homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.148.189
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 118 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 118 ( 1 2 3 [4]     
Google versus Bing - from someone who watches very closely
tedster




msg:3973109
 11:41 pm on Aug 16, 2009 (gmt 0)

There's a very interesting blog article comparing Google results to Bing results. We normally don't link to blog articles here, but this isn't just any old blog. It belongs to Tom Costello, CEO and founder of the Cuill search engine -- and husband to former Google engineer Anna Lynn Paterson (she's the one on Google's phrase-based indexing patents).

So this is a knowledgeable commentary from someone who sees a lot more data that most of us can even dream about. I've extracted four observations out of many, many more.

  • Bing had 2.9% spam, Google had 2.56% spam, while Yahoo had 4.9%
  • Bing prefers URL matches more
  • Bing seems to prefer pages where the term occurs with its first letter capitalized
  • Bing does less term-rewriting than Google.

Tom's Blog [cuil.com]

It's that last observation above that caught my eye the most. If Google is going to lose ground to Bing/Yahoo it will be in this area -- too much giving you what they THINK you mean instead of what you actually typed. We see related comments [webmasterworld.com] here quite often in recent times.

 

whitenight




msg:3976134
 1:38 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

absolutely hilarious.

and also because on Earth six months is a long time.

You mean like... in 6 months..
Goog could have slapped your sites (you DO actually have sites, don't you?) into -950 oblivion.

Yes, indeed, 6 months is a long time. ;)

(In other words, whiteknight is saying that even with an additional $200 million in advertising over the next six months Bing can not possobly gain more than 3% marketshare!)

Yay! More circular arguments.

Which one is it?

Now you're saying i'm UNDERESTIMATING Bing's growth, right?

So what you are telling us is that it's LOGICAL we could expect MORE THAN 3% growth?!

OK, since you've revised your opinion.

Let's see
28.2% + 3+% = 31.2%
(just making sure we all agree on the numbers here)

Cause, 31.2% certainly SOUNDS like
it falls between 30% and 33%
that a few of you insisted on debating for the past 20 posts.

lol, thanks for making MY point by arguing with me for argument's sake.

Brilliant!

Put another way, anyone who currently chooses Yahoo, but likes Google better than Bing, is a person likely to be lost.

So explain to me steveb,
why has Google LOST marketshare since May?

Please, oh please, i want to hear this.

micklearn




msg:3976155
 2:39 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

whitenight, I too, get dizzy about circular arguments. Hoping this will help out: Bing will have approximately a 30% share once the deal is implemented in the U.S. early next year and in the months that follow, as it's rolled out to the rest of the world. As far as one can know, the Yahoo SERPS may not even disclose the source of them (like they did with Google, oops!). Some searchers may notice the similiar/identical SERPS with Bing and Yahoo, but I doubt it will result in a dramatic change of usage for either one. But, Bing should have ~30% according to those who keep track.

[edited by: micklearn at 2:51 am (utc) on Aug. 21, 2009]

signor_john




msg:3976156
 2:44 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Btw since May, Goog has LOST .3% marketshare.

Three-tenths of a percent? For Google, that's the equivalent of me pulling a handkerchief from my pocket and losing a nickel on the sidewalk. :-)

whitenight




msg:3976163
 3:09 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Three-tenths of a percent? For Google, that's the equivalent of me pulling a handkerchief from my pocket and losing a nickel on the sidewalk. :-)

Wow, my whole long post and this is the minutae you get hung up on? ;)

Let me rephrase the question for you, so you get the bigger point.

"Why hasn't Goog GAINED market share since Bing's release?"

MrSavage




msg:3976168
 3:22 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Why hasn't anyone posted here the dollars M$ has set aside for marketing Bing? Let's put it this way. The party hasn't even started. Look at Apple. Good marketing can convince the world of anything. Just watch. It will be fun to review this thread in a years time. Very entertaining read, thanks everyone.

tedster




msg:3976169
 3:26 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Let's change the channel here. What does this mean, practically?

Here's the deal as I see it. What is currently two distinct traffic sources will both be determined by just one ranking algorithm, Bing's. It will still show up in an analytics program as tow unique referring domains, just as Google and AOL do now, but the main controls for both these traffic sources will be in one place.

I have mostly yawned about whatever Microsoft's current search engine is. Unless there is the liberty to target a separate site exclusively to MSN/Live/Bing, their algo just didn't mean enough to worry about. But with that algo about to control a much bigger chunk of traffic, it sort of demands a lot more attention.

I see already that I don't like some of the query rewriting that Bing does. It's not nearly as intelligent as Google's, no matter how much I complain about Google's query rewriting.

I've also seen that Yahoo's audience and Bing's audience are both somewhat easier to convert than Google's audience. So, even if Google has more than twice the traffic under its thumb, Google may not have that same lead in actual conversions.

For me, this means that Y+B deserves a good bit more study than I've given either one to date.

whitenight




msg:3976171
 3:37 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've also seen that Yahoo's audience and Bing's audience are both somewhat easier to convert than Google's audience. So, even if Google has more than twice the traffic under its thumb, Google may not have that same lead in actual conversions.

Yes, indeed. Alot of us marketers have wished we could get Live/Bing's conversion rates from Goog traffic.

Again, a plus for all those who prepare for this.

whitenight




msg:3976175
 3:47 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Another thought that will make some/many here happy is,
Yahoo will now be sending them traffic via Bing.

Especially if they've been victim of Yahoo's "Google-sque" unexplainable penalties/bannings

tedster




msg:3976177
 4:05 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'll be quite happy to see Yahoo's hardline penalty/ban attitude evaporate. I think they inherited it from Inktomi back in 2002.

StoutFiles




msg:3976183
 4:27 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

How come no one here is talking about Cuil and their rise to search engine dominance?

tedster




msg:3976191
 4:50 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Because Cuil is licking its wounds and regrouping. They clearly could not live up to their own hype as "the Google killer", and they're no longer even aiming in that direction.

And as far as that regrouping thing, see: Last year's "Google-killer" plans a comeback with social search. [technologyreview.com]

One year ago, the search engine Cuil exploded on the launchpad. Hyped as a "Google-killer," the site stumbled as its servers crashed and its algorithms spat out irrelevant search results.

Now, the Menlo Park, CA, startup hopes to stage a comeback in part by being the first search engine to pass search queries through users' social networks to generate socially enhanced search results as a companion to regular ones.

I don't think any business needs to aim at being the "anything-killer". Pick a goal, execute it well, and you can have a solid business. You might grow - you might succeed wildly, or maybe not-so-much. But a business success does not require pushing the competition out of the picture.

zett




msg:3976207
 5:45 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Time to ween the addicts off of Googcaine

Indeed. Just look at some random forums thread titles here, and you see how tight GOOG's grip on the SE market really is:

Are these G. manual inspections?
Low Crawl Rate warning in Webmaster Tools
Matt Cutts on PageRank Changes
Under penalty or just not good enough?
Rewritten URLs removed from Google
Lower keyword density seems better.
My July 2009 Google Penalty - on 100 sites. Help anyone?
Bad backlinks penalty - what types of links cause it?
What If Google Decides Your Website's Emails Are Spam?

Inspections, warnings, penalties, fears, wild speculations, and employees that are treated like gurus. This -to me- not only has a weird touch to it (think "big brother"), but it also looks like most webmasters are on GOOGcaine. Not good.

How come no one here is talking about Cuil and their rise to search engine dominance?

Because Cuil was badly wanted by the market (another indicator of GOOGs tight grip), but failed so miserably that today "Cuil" is a synonyme for "failure" on the web. They wanted market attention, and they got it, and they couldn't handle it. How bad is that?

Back then, and even today, I still do not understand how folks can believe their own hype so much. Clearly, they were so conviced in their own strength that they did not make their homework. No wonder their servers melted down.

I don't think any business needs to aim at being the "anything-killer". Pick a goal, execute it well, and you can have a solid business.

Well said, tedster.

This whole Cuil experience also points to another interesting point. Some of the Cuil staff were from Google, right? And despite being from the farm of geniuses, they landed this failure. Which proves that Googlers are not geniuses, especially when unleashed into the wild, but just lucky humans that were at the right time at the right place (i.e. when they got hired by Google).

That might be the reason why Google is still a one-and-a-half trick pony (search, text ads): Google can also not be an "anything-killer". Well, by pouring money into any market, they certainly can kill that market. Then again, even the massive investment into Youtube did not prevent Hulu and others to show up and take market share. Googlers are no geniuses.

There's hope. And bing.

Jane_Doe




msg:3976216
 6:26 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Once Bing gets Yahoo traffic and does get a 30% market share, they will attract attention from all of the blackhats much more than they do now.

So one future consideration is can they keep the spam out as well as, or better than, Google? If they can't they could lose part of that 30% pretty fast.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:3976247
 8:04 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Another slant ...

As I see it the main problem that any challenger to Google has is that so many people still don't know what a search engine is. How do you market something that can hold no appeal to the majority of your marketplace because they don't know what it is? You cannot covet something you don't know exists.

I have noticed here in the UK recently that many middle aged and senior people are succumbing to the pressure to have a computer. Many of them have no idea what a PC can do and think that it is all about the Internet. When they buy their PCs they get access to the Internet by whatever method is provided or by whatever method someone shows them.

Many of these people have no idea that there are options on how to "surf" and even if they did they would probably have no inclination to change because of the perceived hassle of learning how to use a new SE. OK there is no learning to be done but many of them will not know that. It is only those who grasp the nettle and take a real interest that may consider changing. IMHO this applies to the majority of users.

Bing (which I think could be a contender) has a problem marketing themselves to these people. I mean if they use television ads many of the people they are targeting may not be watching. They will be too busy googling things up in the bedroom.

Those who do see the adverts will be stretched out on the sofa watching telly, not paying much attention and they probably won't remember anything about it next time they log on. ;)

MrSavage




msg:3976250
 8:28 am on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Jane_Doe gets my vote for most interesting thought. More market share will bring with it blackhat trash. I think it's the, Apple is "so secure and virus free". Well, actually it's only because 1% of the world uses an Apple, and 99% use M$. People spend time messing with something that is worth their while. Hence, Bing will be under a spam attack in the near future. Like if we all owned Apples, they were have to change their marketing because they wouldn't be so bullet proof from security holes.

I do keep asking myself though, this whole "spam" or blackhat rubbish. Aren't 2 paragraph blog posts with 80% of the page consisting of adsense and affiliate ads really just spam? Like the info is there just for the sake of the ads. The article isn't their because somebody wanted to write an article. The article is there because somebody wanted to have ads on a page that would get traffic. Bottom line is, I don't know what you search for and how often, but I don't see stellar first page results on Google either. 2 paragraphs on a blog don't qualify as a quality result to me. I consider that all bun and no beef. I digress but it's fun talking with myself.

signor_john




msg:3976399
 2:55 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

I've also seen that Yahoo's audience and Bing's audience are both somewhat easier to convert than Google's audience. So, even if Google has more than twice the traffic under its thumb, Google may not have that same lead in actual conversions.

If that's the case, how does the Yahoo/Bing deal change anything? There's no reason to assume that the combined Yahoo/Bing market share will increase. And if more Google users did migrate to Yahoo/Bing, wouldn't that dilute the "conversion quality" of the Yahoo/Bing audience?

BTW, I think Jane_Doe and MrSavage make an interesting point about blackhat attacks. I'd extend that to include SEO in general. The real beneficiaries of the Yahoo/Bing deal may be SEOs (whose clients will see an opportunity for increased exposure that didn't exist before) and headhunters who recruit engineers for Bing's antispam team. :-)

tedster




msg:3976511
 5:18 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

how does the Yahoo/Bing deal change anything?

Just one algo - Bing's - will score almost 30% of our potential traffic instead of just a trickle.

signor_john




msg:3976551
 6:33 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Just one algo - Bing's - will score almost 30% of our potential traffic instead of just a trickle.

Yes, but I was responding to the comment that Bing and Yahoo users convert better than Google users do. Unless the combined Bing/Yahoo audience grows at the expense of the Google audience, the ratio of "Google users, who convert worse" to "Bing and Yahoo users, who convert better" will remain the same.

Also (just as a side note) whether nearly 30 percent of our potential traffic will come from the Bing search servers depends on who our users are. Those of us who have significant international audiences won't see as much impact from the Bing/Yahoo deal as those who rely on U.S. searchers do.

tedster




msg:3976555
 6:47 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

My sites with a Japanese audience will absolutely see this effect.

steve40




msg:3976571
 7:38 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

what I have not seen commented on is Bing / MS also taking on the best SE brains from Yahoo with this deal , It is possible they may bring much needed years of knowledge of the SE market including algo additions, anti-spam or even bring the yahoo black list with them , All rhetoric aside I am sure they have some good guys and galls at Yahoo who together with the Bing team may well take the existing Bing which is better than anything MS has created in search before and help to take it to the next level. Which could well help to keep combined current market share or improve it.

Tedster put it well when he said all webmasters will need to have a better understanding of Bing / Yahoo Ranking Criteria like it or not if you want to pick up traffic from the combined 30%

steve

nomis5




msg:3976576
 8:04 pm on Aug 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

That's right, in six month's time, by any stretch of the imagination, Bing will not include Yahoo. That's more than a year away. And Yahoo will not include Bing. So let's see where COMSCORE puts Bing's share in six month's time.

One quite different measure of the success of Bing (minus Yahoo) is to see the forums in Webmasterworld. Compare Bing's posts to the Google forum. Compare the Microsoft equivalent of Adsense in these forums and judge again.

One view might be that most webmasters are missing the point and we should all be posting in the Bing forum. But we are not, and neither will we be in six month's time.

BeeDeeDubbleU




msg:3976795
 11:58 am on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Compare Bing's posts to the Google forum.

But this will always reflect market share so it's not a good comparison. Bing's posts will be proportional to it's market share.

tedster




msg:3976917
 6:17 pm on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Bing's posts will be proportional to it's market share.

Very true. Some of what we discuss here is really generic SEO questions that could apply to any search engine (for example, canonical url questions). But with Google's dominant market share, people notice them difficulty first as a "Google question."

Google spokespeople have provided a decent amount of generic search education for the entire webmaster community. There certainly will be algo differences, but the in most cases, the basics will transfer.

nomis5




msg:3976981
 8:32 pm on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

This post is educational for me. The most common theme seems to be that Bing is a new force which webmasters need to now take account of. Even Tedster seems to be taking this view, so we have to consider it a possible reality.

But I can't get my head round the stats. If we combine the Yahoo and Bing / MSN Live figures over the last year, I can't see any significant recent change. If Bing SERPS will, in future, be the same as Yahoo's SERPS then how will the situation change?

I know I'm missing something here, but what is it? Has Google lost market share - only a tiny proportion. Has Bing and Yahoo gained market share after a massive spend - only a tiny proportion. Explain more please .....

tedster




msg:3977012
 9:32 pm on Aug 22, 2009 (gmt 0)

Here's the crux of the matter -- there will no longer be a Yahoo algorithm.

Total traffic from Y+B may or may not change very much - that remains a market battle to be decided. But all of the traffic from Y+B will soon be generated and ranked by just one algorithm instead of two.

The Bing algorithm is the newest and least deeply studied. If your Yahoo traffic is significant to you, it is important to know that those rankings may soon shift when they are decided by the Bing algorithm.

If you also rank well on Bing for those search terms, then you're doing just fine. But if you currently rank well on Yahoo but NOT on Bing, then it's time to roll up your sleeves so a big chunk of your traffic doesn't just dry up when the switchover comes.

[edited by: tedster at 7:40 am (utc) on Aug. 23, 2009]

nomis5




msg:3977136
 7:04 am on Aug 23, 2009 (gmt 0)

Thanks for that. Makes sense now.

jgold454




msg:3977791
 3:53 pm on Aug 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

when exactly is the switchover going to take place?

StoutFiles




msg:3977883
 6:12 pm on Aug 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

when exactly is the switchover going to take place?

Likely without warning. Yahoo is not known for telling people about huge changes, they just happen.

This 118 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 118 ( 1 2 3 [4]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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