Live switched to Bing

A new beta test interface for Msn Live search

[angiolo]

Today I noted that search.live.com switched to www.bing.com.

It is a Beta version, maybe working only in some countries.
I got bing.conm here in Italy.

The Algo seems to me more "local".
I am curious about the way bing.com find local results: one factor seems IP location...

[MrSpeed]

I'm pretty impressed so far. If MS throws some advertising behind it it may gain some traction.

[Shaddows]

What does this do well the parents with safe search or filters now will have to add Bing a a site that can't be visited.

Corporate users too. NSFW is bang on. Or is that Bing on? (ducks)

[richrf]

I have checked the keywords for my domain, and I have found that Bing is doing a reasonable job. I am ranking higher, because of the combination of domain name, url, page title and domain longevity. However, Google still does a better job of delivering high traffic/popular domains on their SERP. I attribute this to the fact that Google has Analytics, Toolbar, and Adword/Adsense data at its disposal to make better judgement calls.

So, whereas I am pleased I am getting better SERP, it is not deserved, and I believe that users will still be getting better overall results from Google, because of Google's technological advantage, which I do not think MS can overcome.

However, MS seems to be emphasizing particular vertical markets on its press tour, and I am guessing that MS, will attempt to slice out particular vertical markets, and increase its search engine revenue by a divide and conquer approach as opposed to beating Google in a war of generalized search engines.

Rich

[ecmedia]

My experience is that Bing still does not have enough pages in its index. Years old websites that get thousands of visitors from Yahoo and Google are not even found in Bing. Some serious crawling needed in Redmond.

[np2003]

hmm, I've found more search matches on BING then Google. It seems their weak point right now is blog indexing.

Bing also seems to factor in headers. For example if you search for a keyword, the <title></title> keywords count, whreas with Google it is more focused on "body page content"

[richrf]

Yes, I agree. Bing puts heavy emphasis on title, domain name, url permalink, and longevity on the Web. It can't seem to sort out the really popular sites yet, from those that may not be as popular. I am working with competitive keywords such as TV Links, Movie Links, Links, Best TV Links, etc., and I do much better on Bing than I do on Google, because, I think, Google has a much better handle on real traffic.

Rich

[venetsian]

well, whatever MS says its still the same old live/msn re-branded. Tc tc .. why don't they steal some algo from G and get this engine up, they have the money and the technology! Weird right?

[richrf]

Hi,

I don't think it is a matter of stealing algos. I think, it is the data warehouse of information, that is driving Google, that makes the big difference. At one time, Google has pretty simplistic info, regarding "links" between sites. They differentiated their SE by using links to vote on sites. However, now, they are far, far, far more sophisticated than that, since they can tap into their vast warehouse of info, derived from their webmaster products, the most important one being Analytics. How, is MS, going to harvest equivalent info? I don't see how they can do it. If they cannot, then they cannot achieve comparable search results - and more importantly, they cannot place ads as well as Google can.

So, instead, it seems like, MS is concentrating on some verticals with potentially strong ad revenue. It probably will not work, since it requires a major overhaul in user behavior, but it may do enough to slow Google down, until some technological angle can be worked out, that will not rely so heavily on Web traffic input, into the algos.

Rich

[pageoneresults]

I don't think it is a matter of stealing algos. I think, it is the data warehouse of information, that is driving Google, that makes the big difference.

Which is why there is no competition for Google in the near future. They've established themselves as the Authority in Search. Not only that, they've become a sub-conscious Brand in the process.

Let's face it, Google is the Internet. Every other search engine is 2nd or 3rd or 4th tier and always will be. Even if Binghoo were to join forces, they would still be a 2nd tier SE. If you were to run one of me Peer's Quality Score on Google vs Yahoo! vs Bing vs Ask, you'd see a spread between 1 and 2 that at this point cannot be touched. Even if the 9 SEs (2nd, 3rd, 4th tier) below were to combine, they still couldn't touch Google, not even close. It's a done deal. Google is the Internet.

So, where does that leave us? Search mashups. Local focus. Advanced features. Wow UIs. Social Media. There is still plenty of room for growth and micro-levels are the in-thing. I believe the future lies at the local levels. The Internet is too big for any one resource. Google may become the primary API that the others use in the future. No other commercial entity has the type of computing and brain power that Google have. Why even try to compete?

If Google have their way, they'll have a Data Center on the Moon before you know it. Maybe even Mars. :)

I like Bing! Even though it has some faults, it is a solid contender in the 2nd Tier Search category. Yahoo! and Ask may want to be concerned with their market shares. While Google is taking 1% here and there, the others are battling it out for the leftovers. Every .01% counts at this point to establish a solid 2nd tier position. Bada Bing, Bada Boom!

[richrf]

Yes, I would agree, that for the foreseeable future, Google has a lock on generalized search engines. This may extend for a decade or more.

Hopefully, there is a market for vertical search engines (e.g. Kayak). I have a terrific domain that is begging for one or more great vertical search engines. If anyone knows where people discuss research projects on search engines, please let me know, because I am hunting for development projects to partner with.

Rich

[aleksl]

p1r, and Google reached that why? not because of some magic formula and 2 geeky guys, as it is commonly known. But because of all the data storage and data processing stuff. Google from the start had very strong backing of Stanford database research - think DOD, DARPA, SLAC etc... And Microsoft? Yeah, they practically stole SQL Server code from Sybase. This is way more than just "oh, our algo has bigger X than yours", you don't just catch up with technology like that in a year or 2.

[bekyed]

Guess I wont be binging it to soon then anyway

[Whitey]

I'm impressed by the usability improvements and presentation. But I'm not sure if it's enough to take market share away from Google and Yahoo , once the novelty value has left.

[eeek]

I have run a few searches and have to say it is looking good.

I've run a few searchs and I have to say it looks like the same old nonsense. There's no depth to their spidering.

[editsha]

MSN has its own search ppc, but on live and now on bing they have yahoo sponsored ppc, so we plan to use msn search ppc were will feature.

[nickreynolds]

Trying to look at it from the average user's perspective, rather than webmaster's .
By and large i think the user will be impressed. Search results are pretty good, no more spammy than Google and the interface makes Google look a little dated. The big question is can MS change people's habit of automatically going to Google.
I think this a good start.
Mainly because of the look and feel, if we were back 15 years, I think this would have as much chance of succeeding as Google

[Seb7]

Matt Cutts being making some remarks about Bing on Twitter (http://twitter.com/mattcutts), heres some:

@BAoki @bing @nathanbuggia folks, re-pinging regarding Google searchers being taken to Bing: [bit.ly...] [bit.ly...] Help?

@links4legends that page is 99%+ factually incorrect. If Bing wants to rank it at #4, they're welcome to. :) Google's #4 is my twitter page.

[edited by: Seb7 at 8:54 am (utc) on June 3, 2009]

[badbadmonkey]

What I want to know is: when are Bing.com referrals in Google Analytics going to start being correctly counted as organic SE, not referrals?

{:()

[member22]

I got the same issue as most of you with geo targeting , I typed my keyword and my website which is on the TOP 3 google is nowhere on bing even with a US proxy.

For the keyword I typed some company nobody heard off appears first on bing whereas companies that are extremely famous in the industry and appear on every single search engine in the top rankings don't appear anywhere in the search results of bing !

Bing guys, you did a good job the image idea on the front page is cool but for the search results make sure you get the same as google, as least that would be nice ...

In fact geo targeting is cool if I am looking to by a mattress in my neighbourghood but let's say I am looking for a golf holiday in australia and I am based in France...

Do I want to use a french based company or an australian based company ?

There is chance i might want to us an australian company, for different reasons.

First one, the australian based company is probably cheaper ? France is the most expensive country in the world :)

Secondly they are based in australia and probably know the area and golf courses better than someone based in an office in Paris that has never been to australia...

and finaly isn't the internet something global where you are suppose to be able to compare ? if search engines are starting to force geo targeting what is the use of the internet , we better all stay home and close our borders.

You are probably going to tell me to use all results function in bing but for info it doesn't work for me and doesn't change the results ?

Live was giving the same search results are google why is bing not doing it at least not for me ?

[downbutnotout]

erm....wow a new logo and still a totally unusable search engine (for me anyway).

I have a the nbr1 website in UK for my niche.

In google i get indexed (55K pages) in .com and .co.uk

BUT on live and still on Bing

my top rated website gets ZERO pages in the UK index.

Just because the site is a .com and hosted in the US.

Surely the facility for a webmaster to tell the search engine that a site is aimed at a local market is just BASIC.

As Bing stands it is totally useless.

In case you think its just my site...here is an obvious example:

=> Search on Bing for UK sites only, keyword: twitter.

What do you get? NOthing

Oh sorry, you get a crappy 1 page site called twitter.co.uk

Twitter is MASSIVE in UK now so how come you cannot get twitter results in the Bing search results?

Worse than useless!

I am forced to focus 100% on Google cos Bing refuses to recognise that my nbr 1 rated google website even exists when people do a local UK search.

[edited by: downbutnotout at 3:04 pm (utc) on June 3, 2009]

[rachel123]

One thing I've noticed is that SERPs have been extremely volatile day-to-day...First day we're page 1, next off the map, now page 2...still ironing out some things maybe? Originally the SERPs looked a lot like Google, even slightly better, yesterday looking more like Yahoo (a whole lot worse) or the old Live.

When I search for one of my keywords, a random unimportant page (RUP) from our site - think obscure irrelevant product page - always ranked with Live; homepage nowhere. First day of "Bing" (June 1), the homepage was right where it should be and RUP was gone. I thought - MS has finally figured out search! Then yesterday, RUP was back and homepage again nowhere to be found...hmmm...

[Leosghost]

actually my local french golf course is free :)

if you are talking tour companies ..agreed ..but yesterday when as result of a tip from another member i changed the country option in bing I got different serps to my local french ones ..google on the other hand really needs expertise and proxies to get anything other than heavily biased to french sites , french hosted sites or sites in french ..no matter what machine I use ..what OS I use ..or browser or browser settings ..

google think that if I'm in France ..that I'm only interested in Francophone results ..( with the occassional .ca domain) ..I've had many heated discussions on here with their reps in their many disguises ( Adam especially )..they are sure that they know better than I do what I should see in serps ..

bing for now are doing better ..

[edited by: Leosghost at 3:11 pm (utc) on June 3, 2009]

[travelin cat]

I've noticed that Google Analytics does not consider Bing to be a search engine. Results are being reported under "Referring Sites" and not "Search Engines" as both live and msn used to be.

[olias]

=> Search on Bing for UK sites only, keyword: twitter.

What do you get? NOthing

Oh sorry, you get a crappy 1 page site called twitter.co.uk

Exactly the same as what happens with Google then?

[Cirilo007]

Well well well... Those results really looked like a mix of old Live and current Google, with a clear influence from GG. And I got a proof that they are copying some results from GG !
I got a website, where I'm experiencing problems with GG to index the product detail pages, while they all have unique content on it. For some reasons, GG would not include them under the site: command but would return them if i do a search with : "my piece of unique content" (with the 2 ""). I got more than 1000 pages indexed by yahoo, but only 128 in GG. Doing the site: command on Bing, returns... 128 pages ! Right on ! Doing the search for my unique piece of content using the "", there you go again ! My page is showing up...
Coincidence ? hmmm....

[downbutnotout]

=> Search on Bing for UK sites only, keyword: twitter.

What do you get? NOthing

Oh sorry, you get a crappy 1 page site called twitter.co.uk

Exactly the same as what happens with Google then?

but at least on Google the twitter webmaster has the option to define: twitter.com/UK or UK.twitter.com as a UK targetted site they just haven't bothered to

With live and Bing u are basically stuffed without a .co.uk or UK hosting.

SO what if I have one site that needs to target 6 countries?

On Google i just define:

site.com/france is for France
site.com/germany is for Germany

and I can manage multiple sites from one installation.

Bing and Live make this impossible.

Ughhh.

[caribguy]

Bing / MS still have a long way to go. Caught this priceless quote on their Facebook page:

Asked a friend if he had seen Bing yet. He replied "Yes, I googled my name with it"

As a "valued partner in the Webmaster and Search community" I received a message with the subject "Discover Microsoft's new Search services" - all in HTML, and with a nice UID tracking image at the end.

I think I'll just relegate Bing to the bin...

[Future]

Is Microsoft sure what they are heading up to ?

Google and Yahoo are there biggest rivals and they have to admit the same technically, neither plan to launch msn search, live search (a revolution) and now bing search.

MS is being a joke among a large majority of regular web users, compared to new users in future ! (thats an assumption though, but no new search engine flourished since last several years, except from mouth of word, online reading, books, etc. )

[edited by: Future at 9:26 pm (utc) on June 3, 2009]

[Seb7]

Is Microsoft sure what they are heading up to ?

Microsoft have already decided that they can compete - we have funds, how hard can it be? is probably what they think. But they have seriously have underestimated Google's experience.

Though, if they can make a brand 'cool' enough, it just might be enough to swing things in their favour. Bing is a step in the right direction for MS.

[patrickSMC]

There were theories that Bing was released three days early so that Google couldn't steal its thunder by making a big announcement on the same day.

Google Squared went live yesterday, the same day that Bing was supposed to originally debut.

Theories confirmed?