Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and Yahoo Reach Deal
e9th writes "We know that Microsoft failed last February in its attempt to buy Yahoo. Now, Advertising Age reports that they've reached a deal. Instead of a buyout, the two will enter into a revenue sharing agreement, and Bing will become Yahoo's default search engine. The meat of the AdAge article can be found in Yahoo News. This deal may give Google something to worry about."
BRB, cancelling my Yahoo! account.
It said 0 results found.
Yahoo search was useless anyway, so having bing won't change anything for me. It will give them great insight into how people use yahoo's web site though, which will probably allow MSN to poach yahoo users.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Yeah.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
Bing will become Yahoo's default search engine.
I think I just cried a little...
Cobbling together 2 inferior technologies doesn't give you a superior one. I don't really think Google has anything to worry about. Kindly take your rabble rousing elsewhere.
I am, and that is sufficient.
including Google.
But two trains traveling a break-neck speeds towards each other with no sign of stopping makes me feel like throwing some popcorn in the microwave.
If that's true, it missed the antitrust investigation against them.
Most people don't "avoid" Bing (except maybe people like on slashdot, which aren't a consumer majority, by a longshot). People do not use Bing because most people have already used Yahoo! and Google for years, most people won't know the difference that much except maybe "hmm it looks a little bit different". If Bing's engine is better than Yahoo!'s, then maybe people will stay with Yahoo! even longer - well, as long as Yahoo can survive that is.
Bing isn't really better than Yahoo's search it is? What's more, what about foreign-language searching? Yahoo is the only search engine that has spent significant resources improving their Japanese search results, for example. (Google is beginning to do this, but their search results still suck badly.) I imagine Bing would be a big step backward for most people outside the U.S.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
You gotta love the Yahoo, if for no other reason than Zimbra. More than any other piece of software, it's the "Exchange Killer" that we've all wondered about. It matches, feature-for-feature, Exchange. It's (mostly) open-source. It runs fine on Linux. It works with Windows, Mac, Linux, KDE, Google Calendars/Email, and just about everything else, including my WinMo phone.
It's a god-send, it works nicely with basically no fuss or hassle, and it's owned by Yahoo.
Hey, if Yahoo goes belly up, I just hope they sell Zimbra to somebody who can take the good thing handed to them and DO SOMETHING with it!?!?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
> Conspiracy to hide the information or suckage?
The latter, probably caused by the well-known fact that Microsoft is strongly focused on non-technical users. Obviously technical information about search-engine indexing practices isn't the sort of thing most end users would search for, so Microsoft doesn't care whether it works well or not.
If they wanted to *hide* the information, they'd try to keep it out of the search engines that people who *would* look for such information are most likely to use, chiefly Google. In the absence of any evidence that they've attempted that, I would tend to discount the notion that the poor results in Bing are a deliberate obfuscation, in favor of the more likely explanation that they just don't care whether it's any good at turning up technical information.
If you search on Bing for DateTime module, the docs for the Perl and Python DateTime modules do show up, but at #4 and #2, respectively. The same search on Google, predictably, turns them up at #2 and #1. Of course, anyone who actually uses Perl would go straight to search.cpan.org (personally, I have a bookmark keyword for it), and I suspect the Python community has something similar (at least, I would hope so). Nonetheless, Bing's relevancy ranking isn't putting the canonical information first, and Google's is.
I tried searching for Encyclopedia, and the top four results are encyclopedia.com (never heard of it, but it does appear to be relevant, albeit not great; I looked up mitosis in it and got eight paragraphs from Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, which is a pretty meager article for such a major topic, but it would be enough for most gradeschool reports), the Wikipedia article on Encyclopedia, the Britannica main page, and the English Wikipedia main page, in that order. So again, the two that obviously ought to be in the top four results are there. Actually, I tried the same thing on Google, and its ranking is just about the same (with, again, encyclopedia.com in the top slot; I have no idea why, unless having the search term in the domain name is a major boost).
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.