Slashdot Mirror
Bing Now Nearly As Good As Google — Says Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "Harry Shum, who oversees research and development for Microsoft's Bing search engine, believes his company has now matched Google's ability to build software platforms that can harness the power of tens of thousands of servers. — 'For many years, we've really tried to play the catch-up game,' Shum says. 'And now we feel that after a lot of effort, we understand search quality problems better than before, and that if you look at Google and Bing, the quality is beginning to be very comparable.' While his comments might be a little biased, many people do share the same opinion. How do you feel about Bing's search results compared to Google's? For example DuckDuckGo, the privacy oriented search engine, uses Bing's back-end and has gained a small following on Slashdot."
I had submissions rejected in the past for referencing Slashdot in them. Have the rules changed?
And while we're at it, would DuckDuckGo's "small following on Slashdot" please enter and sign in with a few posts?
...as a lowering in standards. Slashdot is now all about the paid astro-turfing, self-referential brand-building, and manufactured outrages designed to generate pageviews. The founders are gone, and It's Time to Start Running This Like a Business, Goddammit!
Since discovering the verbatim feature for Google, the search works once more. Most of my searches are now done with it enabled.
"Nearly as good" like "not good as"?
Personally, I started using Bing once Google became incapable of trying to correct my every search. Google, unless my search query is "HowdoIfixmyspacebar," maybe you should consider all those missing spaces as intentional?
But then, I don't have any taste anyway.
But whilst G+, Maps, Image search are all as well integrated and continue to work better, both in accuracy of things I want, and speed to get them, why would I bother to change to something that's /almost/ as good. Plus, having saved searches available on the phone to check something after searching on the laptop has been more useful than I thought it'd be. So why use Bing on desktop and Google on phone? Makes no sense.
For now, Google's still the best for what I need it to do.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Google is much more serious about search than Microsoft; I have access to Google Scholar, Google Books and several specialized searches that may or may not be useful to you personally, like Reader and blogs.
Also, Google gets me much better results in Image search, than Bing, and generally better results from web searches.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
in EU we have ballot screen, so nobody knows what "Bing" is and there is little desire to find out.
839*929
Startpage is great, and unlike duckduckgo it used googles back end which I find delivers better results
I think it is good advice to you never to use the word "never" when referring to technology issues.
Who knew that Microsoft or Nokia or even Apple would be in their respective positions when it comes to technology, just a few years ago? Surely, two of the companies I mention did not see it coming!
Is this an astro-turf? Did you not read that duckduckgo.com is using Bing as a backend? Do you realize you just anonymously gave two advertisements for Microsoft?
On the other hand, if you think Bing is really as good as Google, I'd be really interested in your reasons, instead of some vague ideas about evilness.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Describing Google as Evil and Microsoft as the better alternative to that seems a little suspect to me. There seems to be a fairly widespread ant-Google campaign going on, and the prevalence of it versus anything they've actually done lately seems extremely out of balance ... almost as if it were being promoted by their competition. FaceBook was caught funding it once .ii I would doubt they or others would drop their plans so quickly. I'm not saying people are annoyed by Google's behaviour, I just think there's a non-grassroots push behind the vast majority of it.
Google seem to go out of its ways to pissed of long time customers.
Now you're being silly.
i was not aware that there was any sort of feedback mechanism.
I just tried bing on a list of sample (obscure, complicated) queries that are relevant to me, personally. google found the correct page in 3 out of 4. bing got 1 out of 4.
I wouldn't make any grandiose claims on a sample size of 4. But from a "quick and dirty check" perspective, I won't be trying bing again anytime soon.
BTW: since when are vendor competitiveness claims newsworthy? It always annoys me when stories like this show up on slashdot. Yes, the high-powered $vendor_X executive whose livelihood depends on $product_X has publically claimed that it is equivalent. This is a story? I don't care which vendor you're talking about: the vendor's own claims about relative competitiveness are not newsworthy. Wait for an (impartial) third party to declare that $vendor_X's products, which historically were viewed as inferior to $vendor_Y, are now equal or superior. Or wait for $vendor_X to announce a new feature. Then you have a story.
It's not very hard to be "as good as Google" if you're copying their search results...
Mr. Ballmer wishes to believe that this will be the year of Bing On The Desktop.
I propose that we in the linux community dispatch a team of our disappointment-hardened counselors in order to help him work through the stages of the inevitable grieving process in an efficient and healthy manner...
they finished scarfing down Google's search database, and are just working on fine tuning what percent of false negatives to return?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
As soon as Google started requiring me to use Javascript in order to see my search results I started to use Bing.
Except it doesn't. There seems to be quite a lot of AC "bing is great" comments on this story - astroturfing a little?
Rule of Acquisition 239 says: Never be afraid to mislabel a product.
I wouldn't want to see an internet where Microsoft had the controlling share of the search market. I've had enough of them attempting to destroy the market while they controlled the desktop (and I'm still dealing with that).
I use Microsoft's products where it's appropriate and/or necessary, but avoid them where it's anything close to a judgement call. I'm certainly not going to help them gain a new monopoly where they don't currently have one. Keeping them hungry is probably good for the competitive environment.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
The different algorithms used by each search engine impart a unique "flavor" to the results. So when talking about how good a search engine is, you need to take that into account. For a long time, Bing just didn't taste good at all (e.g., the results were not accurate or complete enough). Now it is at a point where actually does taste good. Many people however don't get this, because they are judging whether or not it "tastes like google." But that isn't the goal. The goal is to develop a unique flavor that can be just as popular. So perhaps it would be easier for you to think of Google as Coke and Bing as Pepsi (or maybe Dr. Pepper). Now that Bing has finally gotten a good flavor, they can start working on getting more and more people to try it. Then they can be the choice of a new generation.
Yes microsoft is evil as well, but they don't own 80-90% of web services at the moment.
While I'm no Google fanboy, I recognize that it's a company that gives me not only search results in exchange for my information/attention. It also gives me a fairly good browser, a useful map system and a decent smartphone OS. It was also, if I recall correctly, the first to implement a free web-based office suite and huge inbox storage capacity (2Gb while Hotmail was still limited to 2Mb or 10Mb - I forget). So that's why I use it - someone will use my search information and, frankly, my search history is not the kind of personal information I care about giving away. So I let Google have it and help finance some good products and technologies. Microsoft, on the other hand, rarely gives anything for free, and when they do, it's usually crap. So even if they were equal in terms of search effectiveness, I'd still use Google. For search. Not that I'll ever use Google+, because my personal information I actually care about giving away.
I don't consider the changes they made very significant, but I had actually always assumed that they aggregated results between their different products. I actually prefer to have a single privacy policy, but I do realize that the potential for abuse is greater with the aggregation. From what I've seen so far though, their is no abuse ... they only do what they said they'd do with the data. Microsoft on the other hand is using extortion tactics to force companies to give them money for producing Linux devices, and makes it extremely difficult for me to buy a laptop without paying for Windows. I'm also very bitter with them over the OOXML travesty among other things. If you don't want Google to track your searches, don't log in for searches. I would like the option to choose whether or not I have search results targeted to my taste though ... I would imagine running a search while not being logged in will also do that though.
Google still offers results relevant to my original search query, Bing does as well but usual far lower down in the results.
As for "Duckduckgo" I approach privacy in an entirely different manner, in other words I don't leave ti to someone to guarantee my privacy, and consider the aforementioned search engine to be disingenuous in claiming a privacy oriented search engine.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Bing is grrreat! for 99% of my searches. The only thing lacking in Bing is that if you search for something technical - like looking for a programming answer on a message board. Google is far better at providing message board results and therefore usually better for 'technical' questions.
I DON'T use Bing for the exact same reason, the picture. It distracts me, I start looking at it, wondering where it is, and forget about the thing I was searching for. This is especially bad at work.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Part of Bing's problem is that they're trying to be "as good as Google". They need to be better than Google to catch up. Bing still has half the market share of Google. Most of Bing's traffic is from Internet Explorer, where Bing is the default browser. Few people use Bing by choice.
Google has its vulnerabilities. The quality of the business data in Google Places is pathetic. Small businesses complain constantly about Google Places, but it's not their fault. Google can't even get the big ones right. Google Places sometimes thinks Ford Motor Company headquarters is a medical clinic, that WalMart headquarters is a pharmacy, and that Fannie Mae headquarters is permanently closed. It also thinks that Coit Tower, a San Francisco landmark, is a carpet cleaning service. Try searching for Fortune 1000 companies in Google Places. The results for major companies are often just wrong. Google's approach to business locations is still very keyword-oriented, which makes it error-prone and easily spammed. It's quite common for a search for a major company to map to a hotel near their HQ.
These are "Places" queries. If you ask that question of a map system, you probably want to go there. These are queries for which there is a right answer. It's not an opinion. It's not a popularity contest. It's not "social". Google can't handle that.
Bing could win by getting that right. Real data is available about businesses and business locations.
Would anyone use the not quite, but almost as good (according to the developer) product?
Especially when it's Microsoft, because fuck them.
As more and more people have focused on 'winning' the search results on google, I've gotten more and more 'wrong' results there. Bing has caught up with the google of today, and sadly neither can compete with the google of 4 years ago.
That's what comes from using "social" signals in search. "Social" is very easy to spam. Fake reviews, fake "likes", fake "+1s"... The social networks even host the spam for free - no expensive link farm to host and update.
Google tried their "real names" policy on Google+ to put a stop to that. That failed. Then they tried correlating what all their users are doing across all their services. That has over 30 US state attorneys general and the European Union after them. Fail.
Microsoft are evil. I don't touch their OS, I don't touch their software and I am not touching their search engine. So there.
Google has never required and does not require javascript. Javascript is only used when available for real-time results instead of waiting until you hit enter.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
There is no "grass roots group" pushing against Google. None, Zero, Zilch.
Microsoft funds, directs and runs countless fake groups and also anyone who would happen to compete with Google is given money should they want to complain anywhere. There exist no counter-culture, only a competitor who cant compete on its merits so it has to play very very dirty instead because its products suck.
We see through it, all of us.
HTTP/1.1 400
You should see the number of people who boycott Sony for its activities... they buy an Xbox instead...........
People like to take a moral stand but they also like their shiny so they make a stand and then ignore any evidence their new stance is even more insane.
Don't like MS? Go for Apple and claim it is so much more open and less evil... no matter what Apple pulls because else you have to not just give up your shiny but admit you have no morals either.
It is very human.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Five years ago, you could search for 'fortune' and see something about BSD fortune in the first page.
I've just searched for 'fortune', and guess what? I got a link to something about BSD fortune in the first page.
Ezekiel 23:20
Your "nearly as good" alternative since 1975.
Nearly as good as TinyBasic
Nearly as good as CPM
Nearly as good as 123
Nearly as good as MacOS
Nearly as good as dBase
Nearly as good as TurboPascal
Nearly as good as CompuServ
Nearly as good as Netscape Navigator
Nearly as good as Unix
Nearly as good as SGI
Nearly as good as Apache
Nearly as good as Java
Nearly as good as MacOS again
Nearly as good as iPod
Nearly as good as VMware
Nearly as good as iPhone
Nearly as good as iPad
Nearly as good as Google search...
The hits just keep coming!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Google was creeping me out... it was just too large and it bothered me that the other search giants were dying. So I made a point of using bing as much as possible.
When I started using it... it was worse then google... a lot worse. But now it's about the same.
I still sometimes check google when I'm not finding something on Bing. But increasingly I've found that if it isn't on bing it won't pop up on google either. So they seem about the same to me now.
We should be happy about this... I know lots of people just hate MS for being MS... but do we want only ONE search engine? We need to support alternate engines just to keep a dynamic marketplace.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And even if you don't personally use it, they also:
Frankly, I worry about the dangers of their data collection, and I'll probably move away from some of their services because of that, but I still like them as a whole.
Dilbert RSS feed
There seems to be a fairly widespread ant-Google campaign going on, and the prevalence of it versus anything they've actually done lately seems extremely out of balance
Thank you for saying it.
I've grown wary of Google, but so far I have not yet seen a reason to actually distrust them. For MS, on the other hand, I can't find a reason not to.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Why do all of this when you can just opt out of ad personalization or delete your search history?
Since '97 or so, I've rarely used anything other than google; but this past year has made using them suck profoundly. First, as someone who copy/pastes URL's between browser( or elinks ) and xterm, having a SERP link get transformed into a 100+byte qstring to route through their site absolutely blows ponies. Even when I'm not logged in. Now, Bing does that as well.
Adding insult to injury, I used to get decent results using +/-, quotes, and 'Fravia's tips':)
Now they ignore it all with the notice "(without punctuation - Learn more).
SERP's blow mightly and has seriously mucked up my search-fu.
Used to be, google was Alices' Restaurant, now it feels more like a soup kitchen who monitors my intake. Worse, all the other search engines suck just as bad; either re-packaging or running on a lo-cal diet.
(sorry for the food analogy, but I hunger for 'more input':)
I've tried a dozen or so other seach sites, but in no short time, I'm back to google; holding my nose all the way.
resist propaganda
I was a big fan of Google way back when, very early days. But as Google gets bigger and more powerful I get more concerned, and their privacy and data-snarfing issues don't make me comfortable at all. I don't want companies profiling me.
So, I'm no fan of Microsoft's business practices past or present, or much of any of their software. But I hope Bing provides some competition, just to keep Google in line.
I use DDG as my primary search engine. For a lot of things it works great, and has features that I find useful. When I'm searching for esoteric Linux config questions or equivalent, I reluctantly have to switch to Google, which provides better info. But with change DDG will get better. The fact that they want to be a search engine and not link me into their other "products" is reason enough for me to use it.
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
Bing still fails the Santorum test...
And Zune was every bit as good as the iPod.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
BING stands for But It's Not Google!
Don't get all happy because Microsoft has temporarily decided not to abuse us. It's only temporary.
I've been using ddg.gg a lot lately and trying as hard as I can to like it.
I like what they say about not tracking users, and if they hold to that, they'll get major positive marks in my book.
That's exactly what I've done, and the position I hold. I went so far as to change ddg to be my home page in all my browsers, instead of Google. For me, a new home page is the first place I go to search, and the search bar is the second. (The awesome bar surprised me the other day with googly results because I mis-moused and hadn't changed firefox's default search provider. That's how un-awesomed I am by that turd of innovation.)
In any event, I will continue to try to use them.
Me, too. Google had many years of being the most powerful engine on the planet, and counted me amongst their legions of devoted followers, but with their pervasive google-analytics scripts on every third page on the web, doubleclick banners everywhere, and who knows what else tracking people, I'm throwing my lot in with anyone who even pretends to offer me some privacy (real or imagined.) I'm hoping that with more use, ddg will be able to grow.
Their search results aren't quite as current as Google, but they seem somewhat more relevant. It could be the Bing engines. It could be that the spammer's link farms are so finely tuned to google's Page Rank that they're not as attractive to different ranking algorithms. Or it could be that they just don't have the spidering capacity to fill their servers with the worthless crap yet.
John
Actually i'd say that both Bing and Yahoo (I personally prefer the UI of Yahoo) really IS better, simply because all the SEOs have been playing whack a mole with Google's search results. i don';t know how many times i did a search on Google and got one SEO'd spampage after another, look up things like reviews or previews and see how many sites instantly have reviews for even made up words like "fleegal fins". The SEOs have been figuring out google's games quicker than Google can respond so naturally their searches has suffered as a result. its just a variation of security through obscurity, in this case functionality through obscurity. It doesn't mean MSFT has found some secret sauce, its just they aren't getting pimp slapped like google is by the SEOs that's all.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I tried "fleegal fins" but they've just got Slashdotted.
There is no way I would ever use a search facility named after an irritating 1940s smoothy singer with Brycreemed hair and ears that stuck out too far.
Just the word "Bing" makes me think of that dreary "White Xmas" song that, every year from late October onwards, every shoping mall and large store puts on their PA system in endless loop mode.
I know you are joking (at least i hope, surely /., can't /. Google) but sadly it works with pretty much ANY word, no matter if its made up or not, as long as you put "Cheapest price" "review" or "preview" into the search as the SEOs spambomb the living hell out of those phrases. Google has pretty much become worthless for any kind of product reviewing anymore, they are easy enough to spot as they will have strings of gibberish under the link like "coffee chevy amd intel" etc etc etc. its obvious they are using some sort of keyword generator to just crank out these long lists of keyword crap and somehow have managed to get it passed the google mod system, at least as of 3 days ago when i last tried Google. Google then fixes the problem, which lasts maybe a week, sometimes as little as 2 days, then its right back to SEO spam.
In a way i feel sorry for Google, as what they are having happen to them is what happened to yahoo and Atlavista back in the day that caused people to switch to Google in the first place. I remember back in the days of the early MSN search we'd use it for a joke, you could type in "dog" and get everything from decorating to disco balls, it was obvious that whomever was writing the spam script was merely using the first letter of the search. now they are simply incorporating your search into these long strings of random crap designed to get you to their site which ironically often times has a Google adsense page parked. If its not serving malware of course.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.