A google search for the phrase pulls up exactly one link that references Macs in the first page. Okay, there's an outlier in a page dominated by actually relevant results.
A bing search pulls up exactly one link that actually references windows itself being expensive. Okay, there's one real result in a page dominated by failures (excepting, I suppose, the one or two results that related to actual physical windows being expensive.)
For the Mac result: On bing US, it's the first result. On bing UK, it's the third.
However, seeing as the Mac result mentions Windows in the text, it doesn't surprise me that it shows up in Google's first page. The difference is, Google shows you what you're actually looking for first (the first 4 results), rather than doing some shenanigans that basically say: "That's not what you really meant to search for....you're looking for this unrelated thing over here....."
The vinyl windows listing is on both Google and Bing, so that's obviously an easy mistake to make
It's not a mistake, the word "windows" can mean more than software to those who do not spend all their lives in a dank basement below their mother's house, you know.
Why would the entire first page of results ignore the ambiguity of the search? [google.com]THAT would be a mistake.
Don't be Evil (Score:2, Funny)
Shocking.
It seems that Don't be Evil is not the corporate motto of Microsoft.
It makes you appreciate google, despite their mildly objectionable data collection/profiling.
Re:Don't be Evil (Score:2)
oh no wait it returns the same 'Why are Macs so expensive.' That's right. You're not hallucinating." article as the 7th link instead of the top
incidently when i tried on bing it was the 3rd result
while there may be many reasons to hate bing, this story is really ;
man doesn't put search in quotes, doesn't get results he was expecting!
the failure is on the part of the user, not the search engine
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what search you did, but:
A google search for the phrase pulls up exactly one link that references Macs in the first page. Okay, there's an outlier in a page dominated by actually relevant results.
A bing search pulls up exactly one link that actually references windows itself being expensive. Okay, there's one real result in a page dominated by failures (excepting, I suppose, the one or two results that related to actual physical windows being expensive.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the Mac result:
On bing US, it's the first result. On bing UK, it's the third.
However, seeing as the Mac result mentions Windows in the text, it doesn't surprise me that it shows up in Google's first page.
The difference is, Google shows you what you're actually looking for first (the first 4 results), rather than doing some shenanigans that basically say:
"That's not what you really meant to search for....you're looking for this unrelated thing over here....."
With Bing, 3 of the top 5 results are about w
Re: (Score:2)
The vinyl windows listing is on both Google and Bing, so that's obviously an easy mistake to make
It's not a mistake, the word "windows" can mean more than software to those who do not spend all their lives in a dank basement below their mother's house, you know.
Why would the entire first page of results ignore the ambiguity of the search? [google.com]THAT would be a mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is Windows expensive", you're usually talking about the software.
If you search Google for "Why are windows expensive" you get more results pertaining to pieces of glass.
Now _that's_ a good algorithm.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is Windows expensive", you're usually talking about the software.
If you search Google for "Why are windows expensive" you get more results pertaining to pieces of glass.
Now _that's_ a good algorithm.
Good point. But assuming that your users have a solid grasp of grammar is pure folly :)