Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 22.214.171.124
Forum Moderators: mack
For my site, it works out well. In MSN, we have the number three spot for the main kw that has anything to do with what our .org does, (out of 3,654,933 results). In G and Y, we're 40-50. It doesn't make a lot of difference, because once you add a country specific, we're at the top in all the SE's, and we have a few hundred text heavy pages that bring in traffic on a hundred different querys every day, mostly on G, but all the same.... we really rock in MSN and I really don't know why. It crawled the h*ll out of the site for months before it went out of beta. It likes us.
Even though Bill is evil, we'll take his serps.
They think a marketing phrase is a product, when the marketing phrase itself makes the product look even worse than it is.
They really should just start over, and this time put some thought into the product.
Windows Me is the Magna Carta compared to MSN Search.
You can see results on the first few pages that you have to go back 10 or 20 on Google to see!
A lot of sites still appear to be missing as well
First page results for a main keyword phrase:
Web Results 1-8
Second page results:
Web Results 11-20
Where's 9 & 10?
Why can not not display 10 results for the first page? Is it to hard to count to 10!?!
The only down side to this search engine is that they currently dont have enough share of the market - latest report showing just 13% for MSN v 22% Yahoo and 47% Google.
I think if MSN can cut a few deals and feed other search engines with their results data rather than Yahoo or Googles they could up their market share and become a major player.
Advertising the engine alone will not be enough. It will help but some serious deals need to be done if you ask me.
Currently a crap position in Google can provide a webmaster with more hits to their website than a top one in MSN can. As the reports indicate, Google has at least four times MSNs current market share.
As i say, MSN is superb imo but it does need that extra market share to make the impact they want
For example, I was looking for a specific scientific paper. My search terms were (without quotation marks) “author1 author2” + the last two words of the title of the paper.
Google: 4.800 results, and the first one is a link to the paper.
Yahoo!: 286 results, and first one is a link to the paper.
MSN: 404 results, and the paper is nowhere.
1. MSN best results most times - just lacks market share
2. Google - fair results - biggest market share
3. Yahoo - poor results full of spam & doorway pages
Traffic I get for my new content sites:
1. MSN - 55%
2. Yahoo - 45%
3. ...other search engines
6. Google (0.5%)
Those sites are 2 - 11 months old.
Is MSN a Joke?
Yes, but i'm not laughing either.
Week before beta went live I was on top, the day it went live my domain shows only, NO PAGES or SYNOPSIS.
Pinheads at MSN claim I'm indexed, so I asked them to PROVE IT and send me links to page content.
The new MSN is just a steaming pile of....
but you cannot do a broad range of searches and look at the top 20 results and actually say they are doing as good or a better job than the other two. They arent.
Ha HA! I've run circles around you logically!
I don't do broad ranges of searches to determine some "goodness index" of MSN search vs. the other engines. I make searches when I'm...actually..searching..for something.
Now when I do searches on the keywords that make me money, depending on the week I oscillate between page 1 and page 3-4. What I see on the MSN results are mostly the pages that IMO, people searching for that keyword should hope to find. There's a few scraper sites BFA, but a lot less than I see on G.
I don't doubt for a second that MSN is failing on certain queries that are very important to some of you. Plenty of us disagree, and in this forum we are told we are liars and hypocrites, because "obviously" MSN results are not as good as Google. I use Google a lot myself and I guess I'm going to have to break it to the rest of you...Google ain't that great either.
Ha HA! I've run circles around you logically!
yes, you have me totally stumped. Of course limiting searches to a few 'personal' searches and money words will yield the best cross section for an unbiased appraisal of cross engine relative status. How did i miss that one. Doh!
what in the world are you talking about? My post actually describes a simple, specific evaluation of MSN search without violating WebmasterWorld TOS.
If you have some sort of methodology for your "broad range of searches" that amounts to a meaningful evaluation, please share it.
I have the same problem. I have an authority site, #1 on Yahoo and Google for main keyword phrases, that doesn't show up until page 3 on MSN.
Only time will tell if its accurate but I have a living example to point to. I am also # 1 out of 7 million on Google. I am also Page 3 on MSN. So was this other guy. However he just completed a complete site redesign when MSN released its new search and he shot straight to # 1 on MSN. Redoing his site made MSN believe his site was relevant, maybe? Since he has a very large established side with thousands of pages, MSN probably also considered it "good content". A brand new site with 100% new content and WOW its got 2,000 pages too. Put the two together and this may be why he jumped so much.
Likewise... for the first few weeks MSN went live with the new search, we were updating our site pretty frequently. Adding new articles. Etc. Im referring to STATIC PAGES here not discussion forum posts. We were # 4 on MSN for quite some time while doing this. Then we stopped for a few weeks.
That is when we shot back to page 3. So I have begun updating the home page with article blurbs and linking to some new static pages within the site, and I will see if this "Freshness" does anything.
joined:Apr 13, 2002
Yahoo's results are often different, too. What I really hate is doing a search on all three and seeing substantially the same usual suspects on all the search engines. That's not only boring but unhelpful.
They shouldn't but they should show useful results.
"That's not only boring but unhelpful."
Not at all. The same results on all three enginbes would be very helpful, if they were the best results.
There is absolute zero value to users in "different". Webmasters have some lousy priorities. Users do not wander from engine to engine looking for "different". They look for the best web pages that relate to their search term(s).
MSN is a bad engine because it highly values rotten web pages, and it gets no points for offering variety.
The ideal search engine would return results that in the eyes of God are ranked exactly according to the needs/desires of the user. We aren't within a galaxy of that, but someday the holy grail is when all search engines will return perfect results.
I was excited about MSN at first
Same here. I was doing great with MSN when my site was a baby, and when I was not ranking in Google or Yahoo. Now that my site is 7 months old and with much work, I am out of the sandbox and can rank decently for phrases between 0-1,000,000 results. I can rank as many pages as I want on Google and be indexed and ranking better than Yahoo and MSN for my topic key phrases of course. For example, I put up 4 pages a few days ago, and these 4 pages combined bring me in an extra 100 visitors a day now. MSN or Yahoo still did not rank my pages, they will, but Google is just faster.
I still think MSN is experimenting. It ranks me well for some terms, and other terms I do not show up at all.
For me, 80% of my traffic is from Google, MSN is 15%, and Yahoo is 8%.
There is absolute zero value to users in "different".
Your statement would be true if everyone searching for a particular phrase wanted exactly the same thing in the results.
The logical conclusion of that is that the perfect search engine would only show one result -- the one that is "best." After all, why would anyone want to visit any other web site other than the "best" one?