| 4:48 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|So, if you think Bing is going to consign Google to history, a la AltaVista and Infoseek, think again. |
lol, it's statements like this that really show the true fear, isn't it?
Who said anything like that in this thread?
Who even said they "wanted" that?
Again, wanting Goog to NOT be a 70% marketshare leader isn't the same as wanting Goog to fall of the face of the planet.
Calm down Goog-lovers, Everything's...going...to...be....O...K.
Methinks, Thou dost protest too much.
Play it cool, MC, Sergey, Supporters. Never let em see you sweat. :)
|For Microsoft, it makes sense to target users and advertisers in areas like travel, health, and shopping (where users are searching for ways to spend their money) while implicitly conceding the "French medieval poetry," "famine in Africa," and "quantum mechanics" searches to Google |
Oops, ignore what i just said.
Press the panic button NOW
Err, once you figure out a way to start getting WEBMASTERS spending some of their ADWORDS budgets on the money terms at BING and that's a ball that starts rolling downhill, in terms of bottom line profits, very quickly.
Somebody at the 'Plex should investigate this BING! issue. It could get out of hand VERY QUICKLY.
lol, and that's why Sergey is smarter than the rest of us. ;)
[edited by: whitenight at 4:55 pm (utc) on June 17, 2009]
| 4:54 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Got to agree with signor_john AND whitenight (yes, I can).
Bing wants the money terms. Doesnt care about the non-money terms, and is pushing this as a virtue!
If they pull users on the money terms, adword spending will move. Adsense will be less profitable, Google will lose revenue streams.
Bing doesnt want to beat google, just steal the cash. And that should scare Google.
| 5:05 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|If they pull users on the money terms, adword spending will move. Adsense will be less profitable, Google will lose revenue streams. |
Those are pretty big "ifs," especially (but not only) outside the USA.
I'd guess that Bing is a bigger threat to Yahoo than it is to Google. Which isn't to say that Google won't protect its turf.
| 5:05 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Doesnt care about the non-money terms, and is pushing this as a virtue! |
This is (or at least used to be) a fundamental difference in philosophy between Google and Microsoft. To Microsoft and their ilk, money is not only a virtue, it's the only virtue.
Google used to think differently. I'm not sure where they're at now. I guess that remains to be seen. I expect they will continue to see the long-term value of maintaining credibility with academia.
Yes, they are right to maintain a high level of awareness about competition in general and Bing in particular, and I think you're right that Bing is just after the money. And yes, competition is good, even if it's coming from Microsoft. But I don't think anyone is pushing the panic button, nor should they.
| 5:17 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Those are pretty big "ifs," |
When, not "if"
lol, now you're talking as if MS is altavista or infoseek, when it comes to marketing.
they may not be masters in the SE wars, but they are STILL the masters at marketing and advertising.
(yes, even above and beyond anything Goog has or will do)
Who mentioned the story about their teenagers already on BING?
lol THAT real world story is all Goog (and MS) needs to hear to know this isn't something to be nonchalant about.
As a webmaster? heck no!
As an investor?
It's uncomfortable, but not selling time yet.
As a owner looking 3-5 years down the road?
Ummm, as much as one "can" panic when looking 3-5 years down the road. Then yes.
[edited by: whitenight at 5:19 pm (utc) on June 17, 2009]
| 5:19 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
So is Google worried about Bing? May be not, but they always do worry about Microsoft. MS is a big company with a lot of money and deeper pockets than Google has. If they did buy Yahoo (Which in my mind they eventually will) then Google will have a much larger competitor to deal with. In the long run, I have a feeling we will all see this unfold.
| 5:31 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|lol, now you're talking as if MS is altavista or infoseek, when it comes to marketing. |
Well, they've certainly been taking their time. They launched MSN back in 1995, and they're still reinventing the brand (or, in the case of Bing, coming up with a new brand) 14 years later.
| 5:36 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Well, they've certainly been taking their time. |
lol, true. But this time they are serious.
For really, real.
| 5:56 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Content is king in search engines as well. BING has the wrong content for the search terms being entered. End of story. Google has the best SERPS overall.
Aiming BING at a few profitable search areas is pathetic. Think on when you search .... Ah yes, I want to enter a search term "how to earn loadsa money for nowt" so I'll go to BING. Next time I wwant to enter the search term "define quantum physics" so I better go to the low earning search Google. No way! Better results in general from Google will consign BING to the bin... however much money Microsoft have.
| 6:01 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
lol, you need to spend some time walking with the masses.
You have MC disease.
Most people are searching for:
Major world news
(all these things are referenced in the BING commercials, btw)
and p@%^, pills, and
p0ker.(aka, "make money fast and easy" niche)
Don't believe me? Go check out Goog's nifty little "Google Trends" app.
Let me know when anything having to do with "quantum" anything is in the top 100...unless it's the name of a band.
| 6:21 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Most people are searching for: |
Major world news
I would revise that to "most of the time people are searching for:"
I sometimes search for that kind of stuff too, which adds to those numbers. But sometimes I want information about something more substantial. I suspect that's true of others too. Am I going to stick with a search engine if the only thing it gives me good results for are these kinds of high-traffic money terms, and when I want something deeper I have to go somewhere else? I doubt it.
| 6:28 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I know it was just used as an off-the-cuff example, but "define quantum physics" returns very useful (though very different) results in both Google and Bing. In fact, Bing's first page may be just a smidge better in my opinion.
I wouldn't dismiss Bing for non-commercial searches just yet.
| 6:37 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Whitenight, you're missing Nomis5's point entirely. Whether most searches are for "celebrity gossip" or "quantum physics" is immaterial. What matters is whether Microsoft can count on users to come to Bing for searches on travel, health, or other Microsoft-targeted "money" topics when their default behavior is to use Google Web Search.
Marketing strategies and advertising budgets can accomplish so much. Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, when online services were in their heyday, MSN spent hundreds of millions of dollars on ad campaigns that were designed to take subscribers away from AOL. It also had the advantage of being built into Windows 95 and 98. Yet, toward the end of the online-service era, MSN still had only 9 million subscribers compared to AOL's 35 million. Ultimately, AOL faded in importance (as did MSN's online service), but only because its core business--providing dial-up access to modem users--became obsolete.
| 10:00 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Well, Looks like Comscore is showing another good week for bing:
| 10:25 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Is it April Fool's day?
Every few months MSN relaunces its piece of garbage. Every few months they blow millions on advertising. Every few months, after sampling, they lose marketshare because their product is garbage. And every few months, like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown, the FUD and media drama queen express is off and running.
MSN won't amount to anything, whatever the name, until they give the people what they want, a decent search engine.
And since Bing still can't handle a simple 301, it's just dung by a different name. And Google execs continue to do cartwheels that their competitors are utterly pathetic.
| 10:41 pm on Jun 17, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Every few months MSN relaunces its piece of garbage. |
What are you basing your garbage comments upon? I see Bing as the next best thing to Google and possible its equal. Do not downplay this. We need it.
| 12:16 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
No we don't need a crappy search engine that can't even handle basic redirects. Sheesh.
It would be nice for there to be other search engines that offer good quality results, but there are none, and as long as the two other major search engines are so rotten, Google gets more able to act as a monopoly.
Even if it is better tham Live, which was better than MSNsearch, which was better than the beta and alpha MSN searches, Bing is still laughable.
| 3:04 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
After some time has passed since Bing's launch, I'm starting to view Google's home page and serps as somewhat outdated when compared to Bing's design/layout (not the actual search results). While I believe that a lot of the search share movement lately is caused by ads (PPC and CPM)for Bing sending people directly to search results, the layout just feels "cool" and "something new" to explore. I think those might be some concepts that could cause "fear" at Google.
tedster - Thanks for taking me up on my request and your reply. No confusion here about myself and the average user. Maybe, we're just talking with different types of people about the un-asked-for video additions to regular serps. There seems to be a lot of people who I've spoken with who don't LOVE the change - they're average users, none of whom are webmasters or have ever clicked on a video result in regular serps. Personally, when a YouTube video shows up in serps, especially when I didn't search for videos on a topic, I think, "Hmm...Google owns YouTube." It's almost like a getting an unwanted pop-up ad. A side bar with video links might change my mind, though. Thanks again.
signor_john - Thanks for following up and the helpful, detailed info you shared, as well. I agree with your Mac vs. PC example, some of that might be related to the higher costs of buying a Mac one encounters upon further investigation. One can only imagine the results if Macs were actually cheaper than a PC. That being said, choosing a site to use for searching for info on the internet costs a person zero dollars if they switch from one search engine to another. Bing may just be riding a wave of hype these days, but it reminds me of those annoying Pert shampoo commercials: "and they tell two friends...". If MS decided to double their ad spend on Bing's promotion, comScore will send out a report/news release which suggests, in public view, that Bing is the "new thing" on the internet. Since the CPC/CPM ads are sending people to serps on Bing, MS has lots of dough to spend and newspapers seem to dislike Google, things could change dramatically. Maybe that's why Brin is allegedly leading a team of engineers to investigate the search algorithms used by Bing, according to some recent newspaper articles.
| 3:34 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Bing is not targeting webmasters and seos. Take this conversation to the average user who doesnít know what seo is or never heard of redirects and to them, bing is just a search engine.
They don't care about what goes under the hood, they just want to use it.
People who think Google is perfect in filtering spams are fooling themselves. You can find plenty of spam with the right search terms, same with bing. As far as results, if you take off your webmaster hat and view it as a normal person, you wouldn't know the difference.
It is much more graphical to look at than the plain old boring Google.
I don't think it's a Google killer at all, but with all the advertising itís doing, it's going to pull more of the searches than it was getting and that's a step in the right direction. Itís not good for the industry for one search engine to have such a huge dominance on the market.
Donít anybody fool themselves, once Google went public it became all about the money and not the do no evil mantra.
| 3:48 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"As far as results, if you take off your webmaster hat and view it as a normal person, you wouldn't know the difference."
If your IQ is under 70. The difference is obvious to anyone once you click the links. bing has almost no sense of authority or trust, which is why SEOs with thin sites always come out running to priase it when the newest generation of garbage is rolled out. Google is almost always pretty close to right on, with very few completely trivial/spam results. I haven't seen even one Bing result that nails a top ten.
The pathetic technology is just the icing on the cake, but also reflects on why the results are so laughable... they simply have not built a search engine with the technical capabilities of Google, and are nowhere close to doing so, which leads to their results being nowhere close to Googles.
| 7:00 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"Every few months MSN relaunces its piece of garbage."
Interesting, Steveb have you taken time to actually look at the results Bing is providing? The results to me look surprisingly close in many genres I watch to what Google is serving up.
"No we don't need a crappy search engine that can't even handle basic redirects. Sheesh. "
Users could care less to know what a redirect is. As long as the results are there that is all that matters.
| 7:11 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Bing managed to do something none of the other se versions (including live) could do. Got me to install a toolbar link in FF.
I've been running side by side comparisons of results for my PERSONAL searches ala "da web" and it's about 70-30 in Bing's backyard for what really works as to info found that I was looking for. Google remains large and has marketplace at the moment. But when it comes down to RESULTS I have to go with RESULTS. After all, that's what a "front end to massive database of items" is supposed to do.
Search Engine, Decision Engine ... PFHAGH! Who cares? As long as I get what I came for... and free!... that's what counts. And when these guys don't give it to me I altavista or ask jeeves.
Some might see it as old snot in a new gown (and carry about all that animosity about everything that has nothing to do with the instant example et al) and others see it as a corporate recognition of past sins to be excised to bring sheep (er... customers) back to the fold.
And add a little monetization to the bing bling at the same time.
Crap on Bing at individual peril. I personally think they've done a pretty good job so far... and will do better as the days pass.
And if nothing else, should they get their "webmaster make money side" working there's another basket into which your eggs can be placed.
| 7:31 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"Interesting, Steveb have you taken time to actually look at the results Bing is providing?"
Of course. They are bad results overall.
No matter how many times SEOs say they want users to use a crappy search engine because their sites rank good in it, they are instead going to go to one with far better resuls -- and those results are better because of having infratsructure that can handle redirects etc. Results don't just spring out of the head of Zeus. better results come from better methodology, and that is what users want, better results.
Results are what matter. These are by any objective measure worse than Googles, so why would anyone use it (other than having it jammed down their throat by Windows)? As a user I only use it for something extremely obscure when it might take all three engines to find the one or two results for the query.
| 7:44 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
lol please praytell which "OBJECTIVE MEASURE" are you using?
please enlighten us?
As I'm sure the SEs would pay you richly for such a tool to use as an endorsement.
Let us know, if you have time?
| 7:46 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
What's the deal with redirects, steveb? Have you changed your website that many times it becomes incomprehensible? Redirects, correctly scripted in .htaccess, are a nonsequiter. They are just done. By any request (it is, after all, your server hosting the 301!).
| 8:33 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
MSN/Live/Bing has never had a problem with my redirects either, Yahoo on the other hand...It banned one of my sites after a site facelift and sitewide 301's. Furthermore, I honestly don't know what SERP's your looking at on Bing but if they are that bad you must be looking for pills or something that is inherently spam.
[edited by: MLHmptn at 8:33 am (utc) on June 18, 2009]
| 9:03 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Results are what matter. These are by any objective measure worse than Googles, so why would anyone use it |
SteveB you seem to have made your mind up on this but you are missing the point that the results compare well for Joe Public. They are who will decide on whether or not it is a success, not webmasters.
| 10:31 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
"What's the deal with redirects, steveb? Have you changed your website that many times it becomes incomprehensible? Redirects, correctly scripted in .htaccess, are a nonsequiter. They are just done. By any request (it is, after all, your server hosting the 301!)."
Seriously you don't know?
One simple redirect of one page to another page, and Bing "caches" the old URL as:
The document has moved here.
with the word "here" hyperlinked to the second page. (Other versions are "Object moved to here", etc.)
They do this indefinitely, years later. And in doing so they then normally penalize the destination page.
This is way old news. Yahoo's inept handling is similar (they keep the old URLs indefinitely) but they at least don't penalize the destination page.
Google of course does it right, they follow to the new destination and discard the old URL, normally within a couple weeks.
I couldn't care less about my own opinion. I only care about Joe Public, and with every launch of a newly named junkpile, they lose more market share. Every time... no matter how many webmasters who rank well in it try and promote the pitiful search engine.
(And I rank just fine in Bing, but since a #1 ranking in Google is worth about nine times a #1 ranking in Bing, it's pointless to really care until they build an engine people like to use. Maybe five renamings from now...)
[edited by: steveb at 11:11 am (utc) on June 18, 2009]
| 11:08 am on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Funnily enough, I rank really poorly on Bing, and rock solid on Google. And I work for a ecommerce site. However, I can't say I "deserve" to be above the sites on Bing, if only because I don't know what constitutes 'deserving' in Bing.
I mean, I think our site is better than most, but then I would, wouldn't I? As a searcher, I wouldn't be unhappy with the results.
Anyway, its a bit churlish and shows distinct disrespect to suggest the many people who think Bing is at least adequate of simply liking the fact their "thin site" ranks well
| 6:28 pm on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
So the kids like Bing? Sounds like a plan to me. Encourage your kids to use Bing, and tell them to spread the word. Soon all the kids will be using it. I for one will be doing by bit to spread the word ;-)
| 6:39 pm on Jun 18, 2009 (gmt 0)|
My firm has $500M+ in aggregate PPC spend running through its system and it does appear that Bing has made signficant and sustained gains since launching Bing two weeks ago, as measured by impressions, clicks and conversions. Given the massive increase in the number of Bing ads I'm seeing on Google search results and AdSense pages, I'll bet they're spending TONS of money on AdWords right now to drive at least some of that increase.
| This 94 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 94 ( 1 2  4 ) > > |