Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 220.127.116.11
On his first-ever trip to Israel, Gates praised Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Israel's contributions to the global high-tech market. In interviews with Israeli TV and newspapers, he also answered questions about Microsoft's fierce competition with Mountain View, California-based Google.
"We are not afraid of Google, but there is intense competition between us. Google is our main competitor, brilliant people work there, but Internet search engines are still in a terrible state compared to where they could be," Gates was quoted as saying in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot.
[edited by: rogerd at 5:22 pm (utc) on Oct. 27, 2005]
[edit reason] fix link [/edit]
MSN should first try to display relevant results, they can then start to consider the more complicated issues like LSI and others - that Google is leading the pack, followed by Yahoo.
Yeh, right... Maybe I'd believe him if the results on msn.co.uk weren't so rubbish.
I wish they'd do something to give Google a bit of competition, but the results that I'm getting on msn.co.uk are worse than anything on Google or Yahoo - e.g. 8 of the top 10 sites from subdomain.samedomain.co.uk for most searches related to construction trades.
Mind you, at least they can deal with 301 redirects properly!
but be careful what you wish for
it may well not turn out how you imagine! especially if you are not producing your own products, or if your articles and commentary really isn't the best/most interesting/most informative in your niche
Search engines definitely could be improved
As I said in other threads: the concept of providing informationen purely based on 1-3 words is IMHO nonsense!
I do agree, that the interfaces and informations in search engines could be really improved.
Using search engines today for informationen retrieval is like Windows 1.0 for graphical interfaces...
Just imagine a world beyond 1-3 words, based on your character, area of living, job, phone calls in the last 2 years, photos, blog postings ... uhm ... privacy? well...
Just imagine a world beyond 1-3 words, based on your character, area of living, job, phone calls in the last 2 years, photos, blog postings ... uhm ... privacy?I'm sorry Mr. Doe, we cannot charge your credit card until your indentity has been reverified. It seems our database management overlord has picked up a change in the tone of your blog postings recently.
MSN has a long way to go in search technology and they need that behind them to "win", but to start the race they have all of the foundations in place already IMHO.
They are testing and searching for a better algo, and with the muscle they have behind it--they will find it sooner than most people think IMHO.
For those doubters - has Microsoft ever really lost a war?
Yes, if you count as "losing" entering a field and not having the product achieve more than a 50% market share, they have lost the majority of the wars that they have entered. And they have never even come close to winning any battles in the service sector.
All of the so called experts keep talking about how MS is going to bury Google with their cash pile. They fail to recognize that Microsoft has suffered a brain drain. All that brain power is going to Google. As long as Google has the brains they hold the cards.
Anyway, if the search traffic was more evenly distributed webmasters wouldn't get hurt so bad by updates and algo tweaks.
a lot of people are seriously underestimating MSN right now
Yup. I think the winner will be the company that comes up with the best intergration of AI with search, and that battle is only beginning between MSN and Google. Yahoo seems to be focusing on human editing rather than AI.
To build a great search engine you need great innovators. Microsoft has never been an innovator. They're more interested in their balance sheet than their software.Like all empires, Microsoft is gradually failing. Again in common with the fall of empires, such failure takes years.
Microsoft has always had a major problem with innovation. Innovation is a trait rarely found in those who get shining marks in university exams. Microsoft is full of such people and what does it produce - a series of security disasters masquerading as operating systems. And it used the same hiring techniques for building its search division. It ended up with vegetables instead of meat. The problem is that search is far from the kind of limited, mature market that Microsoft is used to competing in. Apart from the few main targets, the market is full small operators. These small operators can produce far superior niche search engines than either Google or Microsoft.
Another weakness in Microsoft's approach is this whole Semantic Web thing. Microsoft seems to have swallowed that gob#*$!ery and asked for more. The Semantic web is a great academic idea for people who think like librarians. The problem is that search has to reflect the way people think, not computers. As a result, big operations like Microsoft search are charging down cul de sacs. Google on the other hand, is actually diversifying and taking markets that Microsoft hadn't even considered.
All of the so called experts keep talking about how MS is going to bury Google with their cash pile. They fail to recognize that Microsoft has suffered a brain drain. All that brain power is going to Google.A good point. Though most of these "experts" are technology journalists with no background in technology or analysts who wouldn't know a search index from a hole in the ground.
As long as Google has the brains they hold the cards.But what happens when a more ruthless and brainier competitor gets in the market? Google can be defeated on country search and this is where it will face its most heated competition in the search market.
If they can't even get half decent search results they have got no chance.
I don't see any evidence this will come quickly either, their algo is way out - they need a new team.
I got write basic princibles about search rules in a night that would blow away what microsoft already have... surely they can do better that what the current team is doing.
If it wasn't for the brand name and the fact that messenger and explorer have pushed MSN, knowone in the world would have ever used it.
Do you have a small site with thick content pages - eg 50-100 pages with perhaps 500+ words on each page - I would imagine MSN might be good for you.
A bigger site - eg say a ecom site that sells products with 2000-3000 pages with perhaps less than 100 words on each page - eg product description etc - I imagine MSN might not be so good.
MSN - IMO does seem to favour pages with lots of content rather than tightly focused pages - might be why sitemaps always seem to outrank product pages in a lot of searches.
Just wondering for MSN if it makes sense to scrap the individual product pages and do category pages. EG say 5 pages of Red,Green,Yellow,Brown and Blue Widgets - rather than individual pages for Red Widgets Model A, Model B etc
Imagine a world free of spammy scraper sites on the search engines. I am sure the income of the average webmaster on this forum would easily double.
And I'm sure the averyge income wouldn't change a bit - there might be 1 or 2 scraper-masters around here, as well ;-)
The other thing I must add is they do change regularly you have to keep on top of it. Google does change but not as regularly. the reason for this I believe is new content. If you produce a well structured site with new content being added "dynamically" they love you. Google frowns on anything new as rubbish and that is real sad.
MSN imo is a good engine and should be taken seriously. Its anti spam measures are even good to a greater extent.
To build a great search engine you need great innovators. Microsoft has never been an innovator.What are you talking about? First of all, "never been an innovator," of course they have. They introduce new technology all the time. A lot of their products are copycats, but they are still innovative because they improve the ones they didn't create.
They're more interested in their balance sheet than their software.Like every company, they are most worried about making money, but that doesnt mean they don't worry about their software. Good software = users = money. Therefore, they care about their software because it earns money.
it's search results are among the worst in the industryI will agree that they are usually worse than Google in some areas (but not in all), however, what other search engine is better?
My sites do better on Google than on MSN or Yahoo for several reasons:
1. My sites rank better on Google.
2. More people use Google.
3. Google is better at judging what a page is worth.
I know that 3. is true, because I released a new site a few weeks ago and within a few days it was ranked #3 on MSN for its keywords even with minimal backlinks.