Microsoft Lost Search War By Ignoring the Long Tail 267
Art3x writes "When developing search engine technology, Microsoft focused on returning good results for popular queries but ignored the minor ones. 'It turned out the long tail was much more important,' said Bing's Yusuf Mehdi. 'One-third of queries that show up on Bing, it's the first time we've ever seen that query.' Yet the long tail is what makes most of Google's money. Microsoft is so far behind now that they won't crush Google, but they hope to live side by side, with Bing specializing in transactions like plane tickets, said Bing Director Stefan Weitz."
Same old (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
.
Search engines are all about people looking to find stuff. A good portion of what people look for are probably new things that are happening now.
So, Microsoft goes off and designs a brand new "bet the ranch" search engine, without even knowing how its customers use such a service. Yes, that sounds like Microsoft.
It helps to be honest, as well (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone should tell Medhi that it also helps when you don't game the search results to fit your corporate agenda.
From time to time, I try out the following query on Bing: "Why is Windows so expensive?"
The day that the first result returned is NOT a site about Macs being expensive is the day I'll start to take Bing seriously. Until then, I'm sticking with Google, which is at least honest enough to properly index anti-Google queries.
Re:Well, duh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Lost? (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as there are search engines and choices, the war isn't over. A war of unskilled attrition, ( like Microsoft plays ) can take a long time to end.
Re:Bing Seems No Better (Score:3, Insightful)
So they say (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say they lost by:
1. Being too late. Search engines have been around for many years. You can't easily launch a search engine now without a massively improved user experience over what is already available.
2. Not being trusted, I don't want to use Microsoft's search engine as it may subvert the results to promote their wares.
3. Stupid name. Every time I hear "Bing" I think of Ned Ryserson from the film Groundhog Day.
4. OTT interface, I don't need a big background when I'm looking for stuff.
Re:Same old (Score:3, Insightful)
"We messed up" isn't really an excuse.
The Data (Score:2, Insightful)
Bing can't perform as well as Google because for one, it doesn't have the same data to begin with.
For example, have you ever released a new website and watched how long it takes for Bing to index it compared to Google?
Re:They need to do something more radically differ (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not try to make a search engine that doesn't track what you do? I'd pay a subscription for such a thing.
How would they keep track of who has subscribed if they're not tracking people?
Re:It helps to be honest, as well (Score:3, Insightful)
It would appear that Bing correlates results in real-time, re-scoring based on clicks. So ... when someone searches, "Why Is Windows Expensive," Bing watches to see what the user *clicks* in the results and uses that to score *subsequent* queries. I'm just guessing, of course, but this could explain why some people get that Mac link as the first hit, while others get something else.
Re:MapReduce Thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
For now. And that will only last until the founders leave or step back in the oversight and are replaced by Standford MBA's. Then it will become about the bottom line. Look at what happened to Motorola when the family was forced out about a decade or more ago...
Re:Same old (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I won't touch bing. It generates money for Microsoft, who is willing to give me almost nothing for free. Their free products are tied to using their overly bloated over priced products.
Google has given me a browser, they gave me a superior search engine years ahead of any competition, they offer me a free operating system, AND they host a boatload of code for free stuff for which I've never paid a dime.
More, Google promotes the advancement of computer science, without trying to take possession of every line of code written to work with their offerings. None of that "embrace, extend, extinguish" nonsense.
And, if all the rest doesn't impress you, Google has decided that they WILL NOT censor the web for 1/4 of the world's population, while Microsoft is quite happy to do so.
If anyone is going to make money off of my searches, it will be Google, unless and until some other company steps up to offer me tons of free stuff, and to "Not be evil".
I guess you could summarize my attitude as "Fuck Microsoft!"
Re:They need to do something more radically differ (Score:1, Insightful)
>The big problem with Google is privacy
No it's not. Maybe it's a problem to you and a few other privacy nuts, but no one else minds, and it's good to Google, that's why they do it.
Why I switched to Bing (Score:3, Insightful)
The day I searched (a few months ago) for information on the Toyota recall and got an automatically scrolling box of Twitter posts was the day I switched to Bing.
(That said, Bing really isn't as good as Google... but most of the time it's almost as good, and I really don't want anything to automatically scroll, and I really really don't want any results from Twitter.)
Re:Same old (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is always late to the party. GUI, LANs, the internet, and now internet search.
They figure they'll make up for it with superior marketing and product placement within their own software; don't underestimate the power that these things can have.
Re:They need to do something more radically differ (Score:3, Insightful)
You're comparing oranges to apples, so to speak. An operating system is not equivalent to a single product put out by a company.
Tell me, is the Xbox more open than the iPad? Because those two products are the ones you should be comparing. Closed, tightly regulated ecosystems in both cases, although I'd still give the iPad the edge for ease of developer access.
On the other hand, is Windows more open than OS X? Clearly, the answer to that is a resounding NO, as you quickly realize as you jump through Microsoft's "Genuine Advantage" license code hoops.
Re:They need to do something more radically differ (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a difference between keeping track of who has subscribed and keeping track of what subscribers search for. Of course, in this scenario, subscribers would have to blindly trust Microsoft.
Re:Same old (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of fanboys - maybe you missed the fact that MS OWNS every line of code they produce, and they OWN everything they research.
On the other hand, Google gives away most of the stuff they write research. Google makes it possible to take their neatest stuff, modify it, and release it again.
Granted, there are SOME things that Google won't open source. They have a few bread-and-butter things that they don't want to give away to their competition, which is understandable. But, for the advancement of computer science, almost everything they do is just thrown out there, and made available for anyone who has a "better idea".
Try taking some MS code, and improving on it. IF MS approves of it, they will put their name on it, making it their own, then they will either use it, or drown it in the sea of obscurity surrounding Redmond.
Re:Same old (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's tied to a paid product (Windows), it ain't free.
Re:Same old (Score:2, Insightful)
But what has MS Research given us
Tons of advancements in operating systems and computer science, for starters. Whether that is more important than the accomplishments from Google Labs is debatable.
Re:So they say (Score:2, Insightful)
Ironically, Google was also late. Yahoo and Alta Vista were quite popular at the time. The trick is that you have to do it better, not merely as good as. But MS is not known for original innovation.
Re:Bing sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Same old (Score:3, Insightful)
Try taking some MS code, and improving on it.
Most people who would try, would fail. MS gets their stuff working consistently (99% of the time anyway), then gives you a basic tool, an API, and any libraries and documentation you may need to build your own tool off of their technology.
No, they aren't giving away their code, but they are giving you everything you need to use their code however you wish to use it.
Seriously, when I got into administering MS servers, I was shocked at how much they give away for free. There are literally hundreds of very useful tools in dozens of different categories, many of which have an API for incorporating into your own code.
Some of them are so good, MS has to gimp them so companies that a free tool competes with don't go under, but you are usually free to build a better tool based on it.
I'm not saying I like Microsoft better than Google, Google is much more focused on the average user (including linux hobbyists). Microsoft is focused on businesses, and they do very well by IT professionals servicing their software. The consumer market, big as it is, is just a side market for Microsoft - an offshoot created by their business market. So yeah, they aren't nearly as generous to the average user - though you can still get all the free tools if you look for them.
Re:Same old (Score:3, Insightful)
Up until fairly recently IE was also available for Mac, and you don't need to buy a new copy of Windows for every updated version of the browser*. In fact, Microsoft giving away the browser for free was the whole reason why Netscape was so pissed off at them. In any case, I suspect that the only reason IE is no longer available on Macs or other Unix systems is because nobody would voluntarily use it, so they just don't bother maintaining the port any more.
*Except IE9 & XP, but there's going to be an 11 year gap between them by the time the new IE comes out
Re:Same old (Score:4, Insightful)
No, IE is just a product you pay for when you buy the Windows bundle. Then you get free updates, like with other paid software.
Except IE won because it came bundled with the OS, in clear abuse of their monopoly, while Google Search "won" for itself.
Re:Same old (Score:3, Insightful)