Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: mack
Here’s the shocker, though: in many ways, Bing is better... Google is a habit. Everyone already knows how to work it... But if you value your time, you should give Bing a fling.
Among the qualities David Pogue admires is the ability to find things faster:
Once you hit Enter, however, you can’t help noticing Bing’s more concerted effort to get you answers faster. To minimize the clicking, the hunting, the dead ends.
Also going off stats on me Analytics program, the adoption just isn't there yet. Still early days I know but it'll take a lot to break people from using Google, and I'm targeting the 'older generation', the folks who use the default options on their comps
It makes sense for MS to start in its main market first though, so I understand. However with around a 90% market share to Google, we need Bing in the UK more than you guys do!
All those data can be misused, hackers, thief's "google earth".....
On Bing, however, the results page scrolls forever — you don’t have to keep clicking Next, Next, Next.Not true. I had to click Next at the bottom to get more results. AND, Bing used some sort of AJAX-magic to make it advance through the SERPS, but didn't scroll me back to the top. So I clicked next, and it switched the first SERP for the second, but I was still at the bottom.
On the other hand, Bing wins on traffic searches (such as “traffic nyc”), where you get a color-coded map of current traffic speeds without having to digGoogle has this feature built in to G Maps, where you would need it anyways.
I do like the details balloon that Bing brings up onmouseover of each result. I'm guessing that G will have one soon - but much better.
The blind search engine [webmasterworld.com] rules AGAINST Bing as follows:
Query ¦ Google ¦ Yahoo! ¦ Bing
#1 ¦ 4 results ¦ 2 results ¦ 0 results
#2 ¦ 1 result ¦ 1 result ¦ 1 result
#3 ¦ 1 result ¦ 1 result ¦ 0 results
Total ¦ 6 reults ¦ 3 reults ¦ 1 result
PATHETIC! More now than ever, Google is the search engine of choice.
The Google fanboys will end up running the new google operating system and will soon be saying how great that is even though it won't run existing software.Hold on just a minute: I'm not that biased about Google. If Chrome OS doesn't work, I won't use it. However, I suspect that Chrome OS will support both Windows, Linux, and Mac software, just on the hunch that G is all about compatability.
Just the same way they all said Chrome was the IE killer. Chrome never took hold becaue it's an inferior product.Chrome is NOT inferior! I'm not saying is an IE killer, but it is much better.
Google's main product was search and they used to be pretty good at it, that is until the beginning of this summer.Yes, that is their main product, and they are still good at it. Just because something new has come out, doesn't mean the well-developed, time-tested G suddenly-out-of-date.
Long live G!
Is it my impression or Microsoft fanboys are trying to insult all those that prefer Google products over Microsoft's by calling them Google fanboys? ;-)Bottom line is those of us (you appear to be included here) who aren't 'fanboy' anything never mention it. Those that do accuse others of being 'fanboys' are typically 'fanboys' of the 'other' persuasion. As soon as I see a 'fanboy' accusation, I know the accuser is for sure a 'fanboy' who is emotionally involved and biased.
What is wrong on preferring only Google's or only Microsoft's products? Isn't that freedom of choice?
I mean www.keyword.com puts the site at number 1. If that’s not bad enough it also lists sub-domains of that keyword domain also on the first page. And if you need more reason to show how simple their algo is just look for outdated 301 and duplicate content all over the shop. Ohhh ohhh and another, in several major KW's we keep a close eye on, Bing's 1st page results show an average of only 6 out of 10 displaying unique domains. The other 4 out of ten are from the same domain!
I have no gripe with Bing and our sites do just as well on Google as on any other SE and its good to keep G on their toes. But to say that at this point in time another SE can return better and more relevant results than G needs to check to see if their browser has been hijacked.
1) Bing toolbar, with the spell checker, highlighter, popup blocker etc. (similar functions to the G bar)
2) More depth...Google still seems to know much more pages. Bing should increase its depth of crawling and database.
If Microsoft can get these two in-order then i'd say they are on the right track of beating the Google grip.
[edited by: Web_speed at 1:47 pm (utc) on July 10, 2009]
Does anyone else think that NY Times is partial to anything non-Google considering all the hell they raised about Google displaying their precious news snippets?
Glad to see someone else was also thinking the NY times had an axe to grind with Google.
Ticking off the press can be a dangerous thing because most people don't analyze the search results like WebmasterWorld members do so a larger media operation trying to settle a score could direct a lot of traffic to Bing.
Many people will think Bing is an improvement so this could easily backfire on Google's arrogance and entitlement mentality that they should be able to index everything without question or repercussion.
Go NY Times ;)
The problem is, these sites have made it to the top of the Google search results for a lot of terms.
Let's see how effective Microsoft is in keeping these sites out of their search results. From where I sit, that will be a huge factor in whether or not Bing is better.
In the subjects I track, I thought this was actually an even bigger issue with Bing than Google. It wouldn't be hard to keep a lot of those lame, "how to" sites that look like the articles were written by stoner 5th graders out of the listings, so I'm surprised both search engines simply don't put in more filters in that area.
On odd-ball searches, they seemed at first to do a slightly better job of providing results that the first-time consumer would find useful, but recently they have been similar to Google. I see a bigger difference between Y and G than G and B. (I am getting to be a bigger fan of Yahoo, but that might just be for my kind of geo searches.)
Still, Google's new options tab (on the SERP under the logo at the top on the left) where you can breeze through "Recent results, Past 24 hours, Past week, Past year" is just too handy to ignore. (This is especially useful in searching WW, BTW.)
I do check the pic they are using on the front page every day. Very cool. Bing's UI is impressive. MS, not known for being hip, is doing well with Bing.
Once I got over that, and started to use Bing, now when I go back to Google to check ranks, I'm really not liking the white space and miss the color and presentation of Bing.
Google has the advantage of having users who are conditioned to Google. Slowly, over time they will eventually make inroads and convert both Google and Yahoo users.
This is their best attempt at it since they started going after it oh so many years ago.
"Every site was an "articles" site with AdSense on the pages. As I read the articles seeking the information I needed, I kept thinking how the person who wrote the article was basically clueless and had obviously never done the task. "
I agree, Google Adsense is starting to ruin the internet. Too many small websites and blogs and seo companies selling ebooks etc all chasing those Adsense dollars trying to make a passive income.
I find the Bing results are much cleaner.
If anyone at Microsoft is reading this, how about disabling the zooming part when I mouseover an image in the Image Search engine, it is a really slow when there are a lot of photos, it's impossible to select a photo to right click and open in new window.
I think Microsoft needs to develop a better toolbar for IE/Firefox. The Google toolbar IMO is a real work of genius, virtually every webmaster has it installed to check their pagerank, many of them end up using the Google toolbar to search, since it's "right there". I've given the live toolbar a go, but I find their toolbar is PACKED full of useless junk. It also uses lots of memory and bogs down the system. If Microsoft can develop something that's as useful as the Google toolbar, it will definitely have more long term loyalty since it's always "there" and reachable.
...All the ironies of people throwing their towels at Microosft for anti-competitive behavior. What about Google... disabling Adsense sites without warning, Google playing the silent game with Webmasters. Google complaining about IE, yet they pay Mozilla millions to be their default serach engine. Ever bought a Google App Service? They don't even let you contact them UNLESS you pay over $2,000/year in service fees. They only recently added a way to reach support for all users, probably due to all the complaints/chargebacks they were getting. Google is only in it to make MONEY.
Despite I agree that it makes it easier for thieves to study the places they may assault, it only takes pictures from the street, just like any thief could do by himself.
I any case I think you can request Google to remove or obfuscate pictures of places that you do not want to be so exposed because you have security fears, because obviously Google intention was to compromise anybody.
Every company's products have their pros and cons. Just because you prefer one company products, it does not mean it is the best in everything.
Competition is great for consumers and they force competing companies to make their products better.
But I think I has been reacting to that fact by not accepting sites on domains registered in less than 6 months (at least in some countries) or sites without much content. I have seen a lot of complaints in AdSense forums from small site owners that have been rejected.
Google Toolbar is a killer because it provides many valuable services, including page rank check. I suspect that Microsoft could not even come with a similar concept as page rank because it is patented by Google.
As for Google disabling sites that are generating invalid clicks or too many clicks without value to advertisers, that is warned in AdSense terms and it is a good thing to not lower the revenue of good AdSense publishers.
Also, Google does not pay millions for Mozilla to make Google Firefox default search engine. The money paid by Google to Mozilla is shared revenue from AdSense for search, ie. revenue of advertising that appears in Google search pages when the user starts from Firefox search bar.
It is not very different from AdSense for search revenue that Google pays to many site publishers that use Google search to provide search service to their site users. Opera made the same deal with Google.
Everybody wins, except for Google competitors like Microsoft and Yahoo that do not have the technology to provide a similar revenue sharing service that works worldwide like Google AdSense.
Yahoo has YPN for many years, Microsoft has ContentAds, but both suck because they only accept publishers based in the US. That limitation is certainly not Google's fault.
Honestly I wish Microsoft, Yahoo, and who else could give serious competition to Google AdWords and AdSense.
I am a web site owner that gets good revenue from Google AdSense. Unfortunately this revenue has dropped to 1/3 in the last 2 years.
Some people say it was the global crisis. Others say it was the fact that Google accepts too many publishers too easily. Others say that Google has silently lowered the share of the revenue that they pass to smaller publishers.
I don't know which of these possibilities are true. I just think more competition would make Google improve it for all of use, or else we may switch.
Bing is in many ways an improvement over past efforts, but one area where it still falls short is deep content. Although Bing seems to be trying to get deeper into forums and the like, Google is still the master at pulling out the obscure thread that has the exact answer to your long-tail question.
I mean www.keyword.com puts the site at number 1.
Bingo! err, Bingstop, yea!