Slashdot Mirror
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.
"
What is he talking about? Microsoft hasn't been a feisty upstart since about 1986.
12:50 - press return.
What gets me is the blatant rip off of Google's UI. This coming from Microsoft - the trademark happy lawsuit company.
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.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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.
it has bugs, it is not ready, all that jazz, did I mention it was beta?
did you forget to take your meds?
... 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.
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
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.
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
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.
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)
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=miserabl e+failure&FORM=QBHP i lure&spell=1
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miserable+fa
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.
search for
"more evil than satan"
on
http://beta.search.msn.com/
generic
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.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
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.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
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
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
Once again Microsoft is just ripping-off someone elses product or idea and just remarketing it.
.net etc.
Its just the next in a long line of products they've just stolen, including Windows, Office, IE, C#,
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?
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-.
All you have to do is integrate it into the operating system and poof google goes away!
Got Code?
it will cost you a cookie but Webb's Filter is good at rounding up media reactions: /. 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.
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
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
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?
-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. There must be something seriously twisted about this guy, if his reaction to the fact that somebody else being successful and admired is rage.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It looks like you're searching for porn. Would you like help?
*blink* *blink*
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
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/
SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
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.
*blink*
It looks like you're searching for porn.
Would you like help?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.
[ ] No, but turn on one-handed browsing.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Try Clusty for clustered searching. I am starting to use it more often than google.
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.
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.
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:
:))) good job
Windows is THE WORST OPERATING SYSTEM EVER
as the no.1 result
In that case, order from Gumby's. They're cheap. (I live in Madison.)
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
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
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
The question then is, will they deliver?
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?