Beta
×

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 Becomes No.2 Search Engine at 4.37%

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the now-that's-a-gap dept.

Google 366

suraj.sun writes "Bing overtook Yahoo for the first time worldwide in January, and increased its lead in February, according to web analytics company, StatCounter. Its research arm StatCounter Global Stats finds that globally Bing reached 4.37%, in February ahead of Yahoo! at 3.93%. Both trail far behind Google's 89.94% of the global search engine market." Just a little more plagiarizing to go!

cancel ×

366 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Excellent! (5, Interesting)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357902)

Now if only it didn't suck.

I wish someone - even Microsoft - would come up with a decent alternative to Google. Being a monopoly is making them more and more corrupt, and by being the gatekeeper, they now own too much of the internet.

Re:Excellent! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357928)

+1 Right now, I only see the internet google wants me to see.

Re:Excellent! (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357932)

Now if only it didn't suck.

I wish someone - even Microsoft - would come up with a decent alternative to Google. Being a monopoly is making them more and more corrupt, and by being the gatekeeper, they now own too much of the internet.

Moammar? Is that you?

Re:Excellent! (1)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358082)

Moammar? Is that you?

Yes! But not the Moammar you think I am.

Re:Excellent! (0)

chrishillman (852550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357938)

I think it is the advertising.

I would use Bing at least once in a while but they have such awful ads that I can't bring myself to even see those letters in that order...

Search plagiarism aside.. If even they are copying Google search results then you know why they can only get 4%...

Re:Excellent! (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358472)

Nobody has a problem with copying, not even google. The problem is that they aren't even *improving* anything! If people want copied google search results they will just use google.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35357940)

Being a monopoly is making them more and more corrupt, and by being the gatekeeper, they now own too much of the internet.

What?

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358452)

You stupid.

Re:Excellent! (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358080)

Hush you fool! You know they're listening. Do you *want* to be sent back to the camp?

Re:Excellent! (5, Insightful)

suprcvic (684521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358164)

By definition, Google isn't a monopoly. They aren't the only search engine in town, they just happen to be the most successful with a vast majority of the market share. That's not because they are erecting large barriers to entry, it's just because the other search engines aren't as smart as theirs.

Re:Excellent! (2, Insightful)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358210)

A little bit like our other friends in Redmond, no?

Re:Excellent! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358328)

No, it's not. Google has not engaged in any anticompetitive practices to hold on to that market share. Being successful simply because you're good at what you do is not a crime. Microsofts agreements with OEMs, other software makers and Intel were used to make it impossible for other OS makers to compete. It would be like if Google created a new standard called norobotsexceptgoogles.txt and lowered the page rank of any sites that didn't refuse to be crawled by anyone but google.

Re:Excellent! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358432)

being a monopoly has nothing to do with market practices. Those are "monopoly abuse". You can be "successful simply because you're good at what you do" and still be a monopoly.

Re:Excellent! (2)

BassMan449 (1356143) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358638)

Google may not be a true monopoly but they are an effective monopoly. However that said there is nothing wrong or illegal about being a monopoly. It is illegal however to abuse that monopoly to stop future competitors.

Re:Excellent! (3, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358698)

1: You don't have to be anti-competitive to be a monopoly. You just have to be significantly larger than your nearest rival.

2: Drastically undercutting your opponents prices in a new market by leveraging profits from a different market to support it can be seen as anti-competitive. Many for profit vendors see google pushing open source products as this.

Re:Excellent! (2)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358630)

No, not even a little bit.

Google has a near monopoly (which btw, is not illegal in of itself) because the best product is maintaining its position and crowding out inferior solutions.

On the other hand, many superior solutions have been illegally barred from entry because of anti-competitive and illegal practices by Microsoft. Google's situation actually encourages competition and an ever improving product. Microsoft's solution destroys competition and ensures product stagnation and inferior products compared to what the market would otherwise bring.

In short; Microsoft bad, Google good.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358212)

Have a gander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly) because I'm not sure that word means what you think it does.

Re:Excellent! (3, Insightful)

swordgeek (112599) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358226)

They are a near-monopoly. Erecting barriers to entry isn't a sign of a monopoly either, it's a sign of a monopoly that is unfairly using its position/power. (In fact, in most of the western world, anti-monopoly legislation doesn't prevent monopolies, it only prevents them from misusing their monopolistic power.)

But regardless, it's the lack of a better (or comparable and competing) search engine that I lament.

Re:Excellent! (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358394)

I'm more worried about the Comcast* Monopoly at my home, then any imaginary google monopoly. I don't have to go to google.com but I do have to go through Comcast to see Sci-Fi Channel, History Channel, or HBO.

Ditto for the internet duopoly that exists between Comcast and Verizon. I can't believe state governments have failed to regulate these Utilities like they regulated all the other monopolies (electric, gas, water, phone). The state politicians are collecting big salaries and not doing shit.

*
* Or cox, cablevision, time-warner, att, etc.

Re:Excellent! (1)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358492)

So I can still put hotels on both Boardwalk and Park Place?

Re:Excellent! (1, Flamebait)

hjf (703092) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358232)

By definition, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. They aren't the only operating system in town, they just happen to be the most successful with a vast majority of the market share. That's not because they are erecting large barriers to entry, it's just because the other operating systems aren't as smart as theirs.

See what I did there?

Re:Excellent! (1)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358442)

Yes, you have put aside the facts that Microsoft is notorious for erecting large barriers to entry and that their software is actually one of the dumbest.

Re:Excellent! (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358456)

Microsoft is (or at least was) a monopoly by definition. The definition being: losing your case against charges of monopolistic behavior makes you a monopolist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft [wikipedia.org]

Re:Excellent! (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358534)

By definition, Microsoft isn't a monopoly. They aren't the only operating system in town, they just happen to be the most successful with a vast majority of the market share. That's not because they are erecting large barriers to entry, it's just because the other operating systems aren't as smart as theirs.

See what I did there?

I think you may have missed this entire wikipedia article mostly about microsoft, most of which google is not guilty of. Neither are pure saints or pure sinners, but one is certainly way worse than the other, and only the astroturfers claim MS is the better one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices [wikipedia.org]

Google is a natural monopoly, looking at the capital costs of gathering all that data. I'm not seeing a cruddy OS, cruddy web browser, or a middle of the road office suite as being natural monopolies, given the evidence that it doesn't take too many people or too much time to do a better job. On the other hand, replicating google would be quite challenging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly [wikipedia.org]

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358558)

Well actually in the past they have done everything in their power from preventing alternative OS's on the PC platform from being sold - this includes Linux, DOS, and OS/2 from what I remember. Also take a look at what they did to Word Perfect back in da day.

See what I did there?

There is nothing preventing me from using bing or Yahoo as my search engine of choice. There is, however, very real challenges in getting non Microsoft products installed on a PC, thanks in large part to Microsoft.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358344)

You've noticed that we're not in a planned economy, and so there are always a few small competitors even to a large, well established main player. Well done.

Now notice the rest of what's going on.

Re:Excellent! (2)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358714)

That didn't stop the EU from forcing MS to provide a browser ballot. Despite the fact that IE's market share is falling, Window's market share is falling, you can fully uninstall IE8 from W7, and there are at least 4 other big players in the game who are increasing market share, EU still felt the need to step in.

It would be funny though, if Google was forced to put a ballot on Google.com, which would redirect you to your search engine of choice.

Re:Excellent! (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358736)

Some areas of the US were served by a CLEC, not a Bell. I guess Bell wasn't a monopoly, either, cause I had GTE before they merged with Bell Atlantic and became Verizon...

HEHEHE (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358248)

I wish someone - even Microsoft - would come up with a decent alternative to Google.

That's funny.
Your wish is like saying that you have a thief in the office who is taking your food and not telling you, so you want Charles Manson to replace them.

BTW, do not get me wrong. I think that competition is good and would help pull Google back in line. But, bringing in a notorously corrput company like MS is NOT the way to solve this. Heck, many of the stores here can be pointed right back to MS and a number of them turn out to be false.

Re:Excellent! (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358276)

Oh it isn't that bad, I've actually found it to be superior when doing Image and Video searches.

Re:Excellent! (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358356)

Content search does suck, but I like the image search much better than the new-ish Google image search.

Re:Excellent! (4, Funny)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358450)

Oblg.: Bing Is No Good. :-)

Re:Excellent! (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358484)

I don't think acronyms can be defined recursively.

Re:Excellent! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358662)

I don't think acronyms can be defined recursively.

Well, GNU stands for Gnu's Not UNIX

Re:Excellent! (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358546)

Actually, I was under the assumption that Bing Is Not Google.

Google alternative: duckduckgo (3, Informative)

lrnj (1986582) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358474)

I wish someone - even Microsoft - would come up with a decent alternative to Google.

I've switched recently from google to DuckDuckGo [duckduckgo.com] . I'd call it a decent alternative with a few advantages over Google, and a few disadvantages.

All in all, I consider it a slight downgrade, but google was starting to creep me out too much.

Re:Excellent! (2)

fermion (181285) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358548)

MS has a cash cow in office. Like so many other companies they are going to have to risk the cash cow to insure future relevance. Just imagine what would have happened if American car companies would have moved on from gas guzzling cars of the 70's and innovated instead of basking in their multi-hundred-million dollar profits. Reagan would not have had to give them 1.5 billion, in 1980, tax dollars that althout repaid represented a failure of the free market. Likewise Bush would not again have put 13.4 billion of tax payer money into Chrysler and GM, at a time when all such money was deficiet spending and we all were allegedly worried about the debt.

The point is that corporations tend to equate profits with health. This is a fallacy as we have seen profits evaporate in a couple quarters on a number of occasions. The MS Software model is quickly becoming obsolete. The closed proprietary OS integrated by a third party is an experiment that has failed, particularly in smart phones. For iOS, for Android, for Symbian, the system builder has full acess to code and the ability to do with as they wish. It is failingThe hardware people do not have go to the software people and beg for fixes, nor do they have to pay crippling license fees.

More people expect to pay for innovative products, but not to keep paying for legacy products. MS Office will eventually be replaced by Google Docs or OpenOffice.org or the like that run on whatever hardware a company want to buy. This is as sure as MS products replaced IBM integrated products. No one want to be stuck in a single vendor situattion, and anyone who thinks MS is not a single vendor situation is delusional.

Bing evidently has some good features. One reason people don't use bing is because MS does not provide an integrated environment like Google does. Google rewards with real product form using the search engine. MS could do this, in many ways much better than Google, but they wold have to sacrifice near term profits. They could put office online, and let anyone use it on any OS, but then why would people buy Windows machine when maybe an Android tablet might suit their needs at half the cost? They would lose the MS Windows OEM sales that cover so much of their fixed costs. They are stuck. They can't be innovative without risking short term profits.

And the entry to the search market is huge now given the data centers that have to be built. I am not one to think of Apple when thinking of innovative internet strategies. They are creative by never had have a real internet product. However, with the data center, and the iOS, they may be able to leverage me.com into something that can compete with google. The google search and google maps seem so last decade. Apple has money to invest in products that rival Google, and if they did they could take a large chunk of the search market, and create an entry point to business, all in one go.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358686)

Reagan would not have had to give them 1.5 billion, in 1980, tax dollars that althout repaid represented a failure of the free market. Likewise Bush would not again have put 13.4 billion of tax payer money into Chrysler and GM, at a time when all such money was deficiet spending and we all were allegedly worried about the debt.

You forgot to mention what Obama did? Oh wait, he has done nothing to even try to help which I guess was your point

Re:Excellent! (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358556)

There was one created by some ex-Google employees a couple years ago, I think it was called Cuil. Going to www.cuil.com times out for me, so I guess it wasn't a success.

I remember trying it a couple times, but I just haven't been able to find another search engine that is good with error messages and technical keywords.

Re:Excellent! (2)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358568)

I find Bing maps to be much better than Google's. At least for my area, bing has higher resolution maps, and the Bird's eye view is a nifty feature: view and location from any angle. I also thing Bing maps has better transitions for zooming. Zoom in real far on Google maps, then zoom out very fast. Your old position will be a small square in a sea of gray, where the new images haven't loaded yet. On Bing maps you get more transitions as you zoom out.

I'm actually using satellite images for part of my research, and I chose Bing's over Google's for just this reason.

Also, what exactly is wrong with Bing's results? Generally, I don't think I've found any deficiencies from using it. If anything, I've been finding more link farms at the top of Google results lately.

Editing is a lost art (5, Informative)

Anarke_Incarnate (733529) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357906)

"Has overtook Bing"

Cringe..... Maybe they should BING the word overtaken.

Re:Editing is a lost art (1)

Toad-san (64810) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357966)

My initial response as well. [cringe] Overtook? OVERTOOK? What the HELL!

Re:Editing is a lost art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358016)

overtook is the past tense of overtake.

Re:Editing is a lost art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358064)

'Has overtaken' is the past perfect of 'overtake'.

Re:Editing is a lost art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358200)

*Present* Perfect. The past perfect would be "had overtaken".

- An AC working as an English as a Foreign Language teacher in Brazil on his spare time.

Re:Editing is a lost art (2)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358208)

No, "has overtaken" is the _present_ perfect of "overtake." The _past_ perfect (or pluperfect) is "had overtaken."

Jesus, I had to know these things to get through 2nd grade. Just what are they teaching in schools nowadays?

Re:Editing is a lost art (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358482)

2nd grade? I call bs. College freshman don't get that stuff right.I only know those English rules because I had to learn them while earning my two foreign language degrees.

Re:Editing is a lost art (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358490)

If you read enough (and that's not much), you don't need to know the fancy grammatical terminology. The bad grammar just sounds wrong.

That said, I'm having to lighten up and accept that the world at large is going to keep saying "less" instead of "fewer", and the word "gotten" is going to continue to encroach upon British English.

Re:Editing is a lost art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358706)

And, by the way, since they provided a time frame ("January"), they shouldn't be using the present perfect; the correct tense for an event in a definite moment in the past is the simple past. ("Bing overtook Yahoo"). BTW, TFA has made this correction already.

- An AC working as an English as a Foreign Language teacher in Brazil on his spare time.

Re:Editing is a lost art (1)

curious.corn (167387) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358134)

That's true but it should have been either "has overaken" or "overtook"... "has overtook" is wrong

Re:Editing is a lost art (2)

xaxa (988988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358280)

"Bing has overtook Yahoo"

overtook is the past tense of overtake.

Overtook is the past simple tense: "Bing overtook Yahoo".

Overtaken is the past participle, and is needed here: "Bing has overtaken Yahoo".

Re:Editing is a lost art (4, Funny)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358446)

Yes, I think it's well wrote as well.

Re:Editing is a lost art (1)

SavoWood (650474) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358060)

I literally did a facepalm when I saw this. The only reason I was going to post was to make the same observation.

Re:Editing is a lost art (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358586)

I suspect that horrid phrasing was an improvement. I imagine the earliest versions of that phrase were something like "has overtookened".

Hm. That word is perfectly cromulent.

Re:Editing is a lost art (2)

stuntpope (19736) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358612)

Submitter should of drug his dictionary out of hiding.

Re:Editing is a lost art (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358644)

The summary awkwardly juxtaposes usage of the past participle to describe action that occurred in the more distant past ("has overtaken Yahoo... in January", as corrected), with the past tense for action that has just finished ("increased its lead in February").

Now are you sorry that you brought this up?

How many by choice? (5, Insightful)

stcdm33 (1942322) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357916)

How many of those are by choice and how many are by devices and/or apps that have Bing forced on them?

Re:How many by choice? (2)

netdigger (847764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358072)

I actually really want to know this. A few people have asked me how to remove Bing from their phones. And lets not mention the Windows 7 phones. LOL

Re:How many by choice? (0)

Moderator (189749) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358078)

And how many Google search results are by devices/apps that Google has forced? Do you even get a choice with Android?

Seriously, this works both ways. For me, Bing is better. Google had fallen subject to link-spamming the past year, although they are now starting to rectify the problem. I also don't like what Google has done with its interface (both search results and Image search).

Posting this from Opera 11 running on Fedora with Bing as the default search.

Re:How many by choice? (1)

Remloc (1165839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358100)

Any device or app that forces a search engine, email client, browser, etc. on me is one I will not be using.

Re:How many by choice? (4, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358166)

Where I live, all the goverment employees computers are set to use Bing in the IE search box (and this cannot be changed, it is enforced by group policy) because Microsoft gave the government a discount if they made all government employees use Bing on their work machines.

Of course government employees can type in "google.com" into the address bar and use Google (or whoever else) if they wish, but I would imagine most just enter things into the search bar.

Re:How many by choice? (1)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358610)

Couldn't the same be said for Google? Isn't Google the default search engine for Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera? Doesn't Google toolbar come pre-installed on some machines? Isn't Google the default search engine on every iPhone and Android device?

And I has (2)

XB-70 (812342) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357964)

...and I has been over-took by yous's bad grammar!

Overtook? (4, Insightful)

NitroWolf (72977) | more than 3 years ago | (#35357998)

Overtook? Really? Why do we have editors? Why not just vote on the news items that get posted, since the editors apparently are incapable of doing their job. On top of that, the whole first sentence is a complete mess, not to mention the rest of the summary. Did a 5th grader write it?

Maybe the submitter should have plagiarized someone competent in grammar and spelling.

Re:Overtook? (1)

towelie-ban (1234530) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358700)

Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays.

Double-surprise (5, Funny)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358034)

Which is more surprising? That 4.37% can land a #2 spot, or that anyone uses Bing?

Both are rather startling, imho.

Re:Double-surprise (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358202)

I actually use travel.bing.com... I like the UI and it seems to get it's prices pretty well. And the historical data is nice to have access to, even if you can only see 3 months ahead.

Re:Double-surprise (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358372)

"I actually use travel.bing.com..."

Well I have a young child, so I'd prefer if I could search for children's fares as well. Interface is ok otherwise, but not better or worse than your average flight search site.

Re:Double-surprise (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358512)

I think the article is strictly about internet search.

Otherwise, you could count in Google maps and Gmail and so on... that would get rather messy.

Re:Double-surprise (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358542)

P.S. Just looked at Bing Travel, and it seems like a cheap knockoff of Kayak, which is much more robust: http://www.kayak.com/ [kayak.com]

Re:Double-surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358306)

It's not all that surprising. People who can't be arsed to change their default search engine probably can't be arsed to look things up themselves by using it either, or at least are considerably less prone to do so.

Yahoo = Bing (5, Insightful)

cforciea (1926392) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358052)

Since Yahoo is powered by Bing, isn't this a little like saying Bing has "overtook" Bing?

Bing = Google (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358160)

Since Bing is getting data from Google doesn't that make Google 94.31%?

Re:Yahoo = Bing (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358178)

Damn, just ran out of +1 Insightful, Article Submitter and Editards Are A Bunch of Marketdroid Cretins Who Don't Know The Difference Between An Engine And A Brand ratings points.

I make that 4.37% + 3.93% = 8.3% for Bing, the "search engine".

Re:Yahoo = Bing (3, Interesting)

owlstead (636356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358302)

Yeah, so now we know the number of people too lazy to change their default search engine :)

Re:Yahoo = Bing (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358272)

Since Yahoo is powered by Bing, isn't this a little like saying Bing has "overtook" Bing?

In one sense, yes. But in another, no. Yahoo was once powered by Google. Since Yahoo can just switch out what they use relatively seamlessly from the perspective of the average user, it's implicitly understood that the numbers are just comparing what the internet population uses as a portal/url for search.

Re:Yahoo = Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358436)

I'm not sure, maybe you should ask Jeeves.

Re:Yahoo = Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358460)

sup dawg, we heard you like to bing, so we put a bing in your bing, so can bing while you bing!

wow (5, Insightful)

markass530 (870112) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358066)

Considering it's the default search engine on I.E. and we all know how loathe people are to change defaults (IE6 market share anyone) this is a pretty sad number.

Re:wow (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358320)

They haven't figured that out... they've just figured out how to go to google first...

Re:wow (1)

wile_e8 (958263) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358364)

Speaking of how loathe people are to change defaults, how many people actually use the search bar instead of straight up visiting Google?

I ask this as someone that has seen his wife bring up Google in the Firefox browser window to do a search when the Google search bar is right! frickin! there!

Re:wow (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358696)

I ask this as someone that has seen his wife bring up Google in the Firefox browser window to do a search when the Google search bar is right! frickin! there!

She probably used web browsers for awhile before search bars were "invented". I certainly did.

Its much more of a pain to delete your history in the search bar than just "X" a tab. Some things I search for are best forgotten, as best as possible, I guess.

It also annoys me that once I'm "done" with searching something, the search bar does not blank and I've gotta keep looking at something I'm done with. Poor UI. Its like not being allowed to kill a browser tab or not being allowed to delete an email. Boy that would be annoying. "well just don't look at it" "well just don't click it". No, I want it to go AWAY. Bye Bye. Blank.

Also windows users are used to having their toolbars hijacked by malware and psuedo-malware and otherwise F-ed with constantly, your media player changes your default search engine to bing, windows update change your default when upgrading MSIE, at least historically. If you share a PC or a browser, even temporarily, who knows how they've (mis)configured it, so you have to manually go to your favorite engine. One thing for sure, if you are stuck with windows and you want to go to google you probably can't use the google search bar. So they simply don't depend upon nor use them, they're just unusable visual noise.

Re:wow (1)

Duncan J Murray (1678632) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358652)

Yes - this is the case in the large organisation I work for - we share terminals briefly for looking up data, and sometimes search the web. It isn't time-worthwhile to go through changing the default search engine to google, although I still do it every now and then.

I have seen people 'bing' for 'google'

D

Not that Slashdot editors care, but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358132)

Just a little more plagiarizing to go!

This can be deemed a libelous statement.

(I am a lawyer. However, as I am not a lawyer for Slashdot, its employees, or its parent and/or affiliated companies, this post is provided "AS IS” and does not constitute legal advice.)

Probably due to Verizon / RIM (2)

Soskywalkr (617860) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358216)

I'd bet that most of this increase is due the switch by Verizon to force Bing as the default search provider. Every so often, I forget to go to google.com first -- seeing the lack of usable results I'm instantly reminded and switch back to google, but I'm sure that still counts in Bing's favor.... perl @+?*.-&'_:$#/%!"

Baidu (3, Interesting)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358258)

The fact that this article does not mention Baidu makes me very suspicious. Its information is fallacious.

Re:Baidu (1)

danhuby (759002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358642)

Not necessarily. According to their figures, Baidu is pretty insignificant globally - although it's huge in China. Maybe only a relatively small percentage of Chinese people browse the web compared to other countries.

Have a look at:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-ww-monthly-201002-201102 [statcounter.com]
http://gs.statcounter.com/#search_engine-CN-monthly-201002-201102 [statcounter.com]

Dan

We're Number Two! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358264)

Yay!

Soon we might even have 5% of the market.

In other news (1)

Celarent Darii (1561999) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358298)

Most people don't change their defaults. They use what is installed.

Re:In other news (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358582)

Which makes it all the more amazing that Google has a ~90% share.

The Irony (3, Insightful)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358310)

The company that brought us Windows Search and Sharepoint has started an internet search engine.

No thanks.

Re:The Irony (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358676)

I think you got it backwards:

MSN Search first launched in the third quarter of 1998 and used search results from Inktomi

Windows Search first popped up in XT (after that) and it is a rather decent search. I am using it all the time at work.

Microsoft SharePoint 2003 - the first commercial release of SharePoint

Bing is over rated when given 2nd place. (1)

xs650 (741277) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358354)

At 4.37%, they should say there is no one in 2nd place and give Bing 3rd place at best.

Bing and WIndows Update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358416)

How often does Windows Update change the default search engine to Bing?

overtook (2)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358438)

and with this sentence, the cries of a thousand editors were silence in one fell swoop.

Ads? Whats an ad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35358448)

I don't understand how, in March of 2011, people still see ads on the internet. Firefox and Adblock Plus are your friends, people.

Also, I like google, it gives me exactly what I want, in a clear and quick manner. Also, isn't it overtaken, not overtook? /English?

Google Web == MS Desktop (2)

Syncerus (213609) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358454)

Why is Windows monoculture bad and Google monoculture good?

Monoculture is monoculture.

Google is great! (1)

samwong086 (2007328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358562)

I love Google [google.com] than Bing [bing.com] ! Hurry up Bing!

The only use of Bing (1)

lunasee (1766706) | more than 3 years ago | (#35358670)

I bet most people use the Bing Search in IE to type in Google.com, instead of typing it in the address bar.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?