| 12:31 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
It's sad when a company is so desperate for press about their search engine that they have to make laughable claims like this. A more reasonable goal would be 'in 2 years we might have an engine that's as good as Google was in 2003'.
| 2:28 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Mindshare is far more important at this point and G is dominating in this area"
I was with you 100% until you said
"Our logs do not hide anything and MSN has continued to die off as G has continued to gain,.."
The folks whose mindshare have to be won don't have a clue what's in your logs .. nor what webmasters like and don't like.
"the public will decide who is the best, .."
Yes, and it may have nothing to do with what webmasters consider as "relevancy"
"'in 2 years we might have an engine that's as good as Google was in 2003'."
That would be great, because Google '06 is losing share that Google '03 won.
| 3:18 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|That would be great, because Google '06 is losing share that Google '03 won. |
The latest market-share reports show Google and Yahoo! having gained while MSN has lost market-share.
| 3:32 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
When I can loose all MSN listings on 20 or so websites and not even notice for 2 months well that pretty much sums up my point on my logs.
As for marketshare being lost you are mistaken there as Kufu pointed out, unless of course Nielson is completely wrong.
| 4:28 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|When I can loose all MSN listings on 20 or so websites and not even notice for 2 months well that pretty much sums up my point on my logs. |
I totally agree. I've found that a #1 MSN ranking really isn;t worth more than a second page Google ranking. I really don't like this two pony race with Google and Inktomi, that's why I'd like to really see MS come out with something that will gain some share, and this is coming from a diehard MS-basher :)
| 9:04 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
What an historic year it'll be for Microsoft!
Not only will they produce an Internet search service better than Google in the next six months (see first post in this thread), but they will make email spam a thing of the past too!
"Spam will soon be a thing of the past" -- Bill Gates 26 months ago. Their final working release for that has surely got to be this year to still qualify as "soon".
| 9:39 am on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
However this pans out, more competition is a good thing. This will keep Google and Yahoo on their toes.
| 3:12 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"As for marketshare being lost you are mistaken there as Kufu pointed out, unless of course Nielson is completely wrong."
Reread that comment with your calendar rolled back to '03. How much market share had Google gained in *previous years*
Also, there was no MSN search in '03, so any gain MSN made in '06 was partly at the expense of google.
Better yet, look at Googles *% share* of search now compared to '03. I would bet it's lower .. could be wrong ..
| 3:13 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"The latest market-share reports show Google and Yahoo! having gained while MSN has lost market-share. "
What was MSN's share in '03?
| 3:15 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
When I can loose all MSN listings on 20 or so websites and not even notice for 2 months well that pretty much sums up my point on my logs."
How many MSN listings did you have on those 20 websites in '03?
| 4:10 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I make a nice living off of MSN currently, if they can find a way to drive more visitors to my sites that currently rank in the top 10 that would be great. No sandbox to worry about. I get sites in the top 10 in almost no time at all! I say Bring it on MSN!
| 6:27 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think you made an interesting point there, AfterBurner, albeit unintentionally.
I understand webmasters love MSN because it's easier to 'game', or so I've heard.
What webmasters like about search engines, and what the public like, don't have equal value.
I wonder if a search engine that webmasters truly loved could also be a commercial success, just based on that criterion?
(Don't tell me that's how Google got going(?) [grin])
| 6:38 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The webmaster community drives the PR of the search engines. Without us, Google wouldn't be here, nor would MSN or Yahoo! Or any of the others for that matter. Communities such as WebmasterWorld can make or break a search engine.
Google made it to where it is today primarily because of webmasters. They launched a product which was in high demand, quality search, and the webmaster community followed and supported their efforts staunchly.
If MSN can launch a product that is equal to or greater than Google, I'm all for it. We need equality amongst the top three. All it takes is one home page thread here at WebmasterWorld and other fora to start the viral effect. That is if they do good. If not, that same home page thread can destroy them.
| 7:06 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
old_expat I had alot of listings on MSN in 01, 02 and 03, all these sites have been around for 5 - 9 years depending and I have continually watched MSN loose almost all marketshare across every single site. The replacement sites are sub domain spam and keyword loaded spam to the point of oblivion.
All data out there from nielson and several other firms clearly shows MSN loosing market share quarter after quarter, how exactly are they going to reverse that downtrend and destroy Googles dominance in 6 months?
Hrmm let me see... 89,000 visitors from Google so far today and 512 from MSN, I think G must be really scared!
| 11:10 pm on Mar 3, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Thats the point. They are not are they. Its all hot air!.
However, afterburner did make a very good point, its very, very easy to game msn so may as well take full advantage.
A friend of mine put together an 8 page website "Blue-widgeters.com" which in effect acts as a door way to their main site as it has a great big banner link to their own site at the top of the page and is to be honest a junk website of zero use to visitors.
All the site does is have a few spam pages keyword stuffed about blue widgets with a link to their main blue widget site (which is returned) on every page with links down the right hand side of the page to "red-widgeters", green-wideters, pink-widgeters etc all of which are exact duplicate sites of blue-widgeters, she hasnt had chance to change them yet!, but msn cant tell so no problem. Anyway, the site ranks 2 in msn for blue-widgets which is a major keyword that costs 70p a click in overture.
Currently she is knocking together more junk on the same basis just to take traffic. I must confess i have tried it myself and got new thin sites ranking PDQ for big commercial words so i know its easy to game.
If msn had more traffic reach you would see a hell of a lot more gaming going on imo. Its only due to the fact that the trafffic is low that not many want to put the effort in.
| 12:14 am on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I think MSN could make a better search engine by offering an ad free search option (that is filtering non-authority sites loaded down with ads) and being to search what PBS is to TV. PBS is more relevant in almost everything than the networks. I doubt MSN will have a better search engine than Google in 6 months if they're trying to mimic 99% of what Google does. I think MSN also needs to rebrand their search, calling it MSN is too stale.
| 3:04 am on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"old_expat I had alot of listings on MSN in 01, 02 and 03, .."
I think you are missing my point .. or maybe I stated it poorly.
Those listings/results you saw in '01-'03 came from whom?
MSN was in the business of listing results, not in doing searches.
As for the current search results normally seen, it appears that MSN is trying too hard to duplicate Google's algorithym.
Can you honestly say that Google results are better in '06 than they were in '03?
| 7:36 pm on Mar 4, 2006 (gmt 0)|
No wonder why Google shareholders are dumping ALL their shares AS FAST as possible. They know the MSN train is coming around the corner. LOL
| 1:13 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
MSN's search engine has fresher content! They update cache's quicker with relevant content.
| 1:52 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
nice colors , glad they did it , not so hard on the eyes any more :: good stuff.
Become bigger , have your algorithm some where in between google and yahoo.
how to play pool
yahoo wins hands down,
show how big the index is , yull get people coming back
| 5:38 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
nice colors , glad they did it , not so hard on the eyes any more :: good stuff.
That's only a mimic of Google's homepage...I don't see any creativity or initiative on MSN's part for this type of new layout - only to show how desperate they are. MSN has a lot of resources, strenghts and know-how; they need to show some distinctions and initiatives.
| 9:04 am on Mar 6, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Well, you can't really blame MS for using a smart concept (search page without lots of distractions), even though they are mimicking an existing solution (never done that before, have they?). That's just the old KiSS rule.
The important part is how the search results will pan out.
| 11:02 am on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I think MSN could make a better search engine by offering an ad free search option (that is filtering non-authority sites loaded down with ads) and being to search what PBS is to TV. |
What a great idea!
| 2:44 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"more relevant ......than Google"
But they already are. At least spammy = relevant in most cases.
I searched Google recently for a product I was interested in buying online, a fairly common item that would be available in most department stores, and got results ranging from an article about Richard Nixon's hair style to a blog entry about how the writer's cousin Amy wore said item to the family picnic last weekend.
| 4:37 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|No wonder why Google shareholders are dumping ALL their shares AS FAST as possible. |
Not even close to true. Even without the illogic of the concept.
SOME shareholders are SELLING (not dumping) their shares to others. Unless they bought very recently, they are still selling them for a nice profit.
For a stock transaction to take place, there must be a BUYER for the seller's shares. So obviously there are still alot of people who are buying GOOG. (Every share sold = 1 share bought.)
| 7:39 pm on Mar 7, 2006 (gmt 0)|
A little insight into what a "great" job msnbot is doing and how "smart" it is.
This month I have 2043 hits from msnbot/0.9, additionally I have 2044 hits from msnbot/1.0.
Now tell me why is msnbot/0.9 still running and making hits when msnbot/1.0 is also doing the same.
Which bot is returning results to MSN for indexing? Are they both? Does this cause a conflict?
How can they be more relevent when they can't even get their most current bot to crawl exclusivly and their most recently depricated version to stop? Anyone else see this in their logs? Seems to me an 'unintellegent' behavior and to be more relevent you would think you would have to have somewhat intellegent algos behind a bot to be more relevent.
Another example of how MSN is behind and I don't see 6 months making this better is:
One of the sites I run is a huge college of professionals who are the governing body for their industry for an entire province. They have, and continue to be a large site and they get top results for most of their content which is in quite a specific market. They have had their site up over 7 years now and recently they decided to update their site with a new skin.
I rolled out the new skin about 3 months ago, keep in mind that the page URLs remained the same as did the content, some new stuff was added. Now even with hits from all the major bots daily it took the big indexers the following amount of time to have the new skin in the cache and new front page content to be displayed:
MSN - 24 days
YAHOO - 17 days
GOOGLE - 3 days
Obiviously one of these has a more intellgent algorythom. I could site more examples but I think these 2 show the cracks yet to be filled by MSNbot. I am sure there are more.
| 1:18 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
In a nutshell two things are wrong with MSN
1. Its bot technology is not up to scratch and it just simply cant index a large site - end of.
2. It just doesnt have a large enough market share of search. It needs to aquire some smaller search players or partner with large sites to supply msn search results data rather than Googles.
In time it can perhaps improve its search technology but without some kind of market move it will just be another ask jeeves at best imo.
At the end of the day us webmasters need a good alternative to the domination that Google has but in the UK everything is Google. Aol = Google, virgin net = google, even all the free superstore online platforms integrate google search.
Its going to be tough for msn to crack this domination imo
| 2:45 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Its going to be tough for msn to crack this domination imo |
Ain't nothing there that money can't buy. It is just a matter of how bad Bill really wants it.
MS pushed Netscape (the most popular web browser at the time) into obliviation...trust them to find a way to do the same to Google.....it is only a mater of time and $$$.
There is not much going for Google right now except for ad revenue from their SERPs, not to mention tons of competition plus a few more tons of upcoming competition. While MS enjoys superiority and hardly any serious competition with their OP systems and massive range of developer, office and gaming software, not to mention hardware products. MS is a real monster when compared to Google, with multiple streams of revenue from countless products. Hence, it is just a matter of time and how bad Bill really want to take Google head on.
Designing a good search engine is no big deal really...I've seen some php site search scripts that do a much better search job and relevancy scoring then today's Google. I for one will be glad to see this monopoly take some of it's own medicine.
| 11:43 pm on Mar 11, 2006 (gmt 0)|
"Ain't nothing there that money can't buy"
Sure there is: good judgment
MSN has thrown money around while exercising remarkably horrible judgment. Until the key elements of the engine are run by people with non-awful judgment, the engine will continue to blow, regardless how much money they spend on dresses for pigs.
| 6:35 am on Mar 12, 2006 (gmt 0)|
If I had the resources that Microsoft has, I would make the same claim.
Google is hitting the tail of cool and becoming just another big corp.
Considering the big three, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft, Microsoft has the biggest advantage considering their depth.
I think they finally realize how much they can make in advertising and may actually focus on it and I don't mean only search.
| 6:43 pm on Mar 14, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Here's my ideal webworld:
Google == 25%
Yahoo == 25%
MSN == 25%
Everybody else (GigaBlast, Ask/Teoma, Accoona, et at) == 25%
IMHO, the web will be a healthier environment and almost all of us will get better traffic when the power is less concentrated, as it is when one player gets almost 50% of all search queries. Don't know if we'll ever see such a balance, but with MSN in the game, it is more rather than less likely.
| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 70 ( 1  3 ) > > |