0

As for my favourite search engines, I use both Google and Yahoo! as just one of the two can never do the job alone. Also because the Yahoo! page takes so long to load up I tend to use google first (unless searching for code) then if I can't find it in google I try the find my answer in Yahoo! which has a better algorithm for my english.

-1

You really dont understand google news do you? Google dosent write the news, no, it just grabs all of the headlines from around the world and puts them up.

Never said Google wrote the headlines or news did I? Yes the headlines are gathered up, but no doubt more weight given to some reports over others. I did make clear I wouldn't rely on any of the bigger players for an unbiased source information, either on themselves or their competition.

Now im not sure why, but it seems that you have a bit of a vendetta about google, would it be okay that instead of just getting angry and asking "How is this different to google?" all of the time, if you do support bing, maybe you could talk about it in a good sense rather than just bagging google.

Um, have already done that way back in the thread. And as much as Bing is showing to have the potential of becoming a great alternative, it is at this point at least not feature-rich enough for me personally to ditch Google completely.

Now no I don't particularly like Google, but that really has little to do with putting in highlighting the Google flaws. What was started as a question over the interest/adoption of Bing quickly became more focused on the creator of Bing - ie, the "evil entity that is Microsoft". So yes, have played devil's advocate, as I don't think either party are wearing some glowing halo of holy perfection; where some have been so pointed as to why MS is so terrible, have provided a counter-argument. I just think it is sad that for many, an unbiased look at a new search-engine player is so clouded by the animosity aimed at the developer... especially since the current main-player isn't so squeaky clean themself.

To get beyond the whole MS V's Google thing, the simple reality is that since Google has become such a dominant player in the search-engine business, it has been extremely difficult for any other player to compete. To do so requires the collateral, and the physical presence to:

  • coordinate the necessary research and development
  • to attract the advertising interest which will then fund the project/development
  • To promote their product as an alternative - to create awareness of their existence even
  • And to finance and establish the server volume required for such a venture

How many corporations are well-enough placed to do all that? To be honest, I'm surprise Apple Corp hasn't yet graced us with an iSearch as yet, as they are also one of the few who could challenge Google's search dominance.

As to why I've long sought an alternative to Google search... because it really isn't that great. Yes it is feature rich, and do prefer the clean UI; but it still wastes too much of my time having to filter through all the irrelevant results given, even using advanced search techniques. If MS can achieve a more accurate search algorithm, then great. If someone else can do the same, even better.

-1

As something extra to consider, those who are refusing to consider an alternative to Google, simply because it is an MS project, may well be missing a big-picture view of things.... competition breeds innovation. Look to the browser as the best example of this.

Go back only a few yrs and it was a truly IE dominated market. Sure there were a few alternatives, but nothing mainstream. Firefox appears, and not only built an early user-base, but then aggressively marketed itself, pitching itself against the giant that was MS. Now look at the playing field. By Mozilla creating a two-player field (I'm not in any way knocking the other players at the time such as Opera, but simply acknowledging the dominant players at the time), it actually allowed other players to step up in their own right. It also created an environment where inovation blossomed again, even in IE's corner (and no, IE is not my browser of choice!) Might not the same be possible in the search-engine field?

Before Google, there were several strong search engines, each having something to offer... the arrival of Google Search squashed most of them. By MS stepping up with Bing, we might finally see a market where competition breeds innovation in this field... it may well also return the field to a multi-player situation once more. Isn't that a good thing?

Edited by kaninelupus: n/a

0

As something extra to consider, those who are refusing to consider an alternative to Google, simply because it is an MS project, may well be missing a big-picture view of things.... competition breeds innovation. Look to the browser as the best example of this.

As I mentioned earlier, it is not the name MS that makes me not use Bing but it is the algorithm used and the page loading times. The day Microsoft buys Yahoo is the day I will make the switch over because it would make a master algorithm even though Googles homepage would still load faster. So for the time being, I am a Yahoo and Google fan.

-1

As I mentioned earlier, it is not the name MS that makes me not use Bing but it is the algorithm used and the page loading times. The day Microsoft buys Yahoo is the day I will make the switch over because it would make a master algorithm even though Googles homepage would still load faster. So for the time being, I am a Yahoo and Google fan.

Forgot to mention earlier, Yahoo & MS signed a deal a couple of months back, on of the consequences being Yahoo will be using the Bing search algorithm. Not sure if has been fully rolled out yet, but if not, it will be shortly :)

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.