And even funnier - search for "Why is Microsoft Windows so expensive?" [bing.com] and the fifth result is a slashdot article entitled: "Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?"!
I assume the search algorithm would replace the words Microsoft and Windows with something generic like Software and Operating System.
When there are more hits for Google and Evil then there could be reasons to rank them high.
None the less, such results should come after a (near) perfect match.
well, it does *now*, everyone's started linking to it in their "why is Bing so biased", and "Bing is rubbish", and "Why Bing isn't biased after all, honest, no really" blog articles.
No, Bing links to a Yahoo answers page in which the actually text of the article contains the search terms several times("Windows" once, "Mac" once, "expensive" once, and Microsoft" twice). The article google returns, while having the same title, is a techradar.com article that doesn't mention windows. The Google results article [techradar.com] and the Bing results article. [yahoo.com] YMMV
"Looking out of the windows of the expensive Manhattan apartment..." satisfies the query results and seems like MS is deflecting results. The problem is compounded by MS using common nouns like "Windows" or "explorer" or "server" or "word" or "works" for their product names. I search for results on "sql server" and it brings up Oracle's SQL server and the Postgres SQL server and Sybase and all of the others. "Why is SQL Server expensive" could come up with any number of rival software companies simply due to this quirk of the marketing department.
I honestly don't think it's that intentional. "Why are Macs so expensive" legitimately could contain a comparison "... makes Macs more expensive than Windows". In this case, both brands are equal distance from "expensive", so the article would seem to be relevant to either result. Simply including "more expensive than Windows" makes it even more likely that an algorithm which includes distance thinks it is relevant to Windows more so than Macs.
--
A pet theory of mine I'm still working on: Looks like google weights certain words, and Bing hasn't learned this yet (or gets it wrong).
For example, you want to search "Why is Windows so expensive". The top-weighted words should be the noun "Windows", followed by "expensive". You don't want one without the other.
Since you're looking for an explanation, "why" should also carry a small weight. It's more likely to answer your question if the page has "and that's why windows is..." or "A lot of people asked my why... and so here is my answer" or the rhetorical "Why is...?" or even "which is why..." So you seemingly get Bing results of "expensive" without the "windows" part.
I would expect a subtitle or heading to have more weight than text in the article, so maybe MS is not weighting H1 more than normal P or SPAN or DIV text. Overall, i think it's just a dismal failure of the algorithm due to immaturity rather than anything intentional.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprised, why?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When there are more hits for Google and Evil then there could be reasons to rank them high.
None the less, such results should come after a (near) perfect match.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
well, it does *now*, everyone's started linking to it in their "why is Bing so biased", and "Bing is rubbish", and "Why Bing isn't biased after all, honest, no really" blog articles.
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And? context is not considered (Score:3, Informative)
"Looking out of the windows of the expensive Manhattan apartment..." satisfies the query results and seems like MS is deflecting results. The problem is compounded by MS using common nouns like "Windows" or "explorer" or "server" or "word" or "works" for their product names. I search for results on "sql server" and it brings up Oracle's SQL server and the Postgres SQL server and Sybase and all of the others. "Why is SQL Server expensive" could come up with any number of rival software companies simply due to this quirk of the marketing department.
I honestly don't think it's that intentional. "Why are Macs so expensive" legitimately could contain a comparison "... makes Macs more expensive than Windows". In this case, both brands are equal distance from "expensive", so the article would seem to be relevant to either result. Simply including "more expensive than Windows" makes it even more likely that an algorithm which includes distance thinks it is relevant to Windows more so than Macs.
--
A pet theory of mine I'm still working on: Looks like google weights certain words, and Bing hasn't learned this yet (or gets it wrong).
For example, you want to search "Why is Windows so expensive". The top-weighted words should be the noun "Windows", followed by "expensive". You don't want one without the other.
Since you're looking for an explanation, "why" should also carry a small weight. It's more likely to answer your question if the page has "and that's why windows is..." or "A lot of people asked my why... and so here is my answer" or the rhetorical "Why is ...?" or even "which is why..." So you seemingly get Bing results of "expensive" without the "windows" part.
I would expect a subtitle or heading to have more weight than text in the article, so maybe MS is not weighting H1 more than normal P or SPAN or DIV text. Overall, i think it's just a dismal failure of the algorithm due to immaturity rather than anything intentional.