STATIC PAGES here not discussion forum posts. We were # 4 on MSN for quite some time while doing this. Then we stopped for a few weeks.
That is when we shot back to page 3. So I have begun updating the home page with article blurbs and linking to some new static pages within the site, and I will see if this "Freshness" does anything.
| 4:40 am on Mar 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I was excited about MSN at first, but now I see that spammers are winning. I have submitted spam reports, and it is obvious they don't do to much about them. There are BIG keywords that are just loaded with spam.
| 4:52 am on Mar 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
The top 30 results being displayed for common misspellings in real estate keywords is all p0rn related, I am no longer in competition with the real estate people, Thank god I can use spell check!
| 5:10 am on Mar 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Why should MSN show the same results as Google or Yahoo? Google's results should not be the yardstick for what constitutes a valid serp. I like the MSN results precisely because they are different.
Yahoo's results are often different, too. What I really hate is doing a search on all three and seeing substantially the same usual suspects on all the search engines. That's not only boring but unhelpful.
| 9:57 pm on Mar 14, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Why should MSN show the same results as Google or Yahoo?"
They shouldn't but they should show useful results.
"That's not only boring but unhelpful."
Not at all. The same results on all three enginbes would be very helpful, if they were the best results.
There is absolute zero value to users in "different". Webmasters have some lousy priorities. Users do not wander from engine to engine looking for "different". They look for the best web pages that relate to their search term(s).
MSN is a bad engine because it highly values rotten web pages, and it gets no points for offering variety.
The ideal search engine would return results that in the eyes of God are ranked exactly according to the needs/desires of the user. We aren't within a galaxy of that, but someday the holy grail is when all search engines will return perfect results.
| 10:18 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I was excited about MSN at first |
Same here. I was doing great with MSN when my site was a baby, and when I was not ranking in Google or Yahoo. Now that my site is 7 months old and with much work, I am out of the sandbox and can rank decently for phrases between 0-1,000,000 results. I can rank as many pages as I want on Google and be indexed and ranking better than Yahoo and MSN for my topic key phrases of course. For example, I put up 4 pages a few days ago, and these 4 pages combined bring me in an extra 100 visitors a day now. MSN or Yahoo still did not rank my pages, they will, but Google is just faster.
I still think MSN is experimenting. It ranks me well for some terms, and other terms I do not show up at all.
For me, 80% of my traffic is from Google, MSN is 15%, and Yahoo is 8%.
| 10:48 pm on Mar 15, 2005 (gmt 0)|
all i know is i deal in college basketball, and when espn's college basketball index is tucked away on the 3rd page, you know those results have no worth.
| 4:27 am on Mar 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|There is absolute zero value to users in "different". |
Your statement would be true if everyone searching for a particular phrase wanted exactly the same thing in the results.
The logical conclusion of that is that the perfect search engine would only show one result -- the one that is "best." After all, why would anyone want to visit any other web site other than the "best" one?
| This 44 message thread spans 2 pages: 44 (  2 ) > > |