Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 24 Jun 2009.
On my current HSDPA 3G connection, Google takes (very approximately) just under a second to load and allow me to search.
Bing was pushing seven seconds. Even with the website in my local cache, it was still pushing two seconds plus. For a website that's all about finding content, not providing it, this extra wait is just unnaccaptable. When driving to a resteraunt, would you take the 1 mile road or the 7 mile road? Regardless of how pretty the route might be, with time differences like that Bing just isn't a contender.
without keyword highlighting on the text below the link, any search engine is a fail.
I think Bing is in the situation for search engines that Linux for example is in for operating systems. Their competitor is good enough and people don't see any reason to change and learn a new thing while what they are used to works well enough. So unless it becomes superior to Google by an order of magnitude it won't go anywhere. If it's just as good as Google or just a bit better people won't bother with it.
Google has the mindshare of even people who aren't tech geeks... Bing will have to crowbar itself into the mind of the general populous if it wants to get anywhere.
Of course, spending 10% of MS' operating income could flood everywhere with ads...
It strikes me that Bing is in a weak position in relation to Google as other browsers are to IE, and without a clear superiority. IF it manages to improve to the point of being superior to Google, it has a shot - much like Firefox has against IE.
It kinda entertains me, though I'm sure the comparison is imperfect, that if the technique works then Firefox may have a similar majority over IE by the time Bing is a contender for Google, and MS will be complaining that Firefox bundling Google as the default search provider is unfair...
This isn't strictly on topic, I just felt like sharing.
Back on topic, I'm with the 'Google's not broken' brigade. I don't see how they're going to produce a direct competitor - to make it preferable to Google, they'll surely have to make it almost unrecognisably different? I'm usually proven wrong.
Exemplar: I had an Ericsson T29s once. It was relatively small, attractive, jeans-pocket slim, made very clear calls and had predictive text. Other than making phones smaller, it was unclear (to me, then) quite where mobile phones would go from there - now, getting on for a decade later, the answer is bigger, colour screens and an entirely different feature set. My phone now browses the internet and takes photos - but call quality is effectively the same. I call, people (usually) answer, I can understand them (unless I'm calling the bank).
Beating Google will take lateral thinking - 'if you came here for a search engine, you might also like...', not just 'if you want to search, you came to the right place!'
For me, the biggest searching advancement has been Fx's inline search bar, being able to select wholly different engines (Google, Wiki, IMDB, maps, images, whatever) before you even load the site. That's a browser trick, not a search engine trick, though - and almost makes the search homepages irrelevant. If that becomes the normal way of searching for the general populace, it's going to be even harder to get accross that 'hook' feature as people won't even be entering search engine URLs any more.
True and funny. +rep.
Did anyone proof read that survey? 'Frustration' was not spelt correctly once, plus numerous other mistakes
Back on topic, I'd bet a good amount that Bing will not increase market or mindshare in the next 12 months above what it already occupies.
WHy don't they put money in to the next big internet thing, goggle has the search engine, get over it Microsoft!
Any guesses what IE's default search-bar search engine is as of now? And how many people even know (let alone care) how to change that? If we guess that 80% of IE users are fairly IT-illiterate, and that IE has about 75% browser market share, Bing is going to win by default (aka, ignorance).
I'd be worried if I was Google - we could see a big shift to Bing very quickly, and for purely arbitrary reasons, rather than quality or service. I'd suggest that it's Google that needs to up its game and provide something more compelling than the IE default search...
I have to agree with most of the comments. Google works. Period. Why change? Unless Bing offers me something revolutionary there isn't any motiviation to change. I know how to structure requests in Google (+ and - and such) that it is very rare I don't get what I want on the first page and usually in the first few results. I can't see how Bing can improve on that.
The Wolfram search offers an interesting alternative but only for very specific purposes/questions. I can see it as a niche alternative but again Google just plain works.
MS with Bing or anyone else has a better shot at the market due to Google screwing up than they do with their product regardless of how good it is. I guess you could phrase it as "It's Google's market to lose." If they don't then they will stay in their position.
MS did the same with IE... it was their market to lose and by not following standards and such they gave away market share to the compeititors.
Yes, absolutely spot on - that's what I was referring to when talking about social search. Google's so successful that any attempt to beat it will have to be brand new, not just a better Google.
Ahhh man, after answer the whole survey it ended being UK only.
Thanks a lot bit-tech Anyway, I had to cancel the survey.
is it just me or is the name 'bing' just seeming completely stupid.
i'm sure many of us thought that google was a funny sounding word when it first arrived (for those of us that remember that far back ! lol) but in my head i could make it make sense by breaking it down into go-ogle, as in go look. even though that's not how it's said, it makes the word fit the context.
bing just brings to mind that silly noise effect they add to the smile that glints at you.
The ironic thing I see is that if someone wants to find out about 'bing' they will google it.....
Google needs competition to stay healthy, this is some competition (although not that much).
For the most part it works pretty well, but it is essentially a Google clone.
do you think they are trying to go down the naming route brought to us by Friends, i cant remember the episode but i can just remember the bit in it where Joey thought Chandlers answering machine message was just Chandler 'Bing'
anyways other than adding Bing as the default search engine bundled with IE i really cant see it taking off as people in general use what they are used to, its the main reason i have IE and Firefox on my home computer since i want to have a better program and experience (Firefox) but the kids and wife want to use what they know (IE)
I use google because of it's simplicity, I go on google, I'm greeted by their logo and a search bar.....That's all I want, not a picture of 2 beavers. Also it's a microsoft product so there's another reason not to use it XD but seriously msn and live search were both fail so if they do improve on it then it might become popular.
There's *definitely* a pr0n joke in there somewhere...
in firefox, i have a link to wikipedia, wolframalpha(love the site for simple, accurate and up to date conversion (how much are x pounds in euro, how much cm are y inches,... and as an online calculator)),interglot(translator) and the google searchthingie. i fail to see why bing should accompany them. or replace any of them.
Separate names with a comma.