Any thoughts so far?
I have done a few experiments with Microsoft's new search engine and — so far — found it about equal to Google. If anything, Bing seems slightly better at searches than Google, though it does insist on having a distracting background picture.
But I have done only a few comparisons of the two, and have not tried any complex searches with Bing, so my conclusion is tentative, to say the least.
(And I have not even tried out the very ambitious WolframAlpha search (and calculation?) engine, though I suspect I will use it often.)
If you have tried Bing, how do you like it? Is it better than Google? Do you have any instructive examples? For instance, which one is better at finding the Sound Politics post titled "Ignoratio Elenchi"?
(Minor, and probably irrelevant, technical details: I have been using Bing with Firefox, runnning under Ubuntu Linux.)
Posted by Jim Miller at June 19, 2009 12:12 PM | Email ThisVery annoying and I wish I had never looked at Bing.
Posted by: Bill on June 19, 2009 12:34 PMI'm especially impressed with their image search, which seems to bring up more applicable images faster without the porn and garbage that shows up on Google even if you're using the filter.
Posted by: johnny on June 19, 2009 03:03 PMThe search results portion is not superior to goo-gal, but it appears to be competitively in the ball park (livesearch was NOT!!!)
Feature /usabilty - bing is in the lead IMO.
Again, Google isn't perfect, but they are much better than Microsoft.
Plus, on the technical side, Microsoft is only JUST NOW catching up to Google. And I've already seen some really idiotic results from bing (such as searching for Linux and getting results for -- surprise! -- Windows).
But then, who wouldn't expect that occur?
Posted by: BA on June 19, 2009 05:05 PMEither way, you get a large corporate entity that has forgotten customer service and a meticulous attention to quality and detail.
There's plenty of room for improvement.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 19, 2009 05:40 PMThe ability to hover over a result and get more metadata is useful.
Google is not a better corporate citizen when it comes to handling data. That's a misconception.
I like that fact that there are related search and search history on the left panel.
Additionally, I even get a few images thrown in at the bottom of the page when I use some searches. Utlimately the google image search royally sucks, and has for some time. Bing is light years ahead of Google there.
I will only use Google as a backup. Such as when Bing or Yahoo do not provide the results which I might be seeking. Microsoft has gained an edge on the tired old same Google.
Plus Bing is easier to type and it rolls of the tongue better than Google.
Posted by: Yogi on June 19, 2009 06:06 PMRemember when Jacques Chirac said "We must meet the global challenge of the American giants Google and Yahoo"
Posted by: travis t on June 20, 2009 04:39 AMDamn, caught again! Yup at the ultra leftistantichristmarxist convention we had last year, we all said heck that MS is like the October Revolution. so Menshevik! We need some real bolsheviks so let's get behind google, that way we can penetrate every computer for our secret plan to brainwash everyone in the world to create our totalitarian stalinist state! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!
Man, every time we try some thing these conservatives latch on to it. You sure got to get up early in the morning to fool them. Oh well, back to the socialist collectivist individual-enterprise draining drawing board.....what can we do next? hmmmm...maybe stage a fake revolution in Itan to get people to use twitter which is actually another communist socialistliberalmarxistantichristproimmigrantgunhating plot! Yeah, that'll fool 'em!!! He heh heh heh heh.......
BA: ummmm ... no, there's no reason to return a link for Windows when you search for Linux, unless one of the top hits for "Linux" happens to be some comparison to Windows (which I would seriously doubt, in 2009 ... maybe in 1999). Which is why when it was noticed, Microsoft fixed bing to not do that anymore.
Yogi: no, Google is much better than MS handling data and forcing arbitrary and irrational constraints on the users. Even with Google's problems. No misconception whatsoever.
And I've not seen a single search that Bing handles better. Google image search is so-so, but image search is about one percent of my searching, so it certainly couldn't affect my decision significantly.
And for us geeks, Google is a much easier word; even before it became a household word, "Google" was quickly recognized by the people who mattered most at the time -- the geeks -- because they actually knew what the word meant (10100); I had used the word "googol" commonly for years. "Bing" has no context or reference and it sounds like a hundred other words. It's really a dumb, dumb name, but it reflects Microsoft's typical marketing strategy: meaninglessness that is flashy and appeals more to the masses.
Torturer: you're not making any sense, as usual.
Your words about being a better corporate citizen are empty. As usual.
Posted by: Yogi on June 20, 2009 02:09 PMGoogle is the dumb name.
Google is the product which actually has few features. The maps don't show relief.
Google does not have - related search either.
I have done specific searches using the Windows Search engine in comparising to Google and Yahoo. This is the order of correctness which I have usually observed
Microsoft
Yahoo
Google
Google is lacking.
Posted by: Clinton on June 20, 2009 02:16 PMAs far as research when writing copy, Google seems to catalog better than Bing for my purposes. So right now I use Google for raw information and then if I come up empty there I go to alltheweb.com and then I do Bing. Sometimes a little less cataloging or different cataloging is a good thing and alltheweb.com seems to be that. Bing results haven't been good enough to me yet to scrap Goggle or All The Web.
Posted by: G Jiggy on June 20, 2009 03:41 PMAt the end of the day, they both perform search functions reasonably well, and one had the advantage of us being used to it for years now. Since they both do the job, I looked for a reason to Stay or go, one to the other.
I found my reason. Others may feel free to find theirs, but this is most definitely a left v right issue for me
When you screw with the weighting of query results, when you purposefully omit results from websites you oppose on the basis of political ideology, and when you deliberately attempt to distract your viewers from one result in favor if your desired result using tricks and deception, then everything you do is suspect.
The history of google's more unseemly and unsavory business practices go back a long ways. I found one dating back to 2006 and plenty more just like it.
Ironically, google returned 8,550,000 results to "google biased results" while Bing only returned 1,940,000 hits. On balance however a high percentage of google's hits were needless and irritating repeats of the same links.
So pudgie has a point about bias - it's not googles weakest trait. Data integrity is, and when it comes to trusting the integrity of your data apparently some folks don't mind a few flaws here and there.
I do.
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on June 21, 2009 07:26 PMOnce Intel puts Moblin on the Atom chip (a Linux OS that will boot from the CPU)...it's all over.
Right now they are just grandstanding to jack up the stock price as much as possible for Gates to sell off his shares.
Then the whole thing will evaporate.
Pudge, you offer no examples.
Shrug. The list is long. Microsoft historically does everything it can, including clear violations of the law, to lock people into its systems. It forces your computer to phone home to prove itself, and locks you out if there's an error. It has innumerable security and privacy bugs throughout its systems. Apart from making crummy products, it's a bad actor.
I offered plenty of reasons why Bing is the better product.
None of them were both important to me and verified. I don't care about image search, and none of the rest were verified as actually better. Further, none of them matter, is Microsoft is untrustworthy ... which it is.
Your words about being a better corporate citizen are empty.
I had no such words, so ... um ...
Hinton:
Forgive me, pudge, but while you may have your motivation for switching, I freely announced mine.
I have no motivation for switching. I can't imagine anything that could possibly motivate me to switch to Microsoft for ... anything.
this is most definitely a left v right issue for me
Shrug. Left vs. right is not all there is. If it were, I'd have abandoned Mac OS for Windows long ago, and I would live a significantly worse life because of it.
And just for fun, last year I made a spoof of the "F***ing Matt Damon" video, F***ing Steve Ballmer.
Posted by: pudge on June 22, 2009 08:49 AMInitially I consider that the more information opportunities the better and competition is the key. It's a good thing that we have access to many choices and I welcome Bing. To the extent that discussions at SP are nearly always about the "left versus right thing," it provides a new tool we can use to possibly obtain more accurate, useful information, and obtain more supporting inferences to arguments. Generally the left uses information to manipulate outcomes whereas the right wants to get to the truth of the matter.
One would be hard pressed to argue convincingly that Google is anything but biased to information manipulation, and competition may offset their deceitfulness. If anything it will offer more alternatives. If Bing is as bad (leftist and untrustworthy) as Google is, they will likely fail. The bulk of those who will try Bing will do so because many of them are looking for search results that Google thwarts.
The use of multiple search engines for specific purposes is essential to obtain useful results and any new comer that wishes to try for the audience is good by me. When any one engine fails to satisfy the need, it will die on the vine. It's good to have Bing in the bag of tricks.