Bing Beats Google In 20-Search Shootout | Hacker News Reader

Bing Beats Google In 20-Search Shootout

finance.yahoo.com

25 pointsot25 comments

Open articleView on HN

"The test wasn't scientific, and the sample size was small. And Google did much better on some searches."

Sounds convincing!

...and from the original article[1]:

"Not too surprisingly, there was not a massive disparity in the results of my little test."

1. http://searchengineland.com/google-vs-bing-the-fallacy-of-th...

Also he scored the results subjectively.

I've been using Bing as my primary and Google as my back up now for almost a year. I almost can feel when Google will be better than Bing and vice-versa.

If you look at marketshare,you'd think Google was years ahead. Really they're pretty much at parity, with different achilles heels.

If I were MS I'd push hard into nailing the mobile experience. I thik if they can make Bing an early player in mobile search... they have a good chance of evenly splitting mobile share with Google.

> I almost can feel when Google will be better than Bing and vice-versa.

Can you please share some of those incites? I never use bing but have had trouble with google on occasion. Finding a home appliance manual can be pretty frustrating.

In general I feel like this... the more info I have the better Google will be. The less info I have the better Bing will be.

This isn't a hard and fast rule, but it tends to feel that way.

Like I did a search for "c# async video", looking for this video I saw before with Anders talking about Async. Bing gets the video I'm looking for as the second link. Google doesn't have it in the first few pages (didn't look any further). Adding "Anders" to the search doesn't seem to help Google. But then adding "Anders channel9" got it to the top of the list.

Unfortunately for you, I think finding home appliance manuals is something that I "feel" will be better on Google. Because you typically have very specific info (model number, brand, etc..).

Bing is great when I know what I'm looking for, but don't have details on it. I like Google when I'm looking for something obscure, but I have detailed info on it.

With that said, my hunch is even less scientific than this article.

Have you used WP7 or the iPhone app? They're pretty good already.

For me the decision is pretty simple:

1) I'm sometimes using untrusted networks (e.g., Wifi)

2) Google offers an SSL encrypted interface

3) Bing doesn't

So let's say you're doing an everyday search for something such as researching a new camera. Would you consider the probability of someone eavesdropping on your communication times the amount of harm they could likely cause to you using that information to outweigh any amount of improvement in search result quality? I'm not trying to be facetious — just genuinely curious if that's how your utility function works.

That would only make the decision simple if you absolutely had to use only one search engine. You could just as easily use Google's encrypted interface for insecure connections and Bing at home IF you thought Bing was better.

Only Semi-Related: Everyone who uses Google SSL should be aware of this: http://www.seofaststart.com/blog/ssl-search-referral-data

Here's a link to the Search Engine Land article that that the Yahoo article is referring to: http://searchengineland.com/google-vs-bing-the-fallacy-of-th...

I'm going to give bing a try. I'm tired of google search results listings that have too many clone sites full of content copied from stackoverflow, wikipedia, and project mailing lists.

The problem with this study is that the tested search queries are completely different than what people type into a search engine. Besides being 30% vile, real search queries are very tailored to search engines algorithms -- two to three words, maximal idf (inverse document frequency). People type in the minimum number of least commonly used terms that distinguish what they want.

Both Google and Bing use human evaluators (sometimes with domain expertise) to evaluate real queries against the search results. None of those real queries look anything like these.

Unfortunately, their hasn't been a good public release of search engine query data since the AOL fiasco.

I think the instant search function of google makes it much much more convenient than bing. See now I can type my search terms and look at the results as I am typing. If I am not liking the results, I just keep typing (i.e., narrowing my search), or change some misleading search terms.

This real time searching, is much faster, or at least feels much faster than the old way of typing a query, hitting enter, waiting for the results, thinking whether you should change your query or just look at the next page of results, etc.

At this point Bing just kind of feels like the old generation of technology.

You mean this: http://www.istartedsomething.com/livesearch/

But why doesn't Bing have this for their main site? Probably because their infrastructure would not be able to handle it.

It's rare that I have to go farther than page two, if even that, to find what I'm looking for on Google. I don't see how Bing could be 'better' enough to make a difference to me.

Personally if I don't find what I'm looking for on the first page, I refine my query.

I suppose that's what I meant without realizing it. I'm more likely to alter the search terms than go to the next pages.

So, I guess the goal is to make a search that more accurately guesses your intention, without you having to make it clear. I suppose that goal is obvious but I'm not sure whether it even make sense.

It seems like Microsoft is fighting the battles of the last decade. If Bing came out in 2001 it would be a lot different. Do they have anything more innovative in the cards than a 'better Google'?

As the article itself notes, the test itself has almost no value, but it is an interesting read anyway.

Uh.. Yahoo runs on Bing?

In related news. My brother is bigger and stronger than yours so SHUT UP!

DuckDuckGo FTW.

Most DuckDuckGo results are actually served by Bing though Yahoo.

Key word there is "most." It's the exceptions where DDG shines.

DDG is awesome when I'm looking something specific up, but when I'm not sure what I'm looking for it seems to fall apart. I guess thats where google's incorrect/random result helps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com