Slashdot Mirror
Bing More Effective Than Google?
Xiph1980 writes "Experian Hitwise claims Bing and Bing-powered search to be more effective than Google. The success rate for Bing searches in the U.S. in July was 80.04%, compared to 67.56% for Google. The market watcher defines 'success rate' as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website. Searches made through sites owned by Yahoo, which farmed out search to Bing under a deal struck in 2009, were also more efficient than Google. Those searches yielded a success rate of 81.36%. The claims of Hitwise don't explain why I keep finding things like Microsoft service pack download pages better through google than through bing."
Well, that is interesting because I often find what I need on the first page of Google searches, sometimes second page if it is an odd issue I am working with.
This of course is related to the fact that I use 0% of Bing searches.
What? The information I provided is just as relevant as the unsupported article or reply regarding these two.
Independent statistics are required, otherwise its a he said she said scenario.
Just become somebody clicks through to the site doesn't mean the search result was a success.
Google is my preferred search engine, but the results are noticeably geek slanted. That's perfect for me, I am a geek. However it is not what everyone wants. Bing I find does a better job giving what a non-technical user might be after. You have to remember that as a tech person, what you are interested in may not mesh with what non-tech people are interested in.
So for me, Google it is, but that may not be true for everyone.
There is also the advantage of small marketshare...
You have all the spammers out there trying their best to game google, but how many of them bother to try gaming bing or some of the other small engines? Same thing happened in the early days of google, altavista was full of spam while google had clean results.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I reckon this is because SEO's and link farm scum are throwing all their weight at gaming Google rather than Bing.
I still haven't forgiven Microsoft for pounding, and I mean pounding, a self-hosted (long story) site for a small retailer I worked for a few years ago. We got a nearly $1000 bill for excess bandwidth. I checked the logs and they were downloading entire directories of images over and over and over. Non-techy Boss NOT impressed.
The claims of Hitwise don't explain why I keep finding things like Microsoft service pack download pages better through google than through bing.
That's because unlike Google, Bing doesn't favor its own services over others.
Since when does Google have a service to download Microsoft service packs?
There are also differences in algorithms. Bing doesn't count so called junk-links while Google does. Bing prefers link inside good, relevant content. Google, on the other hand, counts all kinds of links.
Google also filters on link farms. Of course their filtering isn't perfect, but it would surprise me a lot if Microsoft had discovered the magic algorithm to get rid of all "search engine optimization" gaming, and it's simply wrong to say that Google "counts all kinds of links".
Judging by the usual slashdot response of "but they should just improve their algorithms", people don't seem to get how immersively complex current search engines and their algorithms are.
One of my main issues with bing has nothing to do with complex search algorithms. Just search for e.g. shoes. The first page of results already contains two sets of duplicate results in my case: www.shoes.com and www.shoes.com/womens (sic, it actually stands for "women's"), and www.shoes.be and www.shoes.be/schoenwinkels.asp?l=k.
I get this with virtually every search term I've ever tried on Bing, which means that there are much less individually useful results than on Google (which will group all similar results from the same domain and then let you move on).
PS: yes, this is the first time in my life I've searched for the term "shoes" on the Internet
Donate free food here
If I'm looking up the name of something (via related criteria), or searching for a particular statistic, my ideal is to find it displayed in one of the website titles or excerpts without ever having to click anything.
Google also displays dictionary entries, etc. so that I can generally lookup words and get the definition right in the results.
Many times I consider a result "successful" when I don't find what I'm looking for--it was evident from the results that the object or information I wanted did not exist, so, while disappointing, Google did the job I wanted it to do.
I think a far better test is whether, after searching for something, small keyword alterations are made. Granted, many times there is a level of human refinement where people start off not knowing quite what they're looking for, but I think there is probably a much better correlation of people trying different words because they didn't find what they wanted than not-clicking anything. Basically, if people are coming away from Google and Bing equally satisfied, and Bing users click more, that means Bing is less effective and making its users do more work to get their info.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
I have been suspicious of your high ID and first postings.
I call shill. (If you don't believe me, look at his past posts.)
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
What about searches that were a mistake and corrected.
I admit that sometimes I use google as a spell checker and never click through to a page. I'm sure other people do this.
Agreed - I generally find my answers on the first page of a Google search.
But, I can't get past the definition for "success" in the summary. There are times when I Google something, and the answer appears in the summary - no need to click any links.
If you're measuring "success" in terms of dollars and cents changing hands somewhere, yeah, Bing is probably a success. If you're measuring "success" in terms of searchers finding the data they are looking for, I'll put my money on Google.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Have you actually tried that, or do you just spin that old article while not understanding what is happening? Because it doesn't work like that.
Bing toolbar used to follow what links people clicked on search results. That way Bing also got the information about such nonsensical keywords. But if no user clicks those links, they don't get those results. Bing doesn't just scrape Google, they collect usage information (like Google does too).
It's always nice to see somehow spewing complete bullshit when he either doesn't understand the issue or knows no one will actually try it, and try to come off as wiser than he actually is.
Google+ vs. Facebook, and why Google+ will fail
The real question here is, 'How much did Microsoft pay for this predetermined study to be completed?'
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Let's ask two popular search engines the same simple question:
"Who's the black private dick who's a sex machine to all the chicks?"
Seriously. Try it on Bing, then try it on Google.
Game over.
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
But, but., why don't you have your Windows systems set to auto-brick^h^h^h^h^hupdate?
Seriously, I use Google to make the Microsoft VS help usable. VS help is reasonably useful for specific syntax for a supported method/function. It is utterly useless, in my experience, to decide which method/function to use in the first place, whereas Google usually has an answer located within the first 20 links.
IMO, there are serious deficiencies in Google (word1-word2, as a hyphenated string, for example), but I think, once I get the hang of custom searches associated with my gmail account, it will be usable for a wider range of queries.
This has practically nothing to do with "success rate"
It depends on whose success you're talking about. Bing is more successful for site owners, Google is more successful for the person searching.
Free Martian Whores!
If you let Bing be your search of choice you probably don't discern.
That's a baseless statement.
I have tried Bing on many occasions because I'm tired of Google's brokenness and new "features" it keeps rolling out*. Unfortunately, Bing still frequently returns things that I'm not interested in. Conversely, I rarely end up with a Google search that doesn't send me to what I want to find.
*I am completely fed up with Google's hijacking of my search terms -- Google used to predict what you wanted to search for and suggest it to you. Now it just takes you to where it thinks you want to go, and you're lucky if it'll spit out a "did you mean?" More troublesome is that frequently, where it thinks I want to go is completely ridiculous and nonsensical. Here's a real scenario: I searched for "united states weather radar". Google returned "Showing results for "unted states weather ra". Search instead for "united states weather radar". Who searches for "weather ra"?? This happens several times a day to me.
You really should try both side by side. I use Yahoo (I like the UI better) and Google and frankly lately Google doeth sucketh the big wet titty on certain searches. Reviews? you end up with a dozen shopping sites that have stuck the word "review" in their page. With Yahoo I actually find a review for what I'm looking for within the top three searches. Looking for something a little old, like say info about some part that landed in your lap? Again i find mostly eBay and shopping crap on Google, Yahoo I actually find the OEM along with drivers.
The problem with Google is two fold. One they favor their own sites whenever possible, which means they are more likely to give you crap from their sites than something useful from a potential competitor. two the SEO spammers have long since figured out Google's games, which is why shopping sites put keywords like reviews even when there isn't a review within a hundred miles of their site.
So you stick with Google if that is what makes you happy and works for you, but using both I'd say the Yahoo/Bing searches at least for the stuff i'm searching for is better. Plus competition is always a good thing and frankly the amount of data Google is gaining is more than a little scary to me. i think i'd rather have any data I generate spread out through enough competing sites a single company won't be able to tell what I had for breakfast this morning. thanks anyway.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Use Bing for "google stock price". What's the top link on the page? A link to Bing Finance.
Use Bing for "statue of liberty". Top link besides ads? Bing News. Also included are links to Bing Maps.
Try "purchase photoshop". Top link besides ads? Bing Shopping.
Run away, little troll, run away.