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!

Inspecting MSN Search

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the understanding-the-heart-of-the-beast dept.

Microsoft 345

ins0maniac writes "I compared Yahoo, Google and MSN's image search. I noticed that, MSN's search had images from only a few sites. I searched for keywords britney spears and randomly checked few pages upto page number 20 and found that the 400 images were only from 3 domains :| 5in9.com, celebritypicturesarchive.com and nabou.com. This is totally weird as it doesn't seem like a search engine, but a collection of few online galleries." There's a number of other interesting notes in the entry about the new search engine. Also, Britney.

cancel ×

345 comments

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

This doesn't help me (5, Funny)

JaffaKREE (766802) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550074)

I already have all 400 of those.

Re:This doesn't help me (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550215)

I did a quick search of my favorite search word and found this lovely http://tits.free6.com

ah.. mission accomplished...

Re:This doesn't help me (-1, Troll)

mirko (198274) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550370)

Look at what you get when you search google images for ".NET" [google.fr] ...

Re:This doesn't help me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550257)

I searched for keywords britney spears and randomly checked few pages upto page number 20

Thorough scientific methods indeed.

I'm sure Googel will hire you on the spot, you fucking Googel-zealot.

Standard MS Tactics (2, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550079)

This is a standard Microsoft tactic. It shouldn't surprise anyone.

1. Launch a web site in a particular genre but don't actually have any real functionality
2. Distribute a press release
3. PROFIT!!

Re:Standard MS Tactics (1)

shlomo (594012) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550139)

you forgot the part about a patch for content in version 5.6.7.2.3.31.a (security patch to follow)

Re:Standard MS Tactics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550250)

Except, when MS does it, step 3 (PROFIT!!) actually occurs for some reason...might be related to step 2 (Press Release). If RedHat launched the RedHat Uber Search and gave a press release, how much of the mainstream media would listen? MS gets the attention.

Re:Standard MS Tactics (5, Interesting)

PocketPick (798123) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550309)

Your logic is true for more than just webpages. It spans basically Microsoft's entire software library. Balmer's arrogantly stated that it "one mistake" was that it didn't get involved in the 'search' industry earlier, but anyone who has followed Microsoft's trail can tell you that thier late to the table more often than not. And even when they are on time, the product is often a faulty or damaged good that doesn't operate at the level of other competitor products.

Ex.
-IE debacle, where Microsoft played catch-up to Netscape and other existing browsers after failing to neglect thier need in earlier years.
-Direct3D, which played second fiddle to OpenGL for years in usability and features till Microsoft finally began adopting parts of OpenGL's paradigm for computer graphics.
-The modern desktop GUI. A product of Apple in many respects, but later was adopted by Microsoft.
-Powerpoint, Visio and other 'Office' products. They were created by other companies, and then consumed by Microsoft.

And the list goes on and on. Today thier trying to same with hand-held media players (derived from the success of iPods), search technologies (coming from Yahoo, Google, and other succesfull search/advertisement ventures), spyware detection and many other Microsoft 'Innovations' that are soon to hit the market.

Re:Standard MS Tactics (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550327)

Yep, this is very true throughout Microsoft's history. Whoever is modding you down is a sadly misinformed MS toadie.

Don't Underestimate Micro$oft (3, Interesting)

reporter (666905) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550333)

The search engine at Micro$oft (M$) currently has indexed about 1 billion web pages [pcworld.com] , but Google has indexed several times that amount. Given time, M$ will eventually index more pages. Eventually, M$ will catch up.

The current barrier to entering the market for search engines is low. The technology is relatively simple as the multitude of search-engine companies will attest.

The advantage that M$ has, over Google, is its huge R&D budget. M$ labs is the modern-day equivalent of the venerable Bell Laboratories, which is shriveling under the management of Lucent. M$ has plucked numerous professors from the computer science departments at top universities by offering incredibly high salaries.

britany spears (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550080)

you are the problem! no wonder she is ranked so high among searched celebs)

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550081)

No Really.

I searched for keywords britney spears and ... (4, Funny)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550082)

... that's why I love science. You can find the best reasons to do the weirdest things ... ;-)

Re:I searched for keywords britney spears and ... (3, Funny)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550130)

Searching the internet for images of semi-attractive females is "weird"? What else is the internet for?

You, my friend, live in a weird world.

Re:I searched for keywords britney spears and ... (1)

CactusInvasion (838662) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550396)

Yeah, he actually has to search. The rest of us already know where to go.

Re:I searched for keywords britney spears and ... (4, Funny)

cyklo (795952) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550243)

A reference to the Britney Spears Guide To Semiconductor Physics [britneyspears.ac] ?

It makes for an entertaining bibliography to a research project.

Re:I searched for keywords britney spears and ... (3, Informative)

stoborrobots (577882) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550299)

My all-time favourite illustration from that site has always been the energy levels of the band structure [britneyspears.ac] , for varying wavevector...

Sometimes, it's fun to be a physics grad...

yay fristage postage (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550084)

w00t

A revenue stream.. (5, Interesting)

phuturephunk (617641) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550091)

..Is a revenue stream. The galleries in question probably pay for dominance. Yeah, this seems contrary to a full free search, but at least the results are on subject.

The real task, it would seem, would be to find a way to have the engine return the proper pictures for the proper searches (so typing in Daddy's birthday doesn't result in pictures of some 50 something dude banging some barely legal chick with a party hat on.)

Stuff like that.

Re:A revenue stream.. (5, Interesting)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550104)


The galleries in question probably pay for dominance

That's what I think however I didn't see results from Corbis.com [corbis.com] (BillG's stock photo company) in any results of searches that I did. And I did search for pretty generic stuff (ie: "ansel adams" who, I believe, Corbis owns the rights to)

Re:A revenue stream.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550266)

That's what I think however I didn't see results from Corbis.com (BillG's stock photo company) in any results of searches that I did.

I don't follow your logic -- why would Corbis have to have a top position? Because Gates owns it?

Re:A revenue stream.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550301)

No, the OP suggested that sites pay for ranking in the results. Makes sense, but then a company owned by Gates didn't seem to rank anywhere. I'm thinking that their search index just isn't complete yet. They have a lot of catching up to do (re:google).

Re:A revenue stream.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550219)

Yeah, a revenue stream is a revenue stream, but I dont want to subscribe to the content some one wants to force down my throat. I will stick with Google.

Re:A revenue stream.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550227)

Yeah that's what we need to focus on. Making the web safer for toddlers. Right. That's real high on my list of priorities right after designing an optical core network and getting jonny to soccer practice on time.

Re:A revenue stream.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550292)

Way to make assumptions on a half-ass study performed by someone with an obvious bias against the product.

Here let me do a study.......

Setting us a firwall in BSD is hard when you don't know WTF you are doing.

There make some blind assumptions based on that.

you sir are a dumbass!

Re:A revenue stream.. (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550293)

Yeah, this seems contrary to a full free search, but at least the results are on subject.

How much do you think they'd charge to put the goatse.cx guy in a search for sailboats?

search filtering (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550094)

So, did you turn it off before the search? I did.

Oh YEAH?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550099)

I searched for "vaginas with shit in them" and it only turned up my homepage. WTF? Britney gets three webpages, but I only get one?

Maybe I am being dense but.... (-1, Redundant)

EpsCylonB (307640) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550100)

There's a number of other interesting notes in the entry about the new search engine. Also, Britney.

But what does "Also Britney" mean ?

Re:Maybe I am being dense but.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550122)

But what does "Also Britney" mean ?

It means that Rob's little head is less articulate than his big one.

Re:Maybe I am being dense but.... (4, Funny)

Reckless Visionary (323969) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550144)

"Also, Britney" is an indirect reference to the amusement one feels due to the relevance of Britney Spears in this story. It also serves as a masculine form of code-speech in the form of silence, the silent element which follows "Also, Britney" best interpreted as "You know what I mean? She's hot, right?"

Re:Maybe I am being dense but.... (1)

kenji_watanabe (854509) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550278)

Assuming you are writing from a warm room, somewhere near sea level, you have a density of approximately 1g/cm^3. So yes, you are relatively dense.

Errrr.... (4, Insightful)

JamesD_UK (721413) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550101)

So from one single query to the MSN search engine we're meant to draw some form of conclusion? Could it just be that the search engine has determined these domains to hold the best results and just returned these images?

Other searches [msn.co.uk] don't appear to be similar. I'm guessing that perhaps these companies have paid for higher placement on the example used in the article?

search for "linux" (4, Interesting)

CausticPuppy (82139) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550145)

...and the very first link on the page (under "sponsored sites") is:

www.microsoft.com
Windows outperforms Linux: Industry case studies and test lab results provide insight into the advantages of the Microsoft®...

Re:search for "linux" (5, Interesting)

TheViffer (128272) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550355)

On the flip side, is if you do a search for "best operating system", your first result is linux.org. In fact, I was not even able to find Microsoft listed. Amiga and QNX even came up before Windoze.

Guess the search engine is not so bad after all.

Re:Errrr.... (1)

TechnoLust (528463) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550316)

Yeah, since it is a new service, maybe it just hasn't crawled that many sites yet? This is exactly the same as the arguments when the Xbox came out. "There are only 50 games for the Xbox and and hundreds for PS2!" Yeah, it's was Xbox's first day and the PS2 had been out for a long time. It's just typical slashdot MS bashing.

Surprise surprise (-1, Troll)

bozer82 (855683) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550108)

Microcrap sucks. I love the fact that Bill wrote a letter, did the camera guy who took the picture pass out while taking that? Looks like their sliding down a hill, either that or sliding down the hole they just dug by attempting to create a search engine.

BOYCOTT THE ENGINE UNTIL GATES FIXES SECURITY (-1, Troll)

FineJames (836955) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550114)

Security issues in Windows!!! Lets start a movement Sort of like a bowel movement, that will be unleashed upon Billie and his empire!

Doesn't work very well yet (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550115)

I searched for "britney spears nude goat dildo sparcstation" and didn't find a single thing.

Forget about Britney! (3, Funny)

SoTuA (683507) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550229)

what about "natalie portman naked petrified hot grits"?

Re:Forget about Britney! (0)

bozer82 (855683) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550253)

Searching for WAFFLES still brings up Kerry, haha.

Re:Forget about Britney! (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550366)


Searching for WMDs still brings up "not found"...

Re:Forget about Britney! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550310)

Man those were the good old days

Re:Doesn't work very well yet (1)

Megaslow (694447) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550321)

That's because of the word "sparcstation"... It is MSN search afterall... Try "xbox" and you might have better success :)

In the interest of the truth... (3, Funny)

gambit3 (463693) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550120)


I'm going to have to perform this experiment myself.

In the interest of the truth, you know.

Re:In the interest of the truth... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550273)

Mmm, peer review...

it's ok, you can admit it... (1)

jxyama (821091) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550124)

nothing like having an "excuse" to search for britney spears images, eh? :P

we /.-ers certainly hate her music but apparently she's not as painful to look at. :D

msn search may not be as good as google/yahoo, but the prominent-cleavages-to-image-number ratio is quite high for all three search engines. who's complaining? :P

Other options? (4, Funny)

gosand (234100) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550233)

nothing like having an "excuse" to search for britney spears images, eh? :P

Would you rather the author did an image search on RMS?

Re:Other options? (1)

gosand (234100) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550359)

Actually, after I posted this, I did that - searched for "RMS" on Google and MSN's image searches. In the first page, there was only one picture of Richard M Stallman on the MSN search, while the Google one was full of them.

Now whether or not that is a good thing, I'll leave up to the reader.... :-)

Re:it's ok, you can admit it... (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550360)

we /.-ers certainly hate her music
Not all of it. Some of her tracks are good cha-chas.

Howto (1, Funny)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550125)

Yeah, but how do you turn off the damn safe search in MSN... :-)

Re:Howto (0)

Shardin (696999) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550162)

Underneath where you type in your search query there's a "settings" link... it looks all too fammiliar in my opinion.

Re:Howto (1)

ceeam (39911) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550199)

You go to settings and turn it off. That would be $49.99 for me helping you here, please.

Re:Howto (1)

tehshen (794722) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550392)

I'd pay you good money if you tell me how to turn localisation off :) It is searching UK sites whether I've told it to or not. And as there are far fewer UK Britney Spears sites than US ones, this is a serious problem... yeah.

I seem to recall (4, Insightful)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550127)

discussions that- if google put adwords on the image search results, they were potentially crossing the line of using copyrighted works without permission- to turn a profit - perhaps MSN is only image searching/displaying where they have been given permission to display copyrighted images...

While... (-1, Troll)

BJH (11355) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550129)

...it may seem relatively orthogonal to the topic, I believe people may still be interested in... ...The Mystery of Britney Spears' Breasts! [liquidgeneration.com]

MICHAEL SIMS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550131)

has been fired.

Weird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550133)

This is totally weird

You know what else is totally weird? People searching for Brittany Spears. I bet you listen to her classics too.

Thumbnails Don't Match (5, Funny)

TexTex (323298) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550137)

For research, I checked out some of those pictures returned by the Britney search.

Many of the thumbnails displayed aren't the same picture that's retrieved when you click on the link. So, their cache must be outdated already. When I'm browsing thumbnails, I expect...no I demand...my search engine to return the appropriate photos!

Re:Thumbnails Don't Match (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550379)

Actually, when I click on thumbnails, I am usually looking for INAPPROPRIATE photos....

Expectations (4, Insightful)

FullMetalAlchemist (811118) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550138)

I don't really expect anything from MSN search at this point, it will require some major fine-tuning to become really powerful.

On the other hand, I don't expect any reviews of MSN search to be any good so early on either. Simply because, if you're a googler or some other search engine user, you like what that one offers for a reason; switching is hard.

Lack of returned hits... (4, Interesting)

Shardin (696999) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550141)

I'm no MS supporter, but do you think this might be because the new search engine has been crawling the web for a fraction of the length of time Yahoo and Google have been crawling the web?

Re:Lack of returned hits... (1)

Sabu mark (205793) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550205)

do you think this might be because the new search engine has been crawling the web for a fraction of the length of time Yahoo and Google have been crawling the web?

But it's only catalogued three domains. What, is it searching depth-first?

Re:Lack of returned hits... (1)

Chess_the_cat (653159) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550307)

Then again this is based on the submitter "randomly checking a few pages up to page number 20."

Not very scientific.

Re:Lack of returned hits... (2, Interesting)

ceeam (39911) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550212)

Actually they all claim to _totally_ refresh their DBs in 2-7 days, IIRC. How does it matter for how long they have been doing this then?

Slashdotted (4, Interesting)

mreed911 (794582) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550156)

The original article has been /.'ed already, but there's a cogent point to be made:

Unless the images are titled, tagged, annotated, etc., there's no good way to index them.

If I just throws a bunch of images up on a web site, there's not good technology, other than some pretty advanced facial recognition stuff, that can determine who, or what, a particular picture represents.

Change the resolution, color depth, etc. and I change the checksum for the image, so the index fails to recognize that one picture is the "same" as another, just resized, etc.

I see a lot of that on Google's image search - but can't find a way around it, either.

Re:Slashdotted (2, Informative)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550343)

Change the resolution, color depth, etc. and I change the checksum for the image, so the index fails to recognize that one picture is the "same" as another, just resized, etc.

So resize the image to a standard max size and depth (256x256 max size jpeg with retained aspect ratio), then hash the individual luminance data into a thumbprint that can be compared. Checking for dupes becomes easier and similarity checks are doable.

Article Text (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550169)

MSN Search - New and Improved By: Gaurav Sharma
February 2, 2005

Read about New MSN search @ /. and then read its review on Abhi's Blog.

I don't agree with the review completely, even though I am a google fan.

So, I did a similar testing, but included Yahoo to the list with the keywords britney spears.

yes, MSN produces about 10k results whereas Google produces 125k and yahoo produces 110k.

I don't think MSN should produce 10k results without any reason. I personally don't think that Britney would have more than 10k pictures online (or may be offline too?)

What I noticed was that, MSN's search had images from only a few sites. I randomly checked few pages upto page number 20 and found that the images 20*20 = 400 images were only from 3 domains :| 5in9.com, celebritypicturesarchive.com and nabou.com. This is totally weird as it doesn't seem like a search engine, but a collection of few online galleries. It seems like they haven't indexed the images but have used a froogle like concept (may be thats what they are upto.) or one of their employees went to different online galleries and added the galleries to be indexed and then indexed them. Also a lot of wallpaper kind of images are indexed. There is a series of 2 or 3 images shown adjacent to each other. The only differene is their size, like 640 X 480, 800 X 600, 1024 X 768.

The links from celebritypicturesarvhive.com are mismatching. The thumbnails point to a wrong picture. There are a lot of them like these, which makes one think that it is something like froogle, where the webmaster of the gallery got some error in counting the offset of the image thumbnail and the actual link.

Apperantly, I noticed that out of first 8 results on Google, 2 pair of images were very similar. I think they should try to avoid the repetition in the results (atleast on the same page.)

Abhi claims that MSN search does not have a content filter, which is not true. MSN search engine DOES have a content filter, which actually works better than Google.

You might wanna checkout these screenshots:

Yahoo, Google (Warning: image contains nudity), MSN.

You can note that all of the three search engines were set to the highest leve of content filteration (or safe search) and both Yahoo and MSN are set to Black & White images while Google is set to Grayscale. It is very technical and accurate when Google claims that those images are grayscale, while it shows only dichromatic images when black and white mode is set.

The difference between grayscale and black and white images MIGHT confuse a layman as the grayscaled images are generally called black & white images. Yahoo and MSN are taking search for dummies approach.

I understand that no software can be 100% accurate in checking explicit stuff, but Google doesn't say that on the settings page. Both Yahoo and MSN have put the disclaimers by their safe search settings and in MSN & Yahoo if you try to remove the content filtering, it asks you to "Agree" a disclaimer. This doesn't affect the user experience a lot, but can definetly avoid lawsuits.

I also noticed something really interesting. Yahoo has a "SafeSearch Lock" which is only available to Yahoo members (every other net user is a Yahoo member.) MSN search doesn't provide a Lock kind of option, but it doesn't control the safe search through the URL passed.

For example if I search something in no-filtering mode and copy paste the resulting URL on a website. When someone clicks it with settings = strict-filtering, his settings are not changed. The results are displayed in the strict-filtering mode. So I believe, MSN is using cookies for this purpose. There might be some way to change the mode through the url (I didn't check if any exists), but it is atleast not in the MSN generated URL.

On the other hand Google produces a link with a parameter "safe" if safe=active it means the safe search is on, but if safe=off then it means no filtering at all. It is really a cool feature as one can customize the searches and even use them dynamically. The only problem with this is that it overrides the user's settings.

So for the above mentioned example, it will show the non-filtered results to anybody who clicks that link, irrespective of their settings own their computers. This is really harmful if a kid is using a computer, or if you have saved "safe search" on your office PC and click that link.

What I would like Google to do is, somehow check the two values (on saved on the computer and the one passed in the url) and prompt the user with a notification that the mode requested is different from their prefrence.

I agree with most of other things Abhi talks about the page loading and results.

If I have to check spelling of a word, I just google it and Google gives me the right spelling :). I also like Yahoo's Also try: ... feature. I always use Google and while writing this post I might have used it about 7-8 times., but most of the time Google doesn't help me with image search. Yahoo/Altavista are generally a better bet for image search.

It is really hard for me to completely review and deduce a conclusion out of this information. It would take a lot of time and research to find out something substantial. I have simply listed and compared only a few features of the SEs.

The information provided can be wrong or accurate, if you come across something which is not right, then do let me know.

MSN image search not really a search engine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550171)

The MSN image search is not a full fledged search engine but rather a collection of online galleries, particularly MSN affiliated ones. I don't know who would find that actually useful since Google, Yahoo, and the others do a so much better job.

But if you add the word "naked"... (1)

SpottedKuh (855161) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550177)

...to the search, and turn SafeSearch off, then MSN gives you a whopping 12 results! Hmm...perhaps MSN is trying to censor the net, even when we set the preferences not to.

Re:But if you add the word "naked"... (1)

Shardin (696999) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550238)

To turn off safesearch:

goto:
http://search.msn.com [msn.com]

click settings:
[Which will bring you to:]
http://search.msn.com/settings.aspx?ru=%2f&FORM=SE HP [msn.com]

Try not to get confused and think you're using google...

On the third section from the top click "off"

You'll find the "Save" button in the lower right hand corner if you scroll down.

I was going to read through the source code and post a GET link which would turn it off for you... but I'm not about to read through that code at 8:45 in the morning. Sorry, folks.

PS.. I notice there are different language settings.. do you suppose MS will offer translation services?

"Why does slashdot hate Microsoft?" (-1, Offtopic)

rueba (19806) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550188)

I predict there will be at least one post(and probably several posts) with this theme.

Also, incorrect image links (1)

Swedentom (670978) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550196)

Clicking most of the Britney pictures from celebritypicturesarchive.com displays a completely different picture than the one you clicked (still a picture of britney, though).

:-/

Why god, Why? (1, Funny)

DoubleDangerClub (855480) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550204)

Britney? Come on, she's so last season, did you even see the Google.com zeitgeist? It's all about runner up Paris Hilton this year. lol.

it looks like... (4, Interesting)

jxyama (821091) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550207)

MSN image search is returning results where the image filename actually contains "britney" and "spears." as far as i saw on the first page of the results, all the files have "...britney_spears....jpg" name. if such is the algorithm being used, this severely limits the number of possible hits.

this is contrary to google image search where it's not simply searching for filenames. google search seems to understand that images of britney spears need not have "britney" and "spears" in the filename.

Too New. (4, Insightful)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550211)

The MSN Search right now is too new to get an accurate reading on how it is going to ultimately perform.

Google has been around for years spidering sites where MSN Search has only been around for a few months.

The real test is going to be a year from now, when it's had more than enough time to spider a good portion of the web. Even Google's search paled in comparison to Altavista at first until at least 6 months passed. After a year passed its searches were much better since a good portion of the web was spidered by it.

At this point in the game, It would have to be an absoletly amazing site to take Google out, and I don't think MSN Search is the site thats going to do it.

Unbelievable! (3, Funny)

Sophrosyne (630428) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550213)

http://search.msn.com/images/results.aspx?q=kelly+ ripa+camel+toe&srch_type=2&FORM=QBIN [msn.com]
I'm sorry, but this is where I draw the line-- it's completely unusable

Spin... (1)

Reignking (832642) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550232)

Way to put a spin on what you were actually doing. Inspecting? Sure...

Are you sure.. (1)

KinkifyTheNation (823618) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550234)

It was MSN Search you were inspecting?

Msn doesn't find Gates' homepage - Google does (4, Funny)

traffi (800888) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550254)

Searching for 'bill gates' [msn.co.uk] in MSN returns the page Bill Gates As Mabus [mabus.biz] . Apparently this project is dedicated to finding the human manifestation of the anti-Christ.

None of the first 10 results (searching from the uk) return his homepage.

Searching with Google [google.com] turns up Bill Gates' Web Site - Home Page [microsoft.com] .

Which means: Stick to Google.

Here's another mangling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550256)

When Cory did a search for his own site, boingboing, he was referred first to two others:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/01/msn_search_la unches_.html/ [boingboing.net]

Search for "sex"... (2, Funny)

Barnoid (263111) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550276)

MSN Search [msn.com]

while the first few result are still remotely related to what I expected (sex offender registries, sex - by teens for teens), the ninth link is cool:

Microsoft Corporation
The entry page to Microsoft's Web site. Find software, solutions, answers, support, and Microsoft ... Last Updated: Monday, January 31, 2005 - 12:00 A.M. Pacific Time Manage
* www.microsoft.net


I'm amazed how stupid and desperate these guys there must be.

The search sex may return sexually explicit conten (0)

statixz (785453) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550367)

For the fact that I'm surfing from Singapore, clicking on the link on the parent post leads me to http://search.msn.com.sg/results.aspx?q=sex&FORM=Q BRE [msn.com.sg] which returns: "The search sex may return sexually explicit content. To get results, change your search terms. Didn't get the results you expected? Help us improve."

Because everyon keeps asking... (2, Informative)

Shardin (696999) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550288)

To Turn off SafeSearch:

goto:
http://search.msn.com [msn.com]

click settings:
[Which will bring you to:]
http://search.msn.com/settings.aspx?ru=%2f&FORM=SE HP [msn.com]

Try not to get confused and think you're using google...

On the third section from the top click "off"

You'll find the "Save" button in the lower right hand corner if you scroll down.

I was going to read through the source code and post a GET link which would turn it off for you... but I'm not about to read through that code at 8:45 in the morning. Sorry, folks.

PS.. I notice there are different language settings.. do you suppose MS will offer translation services?

Re:Because everyon keeps asking... (1)

Shardin (696999) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550340)

Yes, it WOULD kill them to pretty print their source code. IE's parser might not know what to do with it.

anna vs britney (-1, Offtopic)

cyriustek (851451) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550294)

Perhaps there is just an issue with performing a search on only one subject or maybe Britney does not have the star power she used to have. I did a seach on Anna Kournikova, and it offered a plethora of web sites.

Something actually kinda weird and off (1)

fabs64 (657132) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550304)

first two things i searched on the new engine, betterontoast and seriouslogic, didn't come up with their official dns registered pages. www.seriouslogic.com and www.betterontoast.com (these are real).
I found this rather strange and brings into question the size of the msn cache.

The New MSN Search (1)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550318)

It's nothing but a poor adverisiting agent. For example, shills have been all over various message board and Usenet about the new white pages search. Problem is that it takes you to a pay site where the info is incorrect in most cases. A Pox on Microsoft!

Search Engine Results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550323)

It is important to remember that the best search engines return what you are looking for in the LEAST number of results. So one engine returning 134 things where another returns 134,000 is a good thing IMO.

Not your usual slashdotting (2, Insightful)

jbeamon (208826) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550324)

This guy's nameservers are down. It's not that the webserver is down; you can browse it by the IP address listed in his whois information. It's that the webserver has a default Apache start page as its default and his domain as a vhost, but none of his nameservers are up to resolve requests for his domain.

I'm amazed not only that so many posts were made "about" the story from various diagonal points of view, but without anyone actually browsing his site. It's even more interesting that his story got posted at all without the referenced content being reachable. I read a great story once at a web site that's no longer up; maybe I should post it!

First Poster Has Only 400? (1)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550342)

"I personally dont think that Britney would have more than 10k pictures online (or may be offline too?)" (from the review)

At last count I have 2,347 pictures of Britney Spears.

And I don't even like her music...:-)

I wonder how many photos of the Corrs MSN can find...I've got 2,080 photos of them...

How about 1,228 of Salma Hayek?

1,406 of Angelina Jolie?

1,083 of Carmen Electra?

24 of Chelsea Clinton? Waitaminnit, WTF?

Bug in MSN Search Feedback (2, Interesting)

Phoe6 (705194) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550357)

Try to provide a Feedback. It does not proceed. I tried to provide MSN a Feedback about there is noway to get to the main page after searching. Pops up a Windows BOX containing Submission information and gives up. btw, I use Firefox and I bother not to check for the same on IE.

Konqueror said ..... (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550362)

An error occurred while attempting to run a script on this page.
http://www.msn.com/ line 149:
TypeError: Attempt at calkling a function that expects a HTMLDocument on a Window.

Quick comparison (1, Funny)

killmenow (184444) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550365)

Just did a quick comparison of search.msn.com, google.com and www.yahoo.com. Here are my results:

Search term: microsoft sucks
Google: results about 862,000
Yahoo: results about 762,000
MSN: results about 1,856,364

There's a joke in there somewhere dying to get out.

Its unusable (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#11550377)

I find it unusable, the local weighting is so strong that you get local results regardless of the language your searching with or what your searching for.

Search .NET and you don't get a Microsoft site, you get nothing but French pages in France. Switch to English language setting and you get English pages for French sites.

Connect through a Spanish ISP and you get Spanish ones.

For example .NET comes up as this in Spain:
1. www.lobocom.es/regdom.html
2. www.clikear.com
3. www.clikear.com/aspnet
4. mexico.clikear.com
5. www.empleo.net
6. www.ciberaula.com/curso/masteraspnet
7. www.ciberaula.com/curso/puntonet
8. venezuela.clikear.com
9. ecuador.clikear.com
10. www.filipenses.net

No mention of Microsoft and 2,3,4,8,9 are all parts of the same site!

Search for "Marseille by Night", Google gives you sites about the nightlife of Marseille. MSN gives me:
1. www.maketon.com/conciertos.php
A concert by a DJ called "Dj Jack de Marseille"
2. www.fyl.uva.es/~wgeolid/fajg/solidario/forosocial/ index.html
About volunteers working NIGHT and day and having a meeting in MARSEILLE.
3. www.infoconciertos.com
Again it mentions a concert in MARSEILLE and a DJ playing at Gomma NIGHT.

Its all complete crap, absolute crap, its not turfing to say it, these results suck big time. They are no even in the same league as Google, Yahoo and the rest.

Relevance filtering (1)

YU Nicks NE Way (129084) | more than 8 years ago | (#11550395)

What a wierd result. I don't think it's a "sponsored link" effect, though. It looks, instead, like the ordering algorithm clusters sites, so that sites with lots of pictures of Spears show up near the front, and sites with fewer images show up later. If you hack the query to look at pages around 200, you find many more sources on each page.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?