Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google vs. Bing — a Quasi-Empirical Study

Posted by timothy on from the unbearable-lightness-of-bing dept.

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."

3 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. not for my searches by siddesu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I use about six languages on a daily basis and IMHO bing sucks at everything that isn't English.

  2. Attorney Tom Brady by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bing scored 62 and google 53. Google lost 5 points because it didn't find an attorney named Tom Brady and Bing gained 5 points because they found it. Remove this one query and google actually wins by a point.

    But what google does really well is get current results. Search for "attorney tom brady" now and you will find TFA on google, but not on bing.

    --

    -- Don't Tase me, bro!

  3. Re:Small sample is right by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I try Bing about once a month for a day. I'm constantly changing back to Google to find the results I'm looking for. It isn't for lack of trying, but the result is that I can't stand Bing. I've even begun to suggest that BING stands for "Bing Is Not Google".

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.