| 12:15 pm on Jun 8, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Reminds me a lot of the Wikipedia/Knowledge Graph integration that Google's doing [webmasterworld.com ].
I know Wikipedia claims to be more accurate than most encyclopedias, specifically Britannica. However, I know I would rather trust Britannica than Wikipedia any day.
| 8:20 pm on Jun 8, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Absolutely, Britannica pays ggod money for its research, Wikipedia is open to every fool and spammer, and I include myself in one of those categories (probably both now I think about it!)
| 8:29 pm on Jun 8, 2012 (gmt 0)|
This may actually make those Encarta discs into "collector's items" :)
| 10:24 pm on Jun 8, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|Microsoft's Bing Now Includes Britannica Online Encyclopedia Answers In SERPs |
| 4:53 am on Jun 9, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Wonder what Google will claim to have invented/incorporate to upstage this - Roget's Thesaurus for "did you mean?"
| 1:31 pm on Jun 11, 2012 (gmt 0)|
In my niche I compete with both- if one is going to sit on top of me in the serps I'm far more comfortable having it be the more accurate info, from Britanica. What- did some volunteer editor from Wikipedia come up with the claim that they were more accurate? I've compared the two item by item, again, in my field, Britanica is far more trustworthy. Good on you Bing!