Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
If they focus their efforts to Europe market and localize country searches they should win bing time :)
Oh, and they should make the "Prev" and "Next" links bigger, now they are too small to use.
[edited by: fargo1999 at 1:08 am (utc) on June 16, 2009]
[edited by: MLHmptn at 1:00 am (utc) on June 16, 2009]
That NYPost title is a joke. Google isn't afraid, they got where they are by being pro-active and Bing is in the crosshairs now.
and if you don't think it's catching on with us webmasters your a fool
You're right, it's catching on with me... here's how that's working out. When I hear 'Bing' I think 'Ugh!', i'm already tired of hearing about it. I suspect some of that 100 million ad campaign money has gone out to secure opinions. When Bing catches up to Google traffic-wise then I'll consider designing my sites with it in mind, until then that would be idiotic.
[edited by: JS_Harris at 1:19 am (utc) on June 16, 2009]
I've always thought that MSN/Live vs. Y!(Yahoo!)search results were somewhat equal...maybe it's just in my neck of the woods/niche...lots of pages with AdSense slapped upon them (some worthwhile, some definitely not) showing up after a search and some clicks.
This last week, I've noticed a large decline in the "definitely not" sites appearing on B (Bing) results while Y! results remain stagnant. As for recent G (Google)search results (in my woods/niche), they appear to follow Y!'s trend and there seems to be a general new push towards including video results(meaning YouTube)when a regular search is performed...if (personal opinion...) I want to view a video rather than read information, I would have searched for videos. Give me what I want...it's that simple.
I think B and it's monster of an owner, have done some general research that Brin/Page/G and Y! never considered...I'm not a fan of any of them, B, G or Y! as they have all siphoned traffic away through their own hosted and highly competitive content and links above search results. (Think major traffic decline to a site over the years... and I'll admit, G is, less guilty.) But, I do think that G and Y! better get more in touch with the users of their services (webmasters and common searchers) and stop focusing soley on their shareholders since B's launch has created quite a stir in all of the above mentioned communities.
Okay, that reply was longer than I had anticipated, again, I ask, be gentle.
Currently I saw a spike around launch but Google is still the major traffic source for me! and Bing's graph is not rising either!
So the day these trends change, I will give Bing more attention.
...and Bing's graph is not rising either!
But, as you noted, it did spike at first... and, as this post points out, for some it's held steady since....
Bing Referrals May Be Steadier Than You Think
What looked like a big dip since launch may not be so...
I notice that Bing results still don't seem to dig as deeply into a page's content as Google's do, so for personal search I'm sticking with Google.
Several of Bing's tabs do make it appear that Bing isn't ashamed of becoming a super-affiliate, something that Google from time to time has flirted with but wisely retreated.
I keep thinking about Google's 360 degree turns...things like meta description didn't mean anything originally, Google didn't use it. It spidered your page to find snippets. Then, suddenly, meta descriptions did matter, and if yours weren't unique to each page you'd wind up in a supplemental index and no one searching would ever find your page.
Then Google rolls out "nofollow" for links to deal with spam in forums, blogs, and the like. Then they said it can be used by webmasters to prevent passing page rank to certain pages. Now that's changed.
And while webmasters were updating hundreds or thousands of pages to add unique meta descriptions that weren't important but now are, we weren't building new pages. We were building pages for Google instead of for our visitors, which is supposed to be against Google guidelines.
And I've noticed for my sites that new pages take longer to get listed in Google. A lot longer. Perhaps Google thinks my site is unworthy of timely listings. But the fact is, people searching for the topics my pages cover won't find them in Google, but will in most of the other search engines. Which makes me wonder if Google really does need to be shaken up a bit.
And while webmasters were updating hundreds or thousands of pages to add unique meta descriptions that weren't important but now are, we weren't building new pages. We were building pages for Google instead of for our visitors
And while you were doing that, other site owners were building pages for visitors.
Some site owners focus on tactics; others focus on long-term strategy. But those choices are theirs; they aren't dictated by Google or the other search engines.
incrediBILL - I'm seeing Bing ads everywhere on Google serps. I'm guessing that might make GOOG investors very happy this quarter and next, per the claimed ad spend for Bing's launch. It'll be interesting to see if Bing can make a dent in Google's search share via PPC...paying them to take share away. Seems like the outcome depends on how ComScore and others measure things and report it to the media.
I'd actually appreciate the nit-picking
The main thing that rings slightly false for me is that you are confusing yourself with the average search user. You know how to search specifically for videos, but many do not. I've developed a good bit of blindness towards "videos in the SERPs", but the average user that I talk to LOVES it.
And that's my big point about your statment "G and Y! better get more in touch with the users of their services (webmasters and common searchers)". Two very different critters there, and all the the SEs are definitely tuned in to the common searcher, making decisions based on more user data than we can imagine.
When it comes to the webmaster, many have no real idea how Google works. Those who do want, what? The free traffic that comes from top rankings. Google has gone much further in webmaster communication than any previous search engine at any given time. No, they will not give us the recipe for their special sauce. But they do a good bit to keep Google from being a completely mysterious black box. Sure they spin it and are not above spreading FUD. But still, there's no solid precedent for what they are doing.
With regards to this thread's topic, I'm sure that Google watches all other search engines very closely - even currently smaller players like Wolfram¦Alpha or Hunch. And when a company like Microsoft starts throwing around nine-figure advertising budgets just for Bing, then even a master of 21st century marketing such as Google will will take a very close look.
..co-founder Sergey Brin is so rattled by the launch of Microsoft's rival search engine that he has assembled a team of top engineers to work on urgent upgrades to his Web service..
I think Bing is just like Google but without the -950 and other silly penalties - that's all Google needs to do!
This is a little worrying, as Google (not being used to this sort of pressure) might go and make some rash bad decisions.
Undoubtedly Google will have been looking carefully at Bing, but the tone of the article suggests that someone from Microsoft's PR team have been in touch there.
What better way to shape public perception of Bing than by suggesting that it's seriously worried the current number 1 in the industry?
I'll be very interested to see what the general perception of Bing is in 12 months time. If they are to ever become a serious rival to Google, they need to keep up a PR campaign, keep new features in development, and... I'll be very interested to see if a deal for Yahoo ever re-appears at some point.
At the moment Bing still just feels to me like a rebranding of several disparate services. I also still think the name sucks.
Bing is actually an ok product. Some say its very good, possibly a Google-killer.
Very few say its terrible. And those that do are generally webmasters who don't see 'expected' results, even if a cold, hard look reveals perfectly adequate results for search terms used.
That said, inertia is Google's biggest weapon. Well, that and Webmaster goodwill. How's that going?
That name may sound dumb to a 40 year old like me but is really hitting home with kids.
I havent told my kids about Bing, yes I know it's rotten but having several teenagers gives me great access to the current mindset:)
Why exactly do search engines need webmasters' goodwill?
Who do you think helped G become the giant they are (I'm not saying we were the only reason, but we were a big part of it)? I vividly remember when they were the new kid on the block and we webmasters were "spreading the word" about them.
Similar as what has happened with FireFox. Joe Q Public would have never heard of it if webmasters didn't pick up on it and begin introducing others to it.
Just curious, how do you know Microsoft is "spending quite a bit on CPM..."? I've missed that as a possibilty since I've only been exposed to their online CPC efforts.
Microsoft's Bing campaign has been discussed extensively in the advertising and marketing trade press.
Plus, Bing has been running display ads on my site at good CPMs (via a vertical ad network), and my site is likely to be a very, very tiny tip of the iceberg. :-)
The Bing 300 x 250 display ads that I've seen are black rectangles that pose a question about health, travel, or whatever, then finish with a tagline (above a prefilled search box for "cold remedies" or some other phrase) that reads "FROM NOW ON, BING AND DECIDE." Click the ad, and you're taken to a page of search results for the phrase that was shown in the search box.
The ads aren't bad, but Bing's search results aren't game-changing. (To be game-changing, they need to be a lot better than "good enough.") Can an ad campaign do more than nibble at Google's market share? I'm skeptical. Look at all the money that Apple has spent on its Mac vs. PC television campaign. Those Mac vs. PC commercials are clever, and they're probably great at getting Mac zealots and dealers fired up, but they haven't had much impact on market share.
I think the whole premise of this thread ("Fear Grips Google") has distracted people from what Microsoft is really trying to do with Bing. Microsoft isn't trying to unseat Google as the leader in Web search; Microsoft is trying to (a) unseat Yahoo as the alternative choice in Web search and (b) skim off traffic and ads for high-profit topics like health and travel.
To use an analogy, it's as if Wendy's were trying to compete against Burger King and McDonald's. There's no way that Wendy's can unseat McDonald's, but it could be a credible competitor against Burger King, and--just as important--it's likely to achieve the best advertising ROI by competing in the Double Classic with Cheese vs. Big 'N' Tasty vs. Whopper category than at the Dollar Menu level.
For Microsoft, it makes sense to target users and advertisers in areas like travel, health, and shopping (where users are searching for ways to spend their money) while implicitly conceding the "French medieval poetry," "famine in Africa," and "quantum mechanics" searches to Google. That's why Microsoft is calling Bing a "decision" engine and featuring icons for specific categories in its Bing ads.
So, if you think Bing is going to consign Google to history, a la AltaVista and Infoseek, think again. That isn't going to happen, and Microsoft has made it clear (through Bing's design and its ad campaign) that it doesn't expect that to happen.
When i say "genius" i mean those rare few, like 1000 people on the earth, who combine intuition, intelligence and creativity at cosmic levels, not the "average" geek with a 140+ IQ score.
OK, whitenight, my comment about my friend at Google stands as stated, and I'm not entirely dim myself; however, I see your point. Being very smart is not the same as being a true innovator on a "cosmic" level.
"But - and I am only saying that because I care - there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."