×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bing Users' Click-Through Rate 55% Higher Than Google Users'

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the hey-now-I-like-that-ads-subsidize-stuff dept.

Google 268

An anonymous reader writes "Techcrunch is running a story that shows some pretty significant differences in the clicking habits of users of Yahoo, Google, and Bing. As it turns out, folks who arrive at websites via Bing are 55% more likely to click on an ad than if they arrived from Google (data based on the Chitika network). Essentially, people who use Bing are far more susceptible to advertising. Bing has acquired a decent market share in such a short time, but could it just be that they've reaped the low hanging fruit of those particularly persuaded by advertising? When their huge marketing campaign winds down, what kind of staying power will it have?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

268 comments

What a surprise (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828525)

Who would have thought that people who would switch to an inferior search engine based on an aggressive marketing campaign would be more susceptible to advertising?

Re:What a surprise (5, Interesting)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828575)

The story is pretty clear that, even with bing's higher click-thru rate, The Google still gets your ad about 13 times as many impressions. Though, not knowing the pricing structures both companies use for ads, I could not tell you the proper return on advertising for both services.

(Note also that, after the initial bump, Bing has once again fallen behind Yahoo.)

Re:What a surprise (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828599)

The use of Bing COULD be boosted by IE 8 choosing that by default. How many users install software defaults?

As for clicking on ads, there are lots of potential reasons, including the ones mentioned here. But of course, since it's a "decision engine" people are more likely to follow that decision. ;-)

Re:What a surprise (4, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828873)

The use of Bing COULD be boosted by IE 8 choosing that by default. How many users install software defaults?

As for clicking on ads, there are lots of potential reasons, including the ones mentioned here. But of course, since it's a "decision engine" people are more likely to follow that decision. ;-)

I would be very surprised if there were not a strong correlation between users who don't customize their settings and users who more frequently respond to advertising the way that the advertisers want them to.

That's because defaults are intended to be applied to millions of users and therefore cannot be ideal for all users or even very many of them. At least, I'll say that the number of people who use all-default settings is far greater than the number of users for whom this is ideal. The greater the number of options which can be customized, the more true this is. Someone who has an "ideal" in mind for how their setup should be and is willing to undergo at least some minor effort to arrange it is more likely to be a more independent thinker, reducing the susceptibility to external suggestion such as advertising.

Re:What a surprise (1, Troll)

fullgandoo (1188759) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829341)

At least IE allows you to easily change the search engine. It even fucking asks you if you want to do so upon initial use.
Safari on Mac does not allow you to use anything but Google.
But who gives a fuck, this is Slashdot.

Re:What a surprise (1, Insightful)

nycguy (892403) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828643)

What exactly makes Bing an inferior search engine? I generally use Google, but I've found, for example, in tracking down some old friends from high school and college that I was able to find them on Bing whereas I was not on Google or Yahoo. Also, I like Bing's video search better because the video "thumbnails" start to play when you mouse over them, which makes it easier to find what you're looking for. I know this article gives you a chance to take your daily shit on Microsoft, but maybe when you're done with your two minutes hate you might want to consider that Google hasn't done much to improve their core product lately so a little competition might not be a bad thing.

Re:What a surprise (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828785)

Right, so Google hasn't completely rebranded their "core product", but it's not like they're inactive on that front. See: Suggest [blogspot.com], uber Search Options [blogspot.com], and - what's this? - Searchology [blogspot.com]? An event "to update our users, partners, and customers on the progress we have made in search and tell them about new features"?

Re:What a surprise (3, Informative)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828815)

I don't know, but I've found myself pretty happy with Google's search. I've used Bing and can't find any difference other than the fact that Bing randomly decides what it thinks i'm meaning and tries to give me those results. When usually its wrong. With Google I basically get the information I need quickly, with Bing I have to wade through all kinds of "suggestions" that are usually wrong. For example, because it was on its main page as a "featured search" I typed in mosquito bite. I got 5 results on the actual mosquito bite and then other "suggestions" of first aid, symptoms, news, treatments, etc. Google's was a bit better, with actual results (though it did have a few YouTube videos, news and images mixed in) but it didn't try to suggest me what it thought I meant which is nice.

Then I decided to do another search, of SNES to see how well both engines did with acronyms. Bing ended up with a typical first segment, until you got down to suggestions of "SNES games"... However they were all NES related(!) totally different than what I was searching for. Than about half the "suggested" results were of things for the NES(!) which is totally different. For example the suggestions for "SNES Repair" ended up with pages about how to repair the NES. Google's results were typical, mods, ROMs and general history of the SNES with no mention of the NES in the first 3 pages.

Re:What a surprise (4, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828941)

You should just be thankful bing didn't return:

"You searched for "SNES Game" - Don't you really mean "Xbox 360 Games"?"

Re:What a surprise (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828943)

I don't know, but I've found myself pretty happy with Google's search. I've used Bing and can't find any difference other than the fact that Bing randomly decides what it thinks i'm meaning and tries to give me those results. When usually its wrong. With Google I basically get the information I need quickly, with Bing I have to wade through all kinds of "suggestions" that are usually wrong. For example, because it was on its main page as a "featured search" I typed in mosquito bite. I got 5 results on the actual mosquito bite and then other "suggestions" of first aid, symptoms, news, treatments, etc. Google's was a bit better, with actual results (though it did have a few YouTube videos, news and images mixed in) but it didn't try to suggest me what it thought I meant which is nice. Then I decided to do another search, of SNES to see how well both engines did with acronyms. Bing ended up with a typical first segment, until you got down to suggestions of "SNES games"... However they were all NES related(!) totally different than what I was searching for. Than about half the "suggested" results were of things for the NES(!) which is totally different. For example the suggestions for "SNES Repair" ended up with pages about how to repair the NES. Google's results were typical, mods, ROMs and general history of the SNES with no mention of the NES in the first 3 pages.

That alone would annoy me. I want a machine to do what I told it to do. Depending on what machine it is, the failure to perform this way could be merely annoying (Web search) or rather dangerous (automobiles). When I use a search engine, I want it to search for what I told it to search for, not some other thing that it thinks I really meant. Sorry but the ultimate purpose of "we know what you meant better than you do" is to pander to sheeple. By "sheeple" here I mean "people who want to be taken care of" as opposed to "people who can independently determine what they want."

I will say one thing. This may be a smart business move on Microsoft's part, in that there are many such people, they are likely to respond to advertising as intended, and it's not a stretch to say that they don't enjoy thinking, find independence to be a burden instead of a privilege, and find it desirable when somebody offers to do some thinking for them. That's a formula for quickly building a userbase. Like a lot of Microsoft's business moves, I think it's a pretty shitty way to do things but I must admit that it's effective. Note, I never said that all of Bing's users fit this description, just the ones who flock to it because they saw an ad on TV with a brand name they recognized.

It'll be interesting to see if Bing gains momentum; I think they definitely have a good shot at it. Something to make sure Google doesn't get complacent and enjoy its search dominance too much is probably a good thing.

Re:What a surprise (-1, Troll)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828855)

Bing is inferior because Microsoft tampers with the search results to try and benefit its initiatives. I would rather have a more neutral search engine so I would never use it.

Re:What a surprise (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28829069)

Try a search for "Google sucks" on Google and then on Yahoo, Bing, etc.

Then try and tell me Google doesn't filter search results.

Re:What a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828925)

Well being that I use google for finding websites not for stalking "Friends" or using bing to search through youtube videos....
Thats some innovation! Why didnt they think of that before.

Re:What a surprise (1, Informative)

basementman (1475159) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828647)

Why is it inferior? Because it has the Microsoft name attached to it? I would invite you to take the blind search test to see which search engine is really the best for you: http://blindsearch.fejus.com/ [fejus.com]

Re:What a surprise (3, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828765)

I have tested it on a bunch of target search phrases relevant to my business and the results that Bing produces are plainly inferior. It weights substrings in a URL much more highly than Google does and seems to significantly discount anything that looks like inbound link count/quality.

For certain types of queries that aren't in business areas where search engine traffic is competitive, maybe that will produce better results. But in the areas I looked it, it produces garbage.

Re:What a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828811)

Of course, without any details of your search strings, nobody else can evaluate your claims of it producing garbage.

Re:What a surprise (1)

gregorio (520049) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828859)

I would invite you to take the blind search test to see which search engine is really the best for you: http://blindsearch.fejus.com/ [fejus.com]

It's not that blind. Having Yahoo and Google side-to-side really ruins the whole "blind test" experience, as Yahoo's results are just Google's with a slightly different result order.

"Oh, this is not equal to the other two, so it is not Yahoo or Google"

Re:What a surprise (1)

barncha (1432683) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828869)

Why is it inferior? Because it has the Microsoft name attached to it?

No, because it has the name of fictional character who is a son of erotic novelist and cross-dressing Vegas burlesque star attached to it.

Re:What a surprise (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828871)

I put in a few search strings, mostly random ones on both Web and Image, (the search strings included USB Flash drive, how to start a fire, iPhone reviews, and a lot of other ones) I ended up for web preferring Google's 5 times, Yahoo! 2 times and Bing 1 time. On images I ended up preferring Google's 6 time, Yahoo! 1 time and Bing 0 times.

Re:What a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828899)

I've tried with a few very different search terms and it seemed as if Google has the results better presented. Yahoo usually is closing in last with the exception of when looking for computer game related things.
If you're looking for 'granny porn', however, they all come up with an excellent resultset. I wonder what the devs have spent most time with.

Re:What a surprise (-1, Troll)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829045)

Why is it inferior? Because it has the Microsoft name attached to it?

Yep.

Re:What a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28829217)

Bing has so many wierd associations in my mind, besides being a microsoft product, that
I can't bring myself to type it. The first association is to Bada Bing, the stupid Italian-American
catch phrase some idiot comedian made famous. That is the first deal breaker of many.

Re:What a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28829073)

I did the "blind test" and searched for "NLE 2009", which is the National Level Exercise FEMA is conducting right now on my home turf, using foreign military troops and mercenaries....practicing gun confiscation, random car searches and other 4th amendment violations, and generally committing our own gubbmint's brand of 'domestic terrorism'. :-/ (See http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/nle09.shtm [fema.gov] for more.)

GOOGLE was the clear winner.

While Bing might have cool bells and whistles, it fails as a serious search engine.

Re:What a surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828731)

"Inferior" search engine? That's a laugh.

Re:What a surprise (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28829193)

BING!

Gay being boinked: What's that noise?

BING! BING!

Gay doing the boinking: Your dingleberries are falling on the floor!

BING!

Gay being boinked: Oh! I just LOVE that sound!

Re:What a surprise (1)

fullgandoo (1188759) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829297)

As opposed to Apple zombies using Safari who can't even switch search engines?
Yes, yes, I know you can type the name "bing.com" on the address bar, but it is more intuitive to just use the search box which is forever fixed to Google and can't be changed without using 3rd party tools.
Fuck you Apple.

The reason (5, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828531)

It's because users of Microsoft services are more stupid than the general population. There, I said it!

Re:The reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828605)

Well, I was going to use the word 'douchebags' but your way works too!

Re:The reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828691)

The really funny thing about this comment is that it was labeled informative instead of funny

Re:The reason (1)

miknix (1047580) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828857)

The really funny thing about this comment is that it was labeled informative instead of redundant.

There fixed it for you.

It's because users of Microsoft services are more stupid than the general population. There, I said it!

We all know that, hence the redundant mod fix. :P

Re:The reason (5, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829241)

The really funny thing about this comment is that it was labeled informative...

I agree. "Informative" is for a post providing new information. It should have been "Insightful".

Re:The reason (0)

netcaretaker (585753) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828719)

Ah yes, everyone on slashdot is smarter and uses the best OS in the world (whatever TF that is this week). Blah blah blah, the ads made them use it? Please.....

Re:The reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828835)

I think it was a joke. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Re:The reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828761)

It's because users of Microsoft services are more stupid than the general population. There, I said it!

Ahh, if only there were a verbal intelligence test through which one could be granted permanent ad-free web surfing (without using Adblock).

It would save us sanity, ISPs bandwidth and advertisers statistical accuracy.

Google better at porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28829117)

Google is better at finding porn. Really it is!

Something fishy about Bing (4, Interesting)

Darth_brooks (180756) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828553)

I make a habit out of checking out the awstats for our domain, and noticed something kinda odd. Bing very quickly became our top referring site. This might just be awstats not treating bing as a search engine (and categorizing hits from them accordingly) or it could be Bing doing something fishy.

Anyone else see something like this?

Re:Something fishy about Bing (2, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828603)

maybe Bing's previews cause the user to hit your site without leaving the bing page.

Re:Something fishy about Bing (4, Informative)

PaintyThePirate (682047) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828667)

It is just that your version of awstats is too old to recognize that Bing is a search engine. There is no technical distinction between a site referral and a search referral. Search engines are just individually filtered from the rest of the results by the stats software.

Google Analytics had the same issue for the first few days after Bing was released.

Umm... cash back anyone? (5, Interesting)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828557)

Umm? I don't suppose this statistic is anyway affected by the fact that maybe they (Microsoft) give UP TO 35 FREAKING % cashback on items?

I mean... of course you're going to get a higher click through rate when you're offering a 35% discount for clicking through on Bing vs clicking through on Google.

I've gotten close to $1000 back for using Live search aka Bing. Of course I check there first... if I find an ad with the Microsoft cashback option, you better believe I snap it up. Then I go back to Google to do my real searching.

This statistic is completely meaningless since it's blatantly obvious that people are going to use a service that GIVES THEM MONEY vs a service that is just plain free. Gee, imagine that.

Re:Umm... cash back anyone? (2, Insightful)

colganc (581174) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828633)

If cashback is something they keep around for two years or more I consider it as part of the search engine. At two years or more it must be part of their business model.

Re:Umm... cash back anyone? (4, Insightful)

Etherized (1038092) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828779)

I hear you. I'll often find products using google or deal sites, then go through bing just for the cash back - it would be really silly if that sort of usage counted as a bing success story.

TFA doesn't specify whether this sort of usage is included in the comparison.

Re:Umm... cash back anyone? (1, Interesting)

carpe_noctem (457178) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828807)

...and I suppose a guy with a link in his sig for "get paid to take surveys online" would know a bit about this subject, no?

Obvious (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828559)

Many people who go to Bing have clicked on ads to get there. They're the only people on the internet who don't have ad-blockers.

Re:Obvious (2, Insightful)

Sporkinum (655143) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828641)

Combination of no adblockers on the default IE with the default Bing search page on most computers. Bing cashback, and the obfuscation of ads mixed in with real results. I'd say they are doing a good job of covering their bases.

Well, (4, Insightful)

theorem4 (1101729) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828563)

Would that click through rate include the ads for Cashback? If so, I might consider the results skewed.

The ads are not presented as ads (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828567)

Can someone tell me how this higher click-through is some sort of a discovery? Bing integrates the ads into the search results. That is why it is smarter to use google - at least with google you can opt not to click on the ad.

Show me where the ad is. [bing.com] What? You can't tell? Me either - so don't use Bing.

Re:The ads are not presented as ads (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828783)

..except that at least some of the time, when Joe Sixpack performs a web search, he is in fact looking for the ads.

These arent full time web geeks. They are often looking for something commercial.

Re:The ads are not presented as ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828853)

Seems completely clear to me (Screenshot) [tinypic.com], unless you're browsing with Internet Explorer, or another browser without ad blocking.

Re:The ads are not presented as ads (3, Interesting)

dotwhynot (938895) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828867)

Can someone tell me how this higher click-through is some sort of a discovery? Bing integrates the ads into the search results. That is why it is smarter to use google - at least with google you can opt not to click on the ad.

Show me where the ad is. [bing.com] What? You can't tell? Me either - so don't use Bing.

What are you talking about? The ads and distinction made (background colour, "sponsored links", top and right) is damn near identical to similar search on Google [google.com]. Are you talking about the "shop for" extra feature? That is not ads, but a (very useful) integrated shopping search result (similar to going to Google Product Search). Having additional levels of search functionality integrated in the answers like this for some verticals (shopping, travel, etc.) is one of the ways Bing try to differentiate from Google (together with the left column drill-down functionality, which I'm starting to like more and more after trying it).

Acording to PT Barnum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828569)

"There's a Bing user born every minute."

S.O.P. (3, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828581)

With anything that has been marketed/hyped, never rely on the initial numbers.
Ignore the first month of a search engine, and the first week of a new movie.
After the curious and easily manipulated are out of the way, you can get a real result.

People are not stupid (1)

ameboy (1211832) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828613)

As you may know, Bing pays people cashback if they approach a retailer through a Bing link. So it's only natural that if I want to purchase something from, say, newegg, I will go first to Bing and click on a newegg link. That will appear to Microsoft as if their advertising were successful on me, while in reality I have already made my decision, and just take what Microsoft throws at me. There are some retailers, such as ebay, that you have to perform a search before they offer cashback. So why not search for something.

easy come, easy go (1)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828625)

If you can quickly gather a user base of easily influenced people, there is nothing stopping a competitor from doing the same thing and taking those people back. I suspect Google and other engines lost a bunch of these sorts of people due to Bing's ad campaign. And they are now seeing the benefits of there marketing.
What we all want for our businesses are those die hard regular customers that love us so much that they will be with us until the end of time. I think Google has quite a few of those people. And Bing has the potential to build up the same sort of dedicated fan base, especially given that Bing's homepage is absolutely gorgeous.

Let's imagine our demographic here... (1)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828673)

Bing has pretty much cornered the market of people who use the internet by typing natural language questions into the IE address bar.

Imagine that for a moment... people who use the internet by clicking on the IE address bar and typing "How do I get rich working from home?" So it's really no question why they have the fantastic click-through.

I'd say the data makes perfect sense.

But that's not to say Bing isn't a pretty nice search engine. I use its video search and (occasionally) restrict it to youtube to use it as a cleaner and better youtube than youtube. Wrap your minds around that.

Idle Gossip (1)

mindbrane (1548037) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828695)

An old PBS special on everybody's favourite organ, the brain, broadcast the finding that gossip is prevalent in language use and that our relatively, outsized brains may have evolved as a response to more convoluted social programmes. The infrequent times I listen to a commercial radio station, (I've not had commercial TV for 3 yrs), I often find google used as a means of acquiring the tidbits of information commonly referred to as cocktail party gossip. Twitter is an example of the same function. ( In fact I would venture a search engine streamlined to twitter would be a winner. ) Bing is to Google what Ralf Lauren is to Beneton and the whole issue is about marketing. The outlier portion of users that don't constitute the gossip crowd aren't going to show in the tally. The primary internet search engines are at least 3 years past being serviceable as anything but marketing tools unless the user has put in the time to tweak their searches or is searching for stuff that isn't worth marketing. Other than that closing the loop will amount to a bluetooth dongle picking up on the wearer's conversation and feeding in just so catchphrases and jokes while demanding in payment the wearer buy a specific product with the necessary exclamatory endorsement.

People who click though with Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828699)

are also to be more likely to be brain-dead Microslop OR
Apple fans willing to fork over about U.S. $ 150 every time there is an OS update.

Fear of Microsoft Bob Hope grips Google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828741)

Sergey Brin of Google is âoedeeply rattledâ by the launch of Microsoft's Bob Hope search engine [today.com], whose market share has surged from 9% in its previous incarnation as Live Search to a stunning 9% in its new garb.

"New search engines have come and gone in the past ten years, but Bob Hope really has Sergey just crapping himself," said one anonymous insider, "Steve B." "The ad clickthrough is huge, because we, I mean they, make it so you can't tell ads from results. Innovation!"

"It's clear that Google is headed down, down, down," said another anonymous source, "Rupert M." "Particularly the news operation. Print that or I fire you."

Bob Hope has been warmly greeted by analysts, critics, tech journalists and others on Microsoft and News Corporation's payrolls. Early statistics show Bob Hope increasing Microsoft's market share by two percentage points, to about 11 percent! Before dropping back to statistical noise a few hours after the launch was over.

Google's credibility was shot to pieces by its blatant pro-Obama bias, noted by Fox News analysts when they couldn't find evidence of Obamaâ(TM)s French citizenship and gay marriage on the search engine in the days before the 2008 Presidential election. "Their far-left liberal search algorithms will lead to their utter defeat by the business-friendly Microsoft Bob Hope," said swivel_eyed_loon_643 in the New York Post comments section.

A spokesman for Google, asked about the threat of Microsoft Bob Hope, said "what??", put the phone down and laughed for five minutes before the line cut out, obviously overcome with hysterical horror.

Bing seems to be used by idiots (4, Informative)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828743)

I've noticed a *lot* of Bing referrals in my access stats lately.

Almost all of them have, rather bizzarely, been one-word search strings. Here's my bing searches from the current first screen of my access stats, I swear this is genuine:

  - keyboard
  - gahhh
  - really
  - email
  - comment
  - worked
  - image

So of the last 20 referrals to me, 7 have come from bing. That's impressive. All seven have clearly been done by people with zero ability to use search engines effectively.

I've tried bing out and found it to be lousy at finding what I'm looking for. I've also got huge amounts of crud like the above filling up my referral logs. I'm seriously considering blocking referrals from bing.com just to stop it clogging up my stats.

Do I think Google should be worried? Not yet, no..

Re:Bing seems to be used by idiots (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829285)

Did you check if those search results actually have your pages in the results? I have one bot that really likes crawling Game! [wittyrpg.com]'s forums, and it always claims a referrer of Bing (and Live search before there was Bing) with a single word search term ("joined", "forum", "quest", etc). After finding that none of those searches would actually lead to me, I noticed that the IP ranges for this bot (65.55.107.0/24, 65.55.108.0/24, and 65.55.110.0/24) were almost the same as msnbot (65.55.208.0/24), in fact, many of the reverse DNS lookups for the former range gives msnbot. So, I'm fairly sure that this is just Microsoft trying to pretend they have way more users than they actually do. FWIW, I've seen about a dozen real users from Bing, and a couple hundred hits from the bot pretending to be a user.

Bing l10n.. (4, Insightful)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828753)

I'm in a Germany and my browser language preference is set to English (because I prefer it).

Now most sites (including Google) manage to get my geo-location and annoy me with a German start page (ignoring my language preferences). (At least I could set my prefs. at google, but its bothering to do this for every site I visit).

Now visiting Bing gave me something unusual: a hybrid l10n. The controls were partly in English and the search suggestions (random stuff at the button of the screen) came in German. Searching for something gave only German results.

And there I thought it couldn't get worse than it is already.. but this irks the hell out of me.

ps. And the scaling of mostly everything was messed up too.. Way to go if you want to convince technical folks, Microsoft..

Re:Bing l10n.. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828895)

Set your Google link to "http://www.google.com/ncr" and you will get the default English page no matter what prefs you set or where you are.

Re:Bing l10n.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28829143)

try google.us instead of google.com to get english language results. google.com probably gets resolved in Germany to google.de

Slimy Submission Text (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828795)

It's the type of story summary used here that shows early signs of the disease Linus was talking about. What kind of lowlife asshole uses a phrase like:

reaped the low hanging fruit of those particularly persuaded by advertising

It's advertising, dickhead. If people like what is being advertised they will click the link, watch the commercial, and buy the product. Why is someone who investigates an advertisement deemed less intelligent? Does not fast forwarding through a commercial make you a moron? Does leafing through the Sunday morning circular make you a fool? Ohh, that's right, they are using a Microsoft service. Tee hee. So witty, so funny.

I used to really like Slashdot, but the quality of the submissions is really taking an ugly tone. Who do we blame? The people writing the submission? Or the person who allows it to be post. This isn't even a Kdawson story so we can't blame him. Slashdot doesn't seem to have any commitment to making sure summaries are well written and free from juvenile bias.

Re:Slimy Submission Text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828963)

I used to really like Slashdot, but the quality of the submissions is really taking an ugly tone.

You are always free to astrosurf ms blogs.

Re:Slimy Submission Text (1, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829353)

"Why is someone who investigates an advertisement deemed less intelligent?"
No one should buy anything from a advertisement, they should look into what they want/need themselves and make an informed decision on what product to go with.
If you buy a product from a advertisement it is most likely going to have a lesser quality/price ratio then an item you find on your own that does the same thing, but the company does not spend millions on advertising it.

Just Ignore, Manipulation in Progress (1)

tuaris (955470) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828831)

This is "News" meant to manipulate the confused and clueless. Mod it down and move on....

TFA has a blatantly skewed perspective (2, Insightful)

liquiddark (719647) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828845)

The susceptibility of users is one possibility, of course, but so are
1) better product (see the comments regarding Cashback ads)
2) better placement
3) better advertising clients (ever seen an interesting google ad but hesitated to click because of the shady domain?)

Breaking news! (0, Troll)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828861)

This just in: Users who switch to an inferior search engine based on an aggressive advertising campaign found to be more susceptible to advertising! Details at '11!

Ads in my Browser? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828889)

I guess the good folks at Microsoft have never heard of Adblock+ for Firefox?

I don't see any adverts period.
I once saw some adverts and even clicked one of them (no, it wasn't for a porn site). After spending many hours removing spyware & other crap from my system I moved to Firefox and installed Adblock+.

Bing? Microsoft are too late once again and lack real innovation compared to Google.
They will fail to get significant market penetration and eventually (IMHO) they will do what they did with 'Plays for sure' and close it down.
Unless, they really mess us up with an IE update that makes it almost impossible to use anything other than Bing for searching.

Bots and Scams (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828907)

I bet that they do not have the infrastructure to deal with the fraudulent click-throughs in place since they opened their API. Hence, you the news and the logs are showing that users or scripts are clicking through to the advertisers, making people money.

Staying power... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828931)

Yeah... mine depends on how many results I get from searching for "April Snow video"

Simple explanation (0, Troll)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828949)

They are dumber, show poorer judgment and click more ads. Is there anything else here I haven't noticed?

Microsoft knows their market. (0, Troll)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 4 years ago | (#28828959)

The people that use Bing are most likely Windows users.

Who uses Windows?

In my experience there are 3 main groups:

1: Those that have to because of company policy or the need to run a Windows only application.
2: Those that are to cheap to by a MAC
3: Those that are to stupid to use Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc.

Microsoft knows how to push the butons of their drones, and the click through rate just proves this.

Re:Microsoft knows their market. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28829159)

So you mean Windows users are people who work, are logical consumers, or aren't technical? Sounds like a pretty significant share of the market to me. Yup, at least 90%. If I were advertising for any kind of consumer product, I'd definitely want to reach these users.

Re:Microsoft knows their market. (1)

burni (930725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829321)

Well and I will introduce to you, the fourth group you probably missed out, but which is well represented on /. I guess

- 4.) Those who use XP since it has matured, and strip it down with nlite, tweakui etc..,
Those who used Win2k for a long time, those who also use/used Linux and/or FreeBSD,

those who are tired of ever changing Desktops through "UI-devellopment", those who are tired of being said that
they can unset all the blinky transparent shiny clumsy slowingdown addition to KDE but are tired to do it to go through every
configuration interface of Kontrol to gain back a desktop which is fast and not a bonfire of graphics,

those who like their Win-explorer/commander like setting for file browsing, no special media treeview etc.. by default

WE JUST WANT A BUTTON "VISTA & MAC influences burn in hell", and perhaps a button
"win2k/xp looks good, and KDE can do too"

- desktop
files on it, quick links, simple Clock and everything else must be add on,
a "System Control" Mandrake had in it's days it was called Mandrake (9/10.X)

btw. and even if a distribution delivers this, we want a consistent packaging system,
not to be bound to ever changing incompatible versions subversions and subsubsub-versions,
the --force tag is annoying for a 1.2.3_2 Version to match 1.2.3 requirement,

hey dll hell lol, rpm/deb/etc..-hell is worse

running FreeBSD/Linux as a serverOS for 10+ years now, and for 5+ years solely FreeBSD,
those systems are wonderfull,

but to go back to the topic, I don't use bing, I don't click on adds, I use an add blocker and
crush google cookies.

I judge this post myself offtopic, but I think those things had to be said, one time or another.

More likely to click on an ad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28828961)

Well of course they are more likely to click on an ad. They are more likely to be Microsoft users and that in itself effectively filters out anyone with an independent mind.

The automatons who use Bing will undoubtedly do what is expected of them.

It's all Live Cashback bribery (5, Interesting)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829059)

If you sign up for Microsoft Live Cashback, you can use Bing search to get discounts on stuff you buy.

In effect, Microsoft is bribing the general public to use their search engine. This is not designed to be profitable or sustainable. Of course, I'm sure Microsoft doesn't care, as long as it hurts Google's biggest revenue stream.

I use Bing to "search" for something that I already know I want to buy, and then click on the Cashback link to get anywhere from 2-30% off on my purchase.

This isn't really "searching" the internet. It's jumping through hoops to get a discount. I'd buy the thing anyway whether it was advertised or not, whether I'd get a discount or not. Since the discount's available, I take advantage of it.

Of course, advertisers don't actually care about people searching the internet the real way. They care about people buying stuff from them. If they believe that Bing users are more likely to buy than Google users, they'll probably put a lot of advertising money up at Bing. I actually block advertising in both search results, but I turn it off temporarily if I want to make a Cashback purchase.

Aside from a few accidental uses, and a few test searches to see how the results compared with I *never* use Bing when searching for any kind of information if I'm just doing a general web search, I use google's search engine. I don't know that Bing search results are any better or worse than Google's, but I'm comfortable using Google and I know that I'll usually find what I'm looking for pretty easily once I find the right query terms to enter.

Google is ripe for replacement (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28829169)

I am one of those Microsoft haters that Linus Torvalds thinks is crazy. And I haven't been to Bing yet. But I will say that Google is ripe for replacement as the search engine of choice. When Google first came out it was a wonder. I could put in a search term and the information I wanted came up usually on the first page. But as Google worked to index more and more of the web there were more and more results to look through and I had to scan through more pages to find the information I wanted. Then came search engine optimization, which put more and more garbage in the results. Then Google killed usenet by creating Google Groups (actually they just contributed to it's death). So since the natural information hierarchy in usenet has been destroyed the web has been trying to regain this with "tags", with virtually no success.

So I am ready for something that is not Google. I doubt Microsoft could create a suitable replacement. As a corporation they have always focused on what is good for their company, and not what is good for the consumer.

Surprise! (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829179)

According to this study, it turns out that people who are highly susceptible to browser advertising are also highly susceptible to other advertising.

It could mean Bing produces better results, too (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829205)

A pretty large fraction of people who search are ultimately searching in order to help with a purchasing decision. If Bing is doing a better job of sending them to relevant sites, then we'd expect them to be more likely to click ads on those sites, as those ads are likely to actually be useful to the searcher.

Bing Market Share? (1)

Marketing Gary (1606051) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829239)

At what point do we give bing attention to start SEO sites for it. We have our hands full with googel local maps and growing fast, but don't want to be behind the 8 ball? Does anyone have real numbers yet?

Monopoly, anyone? (1)

Thad Zurich (1376269) | more than 4 years ago | (#28829281)

Microsoft has leveraged its monopoly to shove Bing down the throats of anyone too ignorant or powerless to remove it, by making it the new "default" search engine for all things Microsoft, including Internet Explorer. This captures two classes of people: those that don't know any better, and those browsers held captive by corporate configuration lockdowns (in companies that don't bother to override the new default). Since my observations to date indicate that Bing sucks compared to Google (especially when searching Microsoft MSDN and TechNet!) these should be the only class of people using Bing, apart from deliberate experimentation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...