Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
It never seems to occur to them that people might be genuinely interested in results that reflect what they actually want.
And then they wonder why all their search engines fail.
It never seems to occur to them that people might be genuinely interested in results that reflect what they actually want.
Sounds like the work of a bad programmer. Who else would take a question from a user and assume they know what the user really wants?
Yup, programs need to verify that what they assume the user wants is correct:
(loads an animated paper clip via Silverlight) "Hi, I'm Bing. It seems that you're looking for Windows prices. What do you want me to do? - Find the best price for Windows Vista? - Find the best price for Windows 7? - Find the worst price for MacOS? - Find out why free software is bad for you?"
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
Keep in mind that any loss of profit from Bing can go directly against the company's profit as a whole, as well as the entire cost of Bing being applied to Microsoft's advertising budget. For Micro
Keep in mind that any loss of profit from Bing can go directly against the company's profit as a whole, as well as the entire cost of Bing being applied to Microsoft's advertising budget. For Microsoft, it's a win-win scenario. It's just The Next Step in its advertising campaign to maintain its market dominance.
Oh, I'm sure a win-win on one level. On the other hand, if they end up with an engine that no-one uses because they find more satisfying answers to their questions elsewhere... well, it seems a li
> For Microsoft to advertise their competition, it's financial suicide, and liable to directly hurt them, sparking a possible stockholder's revolt.
Bullshit. If you query google for "advertiser network", you'll find other stuff than only google's. By your reasoning, it would be financial suicide for Microsoft to let user download firefox using IE.
All that is bullshit. They are just greedy, and believe that the short term gain of redirecting users to biased results is better than capturing a higher market
Keep in mind that Google is based on selling advertising
True, but their business model is rooted in providing the best search engine - advertising revenue follows from that - and these Bing results show that, at present, they are still top dog with regard search algorithms, which is a technology par excellence as fas as I'm concerned!
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
There is a Microsoft based solution; it just usually involves uninstalling all their products.
I once heard of a guy (Unix admin) who took a mcse 4 exam cold (old tale, obviously). No prep course, no prep test, nothing. For every question, he looked at the answers, and asked himself one question - which answer will make Microsoft the most money? Used that as the answer.
How is this interesting? It sounds like an urban legend. If you've taken an MCSE exam you will know that for the most part the questions don't lend themselves to being looked at that way. I'm not saying I like the MCSE exams, I think that it is an almost entirely worthless certification. But I do not for a second believe the above anecdote but am not surprised that it got mod'd Interesting on/..
It's impressive that he was able to replicate the job that had been done by Microsoft's decision makers without the need for consulting any usage statistics, market analysis, etc. Maybe if they sack the decision makers in order to take this guy in, they'll be able to save on the data gathering step and jump straight to the conclusions!
Hahahaha, I have a skill, I can piss off both redcrap and microsloth idiot moderators here. Can't believe I got modded down by at least 4 people.
Silly bastards, it's just a story, just milding critical of microslop. And I used to know the guy (regular in a newsgroup I was regular in), so it wasn't as if this is foaf, this story's from the guy who claimed to have done it.
There's a reason they 're calling it a decision engine, not a search engine.
In a few years, they may be able to do the following:
"Why is Windows so Expensive?" "It's not. You're thinking of Macs. Macs are expensive. Here's some reasons why."
And you know what? They'd be fucking right to do it. 99% of the time, the user is, in fact, a moron.
This is no different than Google drumming up Youtube hits or Wikipedia hits (search for any noun, Wikipedia is in the top page if there's an article on it). This is no di
"Why is Windows so Expensive?"
"It's not. You're thinking of Macs. Macs are expensive. Here's some reasons why."
And in a few more:
"Q: What is the accleration due to gravity?"
"A: Gravity is a myth - the Earth sucks! But you needn't suck with it when you buy Microsoft Flight (TM)"
Can you see how this might limit the engine's usefulness for some purposes? Can you see how user confidence may be
adversely affected? Can you see why they might go elsewhere?
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
That seems like a very interesting way of looking at it. Seriously. I see it in a different way that isn't incompatible with yours, but stresses the issue differently. I'd say something like:
Microsoft has shown a consistent pattern of behavior over the years, that it isn't satisfied to produce any of their products for the revenue generated by that product. Instead they look to have every one of their products reenforce all of their other products.
Pretty much every one of their products interlock with
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution.
Given that most people use Windows, assuming any search represents a user problem is a pretty safe bet.
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surprised, why?
Re:And? (Score:5, Interesting)
Surprised it took them this long, perhaps.
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
It never seems to occur to them that people might be genuinely interested in results that reflect what they actually want.
And then they wonder why all their search engines fail.
Re:And? (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously it decided that OSX is too expensive.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That, I hadn't picked up on. Perhaps we should have asked on whose behalf the engine was making those decisions.
Nobody, Bing became self-aware on August 1st, 2009.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But it isn't a search engine, it is the world's first decision enigne. Obviously it decided that OSX is too expensive.
Bing: You search, we decide.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
It never seems to occur to them that people might be genuinely interested in results that reflect what they actually want.
Sounds like the work of a bad programmer. Who else would take a question from a user and assume they know what the user really wants?
Re: (Score:2)
Who else? How about almost anyone in marketing? "The public wants what the public gets" and all that jazz?
Re: (Score:2)
It never seems to occur to them that people might be genuinely interested in results that reflect what they actually want.
Sounds like the work of a bad programmer. Who else would take a question from a user and assume they know what the user really wants?
Yup, programs need to verify that what they assume the user wants is correct:
(loads an animated paper clip via Silverlight)
"Hi, I'm Bing. It seems that you're looking for Windows prices. What do you want me to do?
- Find the best price for Windows Vista?
- Find the best price for Windows 7?
- Find the worst price for MacOS?
- Find out why free software is bad for you?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep in mind that any loss of profit from Bing can go directly against the company's profit as a whole, as well as the entire cost of Bing being applied to Microsoft's advertising budget. For Micro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, I'm sure a win-win on one level. On the other hand, if they end up with an engine that no-one uses because they find more satisfying answers to their questions elsewhere ... well, it seems a li
Re: (Score:2)
> For Microsoft to advertise their competition, it's financial suicide, and liable to directly hurt them, sparking a possible stockholder's revolt.
Bullshit. If you query google for "advertiser network", you'll find other stuff than only google's. By your reasoning, it would be financial suicide for Microsoft to let user download firefox using IE.
All that is bullshit. They are just greedy, and believe that the short term gain of redirecting users to biased results is better than capturing a higher market
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that Google is based on selling advertising
True, but their business model is rooted in providing the best search engine - advertising revenue follows from that - and these Bing results show that, at present, they are still top dog with regard search algorithms, which is a technology par excellence as fas as I'm concerned!
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Surprised it took them this long, perhaps.
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
There is a Microsoft based solution; it just usually involves uninstalling all their products.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I once heard of a guy (Unix admin) who took a mcse 4 exam cold (old tale, obviously). No prep course, no prep test, nothing. For every question, he looked at the answers, and asked himself one question - which answer will make Microsoft the most money? Used that as the answer.
He passed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How is this interesting? It sounds like an urban legend. If you've taken an MCSE exam you will know that for the most part the questions don't lend themselves to being looked at that way. I'm not saying I like the MCSE exams, I think that it is an almost entirely worthless certification. But I do not for a second believe the above anecdote but am not surprised that it got mod'd Interesting on /..
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
someone didn't have to study to pass MCSE. film at 11 lol!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahahaha, I have a skill, I can piss off both redcrap and microsloth idiot moderators here. Can't believe I got modded down by at least 4 people.
Silly bastards, it's just a story, just milding critical of microslop. And I used to know the guy (regular in a newsgroup I was regular in), so it wasn't as if this is foaf, this story's from the guy who claimed to have done it.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason they 're calling it a decision engine, not a search engine.
In a few years, they may be able to do the following:
"Why is Windows so Expensive?"
"It's not. You're thinking of Macs. Macs are expensive. Here's some reasons why."
And you know what?
They'd be fucking right to do it.
99% of the time, the user is, in fact, a moron.
This is no different than Google drumming up Youtube hits or Wikipedia hits (search for any noun, Wikipedia is in the top page if there's an article on it). This is no di
Re: (Score:2)
This is no different than Google drumming up... Wikipedia hits
Did I miss the news about Google buying Wikipedia?
Re: (Score:2)
And in a few more:
"Q: What is the accleration due to gravity?"
"A: Gravity is a myth - the Earth sucks! But you needn't suck with it when you buy Microsoft Flight (TM)"
Can you see how this might limit the engine's usefulness for some purposes? Can you see how user confidence may be adversely affected? Can you see why they might go elsewhere?
T
Re: (Score:2)
... while we wonder how they manage to make so much money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft always do this with search engines. They seem to start from the assumption that any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution. Looked at that way, a search engine becomes an exercise in derailing the users interest, and redirecting into more profitable channels.
That seems like a very interesting way of looking at it. Seriously. I see it in a different way that isn't incompatible with yours, but stresses the issue differently. I'd say something like:
Microsoft has shown a consistent pattern of behavior over the years, that it isn't satisfied to produce any of their products for the revenue generated by that product. Instead they look to have every one of their products reenforce all of their other products.
Pretty much every one of their products interlock with
Re: (Score:2)
Given that most people use Windows, assuming any search represents a user problem is a pretty safe bet.
Brett
Re: (Score:2)
>any query represents a user problem, for which there exists a Microsoft based solution
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail.
Re: (Score:1)