Bits Bing vs. Google

http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/2009/09/04/bing-vs-google/1

After the non-event that was Microsoft's Live Search, the software Goliath has decided to make a new search engine. After the meagre appearance and features of its predecessor, initially hearing about Bing makes most people's eyes roll. We find out if it's a worthy contender for your searching needs.

 

Lots of the images don't enlarge much in this article.

 

I know they called it Google because of googol (although also because of the goggle/eyes/looking connotations), but I really wish they'd gone with googol in long form and called the site ten thousand sexdecillion. Purely because sexdecillion sounds like a futuristic robot STD - and that makes me giggle.

 

I don't know what just happened, but I completely agree and will be bringing my pitch fork.

 

I like to open gazillion tabs from image searches. On Opera, Bing makes me open every page separately. It's slow and tedious. I'll stick with Google for now.

 

Absolutely, and that's why we went for general impressions of the information you get, rather than anything more "scientific" like number of pages etc etc.

 

Cheers, Fixed

Oh the joys of being pedantic.

 

I love bing's front page. When I first used it the top results where usually the same as google's but the later results fell off into the obscure and irrelivant. Bings image search was useless tho. I typed in "blue vauxhall corsa" and got only 1 correct hit. Google was far better. Im not writing off bing tho. The main serch function is still alright and hopefully has room to improve.

 

So basically microsoft are trying to buy their way into the search industry and keep people using pretty pictures and a search engine that in some cases is as good as what everybody already uses?

Think they're going to need to do better than that.

 

@specofdust: yawn

 

The video thumbnail previews are excellent for finding decent pr0n.

 

Care to make a worthwhile contribution?

 

I want to make it clear that I say this in the most non derogatory way possible, and am not trying to get at anyone, but someone should really proof read the articles that are posted on the bit-tech website. This, along with a few others that have been posted recently has several glaring mistakes not to mention smaller but equally irritating grammar and spelling mistakes.

It's a good article, but frankly I won't be switching over to bing. I love google [--------------------|-] this much and don't see the point in switching and trying to get used to a different search engine after all these years.

 

what, like you did?

 

I don't have a particular fondness for google - there's just no way to block out all those zero content sites, because they're engineered to be present in google, sadly. As we all have done over time, I've learned how to get what I need out of a google search and how to refine it.

Boils down to the fact that I don't see any killer feature in Bing, which would make me even consider bothering to switch.

 

First page, fourth paragraph: "pretty unexcited by the prospect of paying the slightest bit of attention to this it." One of those last two words shouldn't be there.

If the cashback does come over to the UK, is it likely to be anywhere near the levels of QuidCo or other similar sites? If not, I can't really see it enticing many people. Ofcourse if the cashback is for retailers that QuidCo don't already list it might be worth a look.

 

I'm sure Live search did the continuous scrolling thing for image searches...

 

-

 

the first page nailed it i think. people don't search they "google" it's now a house hold now and i really don't see it changing in a hurry even if bing were 2 be better.
just don't see people "binging" things it shell be forever known as "googling"

 

They all work well for me. Any ones in particular that you're having trouble with?