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

O No

[ae1294]

Through the author's methodology and very small sampling,

Science Fault Detected! Engaging TL;DR.

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

[Archangel Michael]

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".

not for my searches

[siddesu]

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

Re:The market will decide

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's primary business function is 'search', though they've attempted to diversify with documents and the like.
Microsoft's primary business function is documents and the like, though they've attempted to diversify with search.

Google's primary business function is 'global hegemony'.
Microsoft's primary business function is 'global hegemony'.

FTFY.

Google isn't paying attention to searching

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been my experience that as Google has gotten bigger they seem to return at the top of their results pages that are nothing more than aggregating websites (most contain LOTS of google adverts too, which piques my thoughts on why they do show up at the very top of Googles searches). This is VERY annoying. As a result, I, previously a great supporter and user of Google, have been looking for a search engine that doesn't return websites that do nothing but hand me links to other websites. If i find one, that loads quickly, I will dump Google.

If Google is listening, it should be very easy to stop the aggrigation websites (sites that have NO CONTENT but just contain links to other sites) from reaching the top of your results.

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.

Attorney Tom Brady

[Col. Klink (retired)]

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.

Re:What about AltaVista?

[bberens]

It would be easy to determine which is which. Bing would provide page summaries that are totally useless, while half the results from Google would be zero-content ad landing pages.

Questions not Skills

[necro351]

I think the author's assumption that people would search for "When are the Patriots playing next year?" rather than "patriots game schedule" is flat out wrong. People know they are using computers, and not talking to a person, and they compensate accordingly. Google therefore, also compensates accordingly, by finding every page on the internet with "patriots", "game", and "schedule" in some close proximity. They may (and probably do) do more, but Google's approach has always been index everything you possibly can, and NLP has always taken a back seat. The Bing folks on the other hand have explicitly tried to optimize for NLP cases. However which engine is better isn't a matter of can you ask it questions in English, but can someone find what they are looking for. Given that most people know that "Googling" is not the same as asking a question, it is not fair to only test NLP queries.

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.