MSN Search Roundup

Thomas Hawk writes "Well after almost 24 hours of public release, The Seattle Post Intelligencer seems to have the best round up on the professional opinions on the new MSN search beta. Bottom line seems to be that nobody is going to be switching over to MSN Search from Google anytime soon. The story includes opinions by Walter Mossberg, John Battelle, The Wall Street Journal and others. "

Comments

what is he smoking?

[kalpol]

the product bears all the hallmarks of the feisty, upstart side of the company.

What is he talking about? Microsoft hasn't been a feisty upstart since about 1986.

Re:what is he smoking?

[ch-chuck]

You mean not all feisty upstarts have 40 billion in cash to invest in new products? I'm shocked, shocked.

Re:what is he smoking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they are talking about all the start-ups, and the people, Microsoft has aquired over the past decade.

Re:what is he smoking?

[PrimeNumber]

What is he talking about? Microsoft hasn't been a feisty upstart since about 1986.

Funny, but Microsoft has actually been around longer than that. Subtract eleven years and you will be right on the mark. :)

Re:what is he smoking?

[theguyfromsaturn]

I believe it is not so much about how long MS has been around, but rather how long since it was not a feisty upstart anymore. By 1986 it would have been considered a well established company, and not a feisty upstart.

look and feel

[slashpot]

What gets me is the blatant rip off of Google's UI. This coming from Microsoft - the trademark happy lawsuit company.

Re:look and feel

[Neil Watson]

Shocking. Microsoft has never done that before. Seriously, where have you been since Windows 1.0?

Re:look and feel

[Chess_the_cat]

Every search engine--not web portal--I can remember consisted of a search field surrounded by a couple of options. Alta Vista, Ask Jeeves, HotBot, Google. There's not much difference between any of them. What about the UI exactly do you mean?

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

And you one of the "Googel is teh graetest OMG have you instaled teh googelToolbar too???! Its graet."-people.

You probably even think that GMail is a real Email-service.

Re:look and feel

[Mikail]

Okay, okay, I'll bite: What *is* GMail? An elaborate trojan horse because I'm shown ads on the sidebar, thereby spamming me while I'm under the naive delusion that my spam is being filtered (quite well, too!) I can send e-mail with it, I can get e-mail with it, I don't get spam. I'm guess any argument that it's not an e-mail service is probably just semantics...

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this a rip off of google? That simple search layout has been used many times, long before google ever came into existance.

Shit I can remember when damn near all the search engines used a simple layout like that.

Re:look and feel

[Pxtl]

Actually, I think that change happened when Google took hold... up until then, they were all bloated portal pages. Except OpenText, the one I used back in the nascent days. Google is just unique among these portal/engine sites in that it has the search engine on the front page and the portal stuff tucked away, where Yahoo and friends have it the other way around.

Re:look and feel

[ThJ]

Risking to sound like a complete fool: What makes Gmail a fake e-mail service?

Re:look and feel

[Pxtl]

While I disagree that Microsoft is a very litigous company (they mostly go after pirates, which I think is a legitimate grievance), I think you might have missed the obvious:

Microsoft does not innovate. It copies, assimilates, and polishes. Microsoft software is never groundbreaking in any significant way - it just is usually more usable, better integrated, more reputable, and cheaper than the competition. Of course, once they have eliminated the competition, they no longer have anyone to copy.

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it has a G instead of an E.

It's not Email.

Re:look and feel

[ThJ]

I keep forgetting that Gmail has ads. I hardly notice them... which is kind of contrary to the purpose of advertising. I guess it suffices that users notice once in a while.

Re:look and feel

[ThJ]

Um... duh?

Re:look and feel

[ThJ]

Some clarifications: The event I refer to in #5 is the one in #2. This isn't in über-perfect chronological order, but I think the point ought to come across anyway.

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.

Bush has nothing to do with this conversation.

You're obviously hung up on this whole bush thing and you probably have some kind of mental problems.

Re:look and feel

[ThJ]

Okay... Correction to clarification: #6 refers to #2.

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why'd you fucking ask, bitch?

Re:look and feel

[interiot]

Each search result on both engines are very very similar:

• top line: a link to the site, underlined and in blue. While this is the normal default for links, MSN's search is a slightly different shade of blue, so they clearly intended to use the same color of blue.
• middle section: an excerpt from the page, one or two lines long, black text
• bottom line: the URL of the link itself, in green. At the end of this line, there's a "Cached" link in a muted color (google's is a lighter shade of blue than the top line, MSN's is light grey)

Okay, Yahoo, Altavista, and AllTheWeb also use the blue-black-green color scheme as well, but the MSN search results still seem to be the most similar to google.

Re:look and feel

[ThJ]

I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.
I'm sorry, but you're a troll.

Bush has nothing to do with this conversation.
True, but I happen to believe that a person is entitled to say his opinion. I also happen to believe that his post was partly a joke.

You're obviously hung up on this whole bush thing and you probably have some kind of mental problems.
You're obviously having a grammar problems... People frequently make the mistake of believeing that just because I write a thorough post on something, I'm hung up with it.

Oh, and since when did Slashdot conversations stay on topic?

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

You are no longer entertaining. Run along little boy.

Re:look and feel

[shotfeel]

it just is usually more usable, better integrated, more reputable, and cheaper

I don't know that I agree with all of that. I'd just say its often cheaper, always more accessible, and usually good enough (historically happens ~ version 3).

Re:look and feel

[jskline]

This is the usual fare from Redmond. Divide conquer and steal. They take what they want, and if you try and call them on it, you get the Redmond legal war machine. I'm surprised that the good folks at Google haven't churned up something to slap in the faces of the promo people in Redmond??!! Having seen the thing, and knowing that all they're doing is combing Google and parsing data, I'll just stick with Google.
Thank you.

Re:look and feel

[letxa2000]

Totally off-topic but since someone decided to bring Bush into this...

My understanding of events that led to the war in Iraq is as follows:

Your sequence isn't too bad except for the implication that #5 wasn't justified, that #6 is a very questionable assumption, and that #7 is a liberal spin of reality.

I'd modify your sequence to end with:

4. Saddam very foolishly continues with his threats.

5. USA retaliates against Afghanistan after Afghanistan refuses to cooperate with demands related to shutting down terrorists camps and turning in Bin Laden. As far as I remember no government and very few citizens of the world thought this was inappropriate.

6. The government pushes hard to address the global terrorist threat based on the rather obvious premise that if terrorists are willing to kill themselves they are not going to be deterred by the U.S. retaliating against a country.

7. The U.S., having awoken on 9/11 to realize that even 19 unarmed passengers can attack the U.S., realizes that the ongoing threats of a country that at one time had WMDs, attacked three of its neighbors, and was still under suspicion of WMD should be taken more seriously. Ultimatums are made and ignored including by the U.N. The U.N. is unwilling to act but the U.S., recently stung by what we didn't even consider a threat, decides to take no chances and deal with the problem.

It seems you have the sequence basically correct but your ultimate conclusions are affected by your political ideology.

Re:look and feel

[Red Alastor]

They were not. Windows is a dictionary word and should have no right to be trademarked. "Microsoft Windows" is another matter.

The lawsuit was based on "people can confuse the two". Windows is known enough to not be confused with Lindows and Lindows publicity bashed Microsoft products more than they promoted their own.

I dislike both companies and both products but on that one, Lindows was right.

For Mike Rowe Soft, it was hard to confused to and it was really his name.

Re:look and feel

[pebs]

What gets me is the blatant rip off of Google's UI. This coming from Microsoft - the trademark happy lawsuit company.

If you think Microsoft search is a rip-off of Google, you have not seen Yahoo's search. Microsoft's search looks original in comparison.

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh....what did you have to invoke godwins law in this thread...

Re:look and feel

[segmond]

yeah, lots of people said that about japanese companies. but what does it matter, it is said that imitaton is the most sincere form of flattery, and it is said that the best ideas are often stolen.

Re:look and feel

[tedgyz]

Microsoft ... just is usually more usable, better integrated, more reputable, and cheaper than the competition. Of course, once they have eliminated the competition, they no longer have anyone to copy.

Wha-wha-whaaaaaaaaaaat?

• More usable? Are you refering to the feature-bloated Office suite, or the maze-of-config-dialogs OS?
• Integrated? By that do you mean their divergence from standards (Java), conforming to MS APIs, or "All your software are belong to us."
• Reputable? Where? Inside Microsoft? Ok, I agree, the unwashed masses and PHBs would probably fit the bill there.
• Cheaper? Do you mean compared to the free alternatives (Linux), or the one bundled with the overpriced hardware (MacOS)?

I'll wholeheartedly agree with your comment about competition. Embrace. Extend. Destroy.

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet they continue to add new features to all of their product lines?

So what are they copying?

Or is it now innovation?

Maybe it's copying that they make a search engine that searches? I mean, what a silly idea. Or maybe they're copying by not bogging down the UI (wasting bandwidth and loading time--driving people AWAY)?

Re:look and feel

[Slime-dogg]

The UI's are all the same to me too. It appears that Google and MSN do a nesting thing to their results, but that's about it.

What distinguishes Google from everyone else is the tools they offer. I never go to dictionary.com anymore, because I just type define:word into Google, and get a listing of definitions from multiple sites. The same goes for searches like "25 Kg in lb," (which is inaccurate, poundage depends on altitude). Altavista has "convert," which looks useful. My only wish is that Google had maps, something that many of the others have.

The MSN search is web only. They've copied that pretty well, but they don't have any useful bits in there.

Re:look and feel

[geg81]

Microsoft does not innovate. It copies, assimilates, and polishes. Microsoft software is never groundbreaking in any significant way

OK, we agree so far.

it just is usually more usable, better integrated, more reputable,

No, it is never that either.

and cheaper than the competition.

Now you're getting close. Microsoft undercuts the competition to drive them out of business. The other thing they do is time precisely when they release and what features they include in their releases, again, with an eye towards killing the competition. But such precise timing means that engineering and quality control schedules become secondary to sales and competitive concerns, and it shows in in their products.

Of course, Microsoft is also changing. These days, they are less and less able to do what they used to do in the past. Now that they have millions of whiny enterprise customers, they are in the same boat as IBM once was: a slow-moving dinosaur ready to be hurt badly by the next new fast growing company. Microsoft will meet its own Microsoft soon, and they will likely fall faster, further, and harder than IBM did.

Re:look and feel

[ThJ]

4. Saddam very foolishly continues with his threats.
Okay. Agreed.

5. USA retaliates against Afghanistan after Afghanistan refuses to cooperate with demands related to shutting down terrorists camps and turning in Bin Laden. As far as I remember no government and very few citizens of the world thought this was inappropriate.
There were in fact millions of people protesting about it in the streets of Europe. In the case of my country, Norway, the government decided to suck up to USA instead of listening to the people, and sent a symbolic amount of troops to Afghanistan "assist" them (Norway has a tiny army). The thing that angered people was how USA decided to take matters into it's own hands and act outside of the UN. I can perfectly understand how many Americans believe it's their country's mission to save the world. I respect that opinion. I just don't share it.

7. The U.S., having awoken on 9/11 to realize that even 19 unarmed passengers can attack the U.S., realizes that the ongoing threats of a country that at one time had WMDs, attacked three of its neighbors, and was still under suspicion of WMD should be taken more seriously. Ultimatums are made and ignored including by the U.N. The U.N. is unwilling to act but the U.S., recently stung by what we didn't even consider a threat, decides to take no chances and deal with the problem.
To my knowledge, later investigations showed the claims of Saddam having WMDs never had any truth to them. I haven't really kept updated on the situation in Brittain, but the British government is/were basically being accused of lieing about that issue, to justify assisting USA with troops. I read that one or more rather high ranking people decided to leave their government positions because of the revelations. Even if the claims of manufactured intelligence turns/turned out to be untrue, it's still poor intelligence work.

I can't say I'm convinced. I'm not a person who decides to keep an opinion simply for the sake of keeping one. Anyone who can properly clarify exactly why it was nessecary to attack Iraq will have my humble respect.

I can, in some ways, understand why Afghanistan needed to be retaliated.

Re:look and feel

[ThJ]

I'd love to know why this was modded a troll. The person I was replying to was, after all, the one who attacked my person.

Re:look and feel

[gad_zuki!]

Do they all use non-expiring tracking cookies? And refuse to say who they are selling this info to?

Re:look and feel

[dabraun]

Altavista and Webcrawler in the early days had simple UIs that looked an awful lot like Google does now. Yes, some search engines bloated their front pages over time - and those are exactly the search engines that no one uses any more.

I tend to use the build in search sidebar in IE most of the time (nothing but a search entryfield - zero extra UI) and google when I am not satisfied with the results from the IE search bar.

Re:look and feel

[isecore]

Please mod the parent up, way up.

This is so true. I remember a few years ago when every other search-engine had fallen prey to the portal-disease. It was horrible, so when I discovered Google sometime around '01 it was a breath of fresh air.

Seriously, I understand the logic behind the portal-philosophy (i.e. to keep the visitor there as long as possible) but I much prefer the Google-cleanliness, it doesn't serve me to get frustrated and confused by a stupid interface distracting me with banners, ads and links to sponsored-god-knows-where.

Re:look and feel

[Keeper]

Regardless of whether or not you think they should have a trademark on Windows, they do. They either defend their trademark or lose it. Lindows was derrived to sound like Windows -- even the guy who formed the company said he called it Lindows for that very reason.

MikeRoweSoft is phonentically the same as Microsoft. Mike Rowe is his name, not Mike Rowe Soft. He, again, stated he chose the name because it sounded like Microsoft. MS has to either defend their trademark or lose it; what do you expect them to do? Say "oh, we really don't like our company name, let's lose our trademark and then change it..."? Once they found out he was a kid they came to a reasonable agreement whereby the kid got a bunch of free stuff and MS got the domain name.

Re:look and feel

[Keeper]

I think you're confusing Microsoft with Apple in this department...

Re:look and feel

[namekuseijin]

He means a clean, uncluttered, light design like the one Google pionnered by banning lots of columns altogether in tiny unreadable fonts and flash ads sprayed everyone and a pop-up or two during page load like it was common-place before Google succeeded.

Re:look and feel

[kndnice]

people only think microsoft's products are more usuable because they've been force-fed them for so long. actually, many of microsoft's products suffer from poor layout, visual complexity, and inadequete organization. i'd agree with your first two points: microsoft copies and assimilates. it never polishes, only tarnishes.

Re:look and feel

[vsprintf]

Shocking. Microsoft has never done that before. Seriously, where have you been since Windows 1.0?

If Windows 1.0 was a look-and-feel rip-off, it was so badly done, that you'd have to forgive people for not recognizing it. The only look-and-feel I got from it was, *icckk* and *could-it-possibly-be-any-slower?*, which persisted until 3.x.

Re:look and feel

[spookyfluke]

Hmm, I have to agree with the parent. It's been a long time since I've seen something so sparse and simple from M$.

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

MSN's search is a slightly different shade of blue, so they clearly intended to use the same color of blue.

And MSN has a different looking logo than Google, so they obviously planned to have a logo that looked just like Google... or... um... Nike!

Re:look and feel

[vsprintf]

Microsoft will meet its own Microsoft soon, and they will likely fall faster, further, and harder than IBM did.

Goliath has already noticed David and is doing everything possible, like DRM, proposed legislation, funding helpful puppets, cut-rate deals, paid *studies*, and FUD in order to avoid a showdown. Ping -c 1 forehead.ms.com. (Hmm, that should be a cron job.)

Re:look and feel

[vsprintf]

MikeRoweSoft is phonentically the same as Microsoft. Mike Rowe is his name, not Mike Rowe Soft. He, again, stated he chose the name because it sounded like Microsoft. MS has to either defend their trademark or lose it; what do you expect them to do?

Nice try. I've never had DNS respond to "phonentically" [sic] similar names. My Crow Soffit has changed the spelling of their name at least three times. Nobody is going to enter MikeRoweSoft as a URL to locate that other slightly known software company. It was bullying, plain and simple, over a kid's humorously, catchy site name. Yeah, the kid got "free" MS software, which cost MS postage fees. Great deal for MS -- lousy deal for the public.

Re:look and feel

[Tim C]

poundage depends on altitude

You're going to have to explain that, assuming that you don't mean that kg is mass while lb is weight, and so the conversion really requires you to specify the local acceleration due to gravity...

Re:look and feel

[Anonymous Coward]

You think IBM didn't do "everything possible"? Microsoft is doing just what IBM was doing. It doesn't help in the end.

Re:look and feel

[vsprintf]

You think IBM didn't do "everything possible"? Microsoft is doing just what IBM was doing.

I'm not a big IBM fan. IBM just did it with more class. History repeats itself at a lower level -- must be entropy.

Re:look and feel

[Slime-dogg]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I mean. I was just being really really nerdy.

Re:look and feel

[Keeper]

Unfortunately, the way you "access" the name doesn't effect trademark ownership. If they knew about it, and failed to go after it, and then a someone else demonstrates such, they lose their 'Microsoft' trademark. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Your problem is with Trademark law, not MS.

Re:look and feel

[sysbot]

This is just sicken and pathetic. I wonder if any of these sites that ripped of Google UI have any idea what are they doing. Altalavista, MSN, Yahoo the rest of the search engine on the net are all ripped off from GoogleUI. They someone how think that will lead them to success or something. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic!! I really doubt anyone running these sites have any brain.

Also on the BBC...

[Noryungi]

Test driving 5 search engines

BBC conclusion is that Google is still the search king, but others (Yahoo, Ask Jeeves) also offer interesting search results.

Re:Also on the BBC...

[timts]

nobody cares about a9.com? beside the 1.7% discount from amazon.com when you use a9.com, I like the interface and results so far, though I barely use it.

Re:Also on the BBC...

[rainman_bc]

Maybe Google's the search King in terms of Volume, but the quality of the results is turning to shit real fast.

I find much better results with alltheweb now than Google.

Google needs to find a way to filter out shit content - content that just takes usenet stuff and posts as html; content that just is a set of hyperlinks to other content and has nothing else to contribute.

Right now, it's hard to find relevant web content through google because of google-spammers. If google isn't careful, people will start switching away from it, as easily as people switched to it.

Re:Also on the BBC...

[foistboinder]

Maybe Google's the search King in terms of Volume, but the quality of the results is turning to shit real fast.

I think Google's simply reflecting the web turning to shit real fast...

Re:Also on the BBC...

[Baron von Blapp]

"Google" is much like the ubiquitos "Xerox" of the days of yore. A verb that will soon became dated and blasé.

I would have to agree with the BBC... wouldnt be the first time.

Re:Also on the BBC...

[outZider]

+500 Insightful.

Re:Also on the BBC...

[rainman_bc]

lol true enough....

It's sad that google-spamming has become a busienss model. It doesn't cost too much to copy usenet content and post it on a site, and watch the search results come rolling in.

I actually like /.'s method of moderating content up and down. I think it would benefit the web greatly. Someone searches for Canon EOS reviews for example, and the modded up results get to the top of the list.

Re:Also on the BBC...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's also interesting is that MSN search might be using search results from Google! Link here and here.

Re:Also on the BBC...

[Thornkin]

I think you are onto something here. I too have found google's results becoming much less relevant these days.

An examples:

Search for a review of an item. Just type item name plus review. You'll find the same repackages Amazon.com reviews for the first 100 links.

There is a lot of room for improvement here. I don't know if MSN search is going to win but there is definitely a weakness in google they can exploit. Google is too easily tricked into listing content high which pushes the useful but not advertised content, lower.

Re:Also on the BBC...

[ishamael69]

From my understanding, this is pretty much what Google tries to do. It takes links to another page as a "mod" for that page. This mod is then weighted (+2 posting bonus), depending upon the number of mods (karma) that the liker has.

This works pretty well for slashdot, because there is no money to be made through spamming the boards, and the users that abuse the system get shut up very fast. If, for some reason higher modded comments on slashdot meant more advertising (a lot more that is) for users then you would see a lot more "slashdot bombing"

Re:Also on the BBC...

[rainman_bc]

Yeah, and when looking up info for pretty much any web development problem I have, the first 40 or so hits I get usually require registration to see the solution.

Google groups has proven much better for research than the google web search now.

Re:Also on the BBC...

[TheAwfulTruth]

I used to think that, then I started using other search engines.

These days, a huge number of epeople's total exposure to the web seems to be completely filtered through google. And if you do that, the web does look like it's going to shit.

But google isn't the central clearing house for the web, nor should it be. Go elsewhere for a while, I found that most of the other major search engines provide a lot more usable information closer to the top of the lists than google has lately.

Also, don't for get specialized portals! A lot of them don't even let the searh engines in, so you miss them.

The web is a hell of a lot larger and more varied than google makes it seem!!!

Re:Also on the BBC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Step 1. Take a shit.
Step 2. post it on the web.
Step 3. ...
Step 4. PROFIT!
oh wait that's tubgirl for ya... damn someone beat me to it!

Gates Logic

[mfh]

Bill Gates: We will reinvent the wheel. Let's make it rounder.

Everyone Else: Google is works, without any extra crap, and that's why we like it.

Bill Gates: Use our new rounder search engine! It is powered by Yahoo, until 2005! Plus we have added lots of special crap! (mostly because so many people asked for it!)

Everyone Else: Don't you ever learn? We said we didn't want anything but a simple, accurate search engine. We have that already. Do something else.

Bill Gates: But the first 50-100 results now show the websites that have *paid* to be listed! How can you beat that? If they are going to fork over this extra cash to be listed, they must have really quality websites, right?!

Everyone Else: Yeah, that makes total sense to us.

Bill Gates: Plus Google doesn't have neato browser interstitials! They are lacking in the creative marketing department! Seriously!!

Everyone Else: What excites you, does not excite us.

Bill Gates: Our search is easier to get to because a link comes with every copy of XP! You know how hard it is to put a link on the desktop or in the Start Menu? We should be given the Nobel Peace Prize, or something.

Everyone Else: I think we want a search engine that filters out any website or company affiliated with Microsoft.

Re:Gates Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we want a search engine that filters out any website or company affiliated with Microsoft.

Hmmm... I bet there is a market for something like that...

Re:Gates Logic

[mfh]

"Conveniences": this word as defined by marketing folks is the degree of consumer gougability. The more convenient a service or product, the more money can be charged for it, and the greater the potential for convenience, the greater the profit. That's potential, not actual convenience.

Feel free to be fed websites from MSN, but you are being led down the garden path (and it leads to Redmond).

Re:Gates Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Walter Mossberg: Very promising, not quite good enough to replace Google

CNet: Good, won't be put in front-line use for a few months

John Battelle: Potentially better than Google

Search Engine Watch: Very promising, not quite good enough to replace Google

WSJ: Pointless anecdote

Slashdot: Exprets agreee! Mirco$oft sucks, noone wil use it!

Re:Gates Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

One more:

The Register: Google's executives might be sleeping a little easier this weekend

Re:Gates Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that really "funny", more like "sad but true".

The WSJ is so far into their corporate sponsers asses they couldn't report abjectively on anything no matter how hard they tried.

And finding a fair and enlightening discussion about ANYTHING on slashdot would only happen in bizzarro world.

Near mee isn't so near..

[Sporkinum]

I figured they would look at your IP address, check the dns for location and then use that to find near me..

Didn't work too well.. I'm in Iowa...

Web Results Near Me (denver, colorado)
try pizza parlor near:
1-10 of 931 containing pizza parlor (0.12 seconds)

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[BJH]

Did you have to do something to get that to appear? I couldn't find any such link on any of the searches I did.

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[Ctrl-Z]

Did you try using the Settings page to set your location? Not that you necessarily want to give that to MSN.

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably checked where the IP was registered rather than the DNS, which is sometimes pretty off par with where you actually are.

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[bluekanoodle]

That seems to be the case. I punched in Pizza and it came up with Pizza Places in Madison WI, where our ISP is located, but I'm in Washington.

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[Sporkinum]

There were 2 buttons, a green on saying search, and right next to it is a blue one saying near me. I tried enableing cookies and editing the settings page to the city nearest me, but it keeps changing back to denver. I guess it's a default for a feature that is not fully implemented yet.

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[salvorHardin]

This would be interesting at one of the places I used to work... the whole of Europe's web surfing was routed via a proxy, in... Santa Clara.

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[falsified]

In that case, order from Gumby's. They're cheap. (I live in Madison.)

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[bluekanoodle]

The question then is, will they deliver?

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[AstroDrabb]

Did you go to MSN Search or MSN Search Beta? It is Beta that has the near me button.

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[falsified]

Have you ever met someone from Madison? We'll do it if you'll give us a beer or four.

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[bluekanoodle]

I grew up in Milwaukee. No pizza is worth giving away my beer. :)

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[falsified]

Fine. Will you do my calculus homework then?

Re:Near mee isn't so near..

[BJH]

Beta. I'm guessing that their IP locator omits the button for people outside the US.

clean interface, too few pages indicized

[incuso]

The interface seems pretty clean and usable (maybe sponsored links should be moved), in fact is basically the google interface :)

Options page is even more googlish

Unfortunately, too few pages are indicized. My site is used to be in the first page of relevant searches in most search engines, but in msn it does not wshow at all :(

M.

Re:clean interface, too few pages indicized

[Kierthos]

Yeah, and they have pathetically few porn sites indexed. How do they seriously expect to knock off Google without porn sites?

Kierthos

it is beta..

[js3]

it has bugs, it is not ready, all that jazz, did I mention it was beta?

Re:it is beta..

[bluewee]

Have you used Gmail, yeah its a beta too, but I have not noticed any bugs. Yeah Google news, and Froogle, both beta as well, however not a bug to be found...

Re:it is beta..

[jxyama]

the fact it's a beta doesn't mean all bugs can be "excused."

it should be functional. it should be usable. if it's full of bugs that show up in routine use, then it shouldn't be a beta. it should still be an alpha because beta is testing for bugs, not for core functionality.

Re:it is beta..

[Gherald]

Have you used Gmail, yeah its a beta too, but I have not noticed any bugs. Yeah Google news, and Froogle, both beta as well, however not a bug to be found...

Gmail is relatively new and still under active development, so is a beta in practice.

Google news and Froogle on the other hand are beta in name only. The reason the beta monicker is still on them is because Google hasn't figured out a way to make money off of them yet. Seriously, that is the reason.

Re:it is beta..

[pilgrim23]

Has Microsoft cleared all the bugs from that Beta Windows 3.0 yet? Last time I looked the current offering seemed to have more, but maybe that is just me...

Re:it is beta..

[blamanj]

It may be beta, but as Business Week noted when they slammed it:

"It would be one thing if a startup's beta had sputtered. Not too many folks would have noticed. But this is Microsoft, earth's largest software company. And it trumpeted this test launch with a public-relations campaign to ensure that users around the world knew the service was ready for widespread use. So when MSN Search went down, a bit of Microsoft's credibility in the search-engine business went with it."

That may be overstating the case, but it does show that some people at least, aren't going to buy-in just because it's Microsoft.

Re:it is beta..

[shotfeel]

Or is it?

Personally I view "betas" like this as version 1 release. Companies (MS in this case) just call it a beta so they don't have to support it or deal with bad publicity of releasing a buggy product.

IMO if you release it to the public, its Version 1.0. "Public beta" is an oxymoron. Either its ready for release, or its not.

Re:it is beta..

[js3]

in case you didn't read the article, the address for the search engine is http://beta.search.msn.com/
you can't get more beta than that

Well...

[NaugaHunter]

... nobody is going to be switching over to MSN Search from Google anytime soon.

Not until the next Service Packs make it the default search engine, anyway.

Re:Well...

[jdog1016]

Its not like Google is the default search engine now...And yet everyone still uses it.

Re:Well...

[gosand]

Not until the next Service Packs make it the default search engine, anyway.

Come on, we all know that people don't patch their Windows machines...

Re:Well...

[Donny Smith]

Of course.
But tell that to bozos who claim MS IE hurt Netscape, WMP hurt RealMedia, etc.

Re:Well...

[Spoing]

1. Not until the next Service Packs make it the default search engine, anyway.

To make sure it doesn't change, one additional horror: Clippy or smiles the vapid dog.

Re:Well...

[shotfeel]

Just FYI, it is on Apple's Safari. In fact there's a little text entry box in the top right of every Safari window with the word "Google" greyed out. When I want to search Google, I type the search in there and hit enter. Via the pull-down associated with the text entry field I can even view my last few searches.

Google forever...

[maharg]

Google is now too deeply embedded into most web users vocabulary to be knocked off the #1 spot. A little bit like M$ on the desktop of your average Joe. In the former case an excellent situation, in the latter, a very sad state of affairs. Swings and roudabouts I suppose.

Re:Google forever...

[ryanmfw]

I can't wait till people say their OS is "Google." That would make my day, especially considering all of the things they are doing, and the things they could do to replace M$ software.

Re:Google forever...

[maskedbishounen]

Kind of like Netscape?

Yeah. Google will float on top until someone better comes along, or Marketing brings it down.

Re:Google forever...

[rainman_bc]

Google is now too deeply embedded into most web users vocabulary to be knocked off the #1 spot

Kinda like for many americans AOL = Internet?

Things have a funny way of creeping up on you when you least expect them.

If Google continues to become more and more useless in the results it brings up, it provides incentive to move to a different search engine.

Re:Google forever...

[jxyama]

the fact google is a verb isn't all that significant. xerox and tivo are two verbs we use but there are many copying machine companies other than xerox and there are many different DVRs other than tivo.

if MS provides something superior, people will switch. (if they are just "copying" google, then it won't happen.) sadly, the fact they can default 95% of the computer to use msn search means it may not take much of an improvement, at at all to take over.

Re:Google forever...

[jobugeek]

So was Yahoo until people got tired of taking naps while it rendered. Things change on the Internet. Digital word of mouth spreads quickly. Look at Firefox. It didn't get much press until recently and it's constantly getting more share. If Google starts to suck and some other SE shows improvement, it won't take long for people to change.

Re:Google forever...

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, I fear this could be bad.
MS will leverage the dektop (again) any time you install new MS software, IE will reappear (again) and will make the default homepage ms-search (again).
The feds and antitrust guys will do nothing (again) and google will go the way of the dodo.
Thats the plan anyway. Why do you think the interface looks a bit like google? Rule number one of introducing a new product on the market - make it sufficiently familiar so that all the punters are comfortable with it.
That's IF we let them get away with it, right sysadms? ;)

root@router# echo "deny ALL ms.search.com" >> /etc/deny.conf

(I paraphrase)

Re:Google forever...

[picz]

They are going to pull off another Netscape.

Microsoft can capture Google's users using their dominance on the browswer market.

If the next version of MSIE has a big fat SEARCH button in the navigation bar, then Google has already lost half of the so called "normal users" (The ones, that just click on stuff on their desktop with no clue about what a program is)

regards /picz

Re:Google forever...

[rwise2112]

IE already does, and has had so for a very long time! I believe it was automatically linked to MSN search, but all the machines I use have it replaced with Google.

Re:Google forever...

[Coryoth]

If the next version of MSIE has a big fat SEARCH button in the navigation bar

You think MS is going to include a search button in IE's navigation bar?

I think you're grossly underestimating the plans for Longhorn, which is all about "web enabling" the OS (think XAML and all that).

What you'll have is every search entry box in every Microsoft app, from the search box in the IE toolbar (you know, just like the Firefox one) to the search entry in any help window, will be "MSN search enabled", and return a set of MSN search results as well as a set local search results.

Microsoft is going to do Google Desktop search inside out - every search dialog anywhere in windows is going to haul back results from MSN search as well, and present them in parallel.

Jedidiah.

Re:Google forever...

[picz]

Well... It was just a quick thought. Big fat button right in your face.

Deep integration of MSN Search into Longhorn seems as a perfectly logical thing to do for our convenience and improved world domination.

Anyway... It is bad news for Google. Taking away their users will be a piece of cake for Ballmer and his gang. You can not win over people owning the platform. /regards
picz

What reason would someone switch?

[_PimpDaddy7_]

Search engines are ubiquitous now. Google pretty much owns this domain. Not only that, they are well respected by everyone. Microsoft is not respected by many people. There's no need to switch. There is no value added benefit for someone to switch or use Microsoft's new search.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

They will switch because some future version of IE will have a search bar that goes there, and most users will use whatever is provided for them. Sorry, but that is just the way it goes. The monopoly is simply too strong and the legal system is not fast enough or willing to actually punish them in a meaningful way.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[RailGunner]

Well they do until Windows XP Service Pack 3, where your IE home page is set to the MSN search, and if you try to type in Google's URL, Clippy comes up and says "I see you're trying to search the web. Would you like assistance in using MSN Search?"

Or did you not get that memo? :)

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[Enigma_Man]

I don't understand why everybody thinks it's bad for Microsoft to do stuff like make a search bar on their OS use _shock/horror_ THEIR SEARCH FUNCTION!! NO! Not that!

I never liked that at all. MS Should have every right and ability to do what they like with their own OS, including disabling other software, defaulting to IE, etc, etc. It's just software. If you don't like it, don't use it, nobody is forced to.

If they had their way, and my way, all copies of Windows would have to run Microsoft approved stuff, and I believe people would migrate away from it more quickly.

-Jesse

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is not respected by many people. There's no need to switch. There is no value added benefit for someone to switch or use Microsoft's new search.

Microsoft doesn't require the respect of too many people, because it can muscle its way to those who are indifferent, or even just mildly reluctant (i.e. via embedding their stuff in their already ubiquitous operating system, making it just too easy to access). I really don't think they would give this a chance if they weren't aware that they have another card to play other than their name.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[pr0c]

Maybe, and I realize you may be joking but why would Microsoft persue another antitrust trial? Thats what they would be doing...

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[pr0c]

Oh and before the grammar nazis get me, I know it is pursue not persue...

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[Gherald]

If you don't like it, don't use it, nobody is forced to.

For the /. crowd that works fine, but you're ignoring the fact that there are millions of lusers WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER.

These are the people Microsoft preys on.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Jeez, do I really have to explain monopoly expansion via bundling for umpteenth time on Slashdot? OK, here it is short and sweet. If someone has a monopoly, their customers have no other practical choice than to use their product. If that monopoly then enters another market, and bundles their two products, there is no way any competitor can survive, even with a better product. If you follow this to it's end conclusion, you end up with one company that sells everything. This is why we have a regulated capitalist system. Because monopolies are bad for everyone except the monopolist.

Microsoft has already set back the computing industry by a decade. Think of all the great companies they bought and killed, or squashed with bundling. When MS incorporates a search engine into their browser, all the cool stuff google (and everyone else in the search space) would otherwise bring us will not happen.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[RailGunner]

Well, I was only half kidding. The Clippy part was a joke, but as far as a Service Pack 3 for XP doing something to try and hurt Google, well.... Microsoft has done it before. Just go to Microsoft's own website and look at the list of applications broken by Service Pack 2 for XP. Many more are NOT listed. For example, I was unable to get JDK 1.4.2_04 to install on a machine with SP2. 1.4.2_05 does, but 04 would not.

Not to mention - and someone who knows for sure, help me job my memory - But wasn't there a lawsuit where IBM sued MS (and won) because an NT 4 Service Pack (2?) would INTENTIONALLY burn up Cyrix processors? I remember reading about that a number of years ago.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[Matt Perry]

Well they do until Windows XP Service Pack 3, where your IE home page is set to the MSN search,

Or they could just deliver an "automatic update" that sets it.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[Spoing]

1. Maybe, and I realize you may be joking but why would Microsoft persue another antitrust trial? Thats what they would be doing...

Yep, Microsoft wouldn't want that. The 3 trials so far -- 2 in the US, 1 in the EU -- have really caused them serious problems...wonder what the 4th and 5th antitrust trials would bring?

I bet they are really scared!

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[The Conductor]

They have already done that, sort of. I have mis-typed URL's and gotten re-directed to MSN search. MS apparently assumed that people would just type "hamburger and hot dog" in the address bar when they are hungry. Don't know if that still happens; I haven't used a default install of Windows in years.

If so, then Google has already cleared the hump of having enough brand recognition to get people to walk past the defaults. It's not just the quality of the results, but trust that they are unbiased. The non-evil reputation is Google's real asset. Trust is hard to come by on the internet.

I'm not saying Google will win, but MS will have a harder time crushing them than they did with Netscape.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[shotfeel]

Microsoft is not respected by many people.

True on /.

But there are a scary number of people who not only respect MS, but think its the savior of the computing/tech world.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[AstroDrabb]

why would Microsoft persue another antitrust trial

Because it would be worth it finacially. The trial would take a few years in which MS would be able to leverage the search monopoly to generate far more money then they would pay out to say Google. All MS has to do is make IE have MSN as the default homepage and search page and add a little search box in the URL bar like FireFox. However, unlike in Firefox where you can change where the search box searches, the MS one in IE will just do MSN. This way MS gets the tons of JoeUsers that just click or use what is in front of them. With MS's 95%+ desktop market, you can say goodbye to Goole.

Now, google would sue for anti-competitve practices and win say a billion or so. However, by the time the court case is over, there would be no coming back for Google or other search engines since MS already got the whole lot of JoeUsers to their search engine. The amount of money MS would make off of advertising on MSN would far exceed the legal costs.

Long live the monopoly!

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[Enigma_Man]

You keep having to explain it, because you are wrong:

1. It's not a monopoly - Other options are available to the customer: Linux, QNX, FreeDOS, do-it-yourself; afterall, it's software, what are you doing buying a computer if you don't know how to write software?
2. Software always comes "bundled" with something else - Any OS you find on any sort of hardware is going to be "bundled" with software: I don't and can't reasonably complain that the ECU in my car comes "bundled" with proprietary Motorolla code with no publically released opcode list for me to look at and edit as I see fit. Nearly every motherboard you buy is going to be "bundled" with either an Award or AMI BIOS, but that's the choice of the motherboard seller. Just like it's the choice of the OS seller to bundle software with their OS. It's all software, and they should be allowed to do what they want with it. If you don't like it, you are perfectly free to create your own. I don't complain that the lyrics in the songs I listen to aren't different, if I don't like them, I just don't use them.
3. MS may have set back the computing industry by a bit, but not because they sell software, it's their bastardly marketing techniques and just sheer size to buy out any competing rivals. We made them that way, and it's their right to remain that way. If consumers were more educated, they wouldn't stick with MS. However they aren't, so they dominate (not monopolize) the market.
4. Any product that is sufficiently better than anything Microsoft has to offer will succeed in the marketplace (Google, to use your reference). It's not a monopoly, it's just that everybody chooses MS, and chooses to use their search engines, their browser, their bundled software. It's free will / free choice.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Which of these options are not available for free? There are no "viable" Windows competitors because of MS monopoly

2. Windows is not a hardware product. Your point here boils down to "hardware requires software", which is hardly a justification for monopolization of the software industry

3. Stupid. "We made Microsoft the way it is"? As if people actually want a monopolist raising prices and killing off competition.

4. False. The reason of bundling is to prevent any other product from even having a chance to gain any funding. Meanwhile, Microsoft still has assured funding from its monopoly on the OS market. This makes it unlikely the new product will be better, because the market won't support any competitors after it has been so strangled. A famous quote from someone at Microsoft talking about their strategy with regard to Netscape was, "We're going to cut off their air supply." Well, it's hard to develop better products in the vacuum of funding that results from the stifling of a monopoly competitor

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[SeanAhern]

[Microsoft] is not a monopoly

The United States Justice Department disagrees with you. Here's a simpler roundup of the facts. While the enforcement of Judge Jackson's ruling was overturned (mostly because of his stupid spouting off to the press), his Findings of Fact were not. Microsoft remains a convincted monopolist. Once a company is deemed a monopoly, a different set of business rules apply to them.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's not a monopoly

Yes it is, or near enough not to make a difference. Legally, it has been declared one. As to our other options, they are not options for most people since most people cannot write, or even install software themselves.

I don't complain that the lyrics in the songs I listen to aren't different, if I don't like them, I just don't use them.

Songs don't have interoperability issues. Well except DRM'd ones.

not because they sell software

You're right, it's because they bundle software for 'free' with the software they do sell.

Any product that is sufficiently better than anything Microsoft has to offer will succeed in the marketplace (Google, to use your reference).

Gee that must be why I'm running OS2, err NextStep, err BeOS...oh no, maybe you are just wrong. Everybody chooses MS, because when they buy a computer, with very few exceptions, they have to pay for Windows. Since they have to pay for it, manufacturers install a copy, and most people do not even know that there is an option to run anything else. This is because of MS's abuse of it's monopoly to illegally stifle competition. Google will die if MS decides they want to take over the search market. (Which they seem to be aiming at in the near future.)

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[The Conductor]

Regulation against bundling is not the only answer though. Reform of copyright (by not granting copyright to non-human-readable machine code, for example) can also take away the harmful monopolistic dynamic in the software industry. It is more in line with the ideals of limited gov't to remove the problem-causing regulation (expansive copyright) rather than pile another layer of legal code on (antitrust law).

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

The declaration of "monopoly" was only reached by purposly limiting the scope to a small enough set of hardware that it fit the definition.

For example, Apple computers were not even considered as an "alternative" OS even though they can do virtually anything that Windows can.

Judge Jackson was overreaching in his declaration at best. At worst, he made a conscious bad descision due to external pressure.

By the same token, OJ was found "innocent".

Just because a judge says something, does not make it true, even if everyone suffers the consequences as a result.

Re:What reason would someone switch?

[SeanAhern]

Just because a judge says something, does not make it true

Very insightful. However, you'll note that, if the Findings of Fact were in dispute, such would have been noted by the appellate court. They did not do so. They didn't call the FoF into question at all. It was the remedy portion, Jackson's action taken after the declaration of the Findings of Fact, that they differed with.

When an appelate court does not contest a lower court's ruling, such ruling stands. Consequently, Microsoft remains a convicted monopolist.

Just try it yourself

[Alwin Henseler]

A few queries will give you a rough idea how useful it is (not).

You're just imagining this sig is here. It isn't, really.

The best part is

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

It's already getting either googlewhacked or biased from the inside. Just look at the top two results for searching "More evil than god" (no quotes)

Re:The best part is

[BJH]

microsoft.com is #5 if you search for "more evil than Satan himself".

However, it doesn't show up if you search for "more evil than Satan and all his little devils".
Nor does it show up if you search for "more evil than all Satan's little devils".

If we assume that:
x = Satan
y = All of Satan's little devils
z = Microsoft

then we can deduce the following based on MS's search results:
x <= z is true.
y <= z is true.
x + y >= z is true.
x <= z + y is true.

Thus, if all of Satan's little devils decided to change sides and join up with the big Bill G., Satan wouldn't stand a chance in Hell.

Re:The best part is

[ad0gg]

What the hell does more evil than god mean? Isn't god absolute opposite of evil? And absolute evil being satan. Thats like me saying more smaller than infinity.

Re:The best part is

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft already fixed this. Try it now:

http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=more+e vi l+than+god&FORM=QBHP

Re:The best part is

[PedanticSpellingTrol]

aw man, they got rid of the timecube link too? bummer.

Re:The best part is

[CapnGrunge]

It's recursive, see?
>News results for "more evil than satan" - View >today's top stories
> MSN search brands Google more evil than >Satan - VNUNet.com - 10 hours ago

Google brands M$N more evil than Satan brands Google

Ok, enough beer...

So what?

[stratjakt]

Noone needs to switch from Google. They just have to keep people from switching to Google.

MSN is the default homepage for a gajillion browsers out there. It just has to be good enough to keep them from looking for something different.

Besides, it's still a beta, and TFA says they won't replace much of the core searching until 2005.

Re:So what?

[Darthmalt]

True but i've also seen several people type google into the msn search box then click on the google link when it comes up.

Re:So what?

[stratjakt]

So long as MSN gets the hits and mindshare, I doubt they're too worried.

How can Googel and MS(N) be wrong

[anandpur]

http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=miserabl e+failure&FORM=QBHP
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miserable+fai lure&spell=1

Re:How can Googel and MS(N) be wrong

[CowboyBob500]

From where I'm working at the moment I get this:-

URL: http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?...
Reason: Banned site: beta.search.msn.com
Category: Banned domains - Pornography
Group: Filter A
Your username: anonymous

Bob

Not quite so negative.

[Capt_Troy]

Bottom line seems to be that nobody is going to be switching over to MSN Search from Google anytime soon.

The bottom line is not quite so overcast as this statement seems to imply. None were negative, but most mentioned that this is beta quality and had the potential to tackle google in the future.

Re:Not quite so negative.

[daVinci1980]

Yes, that's exactly what I took out of it as well. I've missed the slashdot slant lately. Glad to see it alive and kicking.

Re:Not quite so negative.

[PMuse]

In fact, Mossberg's full article came complete with its own "bottom line": "The bottom line: Google is still my search service of choice, but Microsoft has arrived in search and will be a more and more attractive alternative."

I have to ask, Why are we not rejoicing? We now have two competitors trying to add more useful features. They are already driving innovation -- to the benefit of us. And, so long as Google exists, MSN must do no evil, else it will never gain customers.

Re:Not quite so negative.

[mcc]

> > Bottom line seems to be that nobody is going to be switching over to MSN Search from Google anytime soon.

> The bottom line is not quite so overcast as this statement seems to imply. None were negative, but most mentioned that this is beta quality and had the potential to tackle google in the future.

So... what is the difference, exactly, between "the future" and "not anytime soon"?

Re:Not quite so negative.

[shotfeel]

Why are we not rejoicing? We now have two copetitors

Probably because (right or wrong) many people are thinking "we now have one competitor and one big monopoly looking to extend its reach".

IOW, we look back on what happened to Netscape and wonder if it will happen again.

Re:Not quite so negative.

[Capt_Troy]

So... what is the difference, exactly, between "the future" and "not anytime soon"?

Syntactically not much.
The difference is in the connotation.

Re:Not quite so negative.

[wuice]

They are already driving innovation -- to the benefit of us. And, so long as Google exists, MSN must do no evil, else it will never gain customers.

Are you kidding? Doing evil is the best way to get and keep customers. It means you are not fettered by the moral rules and restrictions that "not evil" companies abide by. Walmart and the much-hated Microsoft are two good examples of this.

That being said, I don't see this as a huge threat for google, either.

Re:Not quite so negative.

[radish]

we now have one competitor and one big monopoly looking to extend its reach
The interesting question is, which is Google? The competitor or the monolopy looking to extend it's reach?

Re:Not quite so negative.

[PMuse]

Are you kidding? Doing evil is the best way to get and keep customers.

And yet, Google has customers...

Actually, you're right. Google does limit MS's ability to do evil with its search engine, but only partly. For instance, MS must present a screen as clean as google's or present a non-clean screen that customers like as well. Another example, if Google results are always more relevant than MS, then customers will go to google.

I was about to say "inferior search results cannot possibly lure google's established customers away" . . . but then I remembered Netscape. Well, wait and see, I suppose.

a farm of Windows boxes

[hey]

As we all know Google uses a farm of Linux boxes.
MSN can't do that. The NY Times says they built their own hardware for it. A Windows farm! - yuck.

Re:a farm of Windows boxes

[rainman_bc]

As we all know Google uses a farm of Linux boxes. MSN can't do that. The NY Times says they built their own hardware for it. A Windows farm! - yuck.

Some MSN sites are driven by Soliaris, like www.nhl.com for example. I wouldn't be so sure...

Re:a farm of Windows boxes

[Anonymous Coward]

This says Linux:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host= beta.sea rch.msn.com

Re:a farm of Windows boxes

[jav1231]

Why does is say Microsoft-IIS/5.0 next to the servers? I wonder if they are using FP Extensions?

more evil than satan

[fishmonkey]

search for

"more evil than satan"

on

http://beta.search.msn.com/

Re:more evil than satan

[Thomas Hawk]

I've got a picture of the more evil than satan search as well as a more comprehensive critique of the site which asks the question does Microsoft manipulate your search results at: http:// Is_Microsoft_Manipulating_the_Search_Results_with_ Their_New_MSN_Search_for_Their_Own_Agenda?

Re:more evil than satan

[namekuseijin]

oh, my! i can't believe it! Microsoft is truly evil!

Re:more evil than satan

[Anonymous Coward]

Try searching for 'more evil' (no quotes) to get the real picture ...

Re:more evil than satan

[Organism]

and guess what the only result returned for "more evil than google" is?

Re:more evil than satan

[dAzED1]

does that not seem to be an obvious, harmless, practical joke to you? Do you really think that if someone looks up "more evil than satan," and they get back gooogle.com, that they will...do anything other than laugh?

Re:more evil than satan

[MoobY]

Guess who they turn up with when you look for "most evil"

Re:more evil than satan

[Anonymous Coward]

Quaint. No, the other thing, childish. And that really renders like shit in non-ie browsers.

Re:more evil than satan

[tsetem]

Anybody notice that the sixth result is Microsoft itself?

So Microsoft is more evil than Satan, but not as evil as Google. Interesting...

Re:more evil than satan

[Saltine Cracker]

Interesting but searching for "more evil than satan" at Google doesn't seem to return Microsoft.

But you know what it'd be like if it did.

Re:more evil than satan

[andrejka]

try this: "evil corporation" on MSN search ;)

Re:more evil than satan

[l0b0]

Try "search engine" (both with and w/o quotes). Dunno about you guys, but I couldn't find any search engine I know of in the first five pages (I didn't look any further). Ironically, the same search on Google (with quotes) lists Altavista, Lycos, AlltheWeb, Excite and Yahoo on the first page...

So we can assume popularity does not come into the ranking.

Re:more evil than satan

[Anonymous Coward]

It did, once upon a time. There's nothing as lame as making a joke someone else made after that someone else has stopped making that joke because it's over done. Congratulation microsoft for proving you have zero sense of humor.

Re:more evil than satan

[sathia]

and try evil browser ;)

Re:more evil than satan

[l0b0]

God damn! They sure know how to piss off geeks!

Re:more evil than satan

[fred fleenblat]

I followed the link and found the delightful typo "eggotistical."

Made my day.

Re:more evil than satan

[sathia]

they really do

Re:more evil than satan

[uphaar]

Try searching for "evil corporation" on http://search.msn.com/ (without quotes). That search gives pretty accurate results, infact better than Google in this case.

Corporate Mottos

[Anonymous Coward]

Google: Don't be Evil

Microsoft: More Evil than Satan Himself

You decide.

xfree86 is *still* "sexually explicit"

[GillBates0]

Several readers pointed out that xfree86 isn't blocked by the beta MSN search engine, as it was earlier...well I think it still is.

The difference is that the defalts "Safesearch" settings are set to "Moderate - Filter sexually explicit images only">. I changed it to "Strict - Filter sexually explicit text and image results">, I got this message for xfree86

The search xfree86 may return sexually explicit content.
We didn't return results because your SafeSearch setting is set to Strict. To get results using the current search, change your SafeSearch setting.

Test Search

[mfh]

I have coded a test search using the beta. Check it out.

Best Roundup? Google's roundup is pretty good....

[ihistand]

So the article mentioned has excerpts from 5 articles.
Google News Has links to 617 complete articles related to this.

Proving googles's entire philosophy....some things are better left to an algorithm than a human.

This was obvious.

[RandoX]

"Bottom line seems to be that nobody is going to be switching over to MSN Search from Google anytime soon."

No shit.

too complicated

[uberjoe]

The real reason MSN will not be used is this:

The url for Google is google.com

The url for MSN Search is beta.search.msn.com

That's way too many letters to type for most people.

Google front-end, nothing more..

[Adnans]

Searching the same keywords in both Google and MSN search turns up almost exactly the same results in the same order, and seeing that Google was here first...

I think Microsoft just took a subscription on the Google WebService API :)

or

"How many NT admins does it take to keep up MSN search? 100.000"

-adnans

Re:Google front-end, nothing more..

[Richard_at_work]

I must disagree. I just attempted 10 searches and had differing search results in both engines, so they do not produce 'almost exactly the same results in the same order'. Maybe the search(es) you tried were blatantly obvious ones which have a lot of reinforcing data behind to produce those similiar result sets? If the engines used a similiar algorithm, then its quite possible they would produce the same results with the same data.

MSN vs. Google

[Xpilot]

I searched for "Linux". MSN gave me www.linux.org as the first link. Same as google. Fair enough. However the next few results that followed (linuxlinks.com? enterprise-linux-it.com?) weren't nearly as useful as google's (lists all the major distros, and kernel.org - i.e., places where you can actually *get* Linux). MSN may get better after a while, but google still reigns for now.

Re:MSN vs. Google

[DogDude]

MSN may get better after a while, but google still reigns for now.

Wow. That was a comprehensive test. Type in one seach, and decide from that. That's like saying that Linux sucks because Slackware didn't find my sound card. Besides, you didn't even compare against Google's special Linux search.

Yes, try searching for something critical

[incuso]

http://www.google.it/search?client=firefox-a&rls=o rg.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=it&q=how+to+dis able+cookie+in+internet+explorer&meta=&btnG=Cerca+ con+Google http://beta.search.msn.it/results.aspx?q=how+to+di sable+cookie+in+internet+explorer&FORM=QBRE

Re:Yes, try searching for something critical

[AstroDrabb]

Try it agian using the .com domains and making links.
beta.search.msn.com
Google

Re:Yes, try searching for something critical

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he post the .com domains? He is obviously in Italy (look at his email addy), and the results are funny in both the .com vesion and the .it version.

Repeat after me, the US is not the world, the US is not the world.

Wow

[Locdonan]

John Battelle: "Microsoft's angle on the engine is "providing more useful answers." In the presentation I was given, MSFT showed some new research which claimed that the time between a searcher's query and a full answeraverages 11 minutes. It's within this window that MSFT hopes to improve search -- getting an answer, quicker."

11 minutes?!? If I can't find it in 30 seconds I'm done. I know if the answer is there in jsut a few seconds. If I look for 11 minutes, I must have been searching for porn.

Sorry, I wana ask....

[CMCC.PTT]

...has anybody except M$ paid for MSN Search yet?

Strange Results

[TedTschopp]

Here is something strange: Search for Tolkien (a search that is close to my heart).

Why is this result coming up as second?

I can't figure that one out, any ideas. Other than Its Broke

Re:Strange Results

[Mikail]

"Xanga" is "Tolkien" in Japanese. ... Or maybe not, I don't know...

ads at top of results - bad

[hey]

Google (non-evil) only puts ads on the right but MSN search also has them at the top of the results. Very misleading.

Re:ads at top of results - bad

[Ender_Stonebender]

Google puts ads at the top of the results page. But they have a different color background, very easy to differentiate. I've got my eyes trained to mostly ignore them - same for banner/skyscraper ads, although that's harder if they're animated.

--Ender

Re:ads at top of results - bad

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Google (just as evil) puts paid for links at the top of their lists as well! Type "digital camera" into google and take a look! If they don't have any paid for link placements for your search word, then they don't appear, but they are there plenty when I search :(

The only difference it, the background color of the paid for links in google is darker than the background color on msn search. It does set them off a bit more.

Once again...

[JustNiz]

Once again Microsoft is just ripping-off someone elses product or idea and just remarketing it.

Its just the next in a long line of products they've just stolen, including Windows, Office, IE, C#, .net etc.

Why don't they actually INNOVATE and create something from a new idea for once?

what will we see next? A trading website called mbay.com?

Re:Once again...

[DogDude]

And Google was different from Altavista, Lycos, Webcrawler, Hotbot, and the others how...? It isn't. It's the exact same thing, only better. That's what MS does. They tend to take an idea, make it better (easier, etc.), and market it better.

Re:Once again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont mention eb...

D'Oh!

Re:Once again...

[JustNiz]

Microsoft..Make it better?... Ha! ROFL

The hell with this...

[vrioux]

I am sick of this... Who needs a new search engine? Nobody! The web is so crammed with porn and crap that NO search engine can be "revolutionary". You only get more paid-for ads, or more intelligent ads-rotation... I will NOT use MSN's search, just because I am TIRED of searches... Google won that "war" long ago. Their interface is simple, their name is simple. Now, I got used to it, and if you offer me the same thing, with a different name, I just won't switch. MS, what about REAL innovation instead of copying everybody else -LATE-.

Re:The hell with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I am sick of this fucking obsession with "stop copying, innovate" shit. If you are trying to make money, are you going to push forth with the extremely high risk venture of "new shit no one has seen before" or attempt to penetrate a proven market?

There is so much Google dick-sucking here on slashdot that I'm going back to Altavista.

Re:The hell with this...

[Mordaximus]

Altavista had won that war one upon a time, Yahoo had one that war too at one point. Altavista and Yahoo also eventually lost their wars : right about the point they thought no one else could keep up and they stopped innovating.

If MS trying to get back into the search business only serves to push Goggle to continue to innovate, we should thank them for that. Or if they come out with a better product, hey, shouldn't we thank them for that too? If all of these company shared your "Who needs another search engine" philosophy, there never would have been a google to be content with.

Re:The hell with this...

[MushMouth]

Google hasn't innovated shit beyond page rank and throwing a lot of machines at a problem

What do they have?

Froogle, copy of JungleE

news, standard search on a subset of sites

groups, dejanews, bought in a firesale

toolbar, just another spyware toolbar

cache, less useful Internet Archive

gmail, it is just e-mail, that goes down at least as much for me as hotmail ever did.

The truth is, for all their thousands of millionaire PhD's they haven't done very much truely innovative. The other thing that is scary for google stockholders is that Microsoft only spent $100 million, to be almost google, what do you think they could do for a $billion?

Re:The hell with this...

[vrioux]

Technology is different now. SpaceShipOne does what some of NASA's experiments costed many times more. You shouldn't do a direct comparison like that. But you are right in that they didn't innovate very much. However I can't see Microsoft innovate very much either. What did they create in the past years? Xbox? Well it's a gaming-PC copy. Xbox Live? Well it's a Battle.Net (and the likes) copy. PocketPC? Palm copy. Oh Wait! How about the _oh-so-successfull_ TabletPC? Gimme a break, MS didn't invent shit either. Between the two, I still prefer Google's way of assventing.

Re:The hell with this...

[vrioux]

I still think "Who needs another search engine". What we need is not another Google. We already have a masterpiece-of-crap in it. Do you know why I use Google? Because Yahoo went the portal way. Why I used Yahoo? Because Altavista went the portal way. Now, if Google doesn't start adding content and crap on their homepage, I won't ditch them anytime soon. What _would_ make me switch apart from this would be a NEW way of searching, or something MUCH more usefull. If MSN search offers me the same thing as Google, and oh, the MS logo, well... The hell with this!

Re:The hell with this...

[toddestan]

Google hasn't innovated shit beyond page rank and throwing a lot of machines at a problem

Don't you remember the days when going to a search engine meant loading up some huge-ass portal page, and the results page was also full of banners, images, and other useless crap? And this was back when the majority of the users were on 56k or less (slow) browsing in on a Pentium I (slow) in Netscape 4 (slow).

The way Google became the number one search engine was by NOT doing what everyone else did. If that's not innovation, I don't know what is.

Re:The hell with this...

[fingerfucker]

What do they have?
Froogle, copy of JungleE

Jungle-what?

Care to give out a URL? You wouldn't be talking shit, would you?

Re:The hell with this...

[fingerfucker]

news, standard search on a subset of sites

You ignorant twat, you obviously have no idea about the fact that algorithms which are to tell whether story 1 is talking abuot the same thing as story 2, just with different words, are quite a bit different than "standard search".

When you are a abusive monopoly...

[codepunk]

All you have to do is integrate it into the operating system and poof google goes away!

Re:When you are a abusive monopoly...

[Anonymous Coward]

All you have to do is integrate it into the operating system and poof google goes away!

I'll be you said that about non-IE browsers too. Firefox is doing pretty good. But your point is well taken. Longhorn is all about searching and I'm quite sure the lines between searching the local machine and the Internet will be very blurry.

Re:When you are a abusive monopoly...

[goon]

your right here. I noticed yesterday upgrading my *older version* of fox-1pre to fox1 on a win2k box, the start page linked to a specific *mozilla* enhanced *google* start page:

• http://www.google.com.au/firefox?client=firefox-a& rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

after I installed it.

Not exactly complete yet

[IamGarageGuy 2]

I'm from Canada. The use of the near button does not work. Tried pizza, movie, etc. - Reply? - We couldn't find any sites containing movie.

Washington Post had good summary too

[museumpeace]

it will cost you a cookie but Webb's Filter is good at rounding up media reactions:
In her usual thorough fashion Cynthia Webb of the Washington Post has summarized the punditry concerning the impact Microsoft's pending search service will have on Google's business . Most of the analysis says MS has a weak product and miles to go to overtake Google...but thats the position they were in vs Netscape once upon a time. The /. story on Mozilla.org pondering addition of search tools to its arsenal should be considered in light of [and sheds a different light on ] development of Microsoft's plans.

Microsoft Windows 1.0?

[Christopher_Wood]

Keeping in mind the past history of Microsoft products when stacked up against competitors...

Was MS Windows 1.0 better than an X-capable terminal? Or a similar GUI of that era?

I'll be interested to see how Microsoft's search offering stacks up against its competitors in twenty or more years down the road.

My point being that Microsoft's successes have come from the years of refining its products in a monopolistic environment, not from the initial offering. How will this product do when bundled with Longhorn?

Re:Microsoft Windows 1.0?

[bitswapper]

Twenty years later, they've just started to catch with 3 years ago. Refinements don't seem to matter, or else there wouldn't be a constant stream of system compromises comming out of redmond. As long as they have a monopoly, they can push whatever they want, whenever they want.

A few things an MS search engine must overcome:

[mfivis]

-Who would leave Google if it works? Their only hope is to integrate it into IE after the next update. -They seem to lack highlighted cache pages so far. Most of my computer illiterate friends -Is this cost effective for them? Google is built on farms of cheap computers running Linux. I would bet that Google's research team (linguists, comp scientists, et al) is a more expensive investment than their hardware. -Google's speed is unmatched and Google will always work to make their's faster than competition. It's hard to do better than instant.

Holy Crap

[hey!]

From the WSJ:

"[T]he hype around Google's offering clearly grated on Mr. Gates. Days after the filing he sat in his office and railed at what he saw as flattering press coverage of the company. 'You're not allowed to criticize and say that Google isn't solving all the world's problems,' Mr. Gates said in an interview."

Holy crap. There must be something seriously twisted about this guy, if his reaction to the fact that somebody else being successful and admired is rage.

Re:Holy Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me help you out.

1. FUCKING LARRY PAGE AND HIS CROSS-DRESSING FRIEND SERGE ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR BALLS ON MY DINNERPLATE WHEN I'M DONE COMPETING WITH THEM!!!
2. The positive hype about Google makes it difficult to point out their shortcomings.

One of these is rage, and one is reasoned criticism. Your homework for tonight is to identify which is which.

Re:Holy Crap

[hey!]

I hear what you are saying. But Gates didn't really take position #2, did he? His reaction strikes me as oddly petulant and childish for a man of his experience and position. Nobody is forbidding anyone (least of all him) to criticize Google.

People are only human; they do get excited about the latest hot thing; over time cooler heads prevail. The man who booked the Rolling Stones for the roll out of an operating system only looks ridiculous when he complains of favorable coverage of a competitor.

Re:Holy Crap

[imogthe]

Having only read your excerpt of the article (I'm lazy, so sue me :)

Is it not possible that he meant that criticizing google was impossible because "everyone loves google"? What would happen if I chose to criticize GNU/Linux here on slashdot?

Food for thought if nothing else.

Re:Holy Crap

[hey!]

Well, I suppose its possible, but does anyone believe that it is really politically incorrect to criticize Google? Generally here on /. folks are very pro-Google, but it didn't stop people from criticizing Google desktop.

His reaction strikes me as incredibly undignified. He should have contratulated them on generating positive press coverage and said he looked forward to competing with Google in every application area they've announced, which we'd all understand perfectly well to mean he intended to crush them like an insignificant bug.

As it is, his reaction only intensifies the sense that Google is a company with a destiny.

Re:Holy Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony, perhaps, is that while Microsoft has rightly deserved its bad press coverage, as you say, the good press coverage of Google is only because it is the "latest hot thing". In a way, he's tacitly acknowledging that Microsoft is no longer seen as the hero of the PC revolution - it's now another big annoying business that you have to deal with: the modern IBM.

Your final sentence brings back memories. Well I bought it up, I brought it home and tried to boot it up. But when I boot it up, it says my memory is not enough...

paperclip

[alatesystems]

It looks like you're searching for porn. Would you like help?
*blink* *blink*

Re:paperclip

[wx327]

Nothing beats a naked paperclip that comes onscreen showing you how flexible it is.

Re:paperclip

[ad0gg]

It would be more subtle.

"It looks like your doing research on reproduction and anatomy of female humans ages 19 to 24. Can I be of assistance?"(while giving you the double wink).

MSN search says Evil is google and Firefox

[guidryp]

Shennanigans on Microsoft?
http://www.marketingshift.com/

more evil than satan

#1 Google

more evil than god

#2 firefox
#3 google

I'm about to blow my geek fuses

[Clueless Moron]

Beta MSN search for "Why Microsoft sucks: 1,306,969 hits

Beta MSN search for "Why Linux sucks": 1,112,635 hits

On the other hand, if I do the same search on Google, I get more hits for Linux sucking than Microsoft.

I think I'll go into a corner and wring my hands and babble to myself for a while...

Encyclopaedia search

[ajayvb]

The Encarta search is an interesting idea. What stops Google from say putting a Wikipedia link to relevant searches in their results? It would really help in finding things like, say "population of Antigua".

Neat Censorship

[mfh]

Here is a neat feature of the engine. You can report inappropriate material to MS people who will, I am guessing, remove it from the index?

So at least we know this won't last as a porn search engine, but what is much worse is that it won't be an accurate imprint of what is actually out there. We need to have the ability to find anything with the option to filter out crap.

Is there ever a bad review?

[beaststwo]

Does a technology reviewer ever say that "this really sucks and it's a waste of time to consider it"? They always say that every product is the next big thing, or at least that it's promising. A real shame hearing this from Walt Mossberg since I generally enjoy his reviews.

Will it beat out Google? I seem to remember that Altavista was once the primo search engine before Google came along. M$ may win, but if they do, someone will knock them off in the future.

In the mean time, maybe it means that we get better and better search tools for free! Or at least as free as it can get with advertisers and markets in your face and tacking your surfing behavior (speaking of which, where are we all surfing that causes us to get all this "herbal viagra" spam?).

How soon...

[Anonymous Coward]

...until Alexa (or some similar SpyWare) gets built into IE to harvest all my browsing history and sends it to the New Microsoft Search(tm), in the name of "helping build a collaborative search engine"?

Thank God for experts.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Otherwise I might have accidentally switched to search.msn.com. That was so going to happen.

yahoo for up-to-date images. A9 for searching in books. Google for the web.

Right?

Have any search engines fixed it so that you can type in a product name (like a particular digital camera) and not get a billion crappy web store spam entries? That's the main thing Google doesn't work for.

Re:Thank God for experts.

[carldot67]

eg

"kodak digital camera" -800

doesnt cure them all, but a lot of the merchants have 1-800 numbers. I also sometime append:

-search -index

enjoy ;)

Re:Thank God for experts.

[BandwidthHog]

I'd also try "kodak digital camera" -kodak.

But I suppose I'm just that kind of a person.

Aw this is sad

[Anonymous Coward]

A search for "Pikachuman" gives Windows Update as the first result...?

I'll stay with google =\

Re:Aw this is sad

[Mikail]

Why the hell were you searching for "Pikachuman?" I'm hoping that's just your handle on some forum and you weren't looking for some "Pika-porn..."

Re:Aw this is sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, my profile is the 2nd and 3rd results.
Comon, you haven't done vanity searches before?

Not too bad :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is the best operating sytem

The Reg

[truthsearch]

There's a small review at The Register. His impression is better query features, bad results.

But much more interesting is his commentary on what all search engines are missing. Most of the "data" people want to find isn't on any computer network. It's in our social network, our minds. So how do we get the technology to adapt to society? Or do we force society to adapt to the technology.

The "search engine wars" might be a little interesting. But are they missing the big picture? From a non-technical person's perspective they might be.

Ask Jeeves Is Interesting

[EXTomar]

First stop when searching is Google. But when I appear to have stumped Google I go over to Jeeves.

Ask Jeeves is interesting because unlike other search engines which work by assuming you at least have a hunch on what you need, AJ doesn't. The BBC's example is perfect: Searching for "raleigh" could mean the famous historical figure, multiple cities around the world, different buisness and brands, etc. Google is inclined to dump them all onto you and make you sort it out. If Google presents what you need on the first page it might be more by popularity or luck but AJ shows you a bunch of fast ways to filter out results from the huge disparaging set of matches.

This is a feature I wish Google had. If I get too many matches that appear to not be what I'm looking for I rephrase the querry which AJ does on the fly with these filters.

Re:Ask Jeeves Is Interesting

[dfj225]

What I find usually works the best is to use a "-" to remove certain terms from a search that could represent multiple things. For instance "raleigh -city" to look for things other than cities named raleigh. I haven't done any formal tests, but I think this method is better than trying to add more keywords to your search, especially if you cannot think of a general way to describe what you are looking for.

Re:Ask Jeeves Is Interesting

[Quixote]

Searching for "raleigh" could mean the famous historical figure, multiple cities around the world, different buisness and brands, etc. Google is inclined to dump them all onto you and make you sort it out.

You should try this search in Clusty, the clustering engine, from Vivisimo.

Re:Ask Jeeves Is Interesting

[Spoing]

1. This is a feature I wish Google had. If I get too many matches that appear to not be what I'm looking for I rephrase the querry which AJ does on the fly with these filters.

*shudders* Ah-no!

Google is already a little too soft for me. The last thing I want is it to do any of my thinking for me. Do what I ask -- even if it's a dumb idea -- and I'll figure it out. I like the challenge, the control, and the reliability.

Re:Ask Jeeves Is Interesting

[shotfeel]

IMO adding features like that is what the advanced search interface is supposed to help with.

Re:Ask Jeeves Is Interesting

[spookyfluke]

Doesn't Google's "Search within results" feature help?

It does have some interesting stuff...

[Dink Paisy]

I'm not going to change my search to a beta product; I try to avoid beta products after too much of Netscape a few years ago. If it seems half baked, it could be because it is half baked. Give them time to finish it and maybe it will be worth using.

I am interested in the ranking features, though. Click on "Search Builder" and you then on "Results ranking" and you get some sliders for adjsting the display of pages. That seems like it could be very useful at times, in particular for those searches where there seem to be no good results (in the first few pages out of ten thousand).

I think I will check in on this thing once in a while to see if it improves. Maybe it will be good when it is done.

Re:It does have some interesting stuff...

[netringer]

I am interested in the ranking features, though. Click on "Search Builder" and you then on "Results ranking" and you get some sliders for adjsting the display of pages. That seems like it could be very useful at times, in particular for those searches where there seem to be no good results (in the first few pages out of ten thousand).

ANOTHER Microsoft "innovation? Is it anything like Google Personalized Search at http://labs.google.com/personalized ? It also has slider where you can set the result to be more or less related to your personal interests.

As I pointed out previously Google has a page of its beta concepts at http://labs.google.com including Google local which IS "Search Near Me", that works, another new MSN search "innovation."

"Search Near Me" stores the calculated lat/long of addresses on web pages and returns matches near you. Note how Google's long in beta Google Local http://local.google.com stores the calculated lat/long of addresses on pages and returns matches near you. The main difference is Google Local works better.

Maybe Google should add a line on the Google Labs web page: "A.K.A. MSN Search Preview"

MSN Search

[Anonymous Coward]

So far, it doesn't seem too bad, I put in Linux, and I I got linux.org as the first result, and the next 9 results are actual Linux sites, not fud.

"OF course this will change when Balmer gets wind of this, he will change it so that the only results will be FUD against Linux"

Answers

[mfh]

I tried something because John Battelle said MS was going to answer questions faster. Looks like they honestly want to try to do that, judging from this search.

MSN Search Results vs. Google

[PyroPunk]

As a test of the search results I did a search on my name in quotation marks. MSN Search returned my High School and College Alumni pages, a reference to myself in a friends Blog and some newsgroup postings where I'd answered some tech questions in Yahoo Groups. All together there were 32 results returned. Google returned 7 results, and out of the stuff I expected it only had the reference to me in my friends Blog. Didn't even have my schools alumni pages. I also tried Yahoo, which returns 13 results, but has the Blog and Alumni pages.

Random Benchmark

[darkcookie]

Hi,

i started a personal random benchmark:

Assume i want to seach for "Jabber", "Nokia 6310i"
and "Simpsons". I tested the german version of both Google and MSN search.

Jabber:
MSN: Jabber.org on Rank 2
Google: Jabber.org not even on first page

1:0 for MSN

Nokia 6310i:
Nokia 6310i Product Page on rank 2
Nokia 6310i Product Page on rank 2

1:1

Simpsons:
MSN: Official US Simpsons side on rank 1
Google: Official US Simpsons side not even on first page

2:1 for MSN

Of course this is not a representative result, but interesting anyway.

Best regards,darkcookie

I hope MSN improves and people switch over

[DeadSea]

I'm increasingly of the option, that while Google is great, they hold too much market share in the search space. Sure they say they aren't evil, but they need something to keep them that way. Something like the fear that all their users are going to jump to a competitor at the first sign of evility.

It would certainly be worse if Microsoft held the 90% marketshare currently held by Google. I certainly don't want that. Here is what I'm hoping:

• MSN improves and captures about 20% of search
• Yahoo improves and captures about 20% of search
• Overture improves and captures about 20% of search
• Other competitors capture a combined 20% of search
• Google retains the remaining 20% of search

With everything on that list plus or minus ten percent.

Having one company dominate search is bad for several reasons:

• They have censorship power
• They have unprecedented power to track users and gather data on them
• It is a single point of failure for a needed service on the internet
• Potention to become a monopoly that is able to squeeze the profit margins from small businesses that rely on traffic from search engines

In general it is good for consumers of all sorts to have choice. Especially when all the choices are good.

There a bunch of signs that Google's deathgrip on search is slipping:

• MSN and Yahoo have been crawling the internet just as much as Google in the past 9 months. Their indexes are likely to be just as comprehensive
• MSN dropped "pay for placement" programs indicating they are willing to become consumer friendly for a larger share of the market
• Google's IPO seems to have been done well, but at the same time started the alarm bells for folks about Google's impartiality

I would rather use....

[ketul]

http://clusty.com/ !

Microsoft depends on Linux

[soloport]

You don't know how wrong you are. There are certain storage vendors who know just how much Microsoft *depends* heavily on Linux server farms. (MSN is such a hypocritical joke.)

Nice sarcastic comment by Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

'You're not allowed to criticize and say that Google isn't solving all the world's problems,' Mr. Gates said in an interview.

Yeah. Unlike Microsoft, which has announced that Windows Longhorn will include the following fixes:

Middle-east

Global warming

The US economy

Antibiotics-resistant bacterial strains

A proof of Riemann's hypothesis

Unemployment, homelessnes, alcoholism and drug abuse

Pop-ups

Interview with search engine

[pmasters]

Its a shame this won't be updated for MSN :(

http://www.satirewire.com/features/satire-jeevesin terview.shtml

That's ok

[Moth7]

Most of the major distributions have shifted to Xorg now ;-)

Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try this for size... Netcraft (http://www.netcraft.com) and enter "beta.search.msn.com"

Re:Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose if its good enough for google...

Re:Linux?

[CausticPuppy]

http://search.msn.com was running Microsoft-IIS on Linux when last queried at 10-Nov-2004 16:48:55 GMT

...IIS on Linux? *scratches head*

Re:Linux?

[narsiman]

Akamai cache runs on Linux. The backend is still IIS. Already covered in /.

Professionals

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter whether or not professionals choose to switch over to MSN search, Microsoft will forcibly "integrate" it in some way which makes it simply less hassle to use, and the common end-user will simply switch out of habit.

Re:Paid listings

[waterwheel]

If you think the first 50 listings on Google haven't 'paid' to be there, well, in the nicest possible way, you're misinformed. Search engine optimization is big business and on any remotely popular searches the top listings are filled not with 'natural' listings but with websites that have figured out what Google is looking for, and provided it to them.

Takes me back

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember when the experts didn't expect to see much of a future in IE when we all knew Netscape was king. Microsoft tends to, in time, steamroll whatever it aims at.

Beta or not this is irritating.

[loconet]

Many of you have heard or noticed the way in which the msn bot is pounding and raping away sites as of lately. The thing is behaving like a drunk man knocking on random apartment doors over and over again. Here is some sample data from my personal site..

2004-11-09 15:17:56 sync.X-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 14:25:37 permit-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 10:32:15 cdp-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 06:25:07 sync.X-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 06:19:18 permit-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 02:51:34 cdp-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 02:46:07 cdp-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 02:35:36 MultiplyWithMFC-1.0_src.zip 66.249.64.199
2004-11-09 00:55:05 sync.X-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 00:12:03 permit-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 00:10:57 permit-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 00:05:21 sync.X-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-08 21:03:10 permit-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33

Note that 207.46.98.33 is registered to Microsoft so lets assume it's the msn bot. Notice that the damn thing blindly keeps on downloading the same file! The requests are just a few minutes from each other. The other ip address is from google's bot. This can be dangerous for those of us who have transfer caps. I know that a simple tweak in robots.txt and/or meta tags should (hopefully) solve the problem but why do I have to do extra work because of their "ways" of implementing this thing? Beta or not they are using the whole web as their test subject and unless there is a reasonable explanation as to why this is being done, tests are not going well and well it's just annoying. ;)

Could someone enlighten me with an explanation as to why this could be happening?

Re:Beta or not this is irritating.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares why its happening. Create the frickin robots.txt file, use a noindex tag or two, and be done with it already. Ten minutes of work, and you have nothing to gripe about. Please spend the ten minutes already.

BTW, their "way" is to hit everything that doesn't say "don't hit me".

Re:Beta or not this is irritating.

[Anonymous Coward]

eh no?

new style sheets please

[jinxidoru]

Not only is it a rip off of Google's UI, it has some appearance issues. I thought it looked ugly because I was in firefox but no; ie looks almost as bad. Does anyone else think the interface looks and feels really awkward, or am I all alone here?

Re:new style sheets please

[happyfrogcow]

I don't see the issues you are seeing. Firefox 1.0 preview. The site just looks like a centered box with a few dropdowns. then some more text underneath, also centered.

Re:new style sheets please

[jinxidoru]

The main problem is the fonts. It could also just be that my computer doesn't have the fonts.

Re:new style sheets please

[Carnildo]

Not awkward, just butt-ugly. I think it's the shade of blue they chose for the the links.

Scariest part..

[mumblestheclown]

I am an advertiser on google ($2500 / month) and Overture ($600 / month) and when I typed my search into MSN's beta search my ads came up as "sponsored links." I have no idea from where I am paying for them through. Anybody have any ideas? Are they overture links?

Some good out of it.

[Deathlizard]

Playing around with it, Google Definetly trounces it, but it's got some interesting features to it that are nice.

The Search Builder is something I'm liking so far. Specificially the "results ranking" adjuster that allows you to adjust the search based on match, popularity, and update frequency.

The Near Me function, although it has some issues like not knowing exactly where you are (it says im in cincinnati, ohio and Im in PA) could be something useful. At least I'd use it more than "Im Feeling Lucky"

It's not bad, but it's got a long way before it takes google on.

Blatant rip off

[spike2131]

MSN is a moderate rip-off of Googles UI. If you want a blatant rip off of Google's UI, its at http://search.yahoo.com/

Re:Blatant rip off

[borud]

I think whomever invented the fork should sue all the people who make forks these days. I mean, come on, they're almost all the same so they must have ripped off the original. right? -Bjørn

Re:Blatant rip off

[Proteus]

Maybe Y!Search looks like Google search because Y!Search is Google search. Y! partnered with Google a long time ago...

Re:Blatant rip off

[Eraser_]

I do believe Yahoo! broke that contract earlier this year in order to start inserting paid stuff back into the results. Just my 2 cents.

Dave Cross

[bopmachine]

Notice the only positive user comment is by a Mr. Dave cross. Wonder if it is the same bloke who wrote this whitepaper for microsoft? http://searchwindowssecurity.techtarget.com/whitep aperPage/0,293857,sid45_gci997644,00.html Could it be Ms has planted a shill?

The Death of Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

When I worked for IBM (namedrop) in 95-96, I stood up at a conference and said to the CEO in front of 1000 dyed-in-the-wool delegates "There is a buzz about Windows, and ALL the students are using it. Today's students are tomorrow's CIOs, engineers and buyers. What is the board going to do to recapture that buzz for OS2*". To IBM's credit I wasn't fired on the spot, but there again, the answer was the usual deadwood remarks about "market need blah datacenter blergh blah".
IBM then went into a dark period with OS2, OS400, MVS, TSO, JSL, CICS, MQ, DB2, Websphere, PC, AIX etc etc etc. They became all things to all people and had an application to do anything you wanted. The sales guys treated the customers like cash cows and leveraged the datacenter iron like crazy. Customers hated it and you physically could see the pleasure on their faces when UNIX and PCs arrived so they could stick one on IBM.
Sound familiar?
Today there is a buzz about OSS that MS can only dream about. But more to the point, MS are falling into the same trap as IBM. They are trying to diversify into areas best left alone for example Handsets and Search Engines. They do both badly, they leverage their installed base like crazy and the sales guys treat their customers like cash cows (coincidence? not really. There is every chance it's the same sales guys).
The reason such mega-companies act like spoilt two-year olds is a result of how capitalism works. Investors always want growth. It is unacceptable to stand in front of the AGM and say: "We made 100 gazillion again last year. Same as the year before and the year before that". So if you already own 98% of the PCs then you can't go up - you have to go sideways into new revenue earners, eg search engines. And you will never, EVER be as good at that because its a market or a technology or a customer or a partner or a culture you do not understand. Mistakes are made. Things go wrong. People get sued. Then you start to die. Its a bit like bacteria in a flask. Ironically anyone with a pension scheme will have some money invested however indirectly in this process. I smile every day knowing I am doing my bit to eat away Microsoft from the inside just as my serial installations of Linux of friends systems eats them from without.
I digress.
Add to this death spiral Bill's insane need to WIN AT ALL COSTS and you have the recipe for a firm that is at odds with itself: It has to grow but can only do so by changing but it can't change because it always has to be RIGHT. When it is more important to be RIGHT than to be ACCEPTABLE then it's only a matter of time until you have no customers.

*I didnt come across Linux until a month or two later after which I became a Linux advocate.

Re:The Death of Microsoft

[QQ2]

You state:

MS are falling into the same trap as IBM

and

Add to this death spiral Bill's

However if i'm not mistaken IBM still made $1.80 billion profit last year. Allthough I agree with you that entering different markets will not always help Microsoft and might even endanger them I still think it won't kill them. It might hurt, it might mean they will have to alter there business model just like IBM did but I doubt that Microsoft will die from something like this.
However I do think you are right on the buzz part. Even my GF (an accountant) knows what linux is and I think this will ultimately hurt MS more than any product diversification ever will.
Regards QQ2 (someone who works with Websphere)

Clippy XP SP3

[Vandil X]

*blink*
It looks like you're searching for porn.
Would you like help?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.
[ ] No, but turn on one-handed browsing.

Try a different search engine

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Clusty for clustered searching. I am starting to use it more often than google.

Brand new Search Engine

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of msn search, why is it that nobody notices a brand new, top class search engine lanunched yesterday? Give it a try - it is really good!
http://www.crapsearch.com/

Speaking of copying things..

[Enaku]

Everyone knows about the old put: "answer to life the universe and everything" into Google and get 42 in Google calculator, as seen here.

Well the new MSN search has the _exact_ same thing shown here.

In my opinion, that's a pathetic rip off of a good Google joke. Micrsoft doesn't have a true sense of humor (or at least I've never seen evidence of it), but Google definitely does, A la the famous Google Moon Base april fools joke etc. All MSN search can hope to be is a glossed over clone of Google, they've been their first, they've found all the cool stuff.

But hey, that's just my 2 cents (including GST)

They can't win against Google

[__aavljf5849]

The reason nobody can win against Google is that Googles results are almost as good as they can be. That's why it only took me a couple of test searches to switch to Google. (Can you remember the time before Google? I *think* I was using Altavista, but it's all a blur of vague memories of never finding anything, so I'm not sure...)

They only time Google doesn't come up with relevant search results is when I'm forced to use so generic words that I get a wide spread of hits. No traditional keyword based search engine can beat that.

The next search engine people will switch to is the one that can help you focus in on a more specific topic or type of information, without using specific keywords and without using keyword searching. I have seen some experimental search engines that will group pages depending on what they are about and then let you do subsearches withing a selected group. This technology is still too raw to be useful, and it is still based on keywords in the pages and links, but someday somebody will have an idea as bright as Google, adn searching will leap to the next level.

I'm not betting on that it will be Microsoft. Actually, the company most likely to do such a thing is Google themselves. They still haven't lost the inventive touch, as Gmails user interface shows.

MSN 1 Teoma 1 Vivisimo 1 Google 0 Fast 0

[melvster]

I use 4 search engines often, Teoma, alltheweb(fast), google (of course) and vivisimo (clusty).

This morning i was reading the news from The Independent ( http://www.independent.co.uk/ ) and spotted an article from a noteworthy journalist, Robert Fisk. Alas, as usual, it was premium and not available.

No problemo, I think, and type the first line into my favourite search engines. I also decided to use msn for the first time ever. Here are the results.

Google - fail - 0 hits
Alltheweb - fail - 0 hits
Teoma - 1 hit - perfect - straight to the article
Vivisimo - as above
MSN - partial success - it found the same source as teoma/vivisimo but too me to the URL root, so that i was 2 clicks away

this show MSN is certainly different to the other 2, but in this case it was Bill 1 - 0 Sergy

Interesting future feature

[SuperKendall]

One yet-to-appear feature that Mr. Gates has been pushing for is an Internet search that can include results from subscription Web sites. If a consumer subscribes to an online magazine, for example, a search of the open Web could pull up articles from that magazine.

That actually sounds like kind of an interesting feature, I imagine it would work off passport...

But I don't know how many people want to identify themselves just to search.

In fact, to me it sounds almost more like a plugin for a local search product (like the Google desktop search or Spotlight) than somehting you want a generic search engine to offer. Microsoft has fundamentally been about all things being known and maintained by them, while other companies have done better with the concept there are some things local to the user that the user really owns.

Another potential issue, it relies on the target to be searched allowing a "backdoor" to the search engine for searching the content - a backdoor which it seems like others could find and exploit.

Beta quality

[grouse]

Hmmm. When Google products are still in Beta, I still rush to them, as they seem production-quality, with just a disclaimer. This is not true for Microsoft.

Great

[spaic]

http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=goglew ..for those who can't spell google :)

DIY Search

[cpghost]

Google, Yahoo, MSN etc... why do we actually rely on a commercial entity for searches? Wasn't there a distributed search project called Grub? Can't we just set up something similar that would be totally independant of any entity that would always be suceptible to *cough* influence *cough*?

Something similar to the Linux movement, but with even more impact to the general Internet population? C'mon, we can do it, don't we? We're also using bittorrent to get more independance of central ftp servers. Distributed search would be just the same.

Terms Of Service

[Goo.cc]

I'm not going to touch MSN Search with a ten foot pole but it surprises me that this kind of testing wasn't against MSN's Terms Of Service.

But...

[skinfitz]

Bottom line seems to be that nobody is going to be switching over to MSN Search from Google anytime soon.

Wait until it's built into Longwait.

They could do this for Windows

[bitswapper]

MS could release a similar statment for windows or outlook or whatever:
"In the process of making our new [windows|outlook|misc product] available, we experienced technical difficulties that rendered it [full of holes which make it easy for script kiddies to compromise the entire computer system] for some consumers for periods of time. This is something we are working to fix and apologize for any inconvenience [even though its the user's fault in every instance]. We expected to find some problems [but we only told customers who paid us to tell them] in the beta, and we anticipate there will be additional times when we limit service availability for maintenance purposes [and we'll tell you about those if you pay us to]. Finding and fixing those problems will help us build a higher quality product [and trustworthy computing is our number one priority]."

Re:a farm of google servers

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to see it. Its quite interesting.
7 ft ractks
20 servers per side
Aluminum tray, with mobo mounted, HD and PSU connected with velcro.

Re:Microsoft running out of Cache?

[gnunick]

...and if you try to view MSN's cached page for google, it comes up blank.

Congrats to MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the beta state MSN search:

+ already returns good result
+ has a nice, uncluttered and professional layout
+ has good options

- not integrated in Opera's search box

Time to move away from Google and its link-farm infested results.

worst operating system query

[xSherlock]

while not that good as google used to be, returning microsoft.com on the first place the new search returns a page form http://einsteinsbreakfast.com with this little quote as the page summary:

Windows is THE WORST OPERATING SYSTEM EVER

as the no.1 result :))) good job

mod parent funny!!! ROTFLOL

[davidwr]

Try it. Costo shareholders will love this one.

A Simple Comparison Test

[alphakappa]

I tried to see how the MS search engine returns results that may be more relevant than Google, so I started by entering addresses (such as $restaurant_name$, $city$, $state$), but I found out that MSN has no way to return local results unlike Google which immediately interprets it as an address and shows me the results on a map. So I tried to search for something that would not be obivous, and yet not too obscure. I searched for "asu graduate college" - the grad college homepage at Arizona State Univ. Here are the results:

Google
MSN

Note how Google returns the most relevant page as the first result (asu.edu/graduate), while msn doesn't have that result anywhere in the first page! I tried numerous other searches, but save for a few, most of the results did not give me the relevant pages. So I guess, while the engine does index a lot of pages, their algorithm still needs plenty of working on in order to be anywhere close to Google.

Groups Coverage?

[BashDot]

What I want to know is: will this search engine conver content in MSN groups?

I am a member of an MSN group. What I (and everyone else in the group) am always complainging about is the lack of a "Search" button. The forums are getting filled up with things that have already been asked/posted because of this. Not to mention trying to go back and find a specific post.

MSN Groups has to be the poorest excuse for a service I've ever seen. If you aren't using IE (ActiveX enabled), you can't put emoticons in your post. It won't translate the standard text-based ones. The layout is very archaic... want to find a photo album? You have to go through what has become 10 pages... changing the page with a drop-down list. (Just "Page 1", "Page 2", etc.) I should end this rant here, it's starting to get off-topic.

Get a life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing else needs to be said

Re:Get a life.

[ThJ]

Oh wow! This is the most amazing retort I've ever seen... I am to "get a life"... This is so fresh! :o

Re:Get a life.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah my mommy helped me come up with it.

Want some more of this punk?

Marketing droids are scurrying about...

[nek]

In the Seattle PI blog page linked in the post, the Microsoft marketing team has done their part:

As expected, the world's greatest development team (Microsoft) have rewritten the search engine rules. The new MSN search blows EVERYTHING else out of the water, it's simply incredible. Google should be very worried. The "search builder" is a phenomenal development (hats off to MS research labs), no other search engine comes close. I was amazed at the accuracy of the "near me" feature - it correctly located a store just 25 miles from my house! I won't be going back to Google, I advise you to do the same. Search with the best, search with Microsoft Search.
Posted by: David Cross at November 12, 2004 08:43 AM

Blatant, much?

Try Most Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Try 'Most Evil' without quotes.

I Want Google To Be Bested...

[rinkjustice]

I want something to be even better than Google. But the question I have is: how? Google's results are only as good as the keywords it's given.

Perhaps an auto keyword generator that helps the user be more specific. And make it fast.

Truth is, I don't care who will be the Googlekiller - it could be Walmart Search for all I care, just make all the knowledge of the cyberspace universe effortlessly retrievable.

Sexually explicit??? What about XBox!

[Spoing]

1. "The search xfree86 may return sexually explicit content.
   We didn't return results because your SafeSearch setting is set to Strict. To get results using the current search, change your SafeSearch setting."

If anything is sexually explicit, I'd think that XBox qualifies.

Age Verification

[gmerideth]

I'm amazed how hard it was to turn off the filtering of images with their staggering "are you sure your over 18" yes/no questionaiire.

If its that simple of a bypass, whats the point in having it to begin with?

Google gives me pr0n

[evenSong]

Seeing as I can't seem to find pr0n with MSN Beta's image search, I will stick to Google.

Consistent over Time

[dvduval]

They must prove themselves to have good search results consistently over a period of time. And, of course, if they spent say $1 Billion on marketing, that would help.

Silly Slashdot

[telstar]

It's gotta hit version 3.0 before it'll topple Google.

Re:Silly Slashdot

[fastgood]

It's gotta hit version 3.0 before it'll topple Google

And it needs to spellcheck its own pages before it comes out as v2.0 --
http://support.msn.com/feedbacksearch.aspx

It sputtered !

[KaledZeCamelII]

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov 2004/tc20041112_7986_tc119.htm
But remember :
IE 2.0/3.0 Bad and buggy, very far from Netscape 3
IE 4.0 better then Netscape 4
IE 5.0 world domination
Arrrrrrrghgghghghh!!!!!

Re:It sputtered !

[aderusha]

the story doesn't end there though. don't forget:
IE 6.0 bad and insecure, very far from firefox 1.0 (netscape resurrected).

Search results for my name

[lothar97]

My name (Owen Smigelski) is kind of unique, and it's been posted online since 1994. I like comparing the different search engines to see where they find my name, and how importance they place on each result. My name is out there enough that it takes up the first 10+ search results, and does not get manipulated by competing search engine positioning.

IMHO Google provides more relevant search results. The results that Google provides are actually under my personal control, and can be modified by me. Google gives more power to smaller sites. Yahoo and MSN seem to put more emphasis on larger 3rd party sites and sites that have not been updated recently. I personally think my personal website at smigelski.org should be #1, however Yahoo and MSN disagree with me here.

Here are the first 10 search results for my name:

Google
1- My personal website (smigelski.org)
2- My resume from my personal website
3- My profile for a marketing website for my law firm
4- My name from an article about trademarks for this site
5- My profile from my law firm's website
6- My name on a yellow pages site for San Diego attorneys
7- A posting I made about http://sheilashaw.com/
8- A /. posting I made about taste/smell patents
9- My profile on a law questions forum
10- More about http://sheilashaw.com/ (I advise Sheila Shaw's company, she's a kidney transplant patient w/ a good "suriving death several times yet living a full life" story)

Yahoo
1- My profile from a Martindale Hubble crummy site for my firm (free with being listed)
2- Lawyers.com listing (Martindale Hubble)
3- Marketing site for law firm (#3 in Google)
4- My profile on my law firm's site (#5 in Google)
5- My website from law school, when I was running for secretary of the student government. This page has not been updated since 2000.
6- My personal website (#1 in Google)
7- My resume from my personal website (#2 in Google)
8- My profile from stumbleupon.com
9- My trademark law blog at www.smiglaw.com
10- My trademark law blog at aliased URL trademarks.smiglaw.com

MSN
1- My profile from a Martindale Hubble crummy site for my firm (free with being li (# 1 on Yahoo)
2- My profile on my law firm's site (#5 in Google, #4 in Yahoo)
3- My personal website (#1 in Google, #6 in Yahoo)
4- My law school website (#5 in Yahoo)
5- My online photo album from my personal website
6- My profile from stumbleupon.com (#8 in Yahoo)
7- The sponsor form from my law school website when I ran a marathon to raise money for the Leukemia society
8- The PDF version of the sponsor form
9- My trademark law blog at www.smiglaw.com (#9 in Yahoo)
10- My trademark law blog at aliased URL trademarks.smiglaw.com (#10 in Yahoo)

Re:Search results for my name

[Utopia]

I am getting very different results on MSN search.
1. http://www.smigelski.org/
1a. http://www.smigelski.org/resume.html
2. http://www.drpna.com/Profiles/Smigelski.html
2a. http://www.drpna.com/Profiles/index.html
3. http://www.inventionpatent.net/about/owen.cfm
3a. http://www.inventionpatent.net/about/firm.cfm
4. http://www.sheilashaw.com/contact.html
5. http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/10/07/0029252.shtml ?tid=155&tid=14
6. http://trademarks.smiglaw.com/blog/
8. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/1 0/1924228&tid=134&tid=1

Re:Search results for my name

[Thomas Hawk]

What do you mean the name Owen Smigelski is kind of unique? I know like 17 different Owen Smigelskis. Now Crowen Smigelski or Brovakowen Smigelski now those might really be unique.

Re:Search results for my name

[lothar97]

I am getting very different results on MSN search.

It's possible they're still testing their search results. In the past when I've been doing search engine positioning, I asked a friend to enter a term, and click on my result in Google (it was #4 or 5 for me here in San Diego). He was in NY, and when he did the same search, he got different results, with several different entries (my entry was not there). So, I guess you really can't figure out what's going on. It's also possible that MSN might have cookies

Challenge and Fighting!

[eomnimedia]

SEE! The spyware as it installs on your machine!
FEEL! The excrement as this new crapware infects files and destroys your hard work on your hard drive!
DANGER! Don't use it!
ADVENTURE! As you go searching the world for a real OS!

Fixed Links:

[JFitzsimmons]

Google
MSN Beta

Took out the unneeded crap from the google search and changed it to .com.

Best search engine ?

[Alascom]

Try searching for "best search engine" on search.msn.com.
http://search.msn.com/results.asp x?FORM=SRCHWB&q=b est%20search%20engine

Google: #1
Microsoft Search isn't even in the top 10 results...

Game, set, match.... ;)

Re:Best search engine ?

[Zig-E]

try putting "worst search engine"
http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=%22worst +search+engine%22&FORM=QBRE/
MSN #1

relevant results

[Mannen Gezondheid]

I think the results in msn beta are more relevant than those from google. Anyone other ideas? Regards Christof http://www.mannen-gezondheid.com

Re:relevant results

[cmpalmer]

Much smaller database of crawled, high-profile sites yields more relevant search results for simple queries (MSN Search).

Huge database of crawled sites, including lot of semi-obscure ones yields a greater depth of information, but may require refinement of search terms (Google).

I rarely search Google with a single word search unless I am looking for the home page of a product or project. As a matter of fact, I usually free-associate on a topic and search for 5 or 6 words (or more) then broaden my search if I don't find what I wanted to start with.

Maybe google rival will be chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

Baidu, Sohu, Sina, Netease - they all have their own search engines. Maybe real competition for google will come from china in the not so far future.

Some good info:

http://china-netinvestor.blogspot.com/

Oops!

[shotfeel]

My fault "competitors" is spelled wrong in the quote, not the person being quoted.

Multiple operator errors resulted in the misquote.

Re: Gmail Ads

[perplexa]

Shh...don't tell! As long as advertisers think we're seeing the ads, they'll keep paying to have them there and we can keep our free Gmail.

ooh, it really works!

[Anonymous Coward]

has anyone tried this yet? the best operating system (picked up from planet.debian ..of course)

Why everything coming out of MS or MSN

[melted]

... has to be blue? I mean, I've grown allergic to blue because of this. Blue is the color beginner designers use when they don't know what color to use. Make it red, green, multicolored, polka-dotted, whatever, just don't make it blue.

This for me is enough to continue using Google. Let's face it, in its first incarnation this search engine has no advantages over Google.

Re:Why everything coming out of MS or MSN

[Anonymous Coward]

So why did Sun, Apple, RehHat, KDE and Gnome all chose blue for their default themes as well?

There is a very good psycho-optical reason for this actually. Try googling for the answer. It is not a beginners mistake by any means.

MSN Search vs Google: Results for "linux"

[bayduv1n]

MSN Search:

http://www.linux.org/
http://www.linuxbase.org/
http://www.linux.com/
http://www.linuxlinks.com /
http://linuxgazette.net/
http://www.colinux.or g/
http://www.linux-usb.org/
http://www.enterpri se-linux-it.com/
http://www.linuxforums.org/
htt p://www.linux-talk.com/

Google:

http://www.linux.org/
http://www.linux.com/
ht tp://www.redhat.com/
http://www.suse.com/us/
htt p://www.linuxjournal.com/
http://www.mandrakelinu x.com/
http://www.debian.org/
http://www.kernel. org/
http://www.gentoo.org/
http://www.linuxdoc. org/

Talk amongst yourselves...

Competition from China

[Anonymous Coward]

Baidu, Sohu, Sina, Netease - they all have their own search engines. Maybe real competition for google will come from china in the not so far future.

Some good info:

http://china-netinvestor.blogspot.com/

Why read a review?

[jmichaelg]

I've never understood why someone would read a review about a search engine. Reviews make sense of you can't afford to try the item yourself before buying.

With a search engine, however, you try it, if you like it, you keep using it. That's how I started with Google. What does the review do for me that I can't see for myself?

Re:Why read a review?

[Flaming Foobar]

I've never understood why someone would read a review about a search engine.

Because people like me are interested in those reviews.

You see, I don't really have the time or energy to try each and every search engine there is. The first engine I used was Webcrawler, then someone said, "Alta Vista" is better. When Alta Vista started getting bloated with advertisements, and became unusable, for a while I tried looking for alternatives, but nothing seemed as good as it had previously been. Not until someone recommended this weird "Googol" thingie - in a review I read on the web.

Yahoo screwing themselves?

[aclarke]

Granted I haven't spent a lot of time looking at the details here so I could be missing something, but why the heck is Yahoo providing search results to Microsoft? This reminds me of an African fable called "Little Leopards Become Big Leopards and Big Leopards Kill" about the boy who brought a cute baby leopard into the villiage. They fed it and brought it up, and then it turned on them and killed a bunch of people (that's part 1 of the story, anyway).

It seems like Yahoo is just shooting themselves in the head here. They're obtaining some short-term revenue at the expense of growing up a competing search engine, from a company that is not exactly known for playing fair in the competitive marketplace... You'd think that as soon as Yahoo figured what Microsoft was up to, they'd have yanked their license right then and there.

I don't think Google is King

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday I did the logs for the past week for my site Rolist.com. I use 123Loganalyzer for my log reporting I might add.

This was interesting. Out of the 400,000 hit to my site, guess what was the leading search engine that people used to find me?

Yahoo!

75% of the visitor came from Yahoo!. Alltheweb was 2 nd with about 10%. AskJeeves was next with about another 10%. Google was 4th! 4TH!!! was only 3%. The other 2% were other search engines.

Kinda makes you wonder where alot of their traffic really comes from.

My brother and I have a theory that probably about 60% of their traffic comes from groups.google.com. I wouldn't doubt it since it is really the ONLY place a know of to search USENET since they bought DEJA NEWS.

And do me a favor, don't point me over to Alexa to find out where people go on Google. I never trusted the fucking fraud site and I never will.

Re:I don't think Google is King

[TheAwfulTruth]

The thing I've noticed about google over the last year or so is that everything that comes up top in their lists are virtually all commercial sites.

Initially I though that that might actually be reflective of the makeup of the web, but it's not!

Searching in MSN and Yahoo reveal a much greater variety of site types beside commercial, such as academic, government and individial, "ranked" much higher in the returned list than google gives them. As if, my ghod, they actually use a real search string to page match ranking instead of some combination of that and a sites popularity.

It is often difficult to find out real information that is on the web using google becuase you are wading through hundreds of commercial site "finds" to find the one adademic site that can help you.

This varies by search sctring of course, but in general, Google seems to have primarily become a commercial web page search provider, and not a true and fair indexer of the web. I am not sure that they even did this on purpose, it's just the way it has become.

Basing any kind of page ranking on popularity may work for some, like when my mother is trying to find a certain beenie baby or something, but not for anyone seriously trying to use the web for real informational purpose.

So at this point, the more competing search engines available the better!

Why Google Sucks

[maniac_inside]

After years of using google, frankly I am in desprate need of an alternative. The fact is that I belive that the overall way google works is very much flawed. When Sergery Brin and Larry Page made google they build it up using a simple notion

" Assume that there is a random surfer who is looking for information "

The fact is that treating every surfer to be a random surfer is very much flawed. Consider this when I search for "sex" I am ready to go forward any link that comes to me that is random surfing. However if I want to help myself with some assignment and research I don't want to be treated as a random surfer. I want a personalized search. Right now say if I search for "Search Engine Architecture". What I get is a bunch of links that contain links to topics like Search Engine Optimization. The main reason I get this is because I am treated just like any other Tom Dick and Harry on the street.

Also the main algorithm { PageRank(tm) } is very much flawed. What it works on is that a the greater the number of links pointing to a particular website the greater it's pagerank. That is just one thing that annoys me the most, whenever I look for any information I am getting top links to those websites that were rich enough to set "link farms" or maybe just lot of people started linking to it. Just because *someone* liked it does not mean *I* must like it. In short the search results that I get are those of "corprates".

I am also quite surprised that why people are happy with using just google. I often find much relevant information through Yahoo.

On my own personal experience often what I get in the top 100 search hits is 50% Crap and the rest 50% Distracting.

P.S. I know that google does offer Personalized search as a beta feature, but anyone who has used it must know that it is just not ready for prime time.

The biggest question is "WHY?"

[crovira]

Now M$ will be bound to index the contents of your hard drive (Google's already made steps in that direction.)

Given M$ product design uh, "acumen" and their renowned approach to sysetm security, your every embarassing e-mail or all those pr0n pics that you've forgot about since you forgot what sub directory they were in will resurface to haunt you on the internet.

Imagine the "Invasion of Privacy" charges and civil lawsuits.

This is a disaster waiting to happen. Thank [insert deity name here] I use a Mac.

Spelling

[Anonymous Coward]

That's "pursue." You should learn to spell.

The new "More Evil Than Satan"?

[cbowland]

Ok, I'll bite.

Why is Google the number one result when searching for "more evil than satan" on the MSN Beta?

Try it yourself.

Sour grapes, anyone?

A Quick Results Test - Google vs. MS

[SkiddyRowe]

This is kind of interesting. Found by a co-worker of mine.

Do a search on Google for 'linux' and you'll get 207,000,000 results. Google will only display the first 1000 results, after which you receive a notice stating that fact.

Do the same search on Microsoft's, and you get ~28,000,000 results, they give the exact number, 28,296,161, yet they'll only display up to 280. After which they display an error saying they found no results for 'linux'.

Best web browser

[BabyJaysus]

http://beta.search.msn.com/

"Best web browser":
Mozilla: 1st place
Firefox: 1.1th place
Internet Explorer: 6th place

"Best browser":
Firefox: 2nd place
Internet Explorer: 3rd place

"Worst web browser":
Article on Internet Explorer: 1st place
Internet Explorer: 3rd place
Firefox: 18th place

"Worst browser":
Internet Explorer: 1st place
Firefox: 13th place

i'd mod this up...

[schmaltz]

if i weren't saving the points for pro-Bush trolls.

Stylesheets an issue

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wan't to point out that after trying the MSN search on Safari, I
got the following message:

Why does Search look like this?
You are seeing this message because our stylesheet is not compatible
with your browser.

For starters, if they want to appeal to the public at large or even us
techno weenies, they're going to have to do a lot better than
stylesheet issues.

Why would a company want to ward of potential new users with something
so simple as a stylesheet/browser issue?

Microsoft, spending micro amounts of time on macintosh software.

az

Re:Microsoft running out of Cache?

[melandy]

The developers only planned on 640k of cache. Bill said that's all they would need.

best operating sytem

[at_slashdot]

it looks like according to MSN, Debian is the best operating system, Sun is the second.. Windows doesn't even appear on the first page.

So MS wants to duplicate Google?!? MS Original?

[UberHckr]

The question is this: "If there is one thing you would like to have that does not exist today on the Internet, what would it be?"

I can hear it already... "Is there anything else left that can be on the web and is not?"

Thats what we are set out to determine with this question! It is obvious that even the big boy M$ is having problems with being ORIGINAL!
Follow the below link and leave your thoughts, opinions, ideas.
http://www.briantafoya.com/article.php?story=20041 112131439521
We will be compiling the results of this survey for everyone to see and share. This should be a fun and interesting survey to bring out what people really want from the Internet.

Of course, you cannot forget this test...

[canfirman]

Google: Litigious Bastards

MSN: Litigious Bastards

Figures Microsoft wouldn't put SCO's website first.

searching for "terrible software"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just on a hunch, I tried searching for "terrible software" on MSN search. The results? See here.

Do as I do...

[Anonymous Coward]

and feed things like "Firefox webbrowser browser Mozilla" and variations to that, into their fucked-up excuse of a search engine :) hell, script it and make it run 24/7 every single second... it's worth the bandwith

Re:more evil than satan: FIXED!

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice that it's already been fixed.

Firefox & IE

[uphaar]

The more people use Firefox, they are more likely to use Google instead of MSN Search, since Google is integrated in Firefox. And since the 1.0 release, the start page is http://www.google.com/firefox.

Future versions of IE will ofcourse try to use a similar search box that would use MSN search and won't let the users add/change the search engine, unlike Firefox - in true M$ style.

Re:Firefox & IE

[figleaf]

IE has a search sidebar.
And surprise surprise it is configurable.

BTW, My brother goes to the same college as you.

Re:Firefox & IE

[uphaar]

And surprise surprise it is configurable.

then I think they'll be fixing the "bug" soon enough

BTW, My brother goes to the same college as you.

That's interesting... please use the contact form on my website so we can talk further?

3.0 was MS' ripoff of the Mac interface

[leonbrooks]

Get it? Got it? Oh, never mind. (-:

Yeah,

[leonbrooks]

right.

Softer example...

[leonbrooks]

...here.