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 Now Nearly As Good As Google — Says Microsoft

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the totally-objective dept.

Google 405

An anonymous reader writes "Harry Shum, who oversees research and development for Microsoft's Bing search engine, believes his company has now matched Google's ability to build software platforms that can harness the power of tens of thousands of servers. — 'For many years, we've really tried to play the catch-up game,' Shum says. 'And now we feel that after a lot of effort, we understand search quality problems better than before, and that if you look at Google and Bing, the quality is beginning to be very comparable.' While his comments might be a little biased, many people do share the same opinion. How do you feel about Bing's search results compared to Google's? For example DuckDuckGo, the privacy oriented search engine, uses Bing's back-end and has gained a small following on Slashdot."

cancel ×

405 comments

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

Holy self-reference! (3, Interesting)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312383)

I had submissions rejected in the past for referencing Slashdot in them. Have the rules changed?

And while we're at it, would DuckDuckGo's "small following on Slashdot" please enter and sign in with a few posts?

Re:Holy self-reference! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312423)

All two of them?

Not So Much a Rules Change (5, Insightful)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312443)

...as a lowering in standards. Slashdot is now all about the paid astro-turfing, self-referential brand-building, and manufactured outrages designed to generate pageviews. The founders are gone, and It's Time to Start Running This Like a Business, Goddammit!

Re:Not So Much a Rules Change (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312523)

Mod +1 Profitable!

Re:Not So Much a Rules Change (1)

dgharmon (2564621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312667)

"...as a lowering in standards. Slashdot is now all about the paid astro-turfing, self-referential brand-building, and manufactured outrages designed to generate pageviews. The founders are gone, and It's Time to Start Running This Like a Business, Goddammit!

A little cruel there, and they do have to make a buck out of advertising ... link [2mdn.net]

Re:Not So Much but More (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312891)

"Lowering in standards," like using 'Freshness' as a new metric for search? At least now I understand how an article about Bing can claim to be nearly as good as Google and still rise to a level where anyone cares.

Re:Holy self-reference! (2, Insightful)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312511)

DuckDuckGo [duckduckgo.com] ? It works. hat else is there to say?

Re:Holy self-reference! (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312531)

hat^H^H^HWhat

Re:Holy self-reference! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312583)

If it uses Microsoft servers and software on the back end, I want to say: DuckAndCover.

Re:Holy self-reference! (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312767)

AFAIK it uses BSD

Re:Holy self-reference! (5, Informative)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312869)

pparadis::palegray-mobile { ~ }-> curl --head http://duckduckgo.com/
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: nginx
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 18:26:58 GMT
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Length: 4485
Last-Modified: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 13:24:13 GMT
Connection: keep-alive
Expires: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 00:26:58 GMT
Cache-Control: max-age=21600
Accept-Ranges: bytes

pparadis::palegray-mobile { ~ }-> telnet duckduckgo.com 22
Trying 184.72.106.52...
Connected to duckduckgo.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
SSH-2.0-OpenSSH_5.3p1 Debian-3ubuntu7
^]
telnet> quit
Connection closed.

That looks a lot like nginx running on Ubuntu.

Re:Holy self-reference! (3, Interesting)

crmarvin42 (652893) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312545)

I use it as my primary search engine. Managed to get it set as the built in search option in Safari. Only go to google if it draws a blank. I'd say about 20% of my searches still go to google on my desktop (google scholar mainly)

Re:Holy self-reference! (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312657)

Same here. I'd say that Bing has 'caught up' by Google becoming useless. When DDG doesn't give me any results, I go to Google. I have yet to find a search where that gives me any useful results. Typically either DDG returns something useful or DDG nothing and Google returns a million totally irrelevant pages.

Re:Holy self-reference! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312837)

However, Bing is much more likely to give a fake reviews site because the only traps searches with the word reviews (they even gave a Target site once that didn't even have the product, so the "reviews" link just took them to the front end--and that's definitely a spammy technique.

Bing is also much more likely to slip in an adult content site for non-adult content search criteria. I don't use Google as my first choice, but Bing has still a long way to go in improving their relevancy of their search results.

Furthermore, they fail more often than not on many technical searches regarding non-Microsoft technolgies--for that Google still rules and Bing only seems to work just as well for MSDN searches.

Re:Holy self-reference! (5, Interesting)

Theolojin (102108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312549)

And while we're at it, would DuckDuckGo's "small following on Slashdot" please enter and sign in with a few posts?

I've been using DuckDuckGo for some time, primarily for the privacy and lack of filtering based on my previous queries (finding political articles that are *not* slanted toward my bias, for example). However, during this time I've discovered that if I really need to find an answer to something I'm entering a `!google' into my search (which forces DuckDuckGo to use Google). :-\

Re:Holy self-reference! (3, Interesting)

unapersson (38207) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312603)

I gave it a go recently when it was mentioned as a way to escape the search bubble and eliminating the bias of a search engine knowing too much about you. Was then surprised how on a search for ubuntu it quite prominently gave a link about how ubuntu was an imperfect alternative to windows. It took me back to "get the facts".

Re:Holy self-reference! (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312683)

Really? I just searched for Ubuntu and the top links were:
  • ubuntu.com (flagged as the official site).
  • help.ubuntu.com
  • The wikipedia entry about Ubunut (https, of course)
  • ubuntuforums.org.

I scrolled down a long way and didn't get anything that looked even vaguely like the link you describe. Are you sure it wasn't the advert link (easy to spot, because it's on a yellow background and says 'sponsored link' next to it). For me, this time, that link was to a German company that offers Linux support, but I can well imagine it would be Microsoft on another search.

who told you the reason they were rejected? (2)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312721)

i was not aware that there was any sort of feedback mechanism.

Re:Holy self-reference! (1)

89cents (589228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312773)

Hmm tried it out. It would be perfect without all the mouseover / javascript crap. Checked out settings and I don't even see the option to disable it. I don't know why every web page has to annoy me these days by popping up menus or "over"-highlighting things by just moving the mouse over it.

Re:Holy self-reference! (5, Informative)

PReDiToR (687141) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312965)

Visiting DDG with NoScript enabled gives this page [duckduckgo.com] :

Settings
Load/Reset Settings
This page requires JavaScript and cookies to function properly. However, neither are required to change settings. You can use URL parameters [duckduckgo.com] instead of this page. Just set your homepage like this to use your current settings:
You can also load settings from a URL parameter string. Or reset all settings. If you want to turn off JavaScript altogether, try out our HTML [duckduckgo.com] and lite [duckduckgo.com] versions.

Does this help at all?

Re:Holy self-reference! (1)

RKBA (622932) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312949)

I've tried DuckDuckGo but the results weren't very good, so now I'm trying Startpage.com

Re:Holy self-reference! (4, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312957)

I started using duck duck go over google a couple weeks ago. If the google search of 8 or 10 years ago (back when I first used it) looked like the google search of today, I wouldn't have used them back then. In no particular order: the new privacy policy, google+ integration, replacing URLs with redirection URLs, and all the rollover javascript crap. Oh, and ignoring what I searched for in favor of what they think I meant.

and we say Bing is not nearly as good as Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312419)

now what?

Re:and we say Bing is not nearly as good as Google (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312535)

staredown?

I propose a gesture of peace and reconciliation!!! (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312757)

Mr. Ballmer wishes to believe that this will be the year of Bing On The Desktop.

I propose that we in the linux community dispatch a team of our disappointment-hardened counselors in order to help him work through the stages of the inevitable grieving process in an efficient and healthy manner...

Re:I propose a gesture of peace and reconciliation (0)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312791)

My chair buying budget was eliminated this year as a cost cutting measure. Ballsy is going to have to forage on his own.

Really? (0)

hardburlyboogerman (161244) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312425)

If you believe that,which I don't,I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell real cheap

anecdotally.... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312429)

... i'd say that bing is actually about on par with google lately. i started using bing a while back as a "not google" alternative a while back when the evil-ness started becoming more obvious. I didn't notice any significant degradation in search results, could still find what I needed. Yes microsoft is evil as well, but they don't own 80-90% of web services at the moment.

Another alternative is duckduckgo.com, trying that out lately, seems to be alright...

Re:anecdotally.... (4, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312673)

Is this an astro-turf? Did you not read that duckduckgo.com is using Bing as a backend? Do you realize you just anonymously gave two advertisements for Microsoft?

On the other hand, if you think Bing is really as good as Google, I'd be really interested in your reasons, instead of some vague ideas about evilness.

Re:anecdotally.... (5, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312687)

Describing Google as Evil and Microsoft as the better alternative to that seems a little suspect to me. There seems to be a fairly widespread ant-Google campaign going on, and the prevalence of it versus anything they've actually done lately seems extremely out of balance ... almost as if it were being promoted by their competition. FaceBook was caught funding it once .ii I would doubt they or others would drop their plans so quickly. I'm not saying people are annoyed by Google's behaviour, I just think there's a non-grassroots push behind the vast majority of it.

Re:anecdotally.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312829)

I don't know about you, but now that Google has changed its privacy policy to essentially treat its users as plants that they can pretty much harvest at will, I have been looking for alternatives of any kind. I hate having my webpage screens filled with adverts for the last book I might have inquired about on Amazon etc.

It seems to me there is a way around this. Does anyone have an app that can sit in the background and run thousands of random webpage searches, so that one's own "history" is so full of noise as to be completely useless to any advertiser? At least that way I could be entertained by the kinds of ads I'm forced to stare at just to do a search or read the news.

Re:anecdotally.... (5, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312937)

I don't consider the changes they made very significant, but I had actually always assumed that they aggregated results between their different products. I actually prefer to have a single privacy policy, but I do realize that the potential for abuse is greater with the aggregation. From what I've seen so far though, their is no abuse ... they only do what they said they'd do with the data. Microsoft on the other hand is using extortion tactics to force companies to give them money for producing Linux devices, and makes it extremely difficult for me to buy a laptop without paying for Windows. I'm also very bitter with them over the OOXML travesty among other things. If you don't want Google to track your searches, don't log in for searches. I would like the option to choose whether or not I have search results targeted to my taste though ... I would imagine running a search while not being logged in will also do that though.

Re:anecdotally.... (5, Interesting)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312931)

Yes microsoft is evil as well, but they don't own 80-90% of web services at the moment.

While I'm no Google fanboy, I recognize that it's a company that gives me not only search results in exchange for my information/attention. It also gives me a fairly good browser, a useful map system and a decent smartphone OS. It was also, if I recall correctly, the first to implement a free web-based office suite and huge inbox storage capacity (2Gb while Hotmail was still limited to 2Mb or 10Mb - I forget). So that's why I use it - someone will use my search information and, frankly, my search history is not the kind of personal information I care about giving away. So I let Google have it and help finance some good products and technologies. Microsoft, on the other hand, rarely gives anything for free, and when they do, it's usually crap. So even if they were equal in terms of search effectiveness, I'd still use Google. For search. Not that I'll ever use Google+, because my personal information I actually care about giving away.

question (1)

kqc7011 (525426) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312433)

How about Startpage for browsing?

Re:question (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312601)

Startpage is great, and unlike duckduckgo it used googles back end which I find delivers better results

Verbatim search (4, Interesting)

data2 (1382587) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312445)

Since discovering the verbatim feature for Google, the search works once more. Most of my searches are now done with it enabled.

Re:Verbatim search (-1, Troll)

dantaylor08 (1931464) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312467)

I completely agree - bing is really turning into a decent search engine. And with all google's "issues" lately, I've really started to be turned off by them - I've been considering the switch for quite a while now

Re:Verbatim search (3, Informative)

Morty (32057) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312765)

verbatim is a google feature. GP was praising google, not bing.

Re:Verbatim search (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312879)

Since discovering the verbatim feature for Google, the search works once more. Most of my searches are now done with it enabled.

"...And we appreciate your continued use of our product after our amended privacy policy became active, John Anderson of 3920 West 182nd St."

Re:Verbatim search (5, Funny)

ifiwereasculptor (1870574) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312969)

Thank you very, very much. I didn't know about that feature and the constant miscorrection was driving me insane. No, Google, I don't want pictures of a "boy tucked in bed", thank you.

Let me read it again... (5, Insightful)

arunce (1934350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312459)

"Nearly as good" like "not good as"?

Re:Let me read it again... (2)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312867)

Isn't this just a function of the number of servers used for indexing? As they get more hits and become more popular, they will likely add more servers and hence the difference that may exist will largely be eliminated.

Which leads to the question, what if a bright FOSS programmer developed a peer to peer application that could use a small slice of millions of mostly idle PC's to conduct and index searches so that internet search wouldn't require commercial enterprises at all? Just think of how few ads we would have to be subjected to and how much it would lower the cost of advertising on the internet and hence contribute to FOSS development. You would think the business community would be happy with that as both google and bin are parasitic in this respect.

I gave up on Google search a long time ago. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312475)

Personally, I started using Bing once Google became incapable of trying to correct my every search. Google, unless my search query is "HowdoIfixmyspacebar," maybe you should consider all those missing spaces as intentional?

But then, I don't have any taste anyway.

Re:I gave up on Google search a long time ago. (2, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312571)

Bing-o. Google search sucks now that they've made it 'smart', so if Bing isn't even as good as that, it really must suck.

My experience is that Bing has generally been better for technical searches because it doesn't try to 'help' by replacing my acronyms with words that are similar and so common that they completely overwhelm the things I'm actually searching for.

Re:I gave up on Google search a long time ago. (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312763)

it doesn't try to 'help' by replacing my acronyms

Most of the time that's a useful feature. Yes, if I type 'quick' then pages that say 'fast' are also useful. And in the few cases they aren't, you can put the individual word in quotes to get the exact phrase.

Re:I gave up on Google search a long time ago. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312641)

Personally, I started using Bing once Google became incapable of trying to correct my every search. Google, unless my search query is "HowdoIfixmyspacebar," maybe you should consider all those missing spaces as intentional?

But then, I don't have any taste anyway.

The worst correction I ever saw was the change of search term into the name of an illegal drug. I could live with the illegal drug under "Did you mean..." but not as an autocorrection.

As it was my original search words brought up many pages. Autocorrection is so not perfect. And of course searching for spilling checker [gnu.org] was bringing up results for "spelling checker" instead.

Re:I gave up on Google search a long time ago. (3, Insightful)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312947)

You can always use the "Verbatim" search option (under "More search options" on the left). It'll still say "Did you mean ...?" but it won't autocorrect if for you.

Unpossible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312481)

It's not as good as Google because Bing Is Not Google by its own definition.

Re:Unpossible (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312913)

Definition, shmefinition! Bing is not Google, Google doesn't do evil.... notice a pattern yet? Just negate to decode.

Search is fungible (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312487)

As soon as Google started requiring me to use Javascript in order to see my search results I started to use Bing. I haven't looked back since.

Thank goodness "search" is (now) a fungible commodity. Google better start smartening up if it wants to be relevant in the near future. Companies can't rely on the ignorant masses to forever stay ignorant of the competition and their immoral privacy policies.

Re:Search is fungible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312541)

Yeah, that's a good point, because the unwashed masses are very soon going to disable JavaScript. /sarcasm

Re:Search is fungible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312587)

"Can't rely on the ignorant masses forever?"

Nascar, the nfl, cbs, abc, nbc, fox, walmart, ect ect ect...

All say you're wrong.

Re:Search is fungible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312821)

What is this "ect" company, and why mention it three times?

Re:Search is fungible (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312753)

Companies can't rely on the ignorant masses to forever stay ignorant of the competition....

This in a thread about MS being "the competition" instead of "companies" is quite a bit surreal.

Re:Search is fungible (4, Informative)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312811)

As soon as Google started requiring me to use Javascript in order to see my search results I started to use Bing.

Except it doesn't. There seems to be quite a lot of AC "bing is great" comments on this story - astroturfing a little?

Maybe (4, Interesting)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312491)

But whilst G+, Maps, Image search are all as well integrated and continue to work better, both in accuracy of things I want, and speed to get them, why would I bother to change to something that's /almost/ as good. Plus, having saved searches available on the phone to check something after searching on the laptop has been more useful than I thought it'd be. So why use Bing on desktop and Google on phone? Makes no sense.

For now, Google's still the best for what I need it to do.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312521)

All your communications are belong to us

Re:Maybe (3, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312637)

I think the Slashdot crowd is at least above the average level of intelligence for Internet communities.

Yet even so, they throw a shit-fit over Google.

As far as I understand it, Google uses all of its free (awesome) tools to collect information on you. This is the route you take to work everyday. You like this genre of book. Your wife is a cheating whore. You know, basically a personality profile. They then take this profile and sell it (along with millions of others) to advertisers - or rather, Google sells their service of targeting advertising. So if I really like martial arts movies, I'll see ads from Google.

Let's posit that I had nothing beyond the basic protection of an antivirus and a weekly MBAM scan. No adblock, no NoScript, and I'm running Chrome. After Google's evil plan comes to fruition, I see... advertisements. Which precisely do nothing to me. Sure an ad might give me a suggestion on something I was looking for in the general area, but I'm not going to buy a product solely on the quality of its ad alone. I very rarely buy things at all, anyway.

So what's the big worry here?

Re:Maybe (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312725)

Exactly. Not had an issue with that, and I /appear/ to have some control over that stuff too. There's times to worry about stuff, but finding the route to the nearest Starbucks and having an ad pop up isn't a huge concern to me. If it pops up a coupon automatically and lets me know I can get the same coffee/muffin at a coffee shop 2 doors away? All the better.

The engine itself might be as good (0)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312533)

The engine itself can be as good as Google's, but they will never have a massive database that's comparable to what Google has.

Re:The engine itself might be as good (2)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312619)

but they will never have a massive database that's comparable to what Google has.

I think it is good advice to you never to use the word "never" when referring to technology issues.
Who knew that Microsoft or Nokia or even Apple would be in their respective positions when it comes to technology, just a few years ago? Surely, two of the companies I mention did not see it coming!

Re:The engine itself might be as good (0)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312783)

Quite so. If you told anyone two decades ago that Apple would be one of the market leaders in mobile computing, people would have laughed you off the stage.

"Never" is quite a dangerous term in IT, as much as "ever". From the 5-6 computers there is a market for worldwide to 640k that should be enough for anyone.

Compared to Bing, Google is still king: (5, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312539)

Google is much more serious about search than Microsoft; I have access to Google Scholar, Google Books and several specialized searches that may or may not be useful to you personally, like Reader and blogs.

Also, Google gets me much better results in Image search, than Bing, and generally better results from web searches.

Oh, its nearly as good as, yep yep yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312547)

The marketing department has been saying this for a long time now. Yep! And when they say it, I have an image of a piece of clothing, such as that which might be a cloth covering for a foot, except that it has two buttons sewn onto one side near what should be the bottom, and not a leg or foot, but a hand inserted into it. There. There it is. Its not just a sock. Its a sock puppet! And *SHOCK!* it makes sounds, but not from within, but from away! And it seems to agree with everything the voice and the hand inserted within says! *SHOCK!* How this article is anything but cheap advertising for M$ is anyone's guess. /. used to filter this kind of thing.

I Use Bing for the Picture (1, Interesting)

JoeKlip (2566683) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312551)

I see no difference between the two search engines. However I like Bing presents a beautiful picture everyday. It's unobtrusive. The only time I use Google is to check my Gmail. I stopped using Google when Google link my Youtube to Google and killed all of my Youtube settings. Since both are the same, I rather not support Google for giving me a hard time. Like some has posted earlier, search engine is just a commodity. Google seem to go out of its ways to pissed of long time customers.

Re:I Use Bing for the Picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312713)

*off

Re:I Use Bing for the Picture (3, Insightful)

pseudofrog (570061) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312717)

One come on. They messed up your settings once. Can you say that Microsoft has never done anything as annoying as that?

Google seem to go out of its ways to pissed of long time customers.

Now you're being silly.

Re:I Use Bing for the Picture (1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312807)

Google seem to go out of its ways to pissed of long time customers.

Truth. I've been setting up to quit every google product ever since they instituted this new "privacy" policy where you have to give up your real name, phone number, and bunches of other personal info, and then they cram 'Plus' down their subscribers throats and all that product does is beg for still more personal info. Add to that the tracking of every search ever done being stored forever, as well as every result a subscriber clicks on, along with working to actively bypass every privacy block on every major web browser: Which they did simultaniously about a month ago now, and I can safely say: Google is evil.

They might have started off with a solid product offering, a set of ethical corporate officers, and an unambiguous policy of doing right by the customer, but like all corporations that 'go public', they've inevitably slid into the 'f*ck them for all they're worth' school of management. I mean, when I have to install a special browser and then connect it to the Tor network, the same network used to provide internet users a measure of freedom from censorship in oppressive regimes, before I even feel comfortable connecting to your server... you've done f*cked up. :(

Goodbye Google.

Re:I Use Bing for the Picture (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312951)

Nice try. Troll harder next time.
Google forcing you to give your phone number is a lie. However I recently had to give Microsoft my phone number to retrieve my Hotmail account and they said they'll add it to my live profile.

Ballot screen - no Bing. (2)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312563)

in EU we have ballot screen, so nobody knows what "Bing" is and there is little desire to find out.

Startpage (1)

akeeneye (1788292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312567)

Somewhat OT, but I was a DDG user not long ago until switching to Startpage. With the latter I get Google-based searches while avoiding at least some of G's privacy invasions. And their optional proxy is cool. I wasn't aware that DDG was using Bing. I would think that M$ and Google would not be happy with these alternative services leeching off them.

Not sure on Bing, but Google's done an amazing job (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312569)

Google's done a great job at taking an efficient search and making it less appealing over the past few years not because of google bombs or other ways people play with the system, but because the basic search has become too "smart" for its own good. All I want are results for a couple of words and it over-thinks things. Yesterday I wanted to check on whether other people activate their lats while doing squats, so I search for lats squats, and even though it says it's returning those results -- and not auto-correcting 'lats' to 'last' -- most of the results include 'last' but not 'lats'. Thanks, assholes. I know there are ways to get around this shit, but having to type in extra quotes or plus signs with every single search would be enough that I'd just switch to another engine. Maybe offer a separate search page for overly-helpful AI, or a cookied option like with safe search?
 
One other basic annoyance is that searching for recent results offers no choices between 1 month and 1 year. That's ridiculous. And you have to load an entire separate page in order to be able to ask for only recent results.
 
tl;dr version: If Bing and Google results are comparable, it's just as likely from Google shooting itself in the foot as it is from Bing becoming better.

Better, IMHO (1)

Zamphatta (1760346) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312577)

I recently switched to Bing, 'cause my Google search settings kept forcing Instant Results on me even though my settings have it turned off. That was so annoying, I started using Bing after a month of fighting with the Google settings. So though the search results themselves might be almost as good, I find the overall experience better. Google's losing me over the past several months, and I was a huge Gman.

Not there yet (1)

sela (32566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312609)

Bing doesn't give me the results I expect yet.

I tried the ultimate test to compare both search engines: ego-surfing. When I google for my last name, my homepages are displayed first. When I use bing, my mom's linkedin page is on the top of the list. And she doesn't even know what linkedin is, and how come she have a an account there! Epic fail!

All in all, I'd say that googling myself works much better than binging myself.

Re:Not there yet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312675)

You are an utter faggot.

Re:Not there yet (1)

webnut77 (1326189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312775)

All in all, I'd say that googling myself works much better than binging myself.

Mom said that will make you go blind.

Re:Not there yet (1, Informative)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312923)

Searching yourself is a really stupid idea. It provides a key for advertisers and other scam artists to amass personalized information about you in one fell swoop and link it to your machine ID and IP addresses. Once these are sold, you are a sitting duck for identity theft.

All that your experiment says is that google is way ahead of bing in commoditizing your identity.

This is stupid. (0, Troll)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312615)

Of course they're nearly as good. They were caught stealing Google's search results. [gizmodo.com]

Re:This is stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312955)

This was debunked a long time ago. Please keep up with the latest information instead of spreading sensationalist rumor.

is the other way around (1)

felipe13 (2351744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312617)

bing is not getting better, google is getting worst simple as that... with so many programmers here how come we are not building our own search engine, I just don't get it.

He is right (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312621)

Bing has gotten better. A year ago, it couldn't even search its own website (search for WP7 dev kit yielded nothing on the first two pages), yet Google did. Now their own website shows up!

Anyway, it's not surprising that Bing is getting more like Google, since they are actively copying Google [zdnet.com] .

You say "nearly", I say "tarsorrhaphy" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312623)

Everyone knows Microsoft’s Bing uses Google search results—and denies it [blogspot.com] , yet they even screw this copying process up?

as a DuckDuckGo user... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312631)

I can say, it's not as good as google's results. I've been using DDG due to their privacy policy being better than Google or Bing's. But for anything technical: searching for info on some open source library APIs, or for specific error messages arising from (say) deep inside Boost, or things like this, the Bing backend's results are vastly inferior to Google's.

It's probably fine if what you search for is mostly related to Justin Bieber or whoever - I wouldn't know.

seems more like google has declined (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312659)

As more and more people have focused on 'winning' the search results on google, I've gotten more and more 'wrong' results there. Bing has caught up with the google of today, and sadly neither can compete with the google of 4 years ago.

No (5, Interesting)

Morty (32057) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312731)

I just tried bing on a list of sample (obscure, complicated) queries that are relevant to me, personally. google found the correct page in 3 out of 4. bing got 1 out of 4.

I wouldn't make any grandiose claims on a sample size of 4. But from a "quick and dirty check" perspective, I won't be trying bing again anytime soon.

BTW: since when are vendor competitiveness claims newsworthy? It always annoys me when stories like this show up on slashdot. Yes, the high-powered $vendor_X executive whose livelihood depends on $product_X has publically claimed that it is equivalent. This is a story? I don't care which vendor you're talking about: the vendor's own claims about relative competitiveness are not newsworthy. Wait for an (impartial) third party to declare that $vendor_X's products, which historically were viewed as inferior to $vendor_Y, are now equal or superior. Or wait for $vendor_X to announce a new feature. Then you have a story.

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312741)

In other news, tofu manufacturers say tofu is nearly as good as chicken, and hip replacement manufacturers say their hips are nearly as good as your original hip.

Not very hard using their tactics (2)

Azure Flash (2440904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312747)

It's not very hard to be "as good as Google" if you're copying their search results... [blogspot.com]

Re:Not very hard using their tactics (1)

turkeyfish (950384) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312959)

Accurately measuring what you competition can do relative to you own efforts makes sense. Its really all about how many servers are put into indexing and monitoring webpage usage needed to prioritize around webpage "hits", under the assumption that a site with more "hits" is "more important" in some sense.

So, what they're saying is (4, Interesting)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312759)

they finished scarfing down Google's search database, and are just working on fine tuning what percent of false negatives to return?

Works for me (0)

adenied (120700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312831)

I switched over to Bing in protest of some Google hijinks that I can't even remember a while back and I haven't gone back. Bing works quite well for me for pretty much everything. On occasion I won't be able to find what I'm looking for and I'll go try the search on Google and it's very rare that the results are any better.

Also the fact that it doesn't show me a bunch of pointless posts from Facebook every time I search for something is a major plus.

Rule 239 (2)

munky99999 (781012) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312835)

Rule of Acquisition 239 says: Never be afraid to mislabel a product.

Not willing to use Bing (4, Insightful)

darkonc (47285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312847)

I've had enough with Microsoft's anti-competitive cheating (essentially), astro-turfing, stomping on competitors and even allies -- not to mention their incessant attacks on Free software and the Open Source realm. Google may have their problems, but they have it within their culture to at least try to do the right thing by their user base.

I wouldn't want to see an internet where Microsoft had the controlling share of the search market. I've had enough of them attempting to destroy the market while they controlled the desktop (and I'm still dealing with that).

I use Microsoft's products where it's appropriate and/or necessary, but avoid them where it's anything close to a judgement call. I'm certainly not going to help them gain a new monopoly where they don't currently have one. Keeping them hungry is probably good for the competitive environment.

Search Engines are Sodas (2)

davevr (29843) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312851)

The different algorithms used by each search engine impart a unique "flavor" to the results. So when talking about how good a search engine is, you need to take that into account. For a long time, Bing just didn't taste good at all (e.g., the results were not accurate or complete enough). Now it is at a point where actually does taste good. Many people however don't get this, because they are judging whether or not it "tastes like google." But that isn't the goal. The goal is to develop a unique flavor that can be just as popular. So perhaps it would be easier for you to think of Google as Coke and Bing as Pepsi (or maybe Dr. Pepper). Now that Bing has finally gotten a good flavor, they can start working on getting more and more people to try it. Then they can be the choice of a new generation.

Incorrect summary (1)

Artem Tashkinov (764309) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312855)

As it often happens on /. the summary is not correct.

In the linked article: "Bing's freshness -- search quality in terms of freshness -- is at least on par with Google" and "Shum believes that Bing has finally reached a point where it can compete with Google on a technical level".

Google still indexes a lot more websites (enter some rare keywords and Google will give you up to five times more results than Bing), and it allows quoted queries which sometimes allow you to find information much much faster.

HA HA HA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312859)

HAHaHAHahaHAHaHAHahaHAHaHAHahaHAHa!!

Bing wins on many little details (1)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312901)

I actually like a number of little things Bing does that make it useful to me.

For instance, when I search "movies" on both bing and google, I find bing gives me more relevant results on the first page. If I then click the Movies tab at the top it shows info laid out better (IMHO) than if you click on google's "Showtimes for..."

Bing lists movies and their showtimes by theater (with contact info and movie ratings) with a map at the side in a very clean layout.

Google lists by movies instead of theater. It adds a blurb about the movie, lists the director and top cast, and then lists the showtimes at each nearby theater. While it does give more info, I find it more difficult to find what I want. I can get the additional info google lists on bing by clicking on a particular movie. Most times I prefer to see the clean layout with the most important info listed only by theater.

This may just be a personal preference but I find that there are dozens of instances like this where bing happens to match how I'd like it and google may cram a bit more on the page but it's less relevant to me.

The one exception is that I prefer google's news layout over bing's. However, when I'm searching news I tend to go to multiple sites anyway so even though I prefer google's I still use bing's as well.

bwhahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39312905)

lololololololololololololololololol ya right good as google. lol thats a good one

missing features (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312941)

I couldn't find past hour/day/week search settings.
There are probably a lot more, but this was a glaring omission.

From where I sit (2)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39312963)

Google still offers results relevant to my original search query, Bing does as well but usual far lower down in the results.

As for "Duckduckgo" I approach privacy in an entirely different manner, in other words I don't leave ti to someone to guarantee my privacy, and consider the aforementioned search engine to be disingenuous in claiming a privacy oriented search engine.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>