Slashdot Mirror

The Bing results are similar to Google, when searching from the U.S. in Chinese. But Google over all shows more of the 1989 protest.

"Tianamen" in Simplified Chinese:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8%E5%B9%BF%E5%9C%BA&go=&form=QBIL&qs=n
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMB_en-GBAU309AU309&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8%E5%B9%BF%E5%9C%BA&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0
(No democracy statue in either set.)

"Tianamen" in Traditional Chinese:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80%E5%BB%A3%E5%A0%B4&go=&form=QBIR
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHMB_en-GBAU309AU309&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80%E5%BB%A3%E5%A0%B4&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0
(Democracy statue in both sets, scroll way down in Bing though.)

"Tianamen Incident" in Simplified Chinese
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6&go=&form=QBIR&qs=n
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%97%A8%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0
(Tank Man in both sets, much more prominent in Google though.)

"Tianamen Incident" in Traditional Chinese
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6&go=&form=QBIR&qs=n
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&hl=en&sa=1&q=%E5%A4%A9%E5%AE%89%E9%96%80%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&start=0
(Tank Man in both sets)

The characters I used came from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

You might be forgetting image search which is the key thing that is censored. Searching the simplified chinese http://www.bing.com/images/search?q= results in lots of tourist friendly images but the same query in English http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tiananmen results in lots of tanks. I am not in China.

You might be forgetting image search which is the key thing that is censored. Searching the simplified chinese http://www.bing.com/images/search?q= results in lots of tourist friendly images but the same query in English http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tiananmen results in lots of tanks. I am not in China.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=%E8%A5%BF%E8%97%8F%E6%8A%91%E5%88%B6%E9%9F%A9&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=5b7cf21b103219ea ...returns >1.4M results http://www.bing.com/search?q=%E8%A5%BF%E8%97%8F%E6%8A%91%E5%88%B6%E9%9F%A9&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n ...returns Sweet Fanny Adams Yes, the Chinese Google site is as bad, but at least a Chinese user can potentially hit an external Google site with one tunnel/proxy or another. (Note: I'm not a terrible bigot, though I'm probably as bigoted as average: I do not blame all Han Chinese for the oppression of the Tibetan people, and of course there are some Han willing to risk extreme punishment to help them; however, one of the ways Tibetans are being oppressed is by the massive settlement of the country by Han Chinese, and beside I wanted as inflammatory a non-obscene word-set as I could for the experiment.)

Yeah I did a search on Bing for "" ('six-four,' a mainland reference to June 4, 1989, the date the army was deployed in Tiananmen Square) in simplified chinese and the tank man picture was still there under images. Though I'm also not in China. For comparison, the same search in google.cn yields a message at the bottom of the page saying something like 'According to local laws and policy, some search results are omitted.'

Ok, lets try:

http://www.google.com/search?q=bing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a/

Now the other way:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&go=&form=QBRE/

Does anyone actually trust Bing?

I'm not sure I see your point.

When you serach on Bing for Google, it not only highlights google.com, shows you the stock price, and then provides a entry form to perform a search on Google. Hard to image something less biased than that. Bing turns out to be way more useful than Google in this instance.

the results of the search "least secure os" are not the same in bing and google. Why don't you stop misrepresenting your answer with false information?

Seeing as you can't be arsed to check the truth of what you're saying yourself, I'll post the links here for everyone to try, though I see other people have also been posting that the results are the same...
Here are the results in Bing: http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+OS
Here are the results in Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=least+secure+OS

And the first results in both are the story about Linux being the least secure OS. After that the order of the remaining first page results gets shuffled aroud slightly, but are mostly the same. They first vary at result number 3 where Google reports that Microsoft might be the most secure OS and Bing reports that Vista 7 might be the least secure OS ever. So we have two possibilities - either you have some bizarre distortion in your query results, e.g. your searching in a variant site, e.g. google.cz or something, or you're just spewing FUD. What exactly are you hoping to achieve with this? Multiple people are pointing out that you're lying and anyone can verify it for themselves by clicking the above links.

If you type google into bing, no, you don't get a whole lot of results. You have to expand to add more. All it defaults to is just google and the linked basic google pages. Read my comment above. That's not what I'm looking for when I look for google. Likewise with Microsoft.

You said you get ONE result. Now you admit that you get more, but you say that when you type in Google, you're not looking for Google. So what are you looking for that you expect Bing to magically bring to you? Bing displays by default (maybe you have fucked around with your preferences), a neat collection of all the popular Google services, helpfully laid out at the start, followed by a few links to Google itself, and then some organised categories following that such as Google Downloads, Google Jobs, Google Company Background.

If you want something more specific than that, such as Google Shareprice, then why don't you type in "Google Shareprice" or whatever. Honestly, you're making yourself look like an idiot and if your aim is to discredit Bing, you're having the exact opposite effect as you're getting a lot of people to test your claims and some of them thinking, "actually, that looks quite nice".

ok, thinking that you were correct, i tested the same query on both bing and google.
oops your wrong.
both SE gave the top 3 results exact.
result #4 is equal to result #6

Oh so you can check my results yourself:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B3MOZA_enUS337US337&q=least+secure+os&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+os&go=&form=QBLH&scope=web&qs=n

sorry, this is not a bias.

find another

why don't you read my other comments buddy, I have plenty of links to MS skewing. the "where's your cites" thing is a waste of my time. I'll copy my own cites from my other comments. Oh right, here it is. http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+os&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&adlt=strict . How's that? I can add cites for everything I've done, but then again I don't need to.

That's your evidence of conspiracy behind Bing? If you enter the same search term into Google "Least Secure OS" then you get the same 'Linux' result as #1 that Bing gives you. The rest of the initial results are all similar too. Yahoo is slightly different - they drop the same 'Linux' result down to third position. So in summary - your citation has just been quickly discredited.

Very few results = 1. search for google on bing (just the word), and there is 1 result unless you hit show more. How many is 1. It's not 202 million, you putz. Counting is good, you know. Even the word Microsoft on bing shows more results. Remind me, do tell. Or remind me that there might be things I want other than just google's homepage when I search for google?

What are you talking about? I just typed "Google" into Bing and got a page full of results. Not 1. And the results are actually pretty useful. I get Google itself as the promoted top match, quickly followed by links to Google Maps, Google software, et al. And really, when you're comparing numbers above what a human would ever look through, does it matter whether the results number 200 million or 2000 million. A search engine's usefulness is the appropriateness of the first few pages of its results.

I hope you sperg out and earn a trip to jail for something stupid,

If you're going to have a go at someone for inflammatory language and trolling, you should probably cut back on statements like this.

Regards,
H.

why don't you read my other comments buddy, I have plenty of links to MS skewing. the "where's your cites" thing is a waste of my time. I'll copy my own cites from my other comments. Oh right, here it is. http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+os&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&adlt=strict . How's that? I can add cites for everything I've done, but then again I don't need to.

That doesn't show that Bing is *biased*, that shows that it has a different search algorithm than Google does. You haven't proved bias-- the top 5 of Bing's results have the term "Least Secure OS" in the title, and it's even smart enough to look up "operating system" (a term you didn't provide) in addition to "OS".

You can't prove bias by typing in a term and eye-balling the results, especially when all of the results *contain the term you typed in*. Christ.

Very few results = 1. search for google on bing (just the word), and there is 1 result unless you hit show more. How many is 1. It's not 202 million, you putz. Counting is good, you know. Even the word Microsoft on bing shows more results. Remind me, do tell. Or remind me that there might be things I want other than just google's homepage when I search for google?

Ok, here's two concepts:

* Number of results found
* Number of results displayed

Do you understand that these are two different things? I feel like I'm hosting an episode of Sesame Street having to explain something so completely basic and obvious.

Bing finds 202 million results (more or less.) It displays one. Google finds more results, and it displays 10. By your (retarded) logic, Bing "found" 1 result, and Google "found" 10 results.

More relevant to the quality of the search engine, is the one result Bing displays most relevant to the search term? I would say so.

I hope you sperg out and earn a trip to jail for something stupid, due to typing up a response without using logic in a clearly inflammatory and trollish manner.

"Sperg out?" WTF.

Oh, and I since I'm apparently trolling, I also notice that you haven't talked about your complete bullshit lies about IE changing its default search provider. Do you have any evidence for that particular piece of FUD? Why not come clean and admit it's never happened, you hack.

why don't you read my other comments buddy, I have plenty of links to MS skewing. the "where's your cites" thing is a waste of my time. I'll copy my own cites from my other comments. Oh right, here it is. http://www.bing.com/search?q=least+secure+os&go=&form=QBRE&qs=n&adlt=strict . How's that? I can add cites for everything I've done, but then again I don't need to.

Thanks for the hostility though! Maybe you should troll less, but it's nice to know how easy it is to out someone who is trolling.

Very few results = 1. search for google on bing (just the word), and there is 1 result unless you hit show more. How many is 1. It's not 202 million, you putz. Counting is good, you know. Even the word Microsoft on bing shows more results. Remind me, do tell. Or remind me that there might be things I want other than just google's homepage when I search for google?

I hope you sperg out and earn a trip to jail for something stupid, due to typing up a response without using logic in a clearly inflammatory and trollish manner.

Ok, lets try:

http://www.google.com/search?q=bing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a/

Now the other way:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&go=&form=QBRE/

Does anyone actually trust Bing?

It even works as verb: Keep binging that chicken!

no, they don't.

Bing isn't fine. I had to install a HP7900 box today and was looking for drivers. Google presents them as the frist result while Bing just gives me garbage.

Please. How could this be an embarrassing love affair? It's clearly made frontpage at slashdot among about 20 other news sites.

That's the best propaganda money can buy, even beyond lobby. It doesn't start with lobbying, it starts with whispers to the press and then moves to lobbying.

Bing is crap. If it more neutral, I'd sing praise, but it's not. The results also don't seem to be even remotely as accurate as google's for many tech issues. Every time a bing page deliberately does something to make MS look better from a search result, and is later corrected after press, people skip on the other 37 times it still goes on.

Easy example: search "windows is the least secure os" or just "least secure os" and look at the first few results on bing. Let me give you the first title page: "Print - Study: Linux Is Least Secure OS" from windowsitpro.com

Bing needs no boost, and wolfram could care less if they are linked by bing (although I suspect they will get pissed at some point due to the use of the bandwidth).

Has anyone actually tried out Bing to get Wolfram Alpha results? They don't work for me. Is this only for within the US?

http://www.bing.com/search?q=plot%20x^2&form=QBLH
http://www.bing.com/search?q=BMI+Calculator&FORM=R5FD

These just show the web results for me, no WA. I even enabled JS and there is nothing in the preferences. :-/

Has anyone actually tried out Bing to get Wolfram Alpha results? They don't work for me. Is this only for within the US?

http://www.bing.com/search?q=plot%20x^2&form=QBLH
http://www.bing.com/search?q=BMI+Calculator&FORM=R5FD

These just show the web results for me, no WA. I even enabled JS and there is nothing in the preferences. :-/

Lets try what is the temperature in melbourne

• google
• bing
• wolfram

Wolfram gives me the best result IMHO, and google the worst. Bing is close to wolfram but using a different source of data. For the average luser out there a nice chart or graphic is better than a link which you have to follow.

bing says 2^2^2^2^2 = 65536

google says 2^2^2^2 = 65535

Which one is right??

Microsoft has posted this page in response:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=bing+cashback+vulnerability&go=&form=QBLH&filt=all&qs=n

If anyone is quickly wondering exactly where he got the info to construct the request URL in his original post (like, how did he know about jftid, jfoid, and jfmid?), it looks like page 33 of the linked Integration Guide PDF gives the URL https://ssl.bing.com/cashback/javascripts/1x1tracking.js. That JavaScript file has info on constructing that URL.

"Microsoft is terrified of reinventing its core products" - by Enderandrew (866215) on Tuesday October 20, @10:14PM (#29818241) Homepage

Why on earth should they? If something has a good foundation, why redo it totally?? I.E./E.G.-> I ran my last Windows Server 2003 setup from 2005 - only a few days ago, & then along came Windows 7!

I gave it a go & I am already happier than ever because of it (& mainly because I get ALL of the improvements over Windows Server 2003, it's ancestor & solid codebase, such as ASRL (which WinSrv2k3 didn't have, or the improvements to IE8 that it didn't have either, though it had many of them on both accounts - &, on 1 DVD to install, no patches or hotfixes (which burn time like MAD to install)).

See - I don't know if you know this or not, but, NT had its design @ the core/underpinnings from VMS, which is a known "SOLID" OS, & the same guy architected them both.

----

"And despite the fact that they foresaw the internet being the core experience of your desktop very early on, they didn't forsee internet security issues" - by Enderandrew (866215) on Tuesday October 20, @10:14PM (#29818241) Homepage

And, for example, Apple (a *NIX variant) did? As soon as Apple gained marketshare & more popularity, well... despite their "I'm a PC and I'm a Mac (& I'm more secure)" insinuations on T.V.?? You started to see THAT "facade" crumble pretty quickly & Apple having to 'backpeddle' on that account.

The same thing would happen to ANY *NIX (or any OS really)... why?? Well, are you trying to tell us all that the busted DOM model in JavaScript couldn't be used to foist a scripted attack via a webbrowser on any *NIX, were it targetted SPECIFICALLY to them???

Don't even GO there, because we ALL know the answer to that little tidbit.

(The only reason *NIX variants are "more secure" (they're not), is because they're less used, & when a cracker goes after a target mass online, he targets the LARGEST BODY OF USERS WITH 1 SHOT - & that is Windows users, period!)

You "TOTALLY 'Pro-*NIX' types online here, and elsewhere?

Man... You make me laugh in your naivety sometimes.

Funniest part is, I actually DO like MacOS X & Linux (on KDE) also, but, I know better than to try to "pull the wool over folks' eyes" with a skewed statistic that is hiding the real truth beneath it!

(AND, that truth is the REAL "extra security" you get using a *NIX variant is that it is less targetted, & thus, enjoys "security by obscurity")

IF we EVER see "the year of the Linux desktop" (which I have been hearing about now for, oh, 10++ yrs. or more (and it NEVER happens))? You'll see the year of the crumbling of the facade & skewed stats you folks use... or, is what happened to Apple & MacOS X on that account not an example thereof?

----

"7 really isn't the savior press make it out to be. Most of the Vista UI regressions remain - by Enderandrew (866215) on Tuesday October 20, @10:14PM (#29818241) Homepage

Uhm, well, I like Windows 7, but... I didn't HAVE to leave Windows Server 2003, considering I ran it for 6++ yrs. straight & in the biggest fiery hell risk there is for security: Being online (not acting merely as a server, doing the SAME thing OVER & OVER & OVER as servers do).

Seems to have done the job just fine, & especially for a PC OS, no less!

AND, mostly especially after I security hardened it & then put that same information out for others to use also, here : http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&form=QBRE (5/5 star rated, & even got me PAID for writing it up no less, because it works!

(Where it's gone online, on 15++ websites or so, WELL over the 250,000 views mark with great comments & reviews on the e

Since we already have Bitter.

Bada Bing,

badda boom.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=goatse

Even Microsoft paid tribute today. The daily image for October 6th at Bing.com was Castle Stalker in Loch Linnhe, aka "Castle Arrrrgh," where Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail ends. http://www.bing.com/reference

So rather than research the issue yourself... you take the talking points from the Speaker of the House and House Majority Leader... you could at least make it less easy to make it clear where you got your talking points from (Bing, Google).

That being said... from that list (assuming they are the worst offenders given the source of the material)... how many have the kind of lasting change and massive regulation that the heath care... err sorry, health insurance reform would be. How many of those effectively nationalized 1/6th to 1/5th of our economy.

I'll tell ya a lil secret... when the republicans used this move to do something (other than break an unconstitutional filibuster on a court nominee)... it was wrong... and pointing to wrong behavior in order to justify behavior that is wrong and orders of magnitude more massive does not make it ok.

Re - your sig "How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?"

My guess: Robot overlords, including those which are allegedly evil, allegedly non-evil, and others.

Just like Google is going into the OS business to make sure it gets never cut out, Apple is also building a huge datacenter to â" they guess â" take over some online cloud computing business of their own and be less dependent on Google for these services.

As Ned Ryerson, the Insurance Salesman from the movie "Groundhog Day" famously exclaimed:

Bing Again!

I've always thought it insane to script an application you don't control, especially a constantly-updating security-sensitive end-user application, but people keep doing it. It's usually a stereotypical Dilbert situation; pointy-haired IT boss purchases software to help doctors, if he admits software sucks he will lose face with doctors and possibly lose income, so Asok or Wally has to make it work. If Asok gets the job, it gets done competently but the user interface is too technical and the doctors hate it, if Wally gets the job he scripts IE to do something magical and PHB gets a raise. Nobody knows why it breaks a year later, but it won't be blamed on PHB buying garbage (the salesman took him on a golfing junket and got him to sign a contract drunk). More likely it will be blamed on the vendor, or even more likely, on Dilbert who was completely uninvolved.

The people who work in such places will always find some way to screw things up, of course. It's almost Darwinian.

I personally would like to see all the browsers present options in a more transparent way; I don't think end users are as stupid as the IE designers think they are. For example, on getting an NXDOMAIN the browser could say this:

"No web server found at URL sexy.foxterriers.com

  perhaps sexy.foxterriers.com is not the correct name?

Click here to search Bing for information about sexy.foxterriers.com"

That way you'd get the clueless user assistance function without unrequested search lookups. Instead, the browser just does whatever the default says the user probably wants, and the way to change that behaviour is buried among many other confusing options several layers deep in the configuration interface. Instead of attempting to subtly educate the user (notice how I snuck in an explanation of what URL means by context?) they assume ignorance and thus propagate it.

I tried to make that a https:/// link, incidentally, but unfortunately bing.com seems to have a bogus akamai cert.

IE 6 and 8 (don't use 7 anywhere). Both redirected to BING ....

The funniest thing we have ... our filter (k-12 schools) blocks BING LOL. ... here is the report ...

Category: Image Servers & Image Search Engines

Blocked URL: http://www.bing.com/search?FORM=DNSAS&q=www.DoNotHijackMe.com&adlt=strict

I'm serious. A Search with "Sarah Palin" and cocaine returns, in Bing, these shocking results.

What's next?: Sarah Palin learning to read?

Yours In Democracy,
K. Trout

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

You're missing the point. The purpose is to provide explanation for numbers which have no context. Presumably, if you're looking at some equation or source code which uses an unrecognized constant, or if a calculation returns a surprising result, one might be able to use such a search to find more information.

For example, let's say you're poking around with math and discover that 0.5^0.5 == 0.25^0.25 =~ 0.70710678118654752440084436210485. Is that irrational number significant somehow? What if you were only returned that result from some function -- would you recognize it as 1/sqrt(2), or sin(45)?

I'm not sure how necessary this capability is, exactly, but that is what they are trying to do.

Well, I put 0.70710678118654752440084436210485 and Math into google and came up with your post on /. Seems to work pretty well. QED

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

You're missing the point. The purpose is to provide explanation for numbers which have no context. Presumably, if you're looking at some equation or source code which uses an unrecognized constant, or if a calculation returns a surprising result, one might be able to use such a search to find more information.

For example, let's say you're poking around with math and discover that 0.5^0.5 == 0.25^0.25 =~ 0.70710678118654752440084436210485. Is that irrational number significant somehow? What if you were only returned that result from some function -- would you recognize it as 1/sqrt(2), or sin(45)?

I'm not sure how necessary this capability is, exactly, but that is what they are trying to do.

Well, I put 0.70710678118654752440084436210485 and Math into google and came up with your post on /. Seems to work pretty well. QED

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

You're missing the point. The purpose is to provide explanation for numbers which have no context. Presumably, if you're looking at some equation or source code which uses an unrecognized constant, or if a calculation returns a surprising result, one might be able to use such a search to find more information.

For example, let's say you're poking around with math and discover that 0.5^0.5 == 0.25^0.25 =~ 0.70710678118654752440084436210485. Is that irrational number significant somehow? What if you were only returned that result from some function -- would you recognize it as 1/sqrt(2), or sin(45)?

I'm not sure how necessary this capability is, exactly, but that is what they are trying to do.

Well, I put 0.70710678118654752440084436210485 and Math into google and came up with your post on /. Seems to work pretty well. QED

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

You're missing the point. The purpose is to provide explanation for numbers which have no context. Presumably, if you're looking at some equation or source code which uses an unrecognized constant, or if a calculation returns a surprising result, one might be able to use such a search to find more information.

For example, let's say you're poking around with math and discover that 0.5^0.5 == 0.25^0.25 =~ 0.70710678118654752440084436210485. Is that irrational number significant somehow? What if you were only returned that result from some function -- would you recognize it as 1/sqrt(2), or sin(45)?

I'm not sure how necessary this capability is, exactly, but that is what they are trying to do.

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

You're missing the point. The purpose is to provide explanation for numbers which have no context. Presumably, if you're looking at some equation or source code which uses an unrecognized constant, or if a calculation returns a surprising result, one might be able to use such a search to find more information.

For example, let's say you're poking around with math and discover that 0.5^0.5 == 0.25^0.25 =~ 0.70710678118654752440084436210485. Is that irrational number significant somehow? What if you were only returned that result from some function -- would you recognize it as 1/sqrt(2), or sin(45)?

I'm not sure how necessary this capability is, exactly, but that is what they are trying to do.

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

You're missing the point. The purpose is to provide explanation for numbers which have no context. Presumably, if you're looking at some equation or source code which uses an unrecognized constant, or if a calculation returns a surprising result, one might be able to use such a search to find more information.

For example, let's say you're poking around with math and discover that 0.5^0.5 == 0.25^0.25 =~ 0.70710678118654752440084436210485. Is that irrational number significant somehow? What if you were only returned that result from some function -- would you recognize it as 1/sqrt(2), or sin(45)?

I'm not sure how necessary this capability is, exactly, but that is what they are trying to do.

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

It may be an artifact of your browsing habits (especially if you are logged in with some Google service, but I don't think it really needs that to track them). It's the same for me, though, so maybe not (or maybe it is, since we are both on Slashdot after all).

On the other hand, Eiffel tower is on the first place on Bing, for me at least.

And even funnier - search for "Why is Microsoft Windows so expensive?" and the fifth result is a slashdot article entitled: "Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?"!

Try this : why are macs so awesome?

Top 2:

ALL RESULTS
1-9 of 1,370,000 resultsÂ

        1) Why Macs Suck - Funny videos

          2) Why are Macs so crap at gaming?

Check also: Why openoffice is awesome?

You will get "Why OpenOffice.org can't compete with Microsoft Office" as top result!
This same search in google doesn't even show this link on the search results.

• Is Windows getting more expensive? - CNET News
• Windows 5x More Expensive than Mac OS X
• Windows Vista: One Expensive Operating System!
• Expensive Computer Dead Slow
• Windows, Skylights & Doors | Sierra Club Green Home
• Why is Windows so expensive?
• Windows 5x More Expensive than Mac OS X
• Windows 7 pricing thoughts - Is Windows too expensive? | TalkBack on ...
• RoughlyDrafted: Five Windows Flaws - 5
• Comparison of Windows and Linux - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "In practice, the availability of Windows source code is generally heavily restricted or extremely expensive, if available at all. However, even where source is available ..."

I guess there is no conspiracy at all, just different weights in the ordering algorithm... but hey, it is a cool experiment... unless maybe they are also colluding with CocaCola

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=why+does+pepsi+sucks%3F&kgs=1&kls=0
http://www.bing.com/search?q=why+does+pepsi+sucks%3F&go=&form=QBLH&qs=n

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=why+does+pepsi+sucks%3F&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=CSrKZrhT3_U

Except that the second result from Bing is this result from TechNet

"Re: Why does VS not show build error filenames in ASP.NET 2.0 projects ..."

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Why+is+Windows+so+expensive&go=&form=QBLH&filt=all&qs=n

There is only 1 page there where all the words aren't in the title (even allowing for the skewing of results this story has caused, there are plenty not relating to it that contain all the words). By your reasoning, the Microsoft results are perfectly fine. So yeah, that kinda makes your point worthless.

Guess it's different results for different people:

Bing:
Why Is Windows So Expensive
Why is Windows so expensive?
Why is Windows So Expensive
Why Is Windows So Expensive | Puckett's Projects NEWS
Why is Windows so expensive... Wait I mean Macs? | Technology

http://www.bing.com/search?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=Why+is+Windows+so+expensive

Google:
Why is Windows so expensive?
Why Is Windows So Expensive? Lupe Lasano's Dirty Gossip Burger
Why Windows Vista and Office 2007 are so Expensive The Firefox ...
Is Windows getting more expensive? - CNET News
Windows 7 to be "more expensive" than Vista, XP

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Why+is+Windows+so+expensive&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Or microsoft reads slashdot and fixed it.

Mod this up.

Either bing is really bad, or they're shilling for pepsi too.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=why+does+pepsi+suck

http://www.google.com/search?q=why+does+pepsi+suck

http://www.google.com/search?q=why+are+windows+so+expensive

An advantage, unless you speak English. 3rd result, yea, a little skewed towards computers yea. Better than bing with proper grammar? Yea.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=why+are+windows+so+expensive