Bing me!!

[mrtrebus]

Microsoft's rival to google
http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...ot+to+bing++can+microsoft+beat+google/3190767

 

[titsrock]

I think there are a few people who will gladly Bing you. Maybe bring a lot of lube and hang a sign outside your car window? :dunno:

 

[shayd]

Eh, Microsoft again is late to the party.

 

[biomech]

I saw the this yesterday, msn is trying it.
I will still probably use google.

 

[yaheem]

Geez they wasted $200 million on ads, which by the way are as bad or worse than Seinfeld and Bill Gates bonding time. Familiarity Microsoft, most people will stick with Google. Unless MS starts giving away free cars everytime someone does a search it will probably fade just like Live Search. Unless Bing becomes super catchy. Hell when I first heard of it, I Googled the damn thing.

 

[Boobinator]

It looked absolute ass to me, saw some clip about it last night.

They should work on making their internet browser and media player better instead IMO.

 

[sproing99]

I predict it'll be as successful as Zune

 

[shayd]

It looked absolute ass to me, saw some clip about it last night.

They should work on making their internet browser and media player better instead IMO.

Yeah, they're pretty much just ripping off a combination of Google and Wolfram.

 

[Hot Mega]

Just tried a side by side video search comparison using google.com vs. bing.com and bing.com won that particular search hands down.

I searched Lauren Phoenix videos using unfiltered for both and there were far more relevant videos on bing.com:2 cents:

At least in that respect I prefer bing.com.

 

[Skyraider22]

Excuse me you want me to do what

 

[toran_korshnah]

I will try Bing, but I am Googled.

 

[Gordar]

Microsoft had to do something, as Google is taking over the entire market. I think that Google Chrome was the last drop for Microsoft & they finally decided to fight back (of course they wouldn't have to if their stuff wasn't so crappy...).

By the way, how long do you people think it'll take google to develop an OS?

 

[toran_korshnah]

Hi, Gordar,

Not long, if they go Linux...

Regards!

 

[nylo]

sad how they have to use a pic of Miami as a background to try to draw people to it....

just more Microsoft crap with their lousy engineering

I'll stick to Google and Yahoo thank you

 

[shayd]

Microsoft had to do something, as Google is taking over the entire market. I think that Google Chrome was the last drop for Microsoft & they finally decided to fight back (of course they wouldn't have to if their stuff wasn't so crappy...).

By the way, how long do you people think it'll take google to develop an OS?

An official OS? They're making great strides with their new labs product Google Wave. But right now (although it's not sponsored by Google or anything) there is gOS, which is essentially an OS featuring all Google products pre-installed.

Just tried a side by side video search comparison using google.com vs. bing.com and bing.com won that particular search hands down.

I searched Lauren Phoenix videos using unfiltered for both and there were far more relevant videos on bing.com

At least in that respect I prefer bing.com.

Google even admits that their video search isn't optimal yet, but it's because you can get the same functionality from YouTube. The thing is though, plain text searches for multimedia is hands down done better by Google, as Google gives many results, whereas Bing tries to narrow results, and in the end eliminates a lot of the worthwhile results.

 

[Hot Mega]

Google even admits that their video search isn't optimal yet, but it's because you can get the same functionality from YouTube. The thing is though, plain text searches for multimedia is hands down done better by Google, as Google gives many results, whereas Bing tries to narrow results, and in the end eliminates a lot of the worthwhile results.

Wow....Google.com relies that the user can get the same functionality with youtube for video searches? Aside from the fact that you're suggesting they are conceding a segment of their functionality to another source, that would be pretty uninspiring since such things as use violations, etc. make youtube.com incredibly limited in it's ability to deliver on a variety of different types of content. Having said that, you've actually made an even bigger case against Google.com. The best hope for a search engine is that it interprets what you're (actually) looking for and narrows your search to it. To the extent that it can consistently perform that task is the reflection of it's usefulness. Search engine developers are trying to eliminate irrelevant search results, not give you more of them.

For example, users on Freeones message boards are derided time and time again for failing to search and starting threads that have already been created exactly or in some other version. In many cases the user may have performed a search but the search yielded so many irrelevant results that the user IMO either gets tired of fishing through them or refuses to use the advanced search feature because it only further complicates what should be a simple process in their mind. While I expect that Freeones wants all of their functionality to be as user friendly as possible, I don't think their standards for searching their threads would consistent with developers who's sole reason for existence is to yield relevant search results to the user as easily as possible.

I like the ability to encapsulate specific phrases with quotations on Google.com to narrow search results and I'm not sure if that function exists or works the same way with Yahoo.com, bing.com, etc. But as I said before, bing.com won that specific search that I performed hands down. Also, with bing.com there is the ability to preview the video on the thumbnail level by hovering the pointer over it. That is an extremely useful feature for video searching IMO. I will say subsequent video searches on bing.com produced some results where the thumbnail and description didn't link to the same content.:2 cents:

 

[shayd]

Wow....Google.com relies that the user can get the same functionality with youtube for video searches? Aside from the fact that you're suggesting they are conceding a segment of their functionality to another source, that would be pretty uninspiring since such things as use violations, etc. make youtube.com incredibly limited in it's ability to deliver on a variety of different types of content. Having said that, you've actually made an even bigger case against Google.com. The best hope for a search engine is that it interprets what you're (actually) looking for and narrows your search to it. To the extent that it can consistently perform that task is the reflection of it's usefulness. Search engine developers are trying to eliminate irrelevant search results, not give you more of them.

For example, users on Freeones message boards are derided time and time again for failing to search and starting threads that have already been created exactly or in some other version. In many cases the user may have performed a search but the search yielded so many irrelevant results that the user IMO either gets tired of fishing through them or refuses to use the advanced search feature because it only further complicates what should be a simple process in their mind. While I expect that Freeones wants all of their functionality to be as user friendly as possible, I don't think their standards for searching their threads would consistent with developers who's sole reason for existence is to yield relevant search results to the user as easily as possible.

I like the ability to encapsulate specific phrases with quotations on Google.com to narrow search results and I'm not sure if that function exists or works the same way with Yahoo.com, bing.com, etc. But as I said before, bing.com won that specific search that I performed hands down. Also, with bing.com there is the ability to preview the video on the thumbnail level by hovering the pointer over it. That is an extremely useful feature for video searching IMO. I will say subsequent video searches on bing.com produced some results where the thumbnail and description didn't link to the same content.:2 cents:

I think you're forgetting that Google owns YouTube. 9 times out of ten when you do a Google Video search, the results are YouTube videos, and the majority of the embedded videos in Google Video searches are YouTube videos in general. It's not a permanent system, it's just YouTube can provide the functionality while a better system is developed.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying Google just throws results at you. Google uses what are called "spiders" to crawl through every website on the Internet and essentially categorize it in order for searches to provide more meaningful results. Google's search results are very much narrowed down, but the quantity is often still great. This owes a great deal to the quality of the search engine itself. Bing, on the other hand, tends to process results in terms of specific terms, then narrows the results down based on a set criteria. The end result is a greater amount of refinement in search results, which so far have left a great deal of relevant links out, which Google would not filter out. Microsoft has really played out the filtering in the ads for Bing, but the problem is they don't have an optimal search algorithm yet, and for my money, Google does the job better.

 

[busenbust]

No thanks. Looks like carp - MS. EU action ...more trouble ahead . Oh yes!!

I'm sticking to G/Wolfie

 

[Hot Mega]

I think you're forgetting that Google owns YouTube. 9 times out of ten when you do a Google Video search, the results are YouTube videos, and the majority of the embedded videos in Google Video searches are YouTube videos in general. It's not a permanent system, it's just YouTube can provide the functionality while a better system is developed.

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying Google just throws results at you. Google uses what are called "spiders" to crawl through every website on the Internet and essentially categorize it in order for searches to provide more meaningful results. Google's search results are very much narrowed down, but the quantity is often still great. This owes a great deal to the quality of the search engine itself. Bing, on the other hand, tends to process results in terms of specific terms, then narrows the results down based on a set criteria. The end result is a greater amount of refinement in search results, which so far have left a great deal of relevant links out, which Google would not filter out. Microsoft has really played out the filtering in the ads for Bing, but the problem is they don't have an optimal search algorithm yet, and for my money, Google does the job better.

Google.com just purchased youtube.com in '06 and as a search engine they are still conceding a segment of their functionality to another source according to you. That strategy might even make a little sense if Youtube.com sourced it's videos from around the web. Instead, Youtube.com relies on the fairly limited method of rendering the results of user uploads to it's site. While Youtube.com has become a fairly reliable source for popular videos, it was designed to be a destination for videos and as such it doesn't do a very good job of providing a relevant results from it's own content base in some cases.

I haven't compared to see if Google.com practically yields better plain text search results than bing.com. Maybe I'll test bing.com to see if I can find the studies you suggest on seminal volume since all the ones I've found on Google.com suggest a direct link between zinc deficiency, absorption and supplementation with seminal volume.

 

[Kingfisher]

I think there are a few people who will gladly Bing you. Maybe bring a lot of lube and hang a sign outside your car window? :dunno:

:rofl::rofl: