Bing Is Live(bing.com)
bing.com
Bing Is Live
http://www.bing.com/
120 comments
The funny thing is, most of this stuff isn't new. The integration is just better.
Cashback launched about a year ago, and has been integrated into the product search for months.
Infinite scroll on images is nice too, but that's been there as long as I can remember.
Farecast (the airfare search engine) was acquired by Microsoft a while back, and was part of Live.
Cashback launched about a year ago, and has been integrated into the product search for months.
Infinite scroll on images is nice too, but that's been there as long as I can remember.
Farecast (the airfare search engine) was acquired by Microsoft a while back, and was part of Live.
Froogle (now Google Shopping) has been a tremendous disappointment for so long. You're right, this Bing shopping is considerably better. I was trying to find Red Wings jerseys last night on Google and it was brutal.
In the UK we're just getting redirected to ciao.co.uk, here's a link for reference that shows a screenshot of the shopping pages they're seeing in the US - http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/05/microsofts-bing-hides...
If anyone has anything that shows it more thoroughly I'd like to see it?
If anyone has anything that shows it more thoroughly I'd like to see it?
What about Yahoo! Search? (I'd forgotten about it too.)
I really, really like it. I could actually see myself using this.
1. Super fast.
2. Image search is far superior to Google's.
3. Travel search is great. Try "deals to hawaii".
4. I like the name. Easy to remember and only 4 letters.
5. Weather searches work great.
6. I like the related searches and search history on the left.
7. I like the wikipedia integration.
1. Super fast.
2. Image search is far superior to Google's.
3. Travel search is great. Try "deals to hawaii".
4. I like the name. Easy to remember and only 4 letters.
5. Weather searches work great.
6. I like the related searches and search history on the left.
7. I like the wikipedia integration.
After using it for a few hours, I second that.
1. Similar quality of results.
2. Superior image search. Actually, I think Google's image search is a result of them being on top for so long, it's been the same for years with little improvement. I mean, just look at Bing's.
3. Better video search. I love the hover-preview feature. I can see Google implementing it next year after some other mainstream sites implement it and it's no longer a "Bing thing."
4. Slightly cleaner interface. Let me show you: http://r.im/1rf7 http://r.im/1rf8 Bing has a line-height of 130% which makes it a little more readable in my opinion. Sure it has more clutter in some areas, but the search results are cleaner and that's what matters to me when I'm scanning through them.
I don't use maps, travel, health, etc., so I can't comment on them, but so far I'm very pleased with the results. I didn't think Microsoft could pull it off and they did.
1. Similar quality of results.
2. Superior image search. Actually, I think Google's image search is a result of them being on top for so long, it's been the same for years with little improvement. I mean, just look at Bing's.
3. Better video search. I love the hover-preview feature. I can see Google implementing it next year after some other mainstream sites implement it and it's no longer a "Bing thing."
4. Slightly cleaner interface. Let me show you: http://r.im/1rf7 http://r.im/1rf8 Bing has a line-height of 130% which makes it a little more readable in my opinion. Sure it has more clutter in some areas, but the search results are cleaner and that's what matters to me when I'm scanning through them.
I don't use maps, travel, health, etc., so I can't comment on them, but so far I'm very pleased with the results. I didn't think Microsoft could pull it off and they did.
Wikipedia integration is slow to update (granted this example is with a rapidly evolving topic).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(search_engine)
http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/Kumo_(search_engine)?q...
(looks like the May 27 version)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(search_engine)
http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/Kumo_(search_engine)?q...
(looks like the May 27 version)
What do you like about the Wikipedia integration? I don't see the value in republishing Wikipedia: http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/Melbourne?q=melbourne&...
I'm not in the USA and I can't get any Wikipedia integration ("deals to hawaii" does nothing special either). Your link works though.
The quality of normal results (the only ones I can get) is bellow Google.
The quality of normal results (the only ones I can get) is bellow Google.
I could try it, using a vpn, from the US and outside the US.
From the US you get powerset-like answers to questions like "president of x".
From the US you get powerset-like answers to questions like "president of x".
Too noisy. With all the extraneous stuff on the page, I keep misreading the name as Bling.
Fast though. At least they understand that much about why Google won.
It's funny to think that after all the engineering expertise that must have gone into this, they're going to lose because of UI design.
Fast though. At least they understand that much about why Google won.
It's funny to think that after all the engineering expertise that must have gone into this, they're going to lose because of UI design.
Hm. The nebula and color gradients feel unnecessary to me, but I think there's potential for innovation in having the recommended searches prominently located on the left sidebar - provided that the recommendations are intelligent enough.
I've thought on more than one occasion while burrowing down with repeated queries that search should involve more of the machine prompting me and less of me guessing at the right keywords. Bing's UI promotes that behavior, whereas my eyes just skip over the recommended queries at the bottom of Google.
I've thought on more than one occasion while burrowing down with repeated queries that search should involve more of the machine prompting me and less of me guessing at the right keywords. Bing's UI promotes that behavior, whereas my eyes just skip over the recommended queries at the bottom of Google.
I personally like the way they integrated the "advanced" search box in the results page. It actually makes it easy to do an advanced search. Neither Yahoo nor Google has this.
Combined with the impressive speed, I think it stands a chance.
Combined with the impressive speed, I think it stands a chance.
Bing makes the advanced search "clickable" but always in your face.
Google gives you the advanced search options pane, and then shows you how to format your search query so you can create the advanced search on-the-fly next time (such as by adding -, +, quotes and the like), as they see the command-line interface to their search as superior.
Google gives you the advanced search options pane, and then shows you how to format your search query so you can create the advanced search on-the-fly next time (such as by adding -, +, quotes and the like), as they see the command-line interface to their search as superior.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-search-options-a...
Heh, I love how Microsoft is running a Google ad on "search options" that points to Bing.
Heh, I love how Microsoft is running a Google ad on "search options" that points to Bing.
I think they will lose because their rankings are still worse than Google for queries that are not so popular.
Which part of the UI design didn't you like? The background image?
First thing I did as a good SEO nerd/startup CEO was to see how Bing treated http://www.dawdle.com - and I have to say I'm mildly impressed, but disappointed overall.
On the plus side for Bing, the hover-over shows the information we want the user to see, and manages to highlight our five most popular platforms. (Not the first five in our header, which is very impressive.) Google doesn't do the site links for us, even though we've obeyed their best practices. This is good for Bing.
But Bing doesn't do as well with restrictive searches - for example, Google does significantly better than Bing for a search on [dawdle.com] - Bing strips out the .com and treats it very similarly to a search on [dawdle], i.e. treating it as a dictionary term. The [dawdle.com] search on Google brings up a number of news/blog articles about the site.
Also, Bing utterly fails on e-commerce searching, even though they bought Jellyfish and are pushing Cashback heavily. I tried [dawdle zelda] on both, then clicked on "Shopping" for both. Here are the results:
http://www.google.com/products?q=dawdle%20zelda&oe=utf-8...
http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=dawdle+zelda&mkt=e...
I don't care what you say, a null set is just wrong. Now, yes, we do feed Google Product Search, but that's Microsoft's fault - they shut down the free feed test they had in favor of their paid Cashback search. Dawdle doesn't participate in Cashback, so they don't get a feed. But to fail on that search is crazy; it's on Shopping, and the user's inputted a product search term and indicated a store preference. Google gets this exactly right. (Bing should slurp the GPS feed anyway - the URL is indexable.)
On the plus side for Bing, the hover-over shows the information we want the user to see, and manages to highlight our five most popular platforms. (Not the first five in our header, which is very impressive.) Google doesn't do the site links for us, even though we've obeyed their best practices. This is good for Bing.
But Bing doesn't do as well with restrictive searches - for example, Google does significantly better than Bing for a search on [dawdle.com] - Bing strips out the .com and treats it very similarly to a search on [dawdle], i.e. treating it as a dictionary term. The [dawdle.com] search on Google brings up a number of news/blog articles about the site.
Also, Bing utterly fails on e-commerce searching, even though they bought Jellyfish and are pushing Cashback heavily. I tried [dawdle zelda] on both, then clicked on "Shopping" for both. Here are the results:
http://www.google.com/products?q=dawdle%20zelda&oe=utf-8...
http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=dawdle+zelda&mkt=e...
I don't care what you say, a null set is just wrong. Now, yes, we do feed Google Product Search, but that's Microsoft's fault - they shut down the free feed test they had in favor of their paid Cashback search. Dawdle doesn't participate in Cashback, so they don't get a feed. But to fail on that search is crazy; it's on Shopping, and the user's inputted a product search term and indicated a store preference. Google gets this exactly right. (Bing should slurp the GPS feed anyway - the URL is indexable.)
Being less specific gives you a pretty decent result, though. Try plain old Zelda, then shopping: http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=zelda&mkt=en-US...
Logo is well and truly terrible. It communicates nothing and belongs on a the sign of a crappy downtown bistro than a professional web app.
Functionally it's disappointing. The context and use case-sensitive thing that is hinted at in the preview video seems almost entirely absent. The preview vid suggested that they will aggregate hotel information, flight information, etc, to create a grander unified experience - I have not seen any of this. Searching for hotels in a city doesn't give me anything except your traditional search results.
The categories are well thought out - but undifferentiated from Google's search term suggestions as it is.
Sadly, this launch seems a bit like the cuil launch - functionally incomplete, but in the web world you really only get one launch.
Functionally it's disappointing. The context and use case-sensitive thing that is hinted at in the preview video seems almost entirely absent. The preview vid suggested that they will aggregate hotel information, flight information, etc, to create a grander unified experience - I have not seen any of this. Searching for hotels in a city doesn't give me anything except your traditional search results.
The categories are well thought out - but undifferentiated from Google's search term suggestions as it is.
Sadly, this launch seems a bit like the cuil launch - functionally incomplete, but in the web world you really only get one launch.
Ok.. i'll bite... what's so spectacular about the Google logo?
It's not spectacular - but (to me anyway) it communicates a cutesy friendliness - the squiggly fonts and child-like primary colors gives a sense of invitation to poke and pry at the system's abilities, and also conveys a sense of wonder.
The bing logo, on the other hand... the font is poorly chosen, IMHO the kerning is all wrong, it feels like something one would whip up in 10 minutes in Paint, not a professional logo. Furthermore, the choices of font gives me the feeling that they're trying to position this thing as hip and cool (hence the bistro comment), where the system is, as of yet, deserving of none such accolades.
The bing logo, on the other hand... the font is poorly chosen, IMHO the kerning is all wrong, it feels like something one would whip up in 10 minutes in Paint, not a professional logo. Furthermore, the choices of font gives me the feeling that they're trying to position this thing as hip and cool (hence the bistro comment), where the system is, as of yet, deserving of none such accolades.
For me, the irritation is the panther thingy in the background on search results. It just looks like someone with no design sense found some clip art and decided to put it there.
I didn't understand your comment until I enabled Javascript for the occasion and found that they use photos. And corny ones, too; I'm looking at "Hot air ballons over Cappadocia" (I still don't get the "panther thingy"; maybe because I'm in Germany). Makes no sense at all to me - why would they want to do that?
Ah. In the UK we get a crappy clipart snow leopard. Looks terrible.
I'm actually thinking there's room there to make UI improvements that would benefit the user.
For example, with the live id and being logged in, I think it would be neat if these background images eventually ended up being something relevant to me rather than something generic.
Right now, there is definitely room for improvement, but I wouldn't say it's downright bad.
For example, with the live id and being logged in, I think it would be neat if these background images eventually ended up being something relevant to me rather than something generic.
Right now, there is definitely room for improvement, but I wouldn't say it's downright bad.
Microsoft's cash coffers give it a few exceptions to the "only one launch" rule. Cuil's total funding of $33M (crunchbase) is a third of Microsoft's marketing budget for Bing.
yeah, noone has ever made "release early, update often" work on the web...
Searching for "linux download" on Bing turns up this as the #1 link:
http://www.novell.com/linux/download_linux.html
Trying the same thing on Google, however, I get this:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
HMMM...
http://www.novell.com/linux/download_linux.html
Trying the same thing on Google, however, I get this:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
HMMM...
"web broswer download" on Bing gives chrome, opera, flock, safari and firefox.
Hmmm...
Hmmm...
Actually, for me it gives:
#1 http://www.linux.com/download_linux
#2 http://www.hungrypenguin.net/downloads.html (which lists a lot of Linux variants).
#3 http://www.linux.org/dist/download_info.html
there are also direct links to Linux Mint, X Os Linux, Damn Small Linux and Puppy Linux.
That's peculiar. Are the results skewed according to the geographical location of the searcher, you think? I'm in Singapore.
So what? The algorithm obviously heavily weights search terms in a URL. I doubt this is some sort of conspiracy.
Me neither, especially since after that I did searches for database servers and web servers and they served up links to Apache and MySQL rather than IIS and SQL Server, but I thought it was an interesting contrast nonetheless.
Makes sense. Ubuntu's currently the most popular distro and Google incorporates clickthrough into their recommendation metric IIRC . Even if Bing does too, it hasn't hadn't enough time for it to be a significant factor.
Hmm, I wonder how much of the difference in search results come from people intentionally gaming Google vs ignoring Bing/Live?
I did a sample search ("rack mount computers") and found 3 different areas for ads on Bing and a single area (well, google shopping, which isn't 100% the same thing) on Google. You'd think with this being MS, they'd burn profitability (e.g. ads) in exchange for market size?
One good point for Bing, however: the results page isn't as 1994ish as Google. Good use of color, less blaring blue-and-underlined text, and an actual layout.
The nebula graphic, however, doesn't make any sense to me. I think Google's pages could use an overhual -- not more stuff on there, just clean up the colors and graphics a bit, like the ubuntu version of google's search page.
Edit: also, the hover box doesn't show up reliably for me (FF3, Opensolaris). When it does show, it matches the background so well I hadn't noticed it until others had mentioned it here.
Overall, a good point's made from this: the search game is probably going to shift towards context sensitivity and user experience. General search is an area where multiple parties (Google + MS) can do a decent job.
I did a sample search ("rack mount computers") and found 3 different areas for ads on Bing and a single area (well, google shopping, which isn't 100% the same thing) on Google. You'd think with this being MS, they'd burn profitability (e.g. ads) in exchange for market size?
One good point for Bing, however: the results page isn't as 1994ish as Google. Good use of color, less blaring blue-and-underlined text, and an actual layout.
The nebula graphic, however, doesn't make any sense to me. I think Google's pages could use an overhual -- not more stuff on there, just clean up the colors and graphics a bit, like the ubuntu version of google's search page.
Edit: also, the hover box doesn't show up reliably for me (FF3, Opensolaris). When it does show, it matches the background so well I hadn't noticed it until others had mentioned it here.
Overall, a good point's made from this: the search game is probably going to shift towards context sensitivity and user experience. General search is an area where multiple parties (Google + MS) can do a decent job.
the homepage is nasty, and the search results page looks like the default spam 'search' page a domain squatter uses. the hover-triggered contexts, though, are pretty fantastic.
I've been surprised how many people say it looks nice. I completely agree with your statement. It looks straight from those fake search results on domains. I thought the homepage was pretty weak too.
[deleted]
Searched favorite obscure techno band. Returned Obscure Band homepage. Compare Google: returns wikipedia page. Damn, everything I love is going mainstream. Anyway, mildly impressed. Click top Bing result. Dead link. Accept Google's suggestion. Redirected to actual live page. The end.
PS: My girlfriend asked if it they called it 'bing' because it makes a 'bing' noise when you search. I laughed but then I thought this would be amusing. Anybody know how would I set about doing such a thing? I'm not a web coder.
PS: My girlfriend asked if it they called it 'bing' because it makes a 'bing' noise when you search. I laughed but then I thought this would be amusing. Anybody know how would I set about doing such a thing? I'm not a web coder.
> because it makes a 'bing' noise when you search.
I can't help thinking of the Monty Python sketch about "The Machine that goes 'Ping'".
I can't help thinking of the Monty Python sketch about "The Machine that goes 'Ping'".
Results vastly different from Google. I decided to compare the query I've just run in Google:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=creative+commons+sound+effects
http://www.google.com/search?q=creative+commons+sound+effect...
There's very little overlap in the first page results, and freesound.org, #1 in Google, doesn't even make Bing's first page.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=creative+commons+sound+effects
http://www.google.com/search?q=creative+commons+sound+effect...
There's very little overlap in the first page results, and freesound.org, #1 in Google, doesn't even make Bing's first page.
I see freesound.org as the #1 for both engines.
I'm in Australia, but using the 'show all' results (not the 'only from Australia' option), and freesound.org is #11. #1 is wiki.creativecommons.org/Free_Sound_Effects_and_Loops
With market set to Australia, the logo says 'bing Beta'. It says 'bing preview' for the US. I guess it's not fully baked for non-US markets. I wonder if the advertising campaign is restricted to the US?
I see freesound.org as #1 on Bing. I'll be honest, though, the first two pages of results on Bing look as good -- or better -- than Google's results.
I see 5 results from creativecommons.org as the top in bing, but thats as an Australian. When you switch it to US, its freesound. Even as US bing shows 3 results from dvguru that appear to be spam. It also shows 3 results from creativecommons, 2 of which appear to be somewhat un-useful, and the 1 other useful one appears on both google and bing.
I'd definitely call that search a win for google. There are far more useful sources of creative commons sound effects in google's first page.
I'd definitely call that search a win for google. There are far more useful sources of creative commons sound effects in google's first page.
[deleted]
[deleted]
freesound.org is the fourth result for me on Bing. I'm in California.
Seconded, fourth result. Seems that Bing's result pages aren't quite "static" (or "same") for all users.
If you were the marketing company and had 100MM to market this, what would you do?
$100 million is apparently the marketing budget 'magic number' to prove you're serious relaunching your search engine... and has been for 10 years. From October 1999:
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-231154.html
"Internet investment firm CMGI plans to spend more than $100 million on a 12-month advertising campaign that trumpets major changes aimed at transforming its AltaVista Web directory into a top-tier portal player, sources say."
Alas, the ad blitz didn't do much to revive AltaVista, and it won't be the size of the marketing campaign spend that determines what happens for Bing.
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-231154.html
"Internet investment firm CMGI plans to spend more than $100 million on a 12-month advertising campaign that trumpets major changes aimed at transforming its AltaVista Web directory into a top-tier portal player, sources say."
Alas, the ad blitz didn't do much to revive AltaVista, and it won't be the size of the marketing campaign spend that determines what happens for Bing.
Hire a better designer?
The logo doesn't look that cool to me.
There are lot of unwanted random stuff in the UI. Not clean.
The logo doesn't look that cool to me.
There are lot of unwanted random stuff in the UI. Not clean.
give them over to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and help poor kids in Africa. Bing is embarassing.
If I type "es_msg" into Bing I get exactly what I'd expect, the documentation for a function. When I type it into Google I get "did you mean tos_msg" which drives me batty. And the top two results are useless. The third result is correct.
Bing's "Help" is actually really nice and very fast (in Chrome). Or at least I found it easy to navigate through it.
Bing isn't indexing bug.gd error/solutions properly, though, so that's a bit frustrating.
Bing is definitely very fast. Sometimes felt faster than Google.
Bing's "Help" is actually really nice and very fast (in Chrome). Or at least I found it easy to navigate through it.
Bing isn't indexing bug.gd error/solutions properly, though, so that's a bit frustrating.
Bing is definitely very fast. Sometimes felt faster than Google.
When I type es_msg into Google I too get the "did you mean" link, but the top result is the same as the Bing result.
Yes, Bing does feel really fast, but it's not like I've often felt like I was waiting too long for a Google result.
Yes, Bing does feel really fast, but it's not like I've often felt like I was waiting too long for a Google result.
I mean the "Did you mean" top two results-- it gives me two results about "tos_msg" which are useless for the particular query and mess me up pretty much every day on other queries.
Ah, I didn't get those. Fair enough.
"tos_msg" -- interesting that Google is picking up on TinyOS and suggesting the term accordingly. May be an indication that they weight universities highly, since TinyOS started as a university project?
Well at least they are not trying to copy google by having a simple UI. The horsehead nebula will not rescue microsoft search.
What a disappointment.
What a disappointment.
Actually... i took it thru some paces... search some obscure mysql error messages, python function names, my name, unit conversions, etc..
The results are exactly what I expect, as good (or nearly so) as Google.
The only exception being advanced query syntax: wildcards in phrases, the ".." range operator, etc. But that's something I can forgive on day 1...
The results are exactly what I expect, as good (or nearly so) as Google.
The only exception being advanced query syntax: wildcards in phrases, the ".." range operator, etc. But that's something I can forgive on day 1...
You don't win by being nearly as good as your competitor though.
Oh come on, it's day 1... I can't say Bing will gain traction or not. But, at the very least, on day one, it's the 2nd best search engine available.
The search results seem like pretty much the same as they have been for years. This is just a rebranding and some UI fluff as far as I can see. So yeah, it's day 1 for the new UI, but I was talking about quality of search results.
Microsoft has done exactly this several times. They won through superior business models, which made nearly as good better for their purposes. (Unless, of course, you include the business model as part of being better than the competition, in which case your statement is trivially true.)
I don't know if Microsoft has ideas for beating Google in the business model arena, but I wouldn't put it past them.
I don't know if Microsoft has ideas for beating Google in the business model arena, but I wouldn't put it past them.
I noticed something interesting. When I searched for "google" it displayed _only_ google's homepage (there was a link below it to display similar results). I tried searching google for "bing" and "yahoo" and google shows the primary result in a highlight at the top of the page.
I dunno. In some ways, bing seems more aesthetically pleasing than google. I really liked the infinite image scroll as some others have mentioned.
I dunno. In some ways, bing seems more aesthetically pleasing than google. I really liked the infinite image scroll as some others have mentioned.
Yeah, it's exactly the same results as from Live. No wonder they are spending $100 Million to advertise it. From what I have seen of it thus far, it's the same old search with a new url and a new skin.
Big disappointment...
Big disappointment...
The core algorithm is the same as Live's, but there is more to a search engine than ten blue links. Did the marketing actually say it was a whole new algorithm/indexer?
It'll be interesting to see if the extraneous features catch on or not. The treatment of large companies is nice: http://www.bing.com/search?q=fry%27s
It'll be interesting to see if the extraneous features catch on or not. The treatment of large companies is nice: http://www.bing.com/search?q=fry%27s
Well, .. I'll give it a second look. Maybe they know it'll take $100 Million to explain why it is better to people, including me. I can accept that possibility.
Getting people to seriously try a new search engine does take some work. The $100 million is probably an attempt to overcome the branding effect described in this article a week ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=626960
Actually, the UI is just as simple as Google's. They just put a pretty picture on there too.
A sidebar does not make the UI terribly more complex. Google even added one, but it's hidden behind a 'Show options' link by default.
And a pretty photo versus the occasional Google Doodle is just a matter of taste. I like the photo myself.
And a pretty photo versus the occasional Google Doodle is just a matter of taste. I like the photo myself.
Did anyone try this? http://www.bing.com/search?q=google&go=&form=QBRE...
An ideal search engine should return exactly one result!
An ideal search engine should return exactly one result!
Excellent stuff TBH, it does the job in a nice speedy way.
2 Issues.
- the name is awful. really bad. I can "get" the inspiration ("bing and your search is done") but it clearly was a guy in a suit who likes to wave his hands about and yell WICKED alot who came up with it. Baaaaad. :)
- the layout is a bit clunky. Huge graphic on the main page seems to serve no purpose. Will they be rotating that? ON the search results page the list is offset from the left. That feels wrong (might just be due to google habit) and hard to scan. Also the results column could be wider.
Other than that - seems usable!
2 Issues.
- the name is awful. really bad. I can "get" the inspiration ("bing and your search is done") but it clearly was a guy in a suit who likes to wave his hands about and yell WICKED alot who came up with it. Baaaaad. :)
- the layout is a bit clunky. Huge graphic on the main page seems to serve no purpose. Will they be rotating that? ON the search results page the list is offset from the left. That feels wrong (might just be due to google habit) and hard to scan. Also the results column could be wider.
Other than that - seems usable!
bing and your search is done
Curiously, I searched for a youtube video and the Bing summary says
"Sorry for the interruption. We have been receiving a large volume of requests from your network. To continue with your YouTube experience, please enter the verification code below."
Has their spider been abusing Youtube.com?
Curiously, I searched for a youtube video and the Bing summary says
"Sorry for the interruption. We have been receiving a large volume of requests from your network. To continue with your YouTube experience, please enter the verification code below."
Has their spider been abusing Youtube.com?
The search seems fine -- but the look/logo/UI is terrible. And come on, do they really need to spam the search pages with so many conspicuous advertisements that LOOK like the search results? If they want this product to stick, they need to make the search results stand out ...
I don't know, I like it. Results are very on par with Google's. Interface is cleaner, now that Google has a rating system and a lot of other info/links per result.
Only thing I don't like is that I can only set 50 results per page, whereas with Google and Yahoo I can set 100.
I'm gonna set it as my homepage for a few days. That's the only way I'll be able to give it a try and come up with a judgment.
Only thing I don't like is that I can only set 50 results per page, whereas with Google and Yahoo I can set 100.
I'm gonna set it as my homepage for a few days. That's the only way I'll be able to give it a try and come up with a judgment.
it isn't intuitively different from Google, and that is a disappointment.
I understand that they have done a bunch of UI stuff which is supposed to make it a better search service, but what exactly are these?
The hover-triggered contexts don't really provide me with much more than the summary below the title. Seems redundant.
The left navigation bar I thought was supposed to have a bunch of cool features. I'm only seeing my search history. That may be a nice to have, but it isn't a game changer.
The snow leopard is awful, and isn't that the Mac line of products?
The hover-triggered contexts don't really provide me with much more than the summary below the title. Seems redundant.
The left navigation bar I thought was supposed to have a bunch of cool features. I'm only seeing my search history. That may be a nice to have, but it isn't a game changer.
The snow leopard is awful, and isn't that the Mac line of products?
This is what my first query returned:
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/5466/query1.jpg
Works ok for me:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=ijigg&go=&form=QBLH
(I'm running FF 3.0.10 on ubuntu...)
http://www.bing.com/search?q=ijigg&go=&form=QBLH
(I'm running FF 3.0.10 on ubuntu...)
I really like the bird's eye view that they offer with their maps. It is much more detailed and usable than the normal satellite view. You can rotate the view 90 degrees to get 4 different angles of the location and it zooms in close.
Again as a poster mentioned above, this has also been available from atleast 4 years. It seems that they have done a good job bringing it all together and people are atleast exposed to these now.
Seems to provide, more or less, the same results as Google on the searches I tested.
Seems to provide less search options/customiations than Google. (unless I'm missing it?)
Lacks moderation of search results. (hide/promote/comments)
Seems to lack a separate category for searching news.
Video search with hover-play thumbnails is nice but no description?
The links to MSN & Live at the top amuse me for some reason.
Overall it seems to be a good replication of where Google was about 2 years ago. I'd say when they set it as the default homepage in Windows a lot of people will continue to use it since it's "good enough"
Seems to provide less search options/customiations than Google. (unless I'm missing it?)
Lacks moderation of search results. (hide/promote/comments)
Seems to lack a separate category for searching news.
Video search with hover-play thumbnails is nice but no description?
The links to MSN & Live at the top amuse me for some reason.
Overall it seems to be a good replication of where Google was about 2 years ago. I'd say when they set it as the default homepage in Windows a lot of people will continue to use it since it's "good enough"
Microsoft maps is surprisingly good: they have a "bird's eye" view for urban areas, which is startling close. It also doesn't lock up my eeePC after a few minutes, like Google maps does.
I was shocked that the top-left options feel exactly as if it was google to me (though they differ slightly). It's as though I thought that layout was owned (trademarked) by Google.
I was shocked that the top-left options feel exactly as if it was google to me (though they differ slightly). It's as though I thought that layout was owned (trademarked) by Google.
Web Images Videos News Maps More
Web Images Video Maps News Shopping Gmail moreI took it through the paces.
As usual, it is good at finding queries where not many pages apply.
But for competitive search terms, they don't sort the it right.
Better than Live though... give it 5 more years.
As usual, it is good at finding queries where not many pages apply.
But for competitive search terms, they don't sort the it right.
Better than Live though... give it 5 more years.
Here's a quick GreaseMonkey script to "fix" the results page layout for chronic Google addicts:
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50649
Basically moved the results more against the left side and the "aside" bar is moved to the right.
Layout may be a little touchy as I did this more for demonstration than anything else.
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50649
Basically moved the results more against the left side and the "aside" bar is moved to the right.
Layout may be a little touchy as I did this more for demonstration than anything else.
It's fast enough and the results are good enough that I made it my default search engine for the day. This is no small feat, most of the new engines (Cuil, et al) don't get this far.
------------------------
My 90 second road-test
I actually prefer the search results UI to google's. It's clean and I'm really digging the smart side-bars.
1a. A search for "python" yields a sidebar with sections for "Overview, Community, Software, Development"
1b. Google gives me a list of results
2a. "Zurich" yields a sidebar with "Weather, Map, Real Estate, Travel, Restaurants"
2b. Google gives me an embedded map, and then a list of results.
------------------------
It's a small difference which obviously Google could replicate but at this point in search, the results from all the big players seem to be converging at "very good" so UI is really the only place to innovate anymore and I have to give it to MS on this one.
We'll see how it holds up to daily use but so far, I'm quite impressed.
------------------------
My 90 second road-test
I actually prefer the search results UI to google's. It's clean and I'm really digging the smart side-bars.
1a. A search for "python" yields a sidebar with sections for "Overview, Community, Software, Development"
1b. Google gives me a list of results
2a. "Zurich" yields a sidebar with "Weather, Map, Real Estate, Travel, Restaurants"
2b. Google gives me an embedded map, and then a list of results.
------------------------
It's a small difference which obviously Google could replicate but at this point in search, the results from all the big players seem to be converging at "very good" so UI is really the only place to innovate anymore and I have to give it to MS on this one.
We'll see how it holds up to daily use but so far, I'm quite impressed.
Did anyone else who is using FF3 on Windows Vista w/ Flash Debugger installed get crashes when you try to mouse-over a video preview on a music video/artist search?
I think the issue is caused by improper exception handling in the way that Bing's video preview tries to retrieve frames of preview thumbnails, but it can't find any for the source. The QA might not have caught it with a release version of Flash, but it's an issue for web dev's with the debugging version of Flash player. I know that Bing is in "preview" edition, but someone should file the bugs with Microsoft.
I think the issue is caused by improper exception handling in the way that Bing's video preview tries to retrieve frames of preview thumbnails, but it can't find any for the source. The QA might not have caught it with a release version of Flash, but it's an issue for web dev's with the debugging version of Flash player. I know that Bing is in "preview" edition, but someone should file the bugs with Microsoft.
Am I the only one seeing a Snow Leopard as the background image?
The background images are different for different markets.
http://www.bing.com/?mkt=en-us
http://www.bing.com/?mkt=en-uk
What is with the "Tool Tips" for the search box and the search button? Tool Tips should only be used when a button needs explaining and never for text boxes IMO.
Search: Conelly
Show just the results for Conelly.
Show just the results for Conelly.
1. Connelly Skiis
1. Connelly SkiisOr the Connelly Skiis page is in the index under "Conelly" legitimately? (via text on the page or, most likely, the text of links pointing to it)
Fun to contrast with Google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Conelly
Hey, look at that, it works.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Conelly
Hey, look at that, it works.
Hmm, I'm getting a nice picture of Santorini here (Australia), not a nebula or a panther.
Overall it seems pretty decent - the results are quite different from Google on some queries, but not necessarily in a bad way, and it's just as fast.
Overall it seems pretty decent - the results are quite different from Google on some queries, but not necessarily in a bad way, and it's just as fast.
Quite impressed of bing.
+ Nice to see MS actually start to working with open source.
+ They've learned from Google.
+ The representation of image search results is good.
+ Video search is also good.
- The name doesn't really rock.
- MS still has to learn a bit about simplicity.
- Search results are still same as bad old live?
+ Nice to see MS actually start to working with open source.
+ They've learned from Google.
+ The representation of image search results is good.
+ Video search is also good.
- The name doesn't really rock.
- MS still has to learn a bit about simplicity.
- Search results are still same as bad old live?
For those of you who have clearly not used live.com in the past year and a half they've been doing this, there is no "nebula obsession" -- the photo changes daily along with the facts.
Yay, finally found something I have been looking for for the past 3 days. Thanks for not stripping terms from my query! Not as good as Google used to be, but my new #1 stop for search.
Bing logo reminds me http://blinkx.com logo. The favicons look lot alike.
It's not bad. It's worth trying out anyway and appears to be much better than the previous Live search.
The snippets from large sites such as IMDB and Amazon, are simply fantastic. Far better than Google.
The input box seems to be covering the region filter (using FF3.0 on linux) for non US versions.
There suggestions sucks and its full some basic UI issues.
Whats the obsession with nebula?
The image searcher is decent though.
Whats the obsession with nebula?
The image searcher is decent though.
I can see that they have embraced Google now. Maybe next is to extend and extinguish?
"We did not find any results for microsoft."
not terribly impressed...
not terribly impressed...
its a huge improvement over previous live search. One more to add to my 'search sources':
google, wikipedia and now bing.
google, wikipedia and now bing.
I have to say to whoever tries this, make sure to set bing to "United States - English" mode as opposed to whatever default localization it applies. The difference is quite stunning.
While I realize in the long term, you will need localized data for wherever you live for queries to be more useful, if you want to get a test of the technological platform and how it differs from google, chances are you wont see many until you set it to US-mode.
While I realize in the long term, you will need localized data for wherever you live for queries to be more useful, if you want to get a test of the technological platform and how it differs from google, chances are you wont see many until you set it to US-mode.
Doesn't work in Konqueror 3.5.10.
Google does :)
Google does :)
polishing turds, as usual.
Thoughts:
Bing shopping is much better than Froogle ever was. They are pushing the "cash back" program pretty hard, and it will probably gain some traction.
Bing Video really doesn't show much YouTube content. That gives a bunch different search results, which is kinda nice. The video preview is rather helpful. Bing airfare shopping is now going to be my first stop for airfare shopping. Really, really nice. Bing is now competing with Orbitz, Priceline, Kayak, and doing a great job at it.
Bing image search is okay. Image search sucks in general, but it's nice to have a third source for image searches (flikr being the other).
Bing maps are useable. Google maps is the clear winner.
Had anybody else aside from Microsoft just launched this product, it would have been nothing short of amazing. People here would be very excited. Google will still be #1, but at least now they have a serious competitor.
Microsoft just learned a whole bunch about making data centers and making server operating systems run in large clusters. That's going to influence their server OS game in a big way for the better.