free4440273
I can't remember what I said 100 posts ago!
Google for me
-
Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!
Bing me!!
- Thread starter mrtrebus
- Start date
shayd
If you wish to live wisely, ignore sayings including this one.
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.
YouTube is far and away the most used video site on the Internet. To view YouTube as an inefficient tool for video search isn't really giving it credit, because the ability to easily find and share videos is why YouTube got popular in the first place. Sure, it's difficult to find videos that aren't allowed by YouTube's TOS, but it's a good placeholder until Google finishes with their Video search algorithm.
If you've found all of the studies, more power to you, I guess I take what I said back. :dunno:
free4440273
I can't remember what I said 100 posts ago!
Bing is just MS 'eye-candy'. No thank you MS :thumbs down:
shayd
If you wish to live wisely, ignore sayings including this one.
The engine itself isn't all that bad. The problem is they changed everything up interface-wise, and users will have to learn to use it efficiently. The good part for me is that this will hopefully push Google to make their engine even better.
free4440273
I can't remember what I said 100 posts ago!
Boobinator
Would you hit it?
If anything, it's good that another major company challenges Google within its market. I read somewhere that Google has a 95% dominance, which is never a good thing.
But it will be hard to compete, because so far Google is doing an excellent job. My only complaints with it is when doing broad searches, it can be very hard to filter out irrelevant results. And the 10000 pages often become completely useless after page 5 or so.
But it will be hard to compete, because so far Google is doing an excellent job. My only complaints with it is when doing broad searches, it can be very hard to filter out irrelevant results. And the 10000 pages often become completely useless after page 5 or so.
shayd
If you wish to live wisely, ignore sayings including this one.
I prefer the 'simplicity' of Google
Couldn't agree with you more. I'm a huge fan of minimalistic interface design, and Google will ALWAYS have that on any Microsoft product.
Hot Mega
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
I give credit to youtube.com...they are as you say, the most used site and most referred to site for popular videos that don't violate their TOS. But being most used is one thing as I have used youtube.com many times to reference popular videos but have never uploaded anything to it. Having said that, their search engine must be fairly crude as when you're in the site simple search terms don't yield precise enough results in my experience. Now if that's the case and Google.com relies heavily if not primarily on youtube.com for it's video search results...that further jeopardizes the efficiency and preciseness of their video search function.
Maybe youtube.com's deficiency in this area is not the product of it's search engine but the fallibility of tags and title functions. I'm not sure and I'll defer to you on that since you sound like you have more expertise than I do in this area.
free4440273
I can't remember what I said 100 posts ago!
http://www.wolframalpha.com/ also looking promising
shayd
If you wish to live wisely, ignore sayings including this one.
Any potential deficiency is the result of inaccuracy of tagging by in large. It's also partially just the nature of YouTube videos, in that the titles are completely arbitrary, and oftentimes not actually related to their title. But something I noticed today was that all of the searches I tried today on their video site yielded about 9/10 YouTube videos, and in my experience, Bing as a whole lags a bit behind Google.
Hot Mega
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
I found this relative comparison of the two FWIW. The video is pretty insightful IMO....
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/06/04/new_microsoft_search_service_doesnt_match_google/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Technology+stories
shayd
If you wish to live wisely, ignore sayings including this one.
I'd say it's a fair description of the two, but the only problem I have is that all of the features that the article described as Bings best are easily made available through iGoogle.
free4440273
I can't remember what I said 100 posts ago!
It's very much like the Browser 'wars': In the end it's gonna be about Trust (or lack of).
Hot Mega
I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
I agree. The more apt comparison should have been igoogle vs. bing.com based on the features they examined. But just on the narrow comparison I made with respect to the video searches I performed, bing.com returned better, more extensive results.
Certainly the video still maintains bing.com lags behind Google.com
Similar threads
