Bing 'better' than Google for advertisers
We've had the $100m ad campaign, a porn scandal, denials, and an initial surge. Increasingly, though, it's looking like a search engine really is just a search engine and that there's very little to differentiate Microsoft's Bing from Google - other than one's personal taste. One user research specialist, though, reckons Bing …
...is that users are still scanning Web pages in the F-shaped pattern already well-known in the design/usability community. There's just a small difference in what Bing and Google place under that F-shaped area.
...and therefore spending slightly more time processing what they're seeing so that, in time, they will be every bit as dismissive of Bing's ads as they are Google's.
You know. Just sayin'. Not to get in the way of "research."
At first glance I thought it was storming on my search results.
I took a look at Bing. What I found is a great lack of depth; web site spidering is sadly lacking when compared to Google. M$ needs to actually index web sites instead of adding more flashy nonsense.
This is shaping up to be a hissy fit between Google as the Colours of Beneton and Bing as Ralph Delorean, polo playing, bridle path, preppy fashion. Google has a kindergarten appeal speaking to a childlike appearance, even the name, "Google", is the invention of a child. Bing looks like it's aimed at a blazer, a simple black dress and a pearl necklace (mingle and twist the imagery to suit your tastes). Ultimately Microsoft is playing a marketing game and marketing is a game Microsoft can afford to play well. They could step it up and label Google as the aging wunderkind of the internet's infancy, spin the imagery into a infant terrible gone to pot. Any way it's played it promises a little welcomed diversion.
> The news will likely please Microsoft, who's done what Microsoft does best
Uhh, wait until another company develops an excellent product, create a poorly designed copy, start the huge marketing engine, and claim it's a new innovative product?
Hyper-V > VMWare ESX
Defrag > Norton
IE > Mosaic
.. the list goes on
I can't wait for the predictable media hype, it's going to be so much fun i might just sleep through it
Bing is working quite well for me.....I haven't searched for something there that it couldn't find.
"Bing is working quite well for me.....I haven't searched for something there that it couldn't find."
I just got crushed by your implied assumptions.
That Bing managed to return results for "Your arse both hands", as frankly I wasn't expecting it to be able to achieve that.
I wasn't so sure about the articles on anal insertion, prostate massage, fisting and so forth that really had nothing to do with the intent of my query. But at least the first two results were relevant.
In the interests of unpartizan opinionating I tried the same search using Google which returned four relevant results.
Which I guess "proves" either that Google is 100% better than Bing or that Bing is 50% crapper than Google.
So what the article is really saying is that Bing's adverts are more annoying as you can see them more easily?
Might they be looking at the ads because the search results aren't worth looking at?
My 7 year old recently had to write a paper about "Nocturnal Animals". One of the websites with reference information he was given was MSFT Encarta. Guess what kind of advertisements started popping up when he queried that for "Nocturnal Animals". Cough... Cough...
That's exactly what I thought too mate.
If you've seen Google results a hundred times, you know which parts are advertising and related search nonsense. You also know that you can ignore them.
If you've never seen Bing before then you don't know where to look on screen. You might even be interested to see what the related searches are (the first few times at least).
That would explain the results perfectly.
M$ continues to be blind to languages like Esperanto, Google on the other hand provides full support... http://www.google.co.uk/advanced_search?hl=eo
Paris, ĉar ŝi uuuuuumas ĉiulingve.
So 42% of people look at sponsored links on Bing, and 25% on Google.
A clear win for Bing.
But last time I checked 42% of 10% (the percentage El Reg recently reported Bing as getting 10% of US searches) is less than 25% of 60% (the percentage that Google got last month).
Google wins.
Does little for the user but lots for MS' paying freinds.
Mine's the one with cynic on the breast pocket, and pedant on the rear.
"Does little for the user but lots for MS' paying freinds."
Did you mean : fiends?
jesus, what a boring bloody job....oh and pointless research as bingo is new so people will tend to look around more on the page.....
next..
I Binged "What is bing" on Sunday. It told me Bing was a crooner, it told be Bing was a production company, it told me Bing was an organisation representing the polyurethane industry and that Bing was part of Bada Bing in Wikipedia.
Google started to answer my question within 2 results. Not sure what it proves other than Bing is Not Google
Bings biggest problem will be that all Internet users know that when you want to look for something then you start at Google. It is the default choice. No one has heard of Bing. Google is to searching the net what Windows is to desktop operating systems - except that it usually works OK. Lets face it the commonly excepted word for searching the net is "Googling"
Oh and BTW mindbrane the word Google is a misspelling of the work Googol, 10^100.
Yes, but can it find "your arse" *without* using "both hands"?
The only suprising here is that it didn't need "a map" as well.........
yep I was gonna say that.
eesh that titles all a twitter..
It doesn't matter whether Bing is better than Google or whatever, the only purpose for this research is to advertise User Centric's services. Notice that they tested a whopping total of 21 people [just enough to come up with a headline-grabbing conclusion]
..surely this is more to do with people knowing the layout of Google and knowing where to look for what they want?
I can tell you my eyes lingered for a few more seconds on Live Se...bing, because it's new.
Won't be going back though..
lol I betcha these guys are kicking themselves
http://web.archive.org/web/20040828134017/http://www.bing.com/
Since I try to avoid looking at advertisements, which I consider as the first step to brainwashing and mind control.
When by chance I see an ad which does interest me, I google the product rather than clicking on the link. I do not want them to know their ad was effective :-P
Bing got its logo thoroughly eyeballed, while Google didn't. They could have given the subjects some time to get used to Bing, but clearly didn't.
"Oh and BTW mindbrane the word Google is a misspelling of the work Googol"
And the word Googol was invented by a chlid. I rather fancy that was the OP's point.
OMG! A pager to let you know when your phone rings? I LOVE IT! The sales pitch ...
"Have you ever left your phone in your car and missed an important call?
NEVER AGAIN with BING!
Bing will alert you when your phone rings, so you will never miss a call, again!"
Brilliant. One wonders why the company didn't succeed ...
Yup. My first thought too.
Google is very familiar, you know what's there and where to find it. Bing is new.
If this research had any validity the obvious answer would be to constantly randomize the layout of your search results page, so that users had to scan the entire page to find things.
However, I'm not expecting Microsoft to embrace this conclusion half as much as this half-assed interpretation that Bing is 'better'.
Been playing with Bing for about a week and it seems to both return results faster and do a lot better at phrases than Google. I'm one of those fluff-headed twits that can't remember song titles or artists, but can often remember the hook or chorus, and Bing just finds the songs every time whilst Google fails. So, if M$ can find a load of fluff-headed song chasers that also have lots of money to spend on clickable ads.....
