martinibuster - 2:25 pm on Aug 22, 2011 (gmt 0)
BeeDeeDubbleU, the point is that Bing is relying on syndicated content and content farms, contrary to his assertion that they are not.
Whether the info is useful or correct is secondary. However, if one wishes to scratch deeper, content farms and syndicated content are non-authoritative sources of information. Which is why bingdude himself said, "Bing likes quality, original content. Skip syndicated content and articles as a way forward."
I am simply pointing out that bing is falling short of that goal. BDW, don't take my word for it. Try bing out for yourself and see if if they're relying on syndicated content. Start with some searches you can relate to:
where to see the queen of england [bing.com] shows two wikipedia entries, one from ehow, another from wikianswers and another from associated content.
I did a search for "what are the best pubs in edinburgh scotland [bing.com]?" and bing did not return syndicated content. As someone outside of Edinburgh I can't vouch for the quality of the content, but at least it's not syndicated or factory farm content.
Nevertheless, the point is that bing is showing a significant amount of syndicated and factory content on many of the random searches I'm looking at- contrary to bingude's stated goal. While that's not scientific, I think it's notable and for bing I hope it's useful feedback.