Google vs. Bing — a Quasi-Empirical Study

eko3 writes "SearchEngineLand.com is featuring an article that compares Google's result query relevance performance to Microsoft's Bing. Through the author's methodology and very small sampling, he argues Bing returns slightly more relevant results than Google. The article suggests that Google is riding its current market success based on its legacy namesake when internet search used to be a lot more painful than it is today."

Comments

Small sample is right

[KnownIssues]

A single person's subjective analysis of 20 search terms is a small sample indeed! I will say, Bing has come a long way in producing search results I feel are useful, but I still find myself frequently forgetting Bing is the default search, coming up with bizarrely useless results, switching to Google, and saying to myself, ah yes, these are the results I was expecting.

Perhaps I've just learned to produce search results in Google that meet my needs and haven't developed that skill in Bing. A more thorough, less subjective analysis comparing the two search engines would be very interesting. Sadly, I think this writer's personal conclusion is just going to spark a nerd-war over Google vs. Microsoft filled with subjective opinion (like mine) and little empircal evidence.

Re:Small sample is right

[Totenglocke]

Yea.............I don't buy this guys results at all. I've used Bing and Google plenty of times - I stopped using Bing due to it rarely giving me what I wanted and mostly just giving links to MS products as search results.

Re:Small sample is right

[afidel]

I just did a quick check to see if Bing had actually improved since I last used it, I type "vmware vma password saver" without the quotes into both bing and google since I had read a blog post today about a cool feature but couldn't remember the exact command, googles first result was the vma release notes that talk about the feature, bing had no relevant results in the entire first page. Doesn't look to me like googles in any danger of losing my eyeballs.

Insignificant Result

[phantomcircuit]

20 searches, 15% margin, 100% subjective.

ORLY? Dig a little deeper on this one.....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

You'll note that the story says "Sponsored by In-House SEO Exchange@SMX West". A quick visit to that site shows that Bing is a Premier sponsor of SMX West.

Of course Bing! is better than Google. Shenanigans! Or at the very least, suspect.

Re:What about AltaVista?

[Toe, The]

Did you know Excite is still around? I had no idea.

This list is pretty amazing for some nostalgic perusal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines

(Now as for that VAX... No! Bad!)

Re:The market will decide

[Enderandrew]

Actually Google doesn't sell your data to advertisers. They use your data to determine which ad to show you.

Microsoft conversely filed for a patent specifically to govern a method of how best to auction your private data to third-parties.

Re:O No

[KiloByte]

Following the "science fault" route:
* what does the article's author do for a living? Falsifying of search return.
* does the site that published this study have ties to the "winner"? It's among their "sponsors and partners" page.

Somehow, nearly every time you find an "independent" study giving sensational results, it is sponsored by someone with a vested interest in those results.