×

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 More Effective Than Google?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the bing-your-own-name-to-compare dept.

Google 385

Xiph1980 writes "Experian Hitwise claims Bing and Bing-powered search to be more effective than Google. The success rate for Bing searches in the U.S. in July was 80.04%, compared to 67.56% for Google. The market watcher defines 'success rate' as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website. Searches made through sites owned by Yahoo, which farmed out search to Bing under a deal struck in 2009, were also more efficient than Google. Those searches yielded a success rate of 81.36%. The claims of Hitwise don't explain why I keep finding things like Microsoft service pack download pages better through google than through bing."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

385 comments

Bing vs. Google (2, Interesting)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083810)

The claims of Hitwise don't explain why I keep finding things like Microsoft service pack download pages better through google than through bing.

That's because unlike Google, Bing doesn't favor its own services over others. Google favors their news service, maps, YouTube, shopping and every other service over others. Bing returns results objectively.

There are also differences in algorithms. Bing doesn't count so called junk-links while Google does. Bing prefers link inside good, relevant content. Google, on the other hand, counts all kinds of links. That's also why Google is full of shitty results, as SEO spammers game the system by spamming links to blog comments and every other place where they can get it. As Bing doesn't count those links almost at all it means their results are much more cleaner.

The problem Bing is facing is that they cannot get as much user data from searchers as Google. They miss a lot of long-tail keyword data that Google gets just because of their dominant market share. They also miss a lot of data of what result user thinks is relevant and good for the search query (both Google and Bing track which result user clicks on) and how much they spend on the site (both services again track if you return back from that result - if you come back quickly, it's obviously worthless result for the query). This is also the same reason why Bing toolbar gathers that data on users who use Google [businessinsider.com] - the same thing that somehow got twisted in slashdotters heads as Bing scraping and stealing results from Google. The only thing they do is collect that click data.

Judging by the usual slashdot response of "but they should just improve their algorithms", people don't seem to get how immersively complex current search engines and their algorithms are. It's not just about following links on other websites - we have been past that for almost 10 years now. Algorithms are the base of the search engine, but they're almost worthless without all the keyword and usage data that really powers them. That is also why Google is so keen to collect every single piece of information they can get their hands on.

Microsoft has done a lot of things correctly with Bing. I would say their algorithms are even better than Google's, as they're able to compete with much smaller market share and data against Google and actually provide better results. It has come a long way from the Windows Live Search days.

Re:Bing vs. Google (5, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083826)

Well, that is interesting because I often find what I need on the first page of Google searches, sometimes second page if it is an odd issue I am working with.

This of course is related to the fact that I use 0% of Bing searches.

What? The information I provided is just as relevant as the unsupported article or reply regarding these two.

Independent statistics are required, otherwise its a he said she said scenario.

Re:Bing vs. Google (0)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083898)

Wait until you try to find a review of a laptop or specifications of one. On Google, the first 10 pages of hits will be pretty much exclusively shopping sites.

Re:Bing vs. Google (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084030)

Google:
"alienware m11x review"
First link: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/alienware-m11x-review/
Second: http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=5548&review=alienware+m11x+ultraportable+gaming+notebook
In fact, not a single link on the first page is a store.

"alienware m11x specs"
First link: http://gear.ign.com/articles/106/1065816p1.html
Second: http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-m11x/pd .....What google have you been using?

Re:Bing vs. Google (0)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084098)

You probably just search for some linux or other geeky stuff. There's no money in that so marketers don't target it. Normal people don't search stuff like that, most often they might search for products or some news. Google is full of junk with stuff like that, while Bing is not.

Sucky definition of "success" (3, Informative)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084116)

Agreed - I generally find my answers on the first page of a Google search.

But, I can't get past the definition for "success" in the summary. There are times when I Google something, and the answer appears in the summary - no need to click any links.

If you're measuring "success" in terms of dollars and cents changing hands somewhere, yeah, Bing is probably a success. If you're measuring "success" in terms of searchers finding the data they are looking for, I'll put my money on Google.

Re:Bing vs. Google (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084158)

I've certainly had the "looking for specs/review not a list of sites that are selling the thing or are just place-holders asking me to provide details, thanks" problem with Google as mentioned by Computershack, though I can't say I've used Bing much (in those cases I usually find what I want eventually with a little keyword tweaking and/or perseverance) so I don't know if it is better/worse there.

One of the reasons I lack enough confidence in Bing to start considering it over Google is MS's other search functions Every tried finding something in their documentation? I've often found much better results asking Google for "msdn " then asking the MSDN site's own search function for "".

Re:Bing vs. Google (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084168)

Damn, should have actually read the preview... That should have been:

One of the reasons I lack enough confidence in Bing to start considering it over Google is MS's other search functions Every tried finding something in their documentation? I've often found much better results asking Google for "msdn <keywords>" then asking the MSDN site's own search function for "<keywords>".

Re:Bing vs. Google (0)

boldie (1016145) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084250)

the people using Bing are the same people that does not know about the address bar. They Bing "www.times.com" and then click the search result.

Re:Bing vs. Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083844)

So his finding links to microsoft on google easier are a result of google favouring their own services, and the SEO junk link spamming campaign microsoft uses to give shitty results in google, whic it's own service ignores?

That makes no sense

Re:Bing vs. Google (2, Interesting)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083942)

So his finding links to microsoft on google easier are a result of google favouring their own services, and the SEO junk link spamming campaign microsoft uses to give shitty results in google, whic it's own service ignores?

That makes no sense

Agreed. Sounds like spin control to me. And it makes me wonder how many of those alleged Google searches that didn't lead to pages being loaded, were Bing (and others) scraping Google search results. I know that some engines openly scape Google's search engine.

Try this:- Create a website and don't register it with any search engines - put some nonsensical words into meta keywords - keep an eye on your logs for search bot and see how long it takes for Google to crawl the site (generally just a day or two, robots.txt allowing). When the nonsense word turns up in the Google results see if you can find it in Bings (it works) - then see how much longer it takes for Bing (or Yahoo) to actually crawl the site with their magic time-travelling search bots.

As another exercise to demonstrate how useful Bing is at building it's own database - see how long it takes Bing to crawl a site *after* you register it with them. Tip: pack plenty of food and clothes first :-D

Re:Bing vs. Google (3, Informative)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084120)

Have you actually tried that, or do you just spin that old article while not understanding what is happening? Because it doesn't work like that.

Bing toolbar used to follow what links people clicked on search results. That way Bing also got the information about such nonsensical keywords. But if no user clicks those links, they don't get those results. Bing doesn't just scrape Google, they collect usage information (like Google does too).

It's always nice to see somehow spewing complete bullshit when he either doesn't understand the issue or knows no one will actually try it, and try to come off as wiser than he actually is.

Re:Bing vs. Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084146)

Try this:- Create a website and don't register it with any search engines...

Try this:- design a better search algorithm that google (not easy but I have faith in you) set up a search service competing with google and see how much good that fantastic alghorithm does you. One of the big reasons why anti-trust and competition watchdogs on both sides of the atlantic are sizing Google up is the fact that the traffic a search engine gets is every bit as important as the quality of the algorithm it uses. Are Bing and other search services scraping Google? Probably yes, given the fact that this is just about the only thing they can do to compensate for googles 90% market share (read: internet search monopoly) I'm not surprised. I was running a search engine trying to compete with a monopolistic behemoth like Google I'd probably be scraping their engine too.

Re:Bing vs. Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083848)

>> The claims of Hitwise don't explain why I keep finding things like Microsoft service pack download pages better through google than through bing.
>
> That's because unlike Google, Bing doesn't favor its own services over others. Google favors their news service, maps, YouTube, shopping and every other service over others. Bing returns results objectively.

To paraphrase:
Q: Why Google shows better results when asked about Microsoft's stuff?
A: Because Google favors its own services!

You surely noticed your argumentation is slightly incoherent.

> The problem Bing is facing is that they cannot get as much user data from searchers as Google.

Yup, that's why they steal Google's search results - hiybbprqag

Re:Bing vs. Google (5, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083852)

There is also the advantage of small marketshare...
You have all the spammers out there trying their best to game google, but how many of them bother to try gaming bing or some of the other small engines? Same thing happened in the early days of google, altavista was full of spam while google had clean results.

Re:Bing vs. Google (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083968)

There is also the advantage of small marketshare... You have all the spammers out there trying their best to game google, but how many of them bother to try gaming bing or some of the other small engines? Same thing happened in the early days of google, altavista was full of spam while google had clean results.

Damn - does that mean duckduckgo and blekko are going to turn crappy too - oh well, I can live with Google (all the free stuff helps). Sure they get gamed, but Matt Dunn seems to be on top of things.

Re:Bing vs. Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083876)

This doesn't explain why google is better at finding service pack download pages.

1. You claim Bing doesn't favor its own services while Google does.
--> How the hell service pack download pages are a service of Google???
2. You claim that Bing doesn't count junk-links, while Google does.
--> Apparently the GP didn't consider the service pack download pages a junk link.
3. The problem Bing is facing is that they cannot get as much user data from searchers as Google.
--> Right, this is their problem. You got it right after a few false threads.

Actually, sometimes I use Bing too, it isn't bad at all. Google has a bigger user base but also a bigger abuser base (google bombs).

Re:Bing vs. Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083910)

The claims of Hitwise don't explain why I keep finding things like Microsoft service pack download pages better through google than through bing.

That's because unlike Google, Bing doesn't favor its own services over others. Google favors their news service, maps, YouTube, shopping and every other service over others. Bing returns results objectively.

Huh? Because Google favors it's own services they find Microsoft service packs faster then Bing? That really sounds wrong.

Re:Bing vs. Google (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083936)

Bing returns results objectively.

Probably you meant 'less biased'; 'objectively' is just nonsensical.

CC.

Re:Bing vs. Google (5, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083984)

The claims of Hitwise don't explain why I keep finding things like Microsoft service pack download pages better through google than through bing.

That's because unlike Google, Bing doesn't favor its own services over others.

Since when does Google have a service to download Microsoft service packs?

There are also differences in algorithms. Bing doesn't count so called junk-links while Google does. Bing prefers link inside good, relevant content. Google, on the other hand, counts all kinds of links.

Google also filters [techcrunch.com] on link farms [theregister.co.uk] . Of course their filtering isn't perfect, but it would surprise me a lot if Microsoft had discovered the magic algorithm to get rid of all "search engine optimization" gaming, and it's simply wrong to say that Google "counts all kinds of links".

Judging by the usual slashdot response of "but they should just improve their algorithms", people don't seem to get how immersively complex current search engines and their algorithms are.

One of my main issues with bing has nothing to do with complex search algorithms. Just search for e.g. shoes [bing.com] . The first page of results already contains two sets of duplicate results in my case: www.shoes.com and www.shoes.com/womens (sic, it actually stands for "women's"), and www.shoes.be and www.shoes.be/schoenwinkels.asp?l=k.

I get this with virtually every search term I've ever tried on Bing, which means that there are much less individually useful results than on Google (which will group all similar results from the same domain and then let you move on).

PS: yes, this is the first time in my life I've searched for the term "shoes" on the Internet

Re:Bing vs. Google (3, Insightful)

improfane (855034) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083994)

I have been suspicious of your high ID and first postings.

I call shill. (If you don't believe me, look at his past posts.)

Re:Bing vs. Google (0, Offtopic)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084144)

Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld

Alastair Reynolds [wikipedia.org] . Start with "Century Rain" and "Pushing Ice". I hear that "House of Suns" is his best work, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

Re:Bing vs. Google (1)

mino (180832) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084052)

Bing doesn't favor its own services over others.

[citation needed]

Google favors their news service, maps, YouTube, shopping and every other service over others.

[citation needed]

Bing returns results objectively.

[citation needed]

If I search for 'map of sydney' on Bing, I get a map result for Bing Maps embedded in the page. If I search for 'daniel morcombe' (a topic in the news in Australia, sadly) I get a sampling of news articles with the 'more' link taking me to Bing News. I don't see any links to Google Maps or Google News.

This is different... how?

Re:Bing vs. Google (2)

makomk (752139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084180)

Oh, Bing's favouring of its own services is definitely different: it's actually worse than Google's. For example, try searching for a stock ticker symbol like GOOG; on Google you'll get a nice eye-grabbing graph of the share price along with a row of well-organised links to information about those shares on all the major websites. On Bing you still get a nice eye-grabbing graph, but the only link next to it is the one to Bing Finance; if you prefer one of the other sites you have to trawl through the search results themselves to find a link to it.

Re:Bing vs. Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084138)

Bill, is that you?

Re:Bing vs. Google (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084142)

The real question here is, 'How much did Microsoft pay for this predetermined study to be completed?'

In other words; people who use Bing trust results (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083830)

So Google users browse their choices more than Bing users. That's predictable. If you let Bing be your search of choice you probably don't discern.

Re:In other words; people who use Bing trust resul (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084166)

If you let Bing be your search of choice you probably don't discern.

That's a baseless statement.

But did they found what they were looking for? (4, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083838)

Just become somebody clicks through to the site doesn't mean the search result was a success.

Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (5, Interesting)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083860)

More to the point, just because someone doesn't click, doesn't mean it wasn't a success. Google manages to answer a lot of my queries without ever needing to click a link... If I search for "define: bum nuggets" or "234GBP in EUR" I don't click any links.

Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084140)

I doubt the examples you give were used in this research. Indeed I use Google a lot for similar searches too, particularly for FX.

Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (1)

AnttiV (1805624) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084172)

This. A hundred times this. Mod parent up +9000 insightful. Of things I lookup in google, only about one in five require me to actually click the link, rather than letting me see the answer from the displayed text under the link. For most simple things like "how to spell google ceo" or "150 usd in eur" the answer is displayed on the results page and you have no need to click any links. If you can paraphrase your question/query right, most of the time you don't need to click anything. Only if you're looking for more info, or something that doesn't fit the short clip do you need to click a link.

Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084204)

Bing manges to answer the same questions without clicking a link as well. Try you examples.

Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (1)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083980)

Well, it certainly means a success for the site owner - he gets ad views and traffic he wouldn't get if the user just read the blurb on search page (which is often enough for the answer on google and often not enough on bing)

Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084186)

Yeah but why would I use Bing just to give more clicks to site owners?

Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (2)

anonymov (1768712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084208)

But it's not about you, silly!

"Research" like this is not to tell you what's better to use, it's to tell SEO people how to get more money.

Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (1)

Snirt (1908938) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084176)

1) I think effectiveness should be tied more on how 'useful' the search results are. A click==effectiveness. 2)In my perspective, I would read the results the negative way: Bing users dont easily find the relevant info on each search performed, so they do re-run their queries severally with different keywords, after visiting many crap sites. 3) ALSO,Google users gauge the relevance of the search results through analytical look at them before making a click, if they r way off topic, they try other keywords...On the other hand a dumb Bing user haphazardly clicks the links, gauging relevance upon actually visiting a site.

Re:But did they found what they were looking for? (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084246)

I wonder if people searching the web from Bing and from Google belong to the same societal circles.
All the people I know in the geek / computer / engineering / management / scientific / scholar ... circles do use Google.
The people I know who were using Bing initially (e.g. my mother) did not actually chose any specific search engine. They use(d) Bing because it was the one available on the computer. Maybe those people are less demanding in terms of results quality, and click easily on the first rendered results.

In my experience it depends on what you want (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083840)

Google is my preferred search engine, but the results are noticeably geek slanted. That's perfect for me, I am a geek. However it is not what everyone wants. Bing I find does a better job giving what a non-technical user might be after. You have to remember that as a tech person, what you are interested in may not mesh with what non-tech people are interested in.

So for me, Google it is, but that may not be true for everyone.

Re:In my experience it depends on what you want (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083862)

Google track you, and if you search for geeky things regularly then it will learn thats what you are usually looking for and deliver relevant results.
If you use a completely clean browser, from an IP you've not used before, you will get different results...

Re:In my experience it depends on what you want (2)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083988)

Google track you, and if you search for geeky things regularly then it will learn thats what you are usually looking for and deliver relevant results. If you use a completely clean browser, from an IP you've not used before, you will get different results...

Google claims it so that they can add value to your search results (and I believe them - so far) - I'm paraphrasing "when Bob searches for malt he means beer, when Jill searches for malt she means whiskey".

As for tracking - turn off geolocation in Firefox, wipe your cookies, and try out the new https://encrypted.google.com/ [google.com]

Re:In my experience it depends on what you want (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084024)

Or perhaps gets results tweaked for the usual user of that IP address.

One reason for going with duckduckgo, as they will not track, nor attempt to set up a "interest bubble".

Re:In my experience it depends on what you want (1)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083912)

Google is my preferred search engine, but the results are noticeably geek slanted..

Really? I'd say they were very noticeably shopping website slanted.

Re:In my experience it depends on what you want (1)

theVarangian (1948970) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084036)

Google is my preferred search engine, but the results are noticeably geek slanted..

Really? I'd say they were very noticeably shopping website slanted.

So, what's your point? Google searches are slanted in all sorts of ways and the same probably to Bing. I have been using both Google and Bing for a quite a while now and he has a point. Try searching on a set of compiler errors messages using Google and Bing which I have beed doing a lot of lately. My experience has been that Google gets you more hits in that particular niche.

Re:In my experience it depends on what you want (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084150)

It may depend on what you search for, but the few times I actually used Google to search for something commercial I used the search results for information on the product, and the advertisements to find people that actually can sell it to me.

Well there's your problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083842)

"The market watcher defines 'success rate' as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website."

Well there's your problem right there. Google users are more technical than Bing users; we tend to use search engines for things other than visiting websites.

Re:Well there's your problem (1)

cappp (1822388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083866)

The report can be found here [hitwise.com] . They dont provide details about how they monitor the click-through but you raise a great point.

My last 5 searches didnt' end in going to a website - all the info was put right there on the google searchpage. Checked the weather, the address of a local business, definition of a word, spelling of a word, and looked at a few *images*. Never left google for any of that.

Re:Well there's your problem (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084192)

Exactly!

Bing apparently has more morons who click all the first 30 links because they have no clue which one of the results is relevant.
'Success' is in the eye of the beholder.

Not all google searches are for websites (2)

rebelwarlock (1319465) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083846)

Take calculator and define for example. I don't need to click anything after searching, because google tells me the answer directly. I would say that's more effective than making me click through for currency conversions and dictionary definitions.

Re:Not all google searches are for websites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083896)

Very good observation. I also feel the summary at google to be better than at Bing.

At Bing I have to click on an article to see if it is incorrect, but with Google I may just refine my search without looking.

Besides if I don't find anything with Bing I usually search for "Google" and click on it :) creating a 100% click rate.

Re:Not all google searches are for websites (1)

XFire35 (1519315) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083900)

A lot of the time the question or information I was looking for is included in the preview text beneath the link, so I don't bother visiting the page.

Arbitrary (2)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083872)

The market watcher defines "success rate" as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website.

These finding may be interesting and can be interpreted in many ways, but it's completely arbitrary to associate "success rate" with the percentage of queries that resulted in a visit to a website.
Just one example for an exception: maybe the "blurb" offered by Google gives you more information, sometimes even to the point of giving you the answer you were looking for. Search for "first apollo launch" on both Google and Bing. I'm getting more dates in the blurbs on Google than Bing. Now search for "barack obama age" -- Google actually answers the question: "Best guess for Barack Obama age is 50 years (August 4, 1961)".

There are plenty of other reasons for why queries don't lead to websites. This has practically nothing to do with "success rate".

Re:Arbitrary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083990)

Right now MS is using Bing to gain market share, playing nice and getting good results is very important. But the moment they start to get a good following they'll show their true colors.

Google IS slanting the results in favour of it's customers(not users), but the slant is very small. It won't be the same for MS or Yahoo.

Re:Arbitrary (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084082)

It's almost certain that if Bing gets big enough, they'll start diverting more traffic to their assets. However if their assets don't deliver the goods, people will go back. If you're pointing people to your map product, and the product doesn't give you what you want, then you'll go elsewhere. Google will take every opportunity to point you to Google News, for example -- but it works, because it's an effective product/service.

I never expect large corporations to "play nice", I expect them to want to beat the competition. The existence of Bing is pushing Google to improve, so even if I don't use Bing on a regular basis, I still want it around, and right now, I want it to increase its market share. Keeping Google on their toes will improve their product.

Re:Arbitrary (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084212)

This has practically nothing to do with "success rate"

It depends on whose success you're talking about. Bing is more successful for site owners, Google is more successful for the person searching.

Bing for recipes, Google for computer related thin (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083878)

I use Bing for recipes and things that normal people search for. I use Google for anything technical since bing appears to be clueless about that stuff.

Google works if you already know how to use a search engine. My Mom doesn't know how to ask google good questions, so she needs to use Bing to find when the special church service is in her town.

Re:Bing for recipes, Google for computer related t (1)

derGoldstein (1494129) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083962)

That may have been true in the past, but Google now has many templates for answering natural language questions. Search for "how big is a leopard" on both Google and Bing. You get your answer on the first page on both. Now try "where is minsk" -- Google will give you move information on the results page than Bing.

Google is more than a search (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083880)

Manh times I use google for other things than performing a search and even sometimes search preview isenough for me.

I guess that bing users don't use it that way, so things like this could distort results.

Success rate? (1)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083882)

The success rate for Bing searches in the U.S. in July was 80.04%, compared to 67.56% for Google.

Please, define "the success rate for a search engine"". I'm so curious.
Provided that it could make any sense, I thought that it was "0" (zarro) if you answer "no page found" and "1" (uno) otherwise.

Like in searching (please type with quotes) "alberocomix". Both answers with "zarro pages found".

Mut maybe I'm too far from this search engine marketing stuff to understand.

Re:Success rate? (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083964)

I thought that it was "0" (zarro) if you answer "no page found" and "1" (uno) otherwise.

There might be shades of grey that introduce some 'fuzzyness', like in 'fuzzy logic'.

CC.

Re:Success rate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084100)

Actually, Google already finds this page for "alberocomix".

Re:Success rate? (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084124)

You know, in considerably less time than it took you to kvetch you could have, oh I don't know, read the fucking summary and got an answer to your question. I know restraining the urge to bitch on the Internet is tough, but all I'm asking is that you keep it under control long enough to actually read a few sentences. It would save a lot of time and aggravation if you did so.

Re:Success rate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084182)

Why?

Re:Success rate? (2)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084238)

While Google may control the lion's share of the search market, queries made through Microsoft's Bing search engine lead users to click on a Web page at a significantly higher rate than queries made through Google, according to data released Thursday.
The success rate for Bing searches in the U.S. in July was 80.04%, compared to 67.56% for Google, according to Experian Hitwise. The market watcher defines "success rate" as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website.

Okay, cowboy. I'll give you the explaination. It's "instant search".

The definition is completely flawed, probably it's intentionally flawed. In order to give Bing better results.

the problem (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083884)

The problem with Bing is that I am not using it, thus it results in 0% success rate in my case.

I am not using it because of a conscious decision to avoid it, I'd sooner use altavista or lycos or infoseek (wait, is that still around?) Infoseek is dead and I would still rather use that than bing.

Re:the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083958)

You are seeing this the wrong way. All of your Bing searches where a success. So I'll interpret it as a 100% success rate. ;)

Still not clear (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083914)

The market watcher defines 'success rate' as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website.

Perhaps there are more hits to websites. However often I just want to know one thing, yet I still need to go to several sites to get the information I want.
With Google I need to visit less websites then if I would use Bing.

I often use both Google AND Yahoo and I am glad they give different results as one will have some that the other doesn't. At least not on the first page.

I also often use http://search.yippy.com/ [yippy.com] as I like the clouds it places things in. Makes it sometimes faster.

It is a pity that there are not more search engines. Basically all are based on a few. Bing and Google as a basis.

Bing relies too much on Google ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083924)

... to be considered as a real search engine.

A few weeks ago, when Google excluded some Belgian press websites from it's indexing, the removal immediately propagated to Bing and other reprocessing engines.

Bing tries to compete with Google, but it is really just a front end for Google, with a few tweaks and adjustments. If tomorrow Google decided to take preventive actions against Bing, like preventing it from leeching results, would Bing still be in the competition?

Considering that Bing uses Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083930)

Given that Bing uses Google in order to find results (old news, but proven definitively by Google tweaking their own search results to reach a specific, unrelated page, and then using Bing and showing the results there altered the same way), I find this less than impressive. And as has already been pointed out, visiting a website isn't nearly as important as finding what you're actually after. I stopped using Bing after a few tries simply because I was visiting multiple sites per search without finding what I was after. Meanwhile Google usually hands me the information I want on the first attempt.

Re:Considering that Bing uses Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084188)

Given that Bing uses Google in order to find results (old news, but proven definitively by Google tweaking their own search results to reach a specific, unrelated page, and then using Bing and showing the results there altered the same way),

You missed a step -- they then had to force the link into the Bing index by a deceptive strategy. Bing doesn't particularly care about Google (otherwise the other links they didn't click on would have shown up in Bing) - it marginally cares about every page visited by someone who has the Bing toolbar installed, and if you make up a new word (as they did), and ensure that the only data that exists is from people clicking specifically on your link (as they did, by instructing their employees to keep clicking the link) you can get that into the index whatever site the link is on. You could use the same technique to make it seem like Bing was copying its results from your blog, a porn site, or anywhere else you can stick a link up for a non-existent word (that won't get swamped by real data) and pay an army of people to click on it.

Bing has a less adept user base (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37083932)

More Bing users are search beginners, and are therefore more likely to click through on the first link without taking the information into account to come up with a more refined query.

Give it time... (3, Informative)

NonFerrousBueller (1175131) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083940)

I reckon this is because SEO's and link farm scum are throwing all their weight at gaming Google rather than Bing.

I still haven't forgiven Microsoft for pounding, and I mean pounding, a self-hosted (long story) site for a small retailer I worked for a few years ago. We got a nearly $1000 bill for excess bandwidth. I checked the logs and they were downloading entire directories of images over and over and over. Non-techy Boss NOT impressed.

Many successful searches; no links followed (3, Interesting)

physicsphairy (720718) | more than 2 years ago | (#37083986)

If I'm looking up the name of something (via related criteria), or searching for a particular statistic, my ideal is to find it displayed in one of the website titles or excerpts without ever having to click anything.

Google also displays dictionary entries, etc. so that I can generally lookup words and get the definition right in the results.

Many times I consider a result "successful" when I don't find what I'm looking for--it was evident from the results that the object or information I wanted did not exist, so, while disappointing, Google did the job I wanted it to do.

I think a far better test is whether, after searching for something, small keyword alterations are made. Granted, many times there is a level of human refinement where people start off not knowing quite what they're looking for, but I think there is probably a much better correlation of people trying different words because they didn't find what they wanted than not-clicking anything. Basically, if people are coming away from Google and Bing equally satisfied, and Bing users click more, that means Bing is less effective and making its users do more work to get their info.

Re:Many successful searches; no links followed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084216)

I tend to follow a somewhat different pattern. I will do a few searches to narrow down a promising looking page. In part I can do this as the results displayed by Google are more informative, and partly because I do a lot of searching. I guess I'm saying I'm more discerning about when I click into a site which Google facilitates.

Did you mean... (3, Interesting)

ninjacheeseburger (1330559) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084028)

What about searches that were a mistake and corrected.

I admit that sometimes I use google as a spell checker and never click through to a page. I'm sure other people do this.

Types of search (2)

neurosine (549673) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084034)

I have consistently found google more effective. My suspicion is that this is because I am usually looking for information as opposed to products.

Get prepared to pay for search (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084070)

I don't believe the post. I mean that it is probably something like the "get the facts" campaign that MS used in the past.

But, in the very hypothetical case that MS won the search war, get prepared to pay for this service. Get prepared to pay a lot if you want "high quality" answers. Get prepared for answers that MS thinks they are "appropriate". And get prepared to have no other search engine that bing, because MS knows how to destroy competition.

And no, american anti-trust (application) is a joke.

""with this, therefore because of this"? (2)

mkdx (1314471) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084080)

Maybe it's just that those who choose to use Bing as search engine are more likely to click links? or they are easier to please with the returned results set? Correlation does not imply causation. It will be difficult to make conclusions without having one study group using both.

Yahoo Dweebs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084094)

Yahoo users are dweebs that click links no matter how relevant.

Astroturf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084108)

So the MS shill didn't even notice that Yahoo BEAT Bing? It's just an afterthought huh? K, go collect your MS paycheck now.

Funded by who? (2)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084118)

Who funded the research?

It does often tend to skew the results in the favour of the person who commissioned the report.

Google letting me down (2)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084136)

I've noticed lately that google isn't nearly as sharp at finding the results I want. If I search for terms 'x', 'y', and 'z', google will sometimes give me a page with terms 'x' and 'y' but not 'z'. 'z' is on pages that link to the results, but google doesn't tell me this. If there are no pages with 'x', 'y', and 'z' on them then so be it, but don't give me pages that I don't want.

rant over.

Re:Google letting me down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37084162)

Isn't that what "+" is for? Search for "+x +y +z".

Wrong metric (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084164)

The market watcher defines 'success rate' as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website.

What matters is the much harder to measure percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website that actually contains what you want.

User-expectations (1)

rawler (1005089) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084178)

I wonder if there might, in addition to other contributing factors mentioned here, be a difference in user-segmentation and corresponding expectations.

I often see non-tech users searching for things like "facebook" in a search-engine instead of typing it in the location-bar, of course with great success. My prejudice tells me Bing might have a much larger share of those easy searches than other engines.

Try this simple test: (4, Funny)

theoriginalturtle (248717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084184)

Let's ask two popular search engines the same simple question:

"Who's the black private dick who's a sex machine to all the chicks?"

Seriously. Try it on Bing, then try it on Google.

Game over.

Instant Search? (2)

toetagger (642315) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084194)

So when I google for "google" with instant search, will it count as a search for:
-g
-go
-goo
-goog
-googl
-google

That's 6 searches, and I may click on none, realizing I'm already at the page that I was looking for.

"Microsoft service pack download pages"? (3, Interesting)

dltaylor (7510) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084202)

But, but., why don't you have your Windows systems set to auto-brick^h^h^h^h^hupdate?

Seriously, I use Google to make the Microsoft VS help usable. VS help is reasonably useful for specific syntax for a supported method/function. It is utterly useless, in my experience, to decide which method/function to use in the first place, whereas Google usually has an answer located within the first 20 links.

IMO, there are serious deficiencies in Google (word1-word2, as a hyphenated string, for example), but I think, once I get the hang of custom searches associated with my gmail account, it will be usable for a wider range of queries.

Success? (2)

UbuntuniX (1126607) | more than 2 years ago | (#37084230)

"The market watcher defines 'success rate' as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website."

From that, I would assume Bing just makes the results a lot less clear.
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...