4705219
story
Comments: 310 +- Technology: Microsoft Bing Search Launches Early Preview on Monday June 01, @02:49PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictech2.gif); width:60px; height:80px;
technology
An anonymous reader writes to mention that Microsoft has rolled out a preview version of their Bing Search site earlier than expected. Microsoft's hope at putting a dent in Google's ubiquitous search presence, Bing has several new features including Bing Cashback, Bing Video, and Bing xRank. "Bing Video is really great because of the new thumbnail video feature. Try searching for E3 at Bing Video and you'll quickly see how it works. Simply hover over a video and it starts playing instantly. This is fantastic from the consumer's point of view but what about the publisher? It's almost like Microsoft is stepping on their toes by deploying video search in this manner. Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results? Fair use definitely comes into mind here. Perhaps there should be a 30second limitation on the 'thumbnail preview?'"
Related Stories
Microsoft Rebrands Live Search As "Bing" 443 comments
Submission: Microsoft Bing Search Launches Early Preview by Anonymous Coward
The Illiterati Programus Canto 1:
A program is a lot like a nose: Sometimes it runs, and
sometimes it blows.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.
Weird... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sometimes it's the lack of information- as little as giving me the page size (7kb). Sometimes it's the margins. Bing has a left margin. Google doesn't.
I'm not saying that these differences make a BAD difference, except this: Internet users learn quickly about scams. The first time I accidentally clicked on those fake search results on an ad-search mis-direction page, I learned to pick up on these differences quickly.
In fact, it's subtle, but you can usually tell when a computer has an infection that hijacks your google results- because they don't look right (older infections changed the results, new ones redirect REAL results.. but that's a different conversation).
The point is- my mouse won't go near, let alone click, on things that I think are tricks or advertisements. For some reason, I trust google a lot. So much that my eyes are trained to see it's results and disregard others. I'm reluctant to click on bing results.
I encourage slashdot users to try bing out, and tell me it doesn't look foreign to you! Tell me you don't feel weird clicking it's results! The internet trains you quickly that you are to embrace familiarity, because you will be quickly punished for not doing so.
Re:Weird... (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand what you're saying, but I have a different perspective. Yes, the results page looks different to me but in fact that has meant I've paid more attention to it. I've been trying this out every so often and it's looking promising. Wish they'd get rid of the picture from the front page, but other than that I think I'm going to stick with this for a while. Its "Pages from the UK only" thing (insert your country here...) seems much more accurate than google.co.uk's, for instance. I might be imagining it, but it seems that way to me so far.
My current homepage is google.co.uk. I'm going to set bing.com as my homepage for a week to see how I get on with it - so far it's found things that Google didn't and missed a whole load of Google-oriented spam sites, so looking promising at first glance. I'll see how it truly is after a longer term test.
Cheers,
Ian
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so far it's found things that Google didn't and missed a whole load of Google-oriented spam sites
Until the spammers note that Bing's marketshare is big enough to set their sights on. It's the whole exploits are concentrated on the most popular software out there paradigm again.
I do like some aspects (video included) of this though. I find the shopping to be about as good as Google's, nothing special. Could definitely do without the noisy background, though. I crave simplicity!
Re: (Score:2)
Until the spammers note that Bing's marketshare is big enough to set their sights on. It's the whole exploits are concentrated on the most popular software out there paradigm again.
Oh yes, I completely agree. It took a while for Google to become so spam-infested though, so hopefully we get a reasonable break in the meantime.
I do like some aspects (video included) of this though. I find the shopping t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"so far it's found things that Google didn't and missed a whole load of Google-oriented spam sites" Until the spammers note that Bing's marketshare is big enough to set their sights on. It's the whole exploits are concentrated on the most popular software out there paradigm again. Oh yes, I completely agree. It took a while for Google to become so spam-infested though, so hopefully we get a reasonable break in the meantime. I do like some aspects (video included) of this though. I find the shopping to be about as good as Google's, nothing special. Could definitely do without the noisy background, though. I crave simplicity! Indeed. Is actually the one thing putting me off making it my homepage, but I'm going to do it just to give things a try. Have been less satisfied with Google of late - not necessarily their fault as such, but there's so much targeting of them that's it's getting harder to sort wheat from chaff. Cheers, Ian
Maybe the best defense against the spammer is multiple successful search engines owned and operated by different companies. In other words, I don't like the idea of a Google monoculture any more than I like the Windows monoculture and the instant widespread success of malware that it enables. With spammers and others who want to "game" the search engines, it seems to me that the same principle applies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Weird... (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot: Bringing the AJAX of the "future" with the encodings of the early 90's.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, and it comes up with the wrong answer. Everybody knows that 1 + 1 = 10.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just tried Bing (Did Chandler approve of this?) and it does look like Google, with the exception of the left border as you state (and that weird mouseover line-with-a-dot on the right hand side)
Microsoft really did embrace
Re: (Score:2)
They look pretty similar to me. I know what you are talking about, but Bing does a pretty good job of mimicking Google.
I did the "cheeseburger" test on it - if on Google, I search for Cheeseburger and the first page of links are all people trying to get me to buy cheeseburgers, I know Google's evilling up the results. If on the other hand I get all kinds of cool interesting things about cheeseburgers, I know I'm getting the "truth."
The result sets look almost the same to me and the output is bland enough.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alta Vista (Score:3, Insightful)
Altavista was always good enough for me
I really liked Alta Vista also - when it supported boolean queries with the NEAR keyword. I really miss that NEAR keyword, it could transform a search so easily into something worthwhile. When Alta Vista morphed into a yet another Google-style search, I moved to Google.
And Slashdot couldn't even link to it? (Score:5, Funny)
I guess I'll just have to Google it.
Re:And Slashdot couldn't even link to it? (Score:5, Funny)
Nope, this is a Microsoft product. You have to fucking Google it.
Parent
Re:And Slashdot couldn't even link to it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder how Bing stands up against Google..
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3585051300_d23a37a32e_o.png [flickr.com]
Parent
Re:And Slashdot couldn't even link to it? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's one reason why I never liked MSN Live and other MS search products. They're obviously very biased towards Microsoft products. Google, if anything, is biased towards open source & their other offerings like gmail, etc. but their search results aren't so blatantly biased that way. I purposely don't want to use a search engine run by a corporation with a wide range of products and services like MS because it's so easy for them to game the results to suit their needs. That's why I stick with Google for most of my searching and venture out to others like ask.com, yahoo.com, etc. when I want to try something different. Unless MS can demonstrate that their searches aren't biased towards their products & services then I'll continue to avoid using them.
Parent
Re:And Slashdot couldn't even link to it? (Score:4, Insightful)
This bias, built from MS's search seeing the world as highly MS-leaning from simply their own adherents using their products more, is somewhat self-defeating.
For popularity-driven ranks, the wider the audience and usage, the better the full audience will be able to make use of the statistics it employs. If MS's employees, contractors, proponents, vendors, etc are the primary users for the tool before a general web world, the stats will be be slanted towards MS's offerings, as you allude.
I would expect for a release as important as this to the MS portfolio, I would expect them to reset the statistics after the initial rollout, or even sub-sample the IP's, selecting for diversity, for the stats to fight bias. Without this, I can only wait until another set of "MS is just pushing more MS" posts across the blogosphere.
Then again, perhaps a healthy dose of bing-bombing (aka google-bombing) the site will re-skew it to those who fight such battles.
Parent
That does not mean what you think it does (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like most of these people have been looking for Linux and Windows comparisons instead trying to download Linux.
I'll be the first never to say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Bing, bong, binger, bang (Score:3, Insightful)
* The reponse from a Bing search: "Bong" (like 'Ping' and 'Pong')
* A person who searches on Bing: A binger (or is 'banger' a better word?)
* When referring to Bing search results in the past tense, it's a "Bang", like "Ring" and "Rang". Or maybe it's "Bung", like "Ring" and "Rung".
Hm... I didn't mean to make rude comments about Bing, but the name kind of lends itself to some bad nicknames.
Meh (Score:5, Informative)
Who needs Bing? Google works. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bing's OK. But it's nothing special. Even if it's technically superior in certain ways to Google--I can't tell so I'll leave that for the intellectuals to tease out--there's no particular reason to switch.
I have NEVER had a problem finding stuff on Google. Usually what I'm looking for appears in the first 10 hits. About 10% of the time, I need to rephrase my search, or add some "-" keywords to weed out some signal noise. But Google does the job, I'm used to it, and it seems to just keep getting better.
There is so much power hidden inside Google's engine--stock quotes, mathematical calculations, language translation, mapping, document conversion, caches of deleted pages, paid links that I actually find useful, typo correction--the list goes on and on and on!
What can Microsoft's search engine add to this stunningly rich resource that millions of us can't live without? What killer features does Microsoft give us? Some little tweaks here and there in the UI that may or may not make much difference. Some good ideas on supplemental information such as the "related searches" column on the left.
Sorry, Microsoft, but Bing looks like MSN Search that's been tweaked a little. If Google didn't exist, you might have a winner on your hands, but this is just another "me, too" search system that will survive only as a niche product, funded by profits from the MS Office and Windows divisions.
Any market penetration by Bing will probably come from super-glueing it to the Windows 7 desktop and Windows mobile handhelds, defaulting it on IE searching, and otherwise forcing it down customers' throats in whatever way they can, hoping a large enough population will be ignorant enough to just use the defaults. But now that "google" is a verb in the dictionary, Microsoft has its work cut out for it to hold and expand its little piece of the search market.
Parent
To disable tracking (Score:5, Informative)
Add www.bing.com/fd/ls/* to your filters.
bing is for porn (Score:5, Informative)
Yah. Just find the stuff I want you to find (Score:3, Insightful)
Clicking or hovering over a video is inane crap. Do the hard stuff please, it involves some rather advanced mathematics and shit load of computers, not flash/javascript.
Google are btw getting worse at finding the stuff I need, so there's an opening there.
Yeah but.... (Score:5, Funny)
Google and Bing side by side.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Search for "Linux" results in Microsoft products? (Score:5, Interesting)
I noticed that also.
Here are the first four "Search suggestions" for when I type "linux":
linux
linux windows
linux microsoft
linux vista
Is this because Microsoft inserted itself into those search suggestions? Or is it because the majority of Bingers are using Microsoft products and thus the results are skewed ?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Call BS all you want, I just visited bing.com for the very first time, typed "linux" into the search field, and verified for myself that GP is correct.
The suggestions I got, in order, were:
* linux
* linux windows
* linux microsoft
* linux vista
* linux commands
* linux download
* linux software
* linux distros
It knows I'm coming from Canada, so if you're getting different results where you are, maybe geography plays a role?
Huge amount of text ads (Score:3, Insightful)
What first impress me is the huge amount of ads in the search results. Searching for "sql server [bing.com]" I can only see two real results before having to scroll the page and is hard to distinguish the ads on the top of the page, from the real results.
Looks like a parking site or a DNS redirect. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
First impressions (Score:4, Informative)
Ok, seriously... what's with that 80 KiB background JPEG on the homepage?
Image search is actually nice, though I would put the filters at the top instead of the left. The results leave a bit to be desired (tried "portable mame cabinet", hoping to find something I looked at a few days ago - no luck there). Also, scrolling down loads more pictures automatically. No need to go to "page 2" for more results. That's actually nice. The size/weight info on hover is a nice touch too.
I've "bung" a few queries (Score:2)
And aside from the expanded snippet feature (which is pretty clever) I don't see anything new or exciting. WTF?
its all about the data (Score:4, Insightful)
You want to know something funny? (Score:5, Interesting)
I realized just now that if some other company had started up and created a new search engine called "Bing" I would probably find it really charming. But when Microsoft does it, it just seems like The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show. The human subconscious is a player-hater.
Somebody needs to take on Google (Score:2, Insightful)
It may as well be Microsoft. Right now, Google has no real competition.
Guess what microsoft did (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, Microsoft has acquired the domain bingsucks.com.
Not to worry (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Did anonymous even try the video search? (Score:5, Informative)
So I don't understand the beef about "Would a user still click on to the site if they can watch the whole video from within the search results?" because the user clearly can't watch the whole video from the search results.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I also rather like the image results, I can't speak for the actual images themselves, but the way they're presented is so much nicer than Google with a convenient dynamic load as you continue scrolling down the page. Live search did this too.
Plus they find 1500 images for my site, five times as many as Google.
Redundant results (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't merge results from a same website.
With apologies to Dennis Miller... (Score:4, Funny)
To learn more about Bing, type "bing search engine" into Google.
The Sound of Annoyance (Score:5, Funny)
HIJACKED! (Score:4, Informative)
some users of IE6, including yours truely, have had their systems "Hijacked" by Bing. No matter what registry settings are switched, Bing has become the default search engine. We cannot "Customise" the search settings. I wonder how many others have this problem or if anyone has a solution.
Hopefully Slashdot will pick up on my story below (help me out, and comment on it)
http://slashdot.org/submission/1011681/Microsoft-Forcing-Bing-on-Users [slashdot.org]
Re:HIJACKED! (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like a feature to get you to stop using IE6 already, goddamn it!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a mistake - that's all. If you read the Google thread you linked to, you'd see that it happens because auto.search.msn.com handles "address bar search" and uses the "prov" parameter to decide where to send it. The new engine doesn't handle the "prov" parameter, which no doubt they'll fix. They're not intentionally hijacking anything. In fact, they're not even hijacking anything!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In a word, it sucks (Score:4, Informative)
Big surprise, the video refuses to load unless you have Windows Media Player.
Wrong. They're using Flash, like everybody doing video on the web.
Despite the fact that I view wmv's all over the net just fine with mplayer, yet somehow MS can't seem to make this work.
It's your computer at fault, not Microsoft.
MS needs to get a clue and realize that they can't expect to gain market share in new areas if they lame out all of their products to try and reinforce their OS monopoly.
They're using Flash, you gigantic ass. It doesn't even query for the Silverlight plug-in-- Bing is *all Flash*.
Do they honestly expect to pull market share from youtube while telling users to go away until they install windows?
No they don't. Which is why their video previews has the same requirement YouTube has: Flash installed.
How did your retarded posting get modded up? Christ.
Parent