| 8:11 am on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Is it my impression or Microsoft fanboys are trying to insult all those that prefer Google products over Microsoft's by calling them Google fanboys? ;-)
What is wrong on preferring only Google's or only Microsoft's products? Isn't that freedom of choice?
| 8:33 am on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
As long as people use the word google as a verb G will get the majority of type in traffic. I like Bing but I have to think about using it every time, I just type "google" by instinct.
| 8:41 am on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I am liking Bing on how it finds stuff however the quality ain't quite there yet (and I'm not saying that because I do have some good SERPs ;))
Also going off stats on me Analytics program, the adoption just isn't there yet. Still early days I know but it'll take a lot to break people from using Google, and I'm targeting the 'older generation', the folks who use the default options on their comps
| 10:09 am on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I'm looking forward to trying the same Bing that most of these reviewers are talking about. The international versions are just no-where near as good as the claims being made by US users - the localization is hopeless.
It makes sense for MS to start in its main market first though, so I understand. However with around a 90% market share to Google, we need Bing in the UK more than you guys do!
| 10:32 am on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
the easiest and ACTUAL "unbiased" way to test.
Do a few on the Blind Search test site: blind search engine test [blindsearch.fejus.com]
you might surprise yourself. ^_^
| 11:21 am on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
mlemos - about Microsoft yes I know about there update and that google collects more data and personal stuff thats no rumor its fact a ex. [dailymail.co.uk...]
All those data can be misused, hackers, thief's "google earth".....
| 12:40 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Bing is in many ways an improvement over past efforts, but one area where it still falls short is deep content. Although Bing seems to be trying to get deeper into forums and the like, Google is still the master at pulling out the obscure thread that has the exact answer to your long-tail question.
| 12:42 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I gave Bing a try, but I still like Google.
Not true. I had to click Next at the bottom to get more results. AND, Bing used some sort of AJAX-magic to make it advance through the SERPS, but didn't scroll me back to the top. So I clicked next, and it switched the first SERP for the second, but I was still at the bottom.
|On Bing, however, the results page scrolls forever — you don’t have to keep clicking Next, Next, Next. |
Google has this feature built in to G Maps, where you would need it anyways.
|On the other hand, Bing wins on traffic searches (such as “traffic nyc”), where you get a color-coded map of current traffic speeds without having to dig |
I do like the details balloon that Bing brings up onmouseover of each result. I'm guessing that G will have one soon - but much better.
The blind search engine [webmasterworld.com] rules AGAINST Bing as follows:
Query ¦ Google ¦ Yahoo! ¦ Bing
#1 ¦ 4 results ¦ 2 results ¦ 0 results
#2 ¦ 1 result ¦ 1 result ¦ 1 result
#3 ¦ 1 result ¦ 1 result ¦ 0 results
Total ¦ 6 reults ¦ 3 reults ¦ 1 result
PATHETIC! More now than ever, Google is the search engine of choice.
Hold on just a minute: I'm not that biased about Google. If Chrome OS doesn't work, I won't use it. However, I suspect that Chrome OS will support both Windows, Linux, and Mac software, just on the hunch that G is all about compatability.
|The Google fanboys will end up running the new google operating system and will soon be saying how great that is even though it won't run existing software. |
Chrome is NOT inferior! I'm not saying is an IE killer, but it is much better.
|Just the same way they all said Chrome was the IE killer. Chrome never took hold becaue it's an inferior product. |
Yes, that is their main product, and they are still good at it. Just because something new has come out, doesn't mean the well-developed, time-tested G suddenly-out-of-date.
|Google's main product was search and they used to be pretty good at it, that is until the beginning of this summer. |
Long live G!
| 1:11 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
The blind test is of course subjective ;)
| 1:29 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Bottom line is those of us (you appear to be included here) who aren't 'fanboy' anything never mention it. Those that do accuse others of being 'fanboys' are typically 'fanboys' of the 'other' persuasion. As soon as I see a 'fanboy' accusation, I know the accuser is for sure a 'fanboy' who is emotionally involved and biased.
|Is it my impression or Microsoft fanboys are trying to insult all those that prefer Google products over Microsoft's by calling them Google fanboys? ;-) |
What is wrong on preferring only Google's or only Microsoft's products? Isn't that freedom of choice?
|Pass the Dutchie|
| 1:34 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Bing is better than Google? You are joking right? Either that or your site performs better in Bing than Google.
I mean www.keyword.com puts the site at number 1. If that’s not bad enough it also lists sub-domains of that keyword domain also on the first page. And if you need more reason to show how simple their algo is just look for outdated 301 and duplicate content all over the shop. Ohhh ohhh and another, in several major KW's we keep a close eye on, Bing's 1st page results show an average of only 6 out of 10 displaying unique domains. The other 4 out of ten are from the same domain!
I have no gripe with Bing and our sites do just as well on Google as on any other SE and its good to keep G on their toes. But to say that at this point in time another SE can return better and more relevant results than G needs to check to see if their browser has been hijacked.
| 1:45 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've been using Bing much more lately. Results are not bad and in most cases on par with Google. Here is what I'm missing though:
1) Bing toolbar, with the spell checker, highlighter, popup blocker etc. (similar functions to the G bar)
2) More depth...Google still seems to know much more pages. Bing should increase its depth of crawling and database.
If Microsoft can get these two in-order then i'd say they are on the right track of beating the Google grip.
[edited by: Web_speed at 1:47 pm (utc) on July 10, 2009]
| 1:46 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Does anyone else think that NY Times is partial to anything non-Google considering all the hell they raised about Google displaying their precious news snippets? |
Glad to see someone else was also thinking the NY times had an axe to grind with Google.
Ticking off the press can be a dangerous thing because most people don't analyze the search results like WebmasterWorld members do so a larger media operation trying to settle a score could direct a lot of traffic to Bing.
Many people will think Bing is an improvement so this could easily backfire on Google's arrogance and entitlement mentality that they should be able to index everything without question or repercussion.
Go NY Times ;)
| 1:57 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Bing may or may not be better than Google but a two-horse race is always better than a race with only one horse.
| 2:08 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Good point. Besides, it gives us something to argue about. :)
|Bing may or may not be better than Google but a two-horse race is always better than a race with only one horse. |
| 2:37 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I have bing set as my homepage and I have google search bar and i tend to use both. I think google has a slight edge on bing in terms of results, but really there's not much in it.
| 2:49 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've used the "blind search engine" test, and for most of the search phrases that I tried, I didn't see much difference between the big three. If Bing (or any other Google rival) wants to carve off a hefty chunk of Google's market share, it needs to come up with something that makes the average searcher say "Wow!", not "Yeah, it's pretty good" or "The results look a lot like Google's."
| 2:55 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Our corporate fire wall thinks the Blind Search Engine is a games site. I'll have to try it at home tonight.
| 3:43 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|The problem is, these sites have made it to the top of the Google search results for a lot of terms. |
Let's see how effective Microsoft is in keeping these sites out of their search results. From where I sit, that will be a huge factor in whether or not Bing is better.
In the subjects I track, I thought this was actually an even bigger issue with Bing than Google. It wouldn't be hard to keep a lot of those lame, "how to" sites that look like the articles were written by stoner 5th graders out of the listings, so I'm surprised both search engines simply don't put in more filters in that area.
| 5:52 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've been impressed with Bing. I have them on the toolbar and I've had to force myself to use it. I have not done a serious test on their results, but from what I have seen in the medium cities category, they are very similar to Yahoo.
On odd-ball searches, they seemed at first to do a slightly better job of providing results that the first-time consumer would find useful, but recently they have been similar to Google. I see a bigger difference between Y and G than G and B. (I am getting to be a bigger fan of Yahoo, but that might just be for my kind of geo searches.)
Still, Google's new options tab (on the SERP under the logo at the top on the left) where you can breeze through "Recent results, Past 24 hours, Past week, Past year" is just too handy to ignore. (This is especially useful in searching WW, BTW.)
I do check the pic they are using on the front page every day. Very cool. Bing's UI is impressive. MS, not known for being hip, is doing well with Bing.
| 6:12 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I've been using Bing since week 1, I am absolutely impressed by it. It's very healthy to have some competition.
| 6:26 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I have to admit, when I first stated using Bing, it took a while to get used to not seeing the white space. I thought about switching back numerous times because I was so conditioned to seeing the white space for the last 10 years. It must be some sort of mind control thing. Not only do they want to control all your data, but might as well grab your mind while their at it :)
Once I got over that, and started to use Bing, now when I go back to Google to check ranks, I'm really not liking the white space and miss the color and presentation of Bing.
Google has the advantage of having users who are conditioned to Google. Slowly, over time they will eventually make inroads and convert both Google and Yahoo users.
This is their best attempt at it since they started going after it oh so many years ago.
| 7:00 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
FARMBOY said - (I cant find how to do those quote boxes)
"Every site was an "articles" site with AdSense on the pages. As I read the articles seeking the information I needed, I kept thinking how the person who wrote the article was basically clueless and had obviously never done the task. "
I agree, Google Adsense is starting to ruin the internet. Too many small websites and blogs and seo companies selling ebooks etc all chasing those Adsense dollars trying to make a passive income.
I find the Bing results are much cleaner.
| 7:43 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
I am a Google fan, but I find I often run BING searches these days. The results are very good. In the past, I wouldn't have bothered with LIVE.
If anyone at Microsoft is reading this, how about disabling the zooming part when I mouseover an image in the Image Search engine, it is a really slow when there are a lot of photos, it's impossible to select a photo to right click and open in new window.
I think Microsoft needs to develop a better toolbar for IE/Firefox. The Google toolbar IMO is a real work of genius, virtually every webmaster has it installed to check their pagerank, many of them end up using the Google toolbar to search, since it's "right there". I've given the live toolbar a go, but I find their toolbar is PACKED full of useless junk. It also uses lots of memory and bogs down the system. If Microsoft can develop something that's as useful as the Google toolbar, it will definitely have more long term loyalty since it's always "there" and reachable.
...All the ironies of people throwing their towels at Microosft for anti-competitive behavior. What about Google... disabling Adsense sites without warning, Google playing the silent game with Webmasters. Google complaining about IE, yet they pay Mozilla millions to be their default serach engine. Ever bought a Google App Service? They don't even let you contact them UNLESS you pay over $2,000/year in service fees. They only recently added a way to reach support for all users, probably due to all the complaints/chargebacks they were getting. Google is only in it to make MONEY.
| 8:23 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
zeus, collecting data related to you is not Big Brother act unless it is was a secret. Google Street View is awesome for people need to walk on the photographed roads that they do not know. I really appreciated it when I needed to go to Seattle and find some shops, as I do not live there and did not know the place.
Despite I agree that it makes it easier for thieves to study the places they may assault, it only takes pictures from the street, just like any thief could do by himself.
I any case I think you can request Google to remove or obfuscate pictures of places that you do not want to be so exposed because you have security fears, because obviously Google intention was to compromise anybody.
| 8:28 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Elsmarc, I am no company's fanboy. I do not see a problem in anybody being a company fanboy. I just find it silly when people use that expression with intention to insult others that prefer other companies different from the one they are fans.
Every company's products have their pros and cons. Just because you prefer one company products, it does not mean it is the best in everything.
Competition is great for consumers and they force competing companies to make their products better.
| 8:37 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
Digmen1, I believe you are right, funding the long tail of sites sharing AdSense revenue was great for many sites of all sizes. The problem is that it attracted sites that are too small or are made of stollen content, which only lower the revenue of larger sites.
But I think I has been reacting to that fact by not accepting sites on domains registered in less than 6 months (at least in some countries) or sites without much content. I have seen a lot of complaints in AdSense forums from small site owners that have been rejected.
| 8:53 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
np2003, I agree with you in parts.
Google Toolbar is a killer because it provides many valuable services, including page rank check. I suspect that Microsoft could not even come with a similar concept as page rank because it is patented by Google.
As for Google disabling sites that are generating invalid clicks or too many clicks without value to advertisers, that is warned in AdSense terms and it is a good thing to not lower the revenue of good AdSense publishers.
Also, Google does not pay millions for Mozilla to make Google Firefox default search engine. The money paid by Google to Mozilla is shared revenue from AdSense for search, ie. revenue of advertising that appears in Google search pages when the user starts from Firefox search bar.
It is not very different from AdSense for search revenue that Google pays to many site publishers that use Google search to provide search service to their site users. Opera made the same deal with Google.
Everybody wins, except for Google competitors like Microsoft and Yahoo that do not have the technology to provide a similar revenue sharing service that works worldwide like Google AdSense.
Yahoo has YPN for many years, Microsoft has ContentAds, but both suck because they only accept publishers based in the US. That limitation is certainly not Google's fault.
Honestly I wish Microsoft, Yahoo, and who else could give serious competition to Google AdWords and AdSense.
I am a web site owner that gets good revenue from Google AdSense. Unfortunately this revenue has dropped to 1/3 in the last 2 years.
Some people say it was the global crisis. Others say it was the fact that Google accepts too many publishers too easily. Others say that Google has silently lowered the share of the revenue that they pass to smaller publishers.
I don't know which of these possibilities are true. I just think more competition would make Google improve it for all of use, or else we may switch.
| 10:31 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
mlemos - well the german have just won a case which took years, before they where allowed to ask Google to remove pictures of House or faces if a owner wants it, well when I take a picture of a person or Property I ask first and not the other way. In England a thief stole for 100.000£ and he used Google earth.
| 10:48 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
|Bing is in many ways an improvement over past efforts, but one area where it still falls short is deep content. Although Bing seems to be trying to get deeper into forums and the like, Google is still the master at pulling out the obscure thread that has the exact answer to your long-tail question. |
|I mean www.keyword.com puts the site at number 1. |
Bingo! err, Bingstop, yea!
| 10:58 pm on Jul 10, 2009 (gmt 0)|
There's lots of places which look almost like Google. Personally I don't have the time to analyze which results are better. I suspect the average searcher does not either.
Using Google is more habit then anything else. That and a vague feeling that their results are best because they are the biggest and most well known.
| This 79 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 79 ( 1  3 ) > > |