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!

Google Tweaks Algorithm As Concern Over Bing Grows

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the we-have-the-technology-we-can-make-it-better dept.

Google 397

SharkLaser writes "As Bing gets closer to capturing almost 33% of the market share in the U.S., Google has again made a large tweak to its algorithms to provide more up-to-the-minute search results. The change affects around 35% of queries and is intended to give users more recent news and stories. For breaking news stories the search engine will now weight more heavily the most recent coverage, and not just those sites that are linked the most, and for general terms the search engine values fresh content more than old. Google is hoping that these recent new changes will provide better search experience and stops users from switching over to Bing, which just recently launched its own GroupOn like site."

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

What? (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946098)

Who thinks this has anything to do with algorithms, as opposed to things like the "Bing Bar" coming preloaded on Windows 7?

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946120)

or if you do software updates on XP machines finding the default search engine swapped after the update

Re:What? (1)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946712)

Firefox switching from google to Bing?

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

blackicye (760472) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946122)

Additionally, if you've tried to change the default IE search engine from Bing to Google or anything else, you'd see how they're achieving this.

Chrome has 3 big buttons, Google, Yahoo, Bing. IE has obscured the setting for default search engine under several layers behind slow loading servers.

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

kervin (64171) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946182)

When I install or upgrade IE a popup asks me to choose my default search engine. It's true Bing is the default under "Express Settings", but you are given the choice.

Everyone knows most users don't switch from defaults. Everyone, including Google who paid Mozilla to set them as the default search engine for years now. And I don't believe there's anything wrong with that either.

Re:What? (1)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946232)

Everyone knows most users don't switch from defaults. Everyone, including Google who paid Mozilla to set them as the default search engine for years now. And I don't believe there's anything wrong with that either.

And don't forget they're paying Opera and other browsers too. That is how Opera managed to start giving out free browser, and it's also how whole development of Firefox is financed. But lately even Firefox has wanted to switch to Bing [slashdot.org] .

Re:What? (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946286)

For most things, yeah, but for this, most people select Google given a choice. And some - even if they don't change it - will always open google.com and then start their searching from there - especially the less tech savvy.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946418)

If you upgrade IE to 9 Bing is not only the default but it also stays the default even when you choose another search engine for default in the screen that is made for that. There is a clear and annoying bug there. Only way to get Google back as default is by installing the add-on in IE9. You really have to have unfriendly feelings towards Bing to go that effort and find this option. As Bing is practically useless in other languages then English and the bug frustrated me I had that persuasion

Re:What? (1)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946606)

Funny, my IE9 has Google as the default search provider. I had to test it to check, since I normally don't use IE, but the setting works great. It's been like that since I installed it and changed the setting.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946702)

Nice anecdote. I'll counter with mine: All six of our home computers had Google as the search engine before IE 9 and all 6 have it still. There wasn't a bug in that and we would NEVER install toolbars and other garbage.

Re:What? (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946640)

When I install or upgrade IE a popup asks me to choose my default search engine.

Never popped up for me. (note: in recent years, I've only use IE at work or when I've been forced to by IE specific web sites, and I'm in the good ol' USA, where the browser ballot was never required.)
In any case, I do agree with somersault that Bing's increase in usage has much more to do with MS Windows monopoly and its' default settings.

On another note, this change to the Google algorithms sounds like it will reduce the effectiveness of search for me. It may have some use if searching under "news", but for the most part I'm looking for the most relevant, informational links, not the newest information-free news spit out by the web.

Re:What? (0)

Dunega (901960) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946412)

You mean the one the launches the first time you load IE and it asks what you want your search provider to be along with a few other things to customize? Then displays a list and even sets the one you choose as default? If you're confused by that you should probably return your computer and go back to a typewriter.

Re:What? (-1, Troll)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946210)

Google's results have been crappy for a long time. Now they're trying to bring more up-to-date results with social interaction counted in too, from places like Twitter, Facebook and Google+. The bad news for Google is that it doesn't really have access to all Facebook data - That's why Google+ is so important to them. And that's why Google+ likes already have a huge impact on search engine positions.

Re:What? (1)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946512)

One of the reasons for this is that, across the board, there seems to be a notable reluctance for Google to include input from meatspace, whether that is for customer support or many other issues. Example: There is a web development company which poisons results in my state by automatically generating pages with an overly large (even by and according to Google standards for keyword stuffing [google.com] ) amount of specific keywords. Like so: a search for "Web design My_town, My_state" will return this companies' site at #1 because their php script packs those terms in *8-10 times in 3 small, generic paragraphs* of text. They are specifically gaming Google results; this tactic does not work nearly as well for them in a Bing search.

The company is not local to any of those results, with the exception of the 2 towns they are actually located. I have submitted this site to the Google Webmaster report pages several times over the last year, with no response and no effect. Granted, there are brazillions of pages and I would assume many thousands of such reports, and I understand that Google cannot put eyeballs on every incident immediately, but in this case it would seem that something would be done as *the report is coming directly from a long-term, current user of their services, via a channel explicitly provided to report such abuse*. Why otherwise have such a channel? This is just one example of how I have seen Google starting to slide down from their place at #1. Google could easily use some of their ready cash to pay more people to fill in some of these types of 'holes' in their infrastructure in order to provide better results and a better customer experience.

Re:What? (5, Insightful)

RDW (41497) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946514)

Every time they've 'tweaked the algorithm' in the last few years, the quality of the default results seems to have gone down. They're already swamped by transient material whenever a search term gets attached to something newsworthy (If I wanted this stuff, I'd use their 'news' or 'blogs' or 'groups' search). Google routinely assumes I've made a typo whenever a query is close to a more popular search with similar spelling, and has the cheek to search for their alternative first. And of course quotes, which rarely used to be necessary, now seem to be vital to get any sort of specificity (Google assumes I'd rather see a more popular site containing some of my terms, rather than a more obscure site containing all of them). All this sophisticated second guessing has made Google a blunter instrument, and I have to resort to the same sort of tricks I needed to get useful stuff out of AltaVista back in the 90s.

Re:What? (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946524)

As oppposed to Bing, which is even worse?

Re:What? (1)

jbengt (874751) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946672)

Google's results have been crappy for a long time. Now they're trying to bring more up-to-date results with social interaction counted in too, from places like Twitter, Facebook and Google+.

So, since their results are crappy, they're going to make them crappier?

Re:What? (4, Insightful)

kervin (64171) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946220)

You mean just like Firefox defaulting to Google on millions of installs? Or how about Adobe Acrobat reader defaulting to installing Chrome ( which defaults to Google Search ) on 10s of millions of installs?

Product tie-ins are a fact of life in the software industry.

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946314)

Exactly.

Except that Microsoft has a dominant position in the OS market, and Google does not.

As it stands right now, they're in a sort of ..balance of evil .. together.

If one displaced the other in their field of strength, competition would decrease dramatically.

Re:What? (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946234)

I install and use Windows 7. What's a Bing Bar? I've never seen it, but I assume you're talking about Windows Live Essentials that is a separate and optional download.

Re:What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946428)

I install and use Windows 7. What's a Bing Bar? I've never seen it, but I assume you're talking about Windows Live Essentials that is a separate and optional download.

I have 2 laptops and one desktop running Windows 7, have never seen a Bing Bar. As you say if you download the full Windows live package you can install a toolbar if you want, but even on OEM machines with craploads of crap preloaded, I've never seen the Bing bar installed by default (Google Toolbar though..). It seems someone is inventing this theory just to explain away the popularity of Bing.

Re:What? (2)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946540)

Windows 7 defaults to Bing (If you try to change it, it gives you a choice of anyone but Google) in the search bar. Doesn't matter if any "Bing Bar" is installed.

Re:What? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946546)

I fired up my new Asus UX31 last night and as part of the setup it forced me to accept the Bing bar before I could continue the installation. In the EULA it said "if you do not accept these terms, uninstall the Bing bar". Pretty silly. I made a point of enabling the "return my usage statistics to MS", searching for Google Chrome and then installing it, then uninstalling the Bing bar.

Then again perhaps this was part of an MS deal with ASUS rather than something that happens on all Windows 7 SP1 installs.

Re:What? (1)

Siberwulf (921893) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946294)

No Bing Bar on Win 7.....

Re:What? (3, Informative)

Dunega (901960) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946388)

Uhh... "Bing Bar" doesn't come with Windows 7, not preinstalled at least. Unless you have some crap OEM putting it there for you.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946592)

It's not preloaded, and the 33% includes people using Yahoo - which isn't the same as going straight to Bing. Bing is nowhere near Google, and this isn't news.

Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (4, Funny)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946110)

I think newer items is a great idea. Now, if the bring back the ability to use pluses and quotes to refine my search term, I might start using them again.

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946150)

You can still use quotes. The only reason the plus was removed (in favour of the quotation marks, which accomplish the same thing) is because it interfered with searching for Google+

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (1)

hovelander (250785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946458)

That doesn't mean the usage works out the same:

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Web%20Search/thread?tid=151ef6cf0a761b74&hl=en&start=40 [google.com]

Losing + to Google+ hampers my usage. I used the Boolean "+" quite often and don't believe I will ever use Google+.

Thanks Larry.

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (1)

Timmmm (636430) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946538)

+ was redundant. The only time it made a difference was for single words, and you can now achieve the same thing with quotes.

Before:

foo +bar
"foo bar"
+"foo bar" (this is the same as just "foo bar")

After:

foo "bar"
"foo bar"
"foo bar"

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (2, Interesting)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946562)

I was under the impression that the query foo +bar meant that bar was mandatory and foo was optional, but that items with both would be at the top, whereas the query for "foo bar" searches for the phrase "foo bar" without considering any documents that just had foo or just had bar, but didn't have them both together.

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (2)

hovelander (250785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946582)

Functionally it may have been redundant but it was the quicker of the two by far. Especially when you are typing after " and auto completion decides you meant something other than your original intent and you lose that first quote.

That link shows a few usage scenarios where it falls apart.

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946548)

It completely broke Google for me. I always used Google with the /ncr (no country redirection) parameter, now whatever I enter it just returns a blank Google.lu entry page for me, no search results.

Whatever they did, it sucks big time. I used + and - a lot to reduce the result pages now when it works it returns tons of crap result with no meaningful pages at all.
It always 'assumes' what I want and it is always wrong!

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (2)

Alrescha (50745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946656)

"It always 'assumes' what I want and it is always wrong!"

Google has become the Clippy of search engines.

A.

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946180)

I want to use regex for search patterns....

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (1)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946262)

I want to use regex for search patterns....

However, that is technically way too computer resource intensive. Most Google searches are already heavily cached, even if you combine quotes and the likes. Running a custom regex on their whole database would be just too much.

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (1)

bertok (226922) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946462)

You'd be surprised!

Google Code search allows regex matching, e.g.: [abc]+foo [google.com] .

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (1)

vbraga (228124) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946484)

I thought Google Code Search was going to be shut down.

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946196)

I think newer items is a great idea.

I can't think but help it's horrible. What will this lead to? My guess is: more SEO spam, to keep the spammed content "fresh".

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946296)

Quotes for a string? Works fine. Easy verification - do two searches for match this string once with and once without the quotes.

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946544)

It technically works, but not near 100%. When someone is using them by golly Google, you better not muck with my search terms. Of course, they (like others) will change your words, or even provide results that don't even have any of your words in them (not even the cached version).

I use multiple search engines nowadays, but that doesn't give me much relief. It is like we need to "flip" this whole search thing upside down with a new approach. Search engines just seem so "90s" to me.

Re:Bring back ability to use plus and quotes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946306)

I use plus every day.

Might I add... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946676)

... that if too many pluses were required, wasn't it because google was failing to show reasonable results?

"Didn't you mean ..." is very good, I appreciate that because I make typos, but sometimes I simply got all my search string changed to nothing I wanted to search about. Yes, the other similar word might be much more famous and searched, but if I didn't make a typo, why change it? At least pluses were easy to use (same with minus, +wantthis -donotwant) with the benefit that google stopped trying to replace my correctly typed words. I like google, but I don't like being treated like a moron.

great example of how (1)

lecheiron (2441744) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946114)

competition results in better products.

Re:great example of how (2)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946226)

While I agree, I also have to note, google was never one of the companies to not update their frontrunner products and wait for competition to move in. Google's algorithm had changed numerous times for filtering out spam-bots etc.... Long before bing even started resembling a threat. I'm not saying the competition isn't a good thing, and maybe some of the improvements were encouraged by hearing footsteps. But I would say this is far less of a change of pace vs say, facebook adds nothing but random UI changes for 2 years, then rolls out every feature of G+ right after google implements them.

Re:great example of how (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946342)

I'm not so sure. Sometimes when I get a bug in brain where I remember part of something, probably out of the news, and only have a couple key words. I google and can't get anything out of the news older than six months.

Then there's the live searches, website previews on mouseover, and other Bing shit Google copied that they shouldn't have bothered with.

Re:great example of how (0)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946698)

Although MS does not compete by building a better product. Rather MS competes by bribing Mozilla, and forcing that bing-bar, and other such stunts. Does bing still use google's search engine?

Not *more* astroturf! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946132)

Oh look another article about MS-contended Google turf that has a suspicious amount of Google-- MS++ spin on it.

How much of this did Taco have to shoot down each day?!

Totally (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946154)

I want the newest because I am hip and fresh to the new wave of future information enlightenment. Thank you GOOGIL for filling my life, my mind and body with new electrons every second! These buzzing charges are hyperpotentiating my synoptic superconscious unity with global humanity! Except for Italians, keep them off my internet please! Or I will swqithch to Bing, because I heard it is a 100% American and Christian search engine web site page server url thing.

It's not about quality of the product, Google. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946172)

It's about marketing. Bing is out-marketing you, plain and simple. Providing the better product alone isn't always going to win if you let your competition market their product unmatched.

When did Bing and partners get 1/3 of market share (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946174)

Citation required.They were hovering at the 10% mark. When did they jump to 35%?

Re:When did Bing and partners get 1/3 of market sh (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946308)

Actually, define market share. People can visit any search engine anytime, and more often than not, they use Google. I've never seen anybody use Bing. Previously, Yahoo, perhaps, but never any MS search tools.

Re:When did Bing and partners get 1/3 of market sh (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946364)

No-one I know would ever type 'bing.com' into the url and search... but plenty will type the search query into IE's search field... and that defaults to Bing.

Maybe there are other microsoft things that use bing too without you realising it.

Re:When did Bing and partners get 1/3 of market sh (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946564)

http://www.winrumors.com/bing-u-s-marketshare-flat-at-14-7-during-september/ [winrumors.com]

They were counting in Yahoo as well. Bing marketshare is essentially flat over the past few months. Yahoo marketshare is decreasing so overall Bing marketshare is shrinking. Don't be surprised if MS gives Firefox an offer they can't refuse, but that will be the end of Firefox if it happens.

Re:When did Bing and partners get 1/3 of market sh (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946658)

but that will be the end of Firefox if it happens.

Why? I get it, Microsoft is evil, but is their money tainted? If you respond, please only use specific and realistic example scenarios. (I won't pay any attention to vague assertions that boil down to "Micorosoft is evil and their money is tainted" anyway.)

Europe? (2)

tielenaar (2237326) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946188)

I wonder what the numbers are in Europe, I don't know a single person who uses Bing and I barely know anyone non-technical who even knows what it is. Google is the standard here in the Netherlands, we we don't like to change things that are good.

Re:Europe? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946276)

Things I've learned today: Europe has never heard of Microsoft and you speak for the entirety the Netherlands.

Re:Europe? (1)

tielenaar (2237326) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946662)

I live in The Netherlands. That is in Europe. So I am European. And I can speak as one. You could also say that for example 90% of all Texans use Bing, but only 5% in California for example. Here in the Netherlands it doesn't "feel" like it gets used, so I wonder what the European totals are. The Netherlands could be the hypothetical 5% and France the 90%, who knows. Is it that hard to understand? And why on earth do you think Bing equals Microsoft? I'm talking about the product, I named it by its name. I'm not talking about the company that created it.

Re:Europe? (1)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946284)

Much slower, as Bing hasn't rolled out yet. When we use Bing here in Europe it's the old Live search. In the US it's much better.

On the other hand, both Google and Microsoft are struggling in China and Russia, where Baidu and Yandex have majority of market share.

Always welcome the competition (1)

CSHARP123 (904951) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946194)

It is always a win to the end user. Google would not have made any adjustments if there is no proper competition in the area. Look at MS how it turned out on Browser business. Even though I use google by default. Thanks to MS and Bing

Re:Always welcome the competition (0)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946480)

You mean besides bundling IE with Windows and abusing their monopoly power in order to kill off Netscape? Or the fact that they intentionally made IE non-standards compliant so as to guarantee fragmentation of web applications, driving up development costs dramatically and creating security and computability nightmares that we are still having to deal with to this day?

Yeah, thanks Microsoft.

Re:Always welcome the competition (1)

Quince alPillan (677281) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946720)

Bitter much?

The GP is talking about providing competition to the current search king (a good thing) and you're harping on anti-competitive business practices the company used 15 years ago when they were the dominant player in a different space.

You should be happy that Microsoft is successfully competing against Google and forcing Google to improve their product or lose market share, much like the Mozilla and Firefox browsers did 10 years ago.

simple fix (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946200)

Stop listing garbage in the results. Placeholder pages in sites like cnet, link farms, fake review sites and pointless aggregation pages are all contributing to people getting fed up with google and looking at the alternatives. Google ruled the roost on quality, so the masses moved over to it, now it's mostly garbage in searches.

Re:simple fix (5, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946414)

Definitely for paywalled research indexing sites its quite annoying that Google pushes all the paywalled stuff to the top by matching to their summary, while the actual document (a pdf or ps) that you actually want to read can also be found non-paywalled at some *.edu but its nowhere to be found on the first page of results.

Both are terrible! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946206)

I’ve been using it since I gave up webcrawler in the 90’s after it left the simplicity search for spam central. Google is now $#%@WQ$ing terrible. You have top menu bar, left menu bar(still does nothing useful) ads on the right, ads at top of search, corrupted search results(ads), auto-complete/search assist forced on you, and “google Instant” magically re-enables itself regardless of clearing cookies etc Filth! ^&#%@$

Google, go restore a backup from 1999.. Otherwise, any good minimalistic alternatives?

Why would someone... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946258)

...switch from Google to Bing if it wasn't because it is forced upon them?

Citation Needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946260)

33% of the market share? I just saw an article [searchenginewatch.com] that claimed 14.7% for Bing.

Mind you, that was September data... things might have changed a lot since then. (Probably world data as well, not just US.)

Re:Citation Needed (1)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946304)

Yahoo uses Bing, so they and other partners count too.

In other news (0)

z3r0n3 (665185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946268)

People actually use bing. Probably from all those failed url inputs that redirect directly to bing search. Those meddling kids with their spelling!

Re:In other news (2)

robbak (775424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946348)

Don't forget all those people trying to find out how to change the search engine back to google. That's about all I've used bing for.

Implications for Muppet porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946292)

I'll now be able to find that video of Ms. Piggy and Grover getting it on!

Competition is good (1)

Moe Taxes (304424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946298)

Spending billions just to provide Google with the competition it needs to stay aggressive is foolish.

Biters Anonymous (0, Troll)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946336)

Hmmm... Google for "biters anonymous" and my old humorous K5 diary entry from 2005 about biting trolls still comes up first. I would expect that a newer item would, so apparently they didn't change it enough to screw it up.

As to Bing getting 33%, that's not surprising. Every new PC comes with Bing as the default search engine, and when I installed AVG Free on my notebook (haven't got Linux on it yet) it not only changed my search engine from Google back to Bing, it added a goddamned Bing toolbar!

Microsoft hasn't changed its evil ways, it seems.

Re:Biters Anonymous (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946400)

To have so much fucking free time....
Are you unemployed?

Re:Biters Anonymous (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946440)

And before you downmod, read the page and comments of the OP's referenced page...

Re:Biters Anonymous (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946510)

K5 diary entry from 2005

K5 archives go that far back? I've been wondering, what happened to all the slashdot archives from way back, a while ago all the old stuff disappeared. Is there anyway to access it?

Re:Biters Anonymous (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946618)

I dunno, all the really important stuff [slashdot.org] still seems to be available. Maybe try a Google search instead of Slashdot's built-in search. Preface your query with "site:slashdot.org".

Oh Larry, Way to Blow (4, Insightful)

hovelander (250785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946382)

Perhaps their declining market share is because they are beginning to annoy their users. Things like their auto completion auto deleting things as you type and dropping the Boolean "+" operator. Those definitely piss me off and send me to Bing when it gets too frustrating.

Re:Oh Larry, Way to Blow (0)

Menchi (677927) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946696)

Except "+" was never a "boolean" operator, it always meant "search for this word and not words similar to this word". Exactly the same as putting a word in double quotes. Which is still available. Removing redundant syntax is not the same as removing features.

Not why I switched (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946384)

When googles home page doodle on veteran's day was Tetris and Bing's was an American flag I decided I'd rather use Bing.
I guess that makes me a fascist.

Re:Not why I switched (0)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946726)

MS is a shameful example of US capitalism. These days, MS is little more than a patent parasite, same as Apple.

Its seasonal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946386)

Searches for Bing always increase towards the end of the year. After all "White Christmas" used to be the biggest selling single of all time.
Even though the original predates even vinyl. (I had Adeste Fideles on a 78rpm record - I found it at a church rummage sale in the early 70''s, along with a wind up gramophone to play it.

W T F? (0)

fallen1 (230220) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946410)

Seriously? 33% of the search market? It has to be new users or new computers causing this. The same old Microsoft story of cramming as much cross-marketing on their OS as they can -- Internet Explorer being the prime example.

I know a good many non-tech users and except for those who are just too apathetic or lazy to change settings that come pre-loaded on their new desktops/laptops (you know, the "sheep" among the herd), I do not know of anyone who uses Bing to search. I still know people who use Yahoo (which, yeah, uses MS engine) but otherwise it is overwhelmingly Google. Every time I tried to it, the results were much worse or had things missing than Google. Crap in a pretty package is still crap.

Re:W T F? (1)

Gareth D Williams (1958646) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946556)

The only people I know who use Bing are Microsoft employees on-site where I work. Maybe that's how they're skewing the figures. Maybe Microsoft has created a massively huge farm of virtual servers which are configured to load up IE and have Bing as the home page... and Microsoft just spends gazillions of dollars and man hours powering down and back up these VMs.

Re:W T F? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946636)

I switched to Bing away from Google because of all the garbage Google returns when you do a search.

Re:W T F? (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946734)

But doesn't MS use the google search engine? Didn't google prove that?

Closer to what? (2, Insightful)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946446)

As Bing gets closer to capturing almost 33% of the market share in the US...

I'm sorry, was this actually intended to tell us anything? Other than that the submitter is apparently a marketroid / Bing fanboi?

How about showing us what we asked for.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946450)

Search: teest

Showing results for test
Search instead for teest

so irritating!

Don't put store results first (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946472)

In the general listings unless I put in "purchase" "buy" "price" or something like that. I was looking up some tech specs on something that for some reason the manufacturer's website didn't have (or was buried so far I couldn't find it), and I think I found them on page 4 of the results after tons of used equip links.

Yeah, yeah, business business. Split product research searches from product purchase searches already.

Re:Don't put store results first (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946642)

In my experience you were lucky to get a valid hit on the 4th page. I've tried to find product specifications and had to dig down through 10 or sometimes 20 pages of sellers or auction pages full of useless or inaccurate information.

Same thing tends to happen if you search for " review", pages after pages of sellers and auction sites mostly, rather than legitimate review sites.

Fucking SharkLaser the Microsoft shill (-1, Troll)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946486)

As soon as I saw this headline in my phone's RSS feeds I knew it was SharkLaser the shill. Why haven't we shamed this guy into leaving yet? I mean look at his post history. He's hardly making any effort to hide it.

Not the algorithm (0)

datavirtue (1104259) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946522)

People aren't switching, they are just blindly typing into a search box which Microsoft hijacked. How can you fight that? The search needs of the average user are not stringent or detailed to the point where they really need Google. Is Google better, hell yeah. Does it matter? I think we have all been down this road before.

You know what would bring a lot of users back? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946572)

Turn off the damn instant search BS by default.
I have yet to meet a single person who thinks it's a good idea.
From the common man's eyes, it slows down and lags as you try to type
From the eyes of nerds, it's a huge waste of bandwidth. I don't need to search s through slashdo, I just wanted to search slashdot.

The Google Homepage (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946600)

One reason Google dominated for a long time was the austerity of the Google main page - compared to stupid MSN and Yahoo! the Google home page was clean and refreshing (and the doodles are cute.). When Yahoo! would take a good minute to load, Google was up and ready to search in five seconds. I think the advent of ubiquitous broadband and DNS prefetching and caching and the like has made novice PC users less likely to change to Google as their homepage, or to ask someone how to "make the Internet go faster." Bing is the default search on IE9's default MSN home page, which comes preloaded on Win7 machines these days. Even we don't bother to automatically change the homepage to Google any more, preferring to leave that up to the user.

DDOS bots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946622)

and to achieve this Google has sent their DDOS bots to attack websites and servers at an even higher rate.

One small step in the right direction but not en.. (1)

no bloody nickname (2429300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946652)

Upping the relevancy rating of more recent results is sorely needed.
When it comes to searching for solutions to tech problems this still won't be enough as most of these are very
dependent on being reasonably recent.
Try googling an error that turned up on the lastest linux [insert favourite distro name here] upgrade and see how
many relevant results you get. The same applies to most software that is updated often including Googles own
android.

It doesn't help that googles advanced searches are very crude to set up and they have made it even less
convenient to find these recently.
If they won't improve I may actually end up using Bing to look for ways to find ways to deal with an issue
that cropped up in the latest version of Android or Chrome....

Poor quality results (2)

Martin S. (98249) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946692)

I find the quality of results from Bing is still very poor and dominated by link farms, a problem Google seems increasing avoiding.

Purpose driven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37946700)

Bing is for consumers....google is for more technical users...much like digg vs slashdot. Either way, from a personal view point, In past searches Bing has almost never provided the results I was looking for, whereas Google almost invariably does, once I get the question right. I assume this was written by someone associated with Bing. Bing and Google are simply not interchangeable. I don't know that they will ever be.

Re:Purpose driven (1)

neurosine (549673) | more than 2 years ago | (#37946722)

Didn't realize I was not logged in....Coment by Neurosine...and I don't know why it might matter...I mean, I am certainly a coward when the situation calls for it, but this simply isn't one of those situations....:)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?