Microsoft Offers A Peek At New Search Engine

ObsessiveMathsFreak writes "The Inquirer is reporting that Microsoft is offering a preview of its new search technology. The search engine preview has a minimalist interface, similar to Google. Microsoft claims over one billion web pages searched, but admits the fact that searching is a little slow. This technology hasn't yet been incorporated into MSN Search, though the site claims it eventually will be. In related news, the Financial Times is reporting that Microsoft are to improve the regular MSN Search site by removing paid advertisements from regular internet searches, a move that will cost them 'tens of millions of dollars.' Are the Search Engine Wars finally upon us?"

Search for Linux

[grandmofftarkin]

Redhat, SUSE, Mandrake, etc. don't turn up on the first page. WTF?

Oh I get it. Microsoft don't want their competitors turning up in search results.

Hmmm ... I think I'll stick to google.

Re:Search for Linux

[SimplexO]

A search for 'search' returns a list of websites that all contain the word search in their domain name, none of them are any of the good ones - Google, AV, Yahoo, and (even!) MSN.

Hrm...

Re:Search for Linux

[strictnein]

very similar to how it turns up for a seach on Linux. All sites that have a *.linux*.* type domain address.

Is this their new search scheme? Type in a word and we'll return matching domain names? That's awesome technology!

Re:Search for Linux

[sponge_absorbent]

hmmm, it didnt seem to find any results for "microsoft sucks", despite the fact www.microsoftsucks.com exists... how strange

Re:Search for Linux

[Anonymous Writer]

Okay, it worked on the third go. I guess you have to repeatedly ask it the same question before you get an answer, kind of like cross-examining a Microsoft executive in court.

Dateline, Redmond

[phyruxus]

Dateline, Redmond Wa.

Uber-corporation Microsoft (c) announced a new search service today. Microsoft bigwig Steve Ballmer had this to say:

"Our new search engine is the ultimate in modern search technology. It indexes the entire internet and stores it in a Microsoft Access (tm) database. Users querying the engine for a given term (such as "linux") are given links to a random assortment of possibly-related sites."

(interviewer) Google's search is lauded as highly relevant and lightening fast. Yet you've innovated and taken a different course, returning random results. Why is this better than Google's method?

(S.B.) "Well, you have to keep in mind that our concern is the average windows user. We have discovered a flaw in Google's technology; the heavy reliance on research, strong programming and intelligence, while novel, has resulted in a system where relevant, useful results are returned very quickly."

(interviewer) ..and your method is better than this because...

(S.B.) "Ok. When someone searches on Google, they are limited to only relevant items, because that's what Google has latched onto. The weakness in Google's method is that most pages are not returned, because a machine has decided they are irrelevant. The new Microsoft (c) paradigm is that we let the USER decide what's relevant and what's not; the machine makes no determination of what is or is not relevant. See how it's better? Look, 99% of all computers in the world run Windows. And people don't mind rebooting, not at all. We've added value to this model, someone's got to do the work, why not just dump it on the user, let them take the blame? My porsche won't go any slower because someone else had to do extra work. That's the beauty of the Microsoft way (tm)! We let other people do all the work, then we take the credit."

(interviewer) But most people say they like Google specifically *because* it returns relevant terms so quickly.. aren't you just dumping all the work of searching back on the user's lap?

(S.B.) "You clearly are an enemy of innovation. Look, People are smarter than machines. Therefore, since a person can only view one page at a time, a person must view every existing web page to know whether or not their guess of which page is most relevant, is in fact true. And so, our search engine is better, because we don't prevent the user--"

(interviewer) Isn't this all just a semantic argument against your economic competitor and technological superior, Google?

(S.B.) "This interview is over."

A Microsoft Public Relations Representative did note that search terms pertaining to the purchase of goods and services did in fact not return random results, and in point of fact return only a single link, to www.microsoft.com.

Re:Search for Linux

[Bozdune]

I refuse to use this piece of software, period. Redmond are pulling their usual stunt of releasing crap just for the publicity, so all their shills can say, "Golly wow, Microsoft's gonna have a much better search engine real soon now."

I'm so sick of this strategy I could puke. The best way to mess with their heads is to totally ignore them. So many good companies have been killed by these people, why help them at all, even by helping them debug their system, or driving up their click rate.

Just wait:

Re:Search for Linux

[Bozdune]

Good point. However, a lot of things that Slashdot trolls have been complaining about since '98 continue to be true today. How about the XP dispatcher? Still can't get smooth performance without a second CPU. Corbato et al solved this problem in 1961. There is no excuse.

Re:Search for Linux

[akiy]

A search for 'search' returns a list of websites that all contain the word search in their domain name, none of them are any of the good ones - Google, AV, Yahoo, and (even!) MSN.

It sure looks like they place a heck of a lot of weight on a search term if it's in the site's domain name. I think their algorithm needs a lot more tweaking if that's true.

Re:Search for Linux

[ad0gg]

Its not the domain name, its the text between the anchor tag that makes a difference. You can see it with the "French Defeats" search and other humor searches where the search term isn't even the domain name or the page itself.

MSN beta search works little like google's page rank where inbound links are counted toward search placement, but it looks like msn places lot more emphasis on it. Problem with this, it breeds link farms and spamming the results.

Re:Search for Whatever

[denthijs]

Owww, Now i get it, ..
Microsoft doesn't want to be incompliant with all the rfc's
they just can't find 'm;
Sorry, no results were found containing "http rfc"

Explains a LOT

Re:Search for Whatever

[aldousd666]

I tried Litigious Bastards, and it came up with no results. Maybe SCO is giving up!

Re:Search for Linux

[mledet]

Search Error
MSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request.

Please try again in a few minutes.

EID: f:618926422 - 1041:1041:10004:1059

HC: 71d61b13

Re:Search for Linux

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

I got that too.

Re:Search for Linux

[gid13]

Heh... And my first search for Knoppix resulted in an error. But it seems to be working now. Maybe it's just being slashdotted?

Re:Search for Linux

[scotch]

Sorry, no results were found containing "wikipedia"

Ha ha.

Re:Search for Linux

[iocat]

It's not just wikipedia...

Sorry, no results were found containing "rabbit"

(Google found 6.8 million, fyi).

At what point do the search engine creators just decide that their engine isn't ready for prime time? I mean, a rabbit is a fairly common thing.

Contest: with no MSN hits, most google hits

[Noren]

heh, my current record is "cat", which also returns no hits(!)

From msn:

Sorry, no results were found containing "cat"

cat returns "about 57,500,000" google pages.

Re:Search for Linux

[awhelan]

MSN was famous for this. It is probably a coincidence since I doubt they'd dare do it again, but a few years ago Microsoft was accused of intentionally blocking certian linux websites from search results.

Re:Search for Linux

[awhelan]

With a little "after-the-fact" research I found This Slashdot Article [slashdot.org]

Re:Search for Linux

[betelgeuse-4]

Search for "microsoft" and only 1 result is returned, compared to Google's 103 million.

Re:Search for Linux

[WebCrapper]

The sad part is, MSFT is just using the Slashdot crowd as real life load testing...

Re:Search for Linux

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I'm not having any problems finding LOADS of hits for "linux", though the first time I tried I got an error. But I'm not surprised that Slashdotters are already suggesting something shifty, completely ignoring the fact that this is quite clearly NOT a finished product. Typical.

I wonder if I search for "knee jerk", do I find Slashdot?

Re:Search for Linux

[southpolesammy]

I don't think that it's too much to assume that if a public test of a technology is being offered that said technology should be able, even if only partially, to satisfy the testers requirements. It's not like this is an in-house alpha product that may have an incomplete interface or an unseeded database -- this is a public beta test aimed at user acceptance testing. Given that search results are sparse at best, I'd say their UAT is not going very well.

I tried a different tactic..

[radish]

It asked what I was looking for, but wasn't able to help:

Sorry, no results were found containing "something better than windows"

try xfree86

[cyfer2000]

and the search engine said

You have entered a search term that is likely to return adult content.

Warning: If you are under 18 or live in an area where it is illegal for you to view explicit content, please revise your search.

Re:Search for Linux

[Otter]

Meanwhile, Linux.com is #3 at Google, behind Linux.org and Red Hat.

Actually, what this all suggests is that the Microsoft search weights the domain name much more heavily than Google does. Everything in their top 10 has "linux" in the domain.

Accuracy

[jmays]

What is important is that a search for litigious bastards [sco.com] still returns the SCO Group.

"Miserable Failure"

[viper21]

Hey, at least microsoft did one thing right. [msn.com]

-S

Re:"Miserable Failure"

[strictnein]

with Jimmy Carter #4 and Michael Moore #3
Oh... and Hillary Clinton #5 and Howard Dean #7
And Michael Moore at #9 and #12
Rummy at #8
Slick Will at #14

Same algorithm

[baywulf]

Would this imply that Microsoft is using the same algorithm as Google?

Re:"Miserable Failure"

[Anonymous Cowtard]

It's also got the French Military Victories [msn.com] thing too, though without an "I'm feeling lucky" button, it doesn't take you right to the page, just displays it as #1 in the search.

Strange how the rankings on these two are similiar to Google's right off the bat, eh?

Re:"Miserable Failure"

[EvilTwinSkippy]

In Soviet Russia, Bush bashes YOU!

xfree86

[SealTit]

Looks like it still thinks that xfree86 is "adult content"

http://techpreview.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q =x free86&FORM=SMCRT

Re:xfree86

[Bricklets]

Looks like it still thinks that xfree86 is "adult content"

More importantly xfree85 is not considered "adult content." I can understand someone having trouble with "69," but "86"??? Come on. What position do two people have to be in to form that shape.

Re:xfree86

[jred]

I can understand someone having trouble with "69," but "86"??? Come on. What position do two people have to be in to form that shape.

Well, first you have the chick facing away from you, standing on her head. Then you bring in the siamese twins...

Wonder if...

[bje2]

...they'll have a "Microooooooosoft" graphic at the bottom of the screen to allow you navigate between pages of results...

Re:Wonder if...

[Zorilla]

And directly to the right of the "Search" button will be a button that says, "I'm Feeling Retarded"

First experience...

[SammysIsland]

Search Error

MSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request.

Please try again in a few minutes.

EID: f:2114719238 - 1041:1041:10004:1059

HC: 71d61b16

Re:First experience...

[bje2]

i just got that too...was working fine a few mins ago...ha, microsoft has been /.'d...

Re:First experience...

[blinder]

A brand new algorithmic search engine -- built from the ground up -- on Microsoft technology

Yeah, no kidding.

Playing catch up

[Mz6]

I like it only for the simple reason that the website I co-Admin is ranked 2nd. And not only that, the site is listed serveral times on the first page. In Google, the first appearance doesn't show up until the 5th page. (Search term: Mazda6) But that would probably be the only reason why I like it.

Out of curiousity I also decided to check out MSN's Sandbox [msn.com]. This is pretty much their upcoming software and features. I was surprised to find pretty much everything they are listing has already been inplemented by Google. Time to play catch up!

NewsBot [msn.com] = news.google.com
MSN Toolbar [msn.com] = Google Toolbar
3 [threedegrees.com] = I'm thinking this is just like Orkut, 3 is software that connects a small group of family and close friends, people who know and trust one another, so they can do fun things together in a whole new way. 3 is a beta test of an innovative application that lets users connect online, extending real-world social interactions.
NetScan [microsoft.com] = This is Google Groups.. searches USENET newsgroups

The only "original" item on there was TerraServer [terraserver-usa.com] and that has been up and running for some time now.

I would be interested to see if MS decides to add much of the same features that Google has. Such as phone number searches, unit conversions, etc...Some things that make Google really unique. Perhaps MS could tie the search term, such as an address, to TerraServer will allow a person to get a direct overhead view of that place. However... They need to get some more updated maps to make this useful.

Re:Playing catch up

[strictnein]

3 [threedegrees.com] = I'm thinking this is just like Orkut

And quite possibly uses the same code...

Re:Playing catch up

[strictnein]

Very interesting: Drilling down using NetScan and you actually get a page that links to Google Groups.

MESSAGE HEADER

The message header for this article is not available.

MESSAGE BODY

The message body for this article is not available.

Message-ID: 409e3b22$0$29341$[e-mail]

Sear ch for this message at Google Groups

Kind of suprsising

Pretty comprehensive preview there, methinks

[GillBates0]

Search ErrorMSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request.

Please try again in a few minutes.

EID: f:1658889542 - 1041:1041:10004:1059

HC: 71d61b14

a LITTLE slow???

[ErichTheWebGuy]

admits the fact that searching is a little slow

9:06:41 AM MDT: search for 'microsoft sucks'
9:07:38 AM MDT: returned first page of results, first result points to microsoftsucks.org

I think I'd call that more than a little slow. The term unusable comes to mind.

"fisherman"

[Chris Pimlott]

Okay, random test. Search for "fisherman":

Sorry, no results were found containing "fishermen"

1 billion entries? Please.

Google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,350,000 for fishermen [definition]. (0.33 seconds)

Nice work so far MS...

Re:"fisherman"

[bje2]

i randomly searched for "baseball" on both... Microsoft's #1 results was the mlb.com website (which is what i would expect)... Google's #1 result was baseball-almanac.com doesn't really mean anything, just thought that was interesting...

Re:"fisherman"

[sould]

Okay, random test. Search for "fisherman":

Sorry, no results were found containing "fishermen"

C'mon...I mean copying and pasting isn't that hard now is it?

Re:"fisherman"

[plumby]

I did a search for cheesecake and got 0 entries. I tried a couple of minutes later and got loads. Evidently not very stable yet, but it is only in beta, so not too surprising. My guess would be incorrect use of a static/global variable.

Re:"fisherman"

[L. VeGas]

My guess would be incorrect use of a static/global variable.

Much thanks! I've been trying for weeks to figure our what's wrong.
----------
Bill Gates

And the most popular search is now...

[Mr. Smoove]

Linux just to p*ss off Bill, courtesy of all his friends at /.

Shhh... secret Microsoft code!

[AKAImBatman]

function search(var terms)
{
return screen_scrap_google(terms);
}

On a more serious note, this engine is not all that great. For example, if I do a search for my name I primarily see forum posts. While that's great, it's not very useful. Listing software I've written, articles that mention me, etc. are far more useful results, especially to a future employer. Google nails this because the more interesting stuff always has back-links to it. Sorry Microsoft, you need Google's technology to compete with Google.

Slow

[chrispl]

Hmmm seven comments and the search is already very very slow (16 seconds load time here). Is it possible that we can bring down MSN with slashdot?

Hint incase it goes down: Its a google clone.

Long Discussion

[TheUncleBob]

about the performance and quality of the results of the search preview over at Webmaster World [webmasterworld.com], including some feedback from MS employees.

They have to have something up their sleeve...

[dobedobedew]

So far, google has given me no reason to distrust them. Microsoft on the other hand... No thanks. I gave up on MS years ago. I'm sure I am not the only ./'er who feels that way.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Boycott

[OYAHHH]

Anybody know what the search engine spider calls itself.

I make sure that msnbot is not allowed to traverse my web site via the robots.txt file. I'd like to do the same with this robot.

BTW, I've noticed no appreciable decline in web hits at all.

Re:Boycott

[DaHat]

...why?

Why prevent a spider from crawling your page?

Just because it's associated with Microsoft?

Re:Boycott

[bje2]

my thoughts exactly...who are you hurting there? not really microsoft...you're just hurting yourself...why *wouldn't* you want to be indexed in their search engine?

Re:Boycott

[OYAHHH]

I,

Think you hit the nail on the head with the word "why".

What is the point of MS providing a search facility via their websites and eventually tied directly into their OS. So they can make more money. Yeah a secondary concern might be to help their customers have a better experience, but believe me, it's to make money.

Has MS been particularly honest about their search results in the past. I've done the "Linux" search on MSN before and quite frankly it was appalling to me that a company could be so blatent in their disregard for truthfullness.

Thus, "Why" should I provide any opportunity for MS to make any additional money. I certainly don't feel the need to line Bill Gates pockets anymore.

And, I certainly don't feel the need to give sustenance to someone who has made it their life's calling to squash anything that is non-MS.

Call me vindictive and I'll wear it like a crown if you like.

To me, collaborating with MS in any manner is sorta like having the person who shot and killed your mother over for dinner. Ain't gonna happen under my command.

By disallowing the msnbot I effectively, in a small way, reduce MS' ability to rule the world completely.

And as I noted in my first post, before I disallowed msnbot from my site I only got a few redirects off of MS sites daily anyway.

If somebody wants to find my site they can readily find me on any of the other search engines. My site's consistently in the top five returns for the pertinent subject matter on any search engine. Except MSN, of course, hee! hee! hee!

Re:Boycott

[christopherfinke]

Why would you do something like this? There are going to be people that use Microsoft's search engine. Your site will not be indexed by Microsoft's search engine. Consequently, these people will not find your site.

I wonder if all of the people complaining about there not being enough relevant results are the same ones blocking this spider from indexing their relevant content...

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yahoo's preview

[barcodez]

Just to balance things... http://labs.yahoo.com/demo/nutch/

Search Error.. Slashdotted?

[Ba3r]

Search ErrorMSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request. Please try again in a few minutes. EID: f:1658889542 - 1041:1041:10004:1059 HC: 71d61b14

Biased

[mogrinz]

Try a search for 'email' or 'calendar' and guess who always comes up first? Not exactly impartial results, are they?

Yea, a billion sites...

[slashrogue]

Sorry, no results were found containing "microsoft fud"

Slashdotted already

[Genevish]

MSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request.
Please try again in a few minutes.

EID: f:618926422 - 1041:1041:10004:1059

HC: 71d61b13

My expericence:

[protomala]

First try searching for upperland:

Search Error
MSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request.

Please try again in a few minutes.
EID: f:1658889542 - 1041:1041:10004:1059
HC: 71d61b14

The second search worked, but google already know me and place my page called upperland on first, and plus have options to search only brazilian or portuguese pages.

The problem was when I tryied searching for "sport club internacional" that gave me a: Sorry, no results were found containing "sport club internacional".

Only 15 rsults for Linux

[Foofoobar]

Gee, one billion pages and only 15 results for Linux? Why am I not surprised?

Works really well

[mcgroarty]

My first search on http://www.search.msn.com/ was "Google rip off" and it worked pretty well.

Try it! The best result is in the blue box at the top!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:hmm...

[knodi]

Sure, there's another source. They also get a lot from people logging out of hotmail. :-)

to answer their question

[CoffeeJedi]

What do we have under the hood? A brand new algorithmic search engine -- built from the ground up -- on Microsoft technology. Give it a spin and tell us what you think.

This site will be available for a short time. After we have time to incorporate your feedback and add some features it'll be back, new and improved.

what do i think? i think you should stop having the marketing-drones right your copy, when Google says things like "give it a spin" or "it'll be back", it seems genuine, when Microsoft says it, it sounds forced and derivative of the original

Microsoft's gonna lose this one

[lowe0]

While I'm normally pretty pro-MS (I actually like their products - I'm not kidding) MS stands very little chance here.

They're fighting a marketshare war, and searches are pretty much a commodity - unless they've got something very specialup their sleeves, their searches are the same as anyone else's.

And let's face it, Google won the mindshare a long time ago. Just like everyone knows what Windows is, everyone knows what Google is, even non-techs. Hell, it's damn near a generic term for searching by now.

Re:Microsoft's gonna lose this one

[dmeranda]

Tell that one to Netscape, Inc. Netscape was synonomous with "browser", or heck, even with the word "Internet". And Gates was even going around saying the Internet was just a fad. And still the big monopoly crushed them.

Now at least Google doesn't appear to be asleep at the wheel like Netscape was, but Microsoft is sort of like Wal Mart. Doesn't matter who you are or how superior your product/service; if they enter your market you have to be running scared.

The biggest item of interest is all the patents Google has. I normally hate software patents, but that may be what saves Google from the big MS monopoly. And since Google uses Linux, they can flaunt them a bit more than most companies.

Re:Microsoft's gonna lose this one

[AliasTheRoot]

Netscape didn't become a verb. Google did. You can't redefine verbs with dollars.

More FUD... oe something like that

[poptones]

MS kicked Netscape's ass because Netscape fell into a spiral of devolution while IE became a much better product. In the fight between Netscape 3 and IE4, it was no contest because IE was, at the time, simply the better product. Remember, this was when Netscape was just sure it owned the web and, at the time, it was even thumbing its nose at the W3C. This is perhaps the most perfect example of Microsoft's "embrace and extend" philosophy. Once MS becomes dominant in a market it's very easy for themn to retain that dominance - but attaining dominance in any particular field is NOT a given even for MS.

So compare then to now: you can't even get decent fucking search results of Microsoft's own support site from Microsoft itself. They can't even properly track their own content - how on earth can anyone trust them to track everyone elses? I work tech support a few days a week and I don't even think about using Microsoft's "search the knowledge base" page - it's often laughably short on search results even for well known things like "xp rpc exploit" and "download ie6."

When I can get proper tech support info on Microsoft's own products without having to go to Google and type site:microsoft.com THEN I'll start to believe this is like Netscape vs. Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft's gonna lose this one

[glinden]

I don't think it's true that "Google won the mindshare a long time ago." As of Jan 2004, Google has less than 40% [searchenginewatch.com] of the search market, nearly tied with MSN and Yahoo.

Unfortunately, all Microsoft has to do is to catch Google. If the quality is essentially indistinguishable from Google, most people will use MSN Search, since MSN Search will be the default in IE (and probably MS OFfice and WinXP soon).

As long as Google keeps innovating [blogspot.com] and stays ahead, they'll do fine. But, if they trip, Microsoft will c

Horrible Failure

[Bonker]

I searched for "Horrible Failure" at MSN and got:

Search ErrorMSN Search is temporarily unable to process your request.

Please try again in a few minutes.

EID: f:618926422 - 1041:1041:10004:1059

HC: 71d61b13

I seached for "Horrible Failure" at google and got:

Re: horrible failure to compile on Solaris 2.6
Russell Kroll
Wed, 18 Jul 2001 15:51:02 -0500

Koos van den Hout wrote:

> I am trying to build nut for our solaris 2.6 setup (so we can really start
> using a bigass APC ups with max 50 amps output cu

"Windows detected that you just entered..

[BigGerman]

.. a search term. Please reboot to see your results."

Out of one billion pages....

[harks]

Sorry, no results were found containing "skydiving"

quick comparison to google

[pohl]

The query "windows sucks" in Google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 577,000 for windows sucks. (0.26 seconds)

...and in MSN Search preview...

Sorry, no results were found containing "windows sucks" Can they really claim to have indexed so many pages? :-)

MSN Bots = Annoying

[Bruha]

I'm getting more hits than most of my regular visitors in my logs.. even google does not check my site on a daily basis but these seem to do it on a semi hourly basis.

Searching for...

[I_am_Rambi]

Gentoo [msn.com] - no results

Redhat [msn.com] - 1 result redhat.com

Suse [msn.com] many results

slackware [msn.com] - many results

mandrake [msn.com] - mandrake.com 4th on list

XFree86 [msn.com] - adult content

Xfree [msn.com] - no results

linux [msn.com] - no results

Seems rigged to me

Linux?

[krs-one]

LINUX [msn.com]

'Nuff said.

-Vic

I for one, welcome new search engine warriors

[clintp]

The First Search Engine War was fought years ago, and has been long over. But a blank check was given and all kinds of approaches and interfaces emerged. The winner was Google, though other technologies are still groveling for the spotlight. They won with a good interface, good results, without too much junk.

A Second Search Engine War might help to refine things even further. Microsoft seems to be starting from Google's UI model (everyone loves a winner) and working from there. That's great. There's not really a whole lot of ways for the users to lose here. Things might get even better!

Now you see it, now you don't.

[mccalli]

Did a search for my domain, Eruvia. It told me there were fifteen results, then gave me the first ten and and a next button.

Clicked next - suddenly, "Sorry, there a no results for 'eruvia'". Pardon? Try searching again from scratch, and once again suddenly Eruvia has disappeared. Can't get my original 15 results back at all.

I'm putting this down to extremely ungraceful load handling and the ongoing Slashdotting. What's this running on anyway? Netcraft says IIS/6.0 on Linux [netcraft.com], so it's another Akamai job, but the hardware behind it doesn't seem up to scratch yet.

Cheers,
Ian

Sneak Preview...

[polyp2000]

Nothing more than that really.

Its pretty slow, the results are inconsistent, cant even cope with a slashdotting. One things for sure this will be a real test of Microsofts server platform; So far I aint impressed.

Search for Open Source returns NOTHING!!

[Monoman]

http://techpreview.search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=o pen+source&FORM=SMCRT

MS and competition

[tehanu]

Whenever I read about the way MS improves their stuff when there is actual competition, I wonder what Windows would have been like now if there had been any actual real competition for marketshare in OSes in the last decade or so.

C# unfriendly

[Pedrito]

As a C# programmer, I frequently run searches on google with the keyword "C#" in the search. Google does a good job with it.

Microsoft's search engine on the other hand seems to toss out the "#" character which makes it pretty useless. Kind of funny given who created C#.

Guess I'll be sticking with google.

No comment needed

[spacefight]

for this [msn.com] search, err 2nd searchresult.

You need viable weapons to participate in a war.

[digital photo]

Okay, having just gone to the search engine site and entering in simple words, I get one of three results:

• Error page
• No results
• Some results, but differs each time

They claim to have indexed billions of pages... billions of pages of what exactly?!?

To participate in a war, you need reliable weapons to stand a chance. Teoma, Yahoo, Google, etc... they all have viable search technologies. MSN's search engine at their beta site is comparable to a blunderbuss. Highly inaccurate, prone to misfirings, and just as predictable in results.

Some people say "linux" gets results and some people don't. When I ran a search just now, it didn't get any results. Then I got an error page.

I tried searching for my website with "polygon comics" which is indexed in every search engine. None on their beta engine.

I tried "palo alto car show", which is likewise indexed by every search engine out there. Also no results from the MSN beta search engine.

From the impressions posted by other people who have been trying the system, it sounds like when the MSN beta search system is working, it ranks based on domains, favouring cyber-squatters and basically giving you info which may not even be relevant to your search.

RELEVANCE is what is important in a search system. That is more than just matching keywords. If MSN hopes to launch their own search which doesn't depend on other peoples' more reliable search technologies, they will need to work a hell of alot harder than what they've put up on their beta site.

As a long time user of search engines, I think MSN beta is a piece of ****(replace with a four letter explative of your choosing).

Feedback

[flossie]

"Please provide your feedback in the form below. Thank you for helping us to improve MSN Search. Although we won't respond directly to your comments, we will use them to improve our service."

Are they being choosy in deciding from whom they will accept feedback? When I click the "submit" button (using Firefox on Linux) nothing seems to happen except that an error message appears in the Javascript console: "Error: changeImage is not defined".

Poor search focus, or strange ordering of results

[Simon Brooke]

I have a Java class, ShuffleWidget [weft.co.uk], which I often use when assessing search engines because its name is unique and so all the results tend to come from my site (or places that refer to my site). Plugging this into the new MSN search [msn.com] does, indeed, bring back pages from my site, but, interestingly, not the ShuffleWidget page itself, despite the fact that according to my logs, "msnbot/0.11 (+http://search.msn.com/msnbot.htm)" [msn.com] has scanned the page on an almost daily basis throughout June. Google by contrast brings the ShuffleWidget [google.com] page back as it's second hit.

It seems they've some work to do in ordering their search results.

Re:Technologies..

[Tobias Luetke]

relys on aspx ?

I think you are a bit confused. aspx means asp.net and thats purly serversided. You can't *rely heavily* on this, its a choice of system.
And a damn good one right now if i might add this. People who used it will agree with me there. ( asp was crap )

Re:Technologies..

[DaHat]

Why?

One is entirely server side and is transparent to the client other then the extension in the address bar. The other is a widely supported technology that's well supported on almost every platform with a recent web browser.

One thing's for sure...

[artemis67]

they don't seem to be standing up to the slashdotting their receiving right now.

First impressions -- can't find much

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Even ignoring the slowness, the results are extremely lacking
compared to Google. Here's a few quick searches I tried:

gethostbyname - no matches (Google=161000)
starbucks - 1 match (Google=1500000)
spiderman - 1 match (Google=2550000)
cassini - no matches (Google=941000)
gucci - 1 match (Google=3340000)
"garner state park" - failure (Google=3190)

Looks like it will find roughly /2 million times fewer/
matches for a given keyword of Google. I don't think it's
quite ready to enter ship-test just yet.