Bing More Effective Than Google? 385
Xiph1980 writes "Experian Hitwise claims Bing and Bing-powered search to be more effective than Google. The success rate for Bing searches in the U.S. in July was 80.04%, compared to 67.56% for Google. The market watcher defines 'success rate' as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website. Searches made through sites owned by Yahoo, which farmed out search to Bing under a deal struck in 2009, were also more efficient than Google. Those searches yielded a success rate of 81.36%. The claims of Hitwise don't explain why I keep finding things like Microsoft service pack download pages better through google than through bing."
Bing for recipes, Google for computer related thin (Score:2, Informative)
I use Bing for recipes and things that normal people search for. I use Google for anything technical since bing appears to be clueless about that stuff.
Google works if you already know how to use a search engine. My Mom doesn't know how to ask google good questions, so she needs to use Bing to find when the special church service is in her town.
Give it time... (Score:3, Informative)
I still haven't forgiven Microsoft for pounding, and I mean pounding, a self-hosted (long story) site for a small retailer I worked for a few years ago. We got a nearly $1000 bill for excess bandwidth. I checked the logs and they were downloading entire directories of images over and over and over. Non-techy Boss NOT impressed.
Re:Bing vs. Google (Score:5, Informative)
The claims of Hitwise don't explain why I keep finding things like Microsoft service pack download pages better through google than through bing.
That's because unlike Google, Bing doesn't favor its own services over others.
Since when does Google have a service to download Microsoft service packs?
There are also differences in algorithms. Bing doesn't count so called junk-links while Google does. Bing prefers link inside good, relevant content. Google, on the other hand, counts all kinds of links.
Google also filters [techcrunch.com] on link farms [theregister.co.uk]. Of course their filtering isn't perfect, but it would surprise me a lot if Microsoft had discovered the magic algorithm to get rid of all "search engine optimization" gaming, and it's simply wrong to say that Google "counts all kinds of links".
Judging by the usual slashdot response of "but they should just improve their algorithms", people don't seem to get how immersively complex current search engines and their algorithms are.
One of my main issues with bing has nothing to do with complex search algorithms. Just search for e.g. shoes [bing.com]. The first page of results already contains two sets of duplicate results in my case: www.shoes.com and www.shoes.com/womens (sic, it actually stands for "women's"), and www.shoes.be and www.shoes.be/schoenwinkels.asp?l=k.
I get this with virtually every search term I've ever tried on Bing, which means that there are much less individually useful results than on Google (which will group all similar results from the same domain and then let you move on).
PS: yes, this is the first time in my life I've searched for the term "shoes" on the Internet
Re:Bing vs. Google (Score:2, Informative)
Google:
"alienware m11x review"
First link: http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/23/alienware-m11x-review/
Second: http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=5548&review=alienware+m11x+ultraportable+gaming+notebook
In fact, not a single link on the first page is a store.
"alienware m11x specs" .....What google have you been using?
First link: http://gear.ign.com/articles/106/1065816p1.html
Second: http://www.dell.com/us/p/alienware-m11x/pd
Sucky definition of "success" (Score:4, Informative)
Agreed - I generally find my answers on the first page of a Google search.
But, I can't get past the definition for "success" in the summary. There are times when I Google something, and the answer appears in the summary - no need to click any links.
If you're measuring "success" in terms of dollars and cents changing hands somewhere, yeah, Bing is probably a success. If you're measuring "success" in terms of searchers finding the data they are looking for, I'll put my money on Google.
Re:Bing vs. Google (Score:3, Informative)
Bing toolbar used to follow what links people clicked on search results. That way Bing also got the information about such nonsensical keywords. But if no user clicks those links, they don't get those results. Bing doesn't just scrape Google, they collect usage information (like Google does too).
It's always nice to see somehow spewing complete bullshit when he either doesn't understand the issue or knows no one will actually try it, and try to come off as wiser than he actually is.
Re:Bing vs. Google (Score:5, Informative)
Use Bing for "google stock price". What's the top link on the page? A link to Bing Finance.
Use Bing for "statue of liberty". Top link besides ads? Bing News. Also included are links to Bing Maps.
Try "purchase photoshop". Top link besides ads? Bing Shopping.
Run away, little troll, run away.