With all the hype and vast advertising campaign on behalf of Microsoft's new Bing search engine, there is speculation that Bing could be the biggest competition that search engine giant Google has seen to date. Yahoo search is also in the mix, but it is not as big of a competitor in the search market. Other Web 2.0 services could fall into this realm as well, such as Twitter and Facebook, but they both provide user generated content in a more recent state.
If you're not sure whether to use Bing or Google, you can use them both at the same time via the bing-vs-google.com search page. Results appear side-by-side from both Bing and Google.
So which is better? I compiled some comparisons and excerpts from around the web regarding search engine wars since Bing entered the market.
From Bing vs. Google: Consumers Can't Tell a Difference:
Clearly the Bing campaign is meant to communicate that people will get to the relevant information they want faster than Google. But this almost technical benefit (it's really about better filtering of search results) is lost in the grandiose promise of Bing as a decision engine. Maybe I am just too independently minded (and not the primary target), but I resist the notion that Microsoft technology will decide anything for me. What I really want is technology to give me the information I need to make the decision I want. But, hey, everyone's a critic.
So then I went to look at how Bing does deliver in its decision-making promise. I did the first search that came to mind: I searched my name. And Google did much better and was more accurate than Bing by far. In fact, I could compare results very efficiently via a site called bing-vs-google.com that David Pogue of the New York Times introduced to readers.
I tried again, searching the term "online trust." The results were no more satisfying this time. True, Bing does have a few nifty features like the related searches and the excerpt from the site without having to click around, but beyond that I could see no perceptible difference.
From Bing More Popular Than Twitter, CNN, and Digg:
Bing is now the thirteenth most visited site on the Web, according to one measurement.
It has a long way to go before it beats Google and has yet to overtake Yahoo, but since its release Bing.com had more visitors than Digg, Twitter or CNN, according to Compete.
According to Compete.com, Bing was able to amass 49.57 million unique visitors in its first month as Microsoft's official search engine. Bing's traffic trumps that of Digg (38.96 million) Twitter (23 million), and CNN (28.54 million). We want to stress that this focuses on U.S. visitors, since Compete does not track international visits.
From Microsoft's Bing Vs Google: Head To Head Search Results:
Bing is not a "Google Killer." It's also safe to say that Microsoft doesn't see it that way either. My understanding of what Microsoft believes it has in Bing is a much more competitive product than Live Search. I entirely agree.
My overall assessment is very positive. Kumo, now Bing, has performed well and I've been satisfied with the results. There haven't been any significant deficiencies or missing links (so to speak). While there have been a few occasions where I've found Google results to be better, the substantial gap that existed between Google and Live Search is largely gone with Bing.
Microsoft has integrated the Powerset technology to varying degrees and made numerous algorithmic improvements on the "back end" that are largely opaque to me. More obvious are the interface upgrades and changes. While many people are accustomed â€" even habituated â€" to the Google UI, I appreciated the often richer visual presentation and generally "cleaner" organization of Bing SERPs.
So now you're probably thinking will I start using Bing instead of Google?
To be candid I don't see myself giving up Google, especially given the default Firefox browser integration. But I can also honestly say that while I almost never used Live Search except to write about it, I will indeed use Bing.
From Google One-Ups Bing With Creative Commons Image Search (GOOG, MSFT):
Google added a "Usage Rights" filter to its advanced image search feature. Search results can be filtered by "labeled for reuse," "commercial" reuse," "reuse with modification," and "commercial reuse with modification."
Until now, bloggers used Flickr and other image sites to find content they could re-post under Creative Commons licenses. Google's new feature, in theory, adds much more inventory.
Google will look for images that are marked with Creative Commons and other licenses, GNU Free Documentation license and those that are in the public domain. The company does warn, however, that it's up to users to make sure that the image's license is valid for their use and that the licensing information is accurate.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's Bing â€" which has some great image-search features that Google doesn't, like "just faces" and "head & shoulders" â€" does not seem to have a Creative Commons-only filter.
From Five Reasons Why Microsoft Does Not Need To Worry About Google Chrome OS:
Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) still hasn't commented on Google's plans to introduce an operating system of its own. An official statement is coming later today and we'll post it here when it comes out. (Update: Microsoft now says it will in fact not comment). But there are lots of reasons why Microsoft does not need to be too concerned about Google's foray into its home turf. Here are five:
â€"Windows 7 is not Vista: Google's operating system, which is initially targeted for netbooks, will only be available starting in mid-2010. By then, Microsoft's new operating system, Windows 7, will have been on the market for at least nine months. Unlike its predecessor Windows Vista, Windows 7 has received rave early reviews. Also unlike Vista, Microsoft has promised that Windows 7 will work as well on netbooks as on high-end gaming PCs. As one Microsoft employee wrote on his blog today, "If Win7 didn't have a SKU for Netbooks, this might even be interesting." Microsoft will therefore be in a strong position to defend its turf than when Chrome OS comes out
â€"Microsoft is building its own browser optimized to run web apps: Like Google (NSDQ: GOOG), Microsoft understands that more people are running applications from within the browserâ€"and is moving quickly to adapt its products to that reality. The company's research arm, Microsoft Research, is developing a new browser called Gazelle, which it describes as a "browser-based OS" optimized to run web apps. Just last week, the company put out a summary of the principles behind the project.
â€"Chrome OS will compete with Ubuntu: Chrome OSâ€"which is open sourceâ€"will further fragment the open source operating system market, since it will provide yet another option, writes Renai LeMay at ZDNet. This comes just as Ubuntu was becoming the dominant choice. He writes, "In this context, Google's decision to create its own Linux distribution and splinter the Linux community decisively ... can only be seen as foolhardy and self-obsessive." That could obviously benefit Microsoft.
â€"Are consumers ready for a life on the web? Most of the user experience in Chrome OS will take place on the web, so it's not likely that computers with the operating system installed will be able to run any Windows applications. That will likely limit adoption. Writes Bernstein Research's Jeffrey Lindsay, "Google would need to rely on people to more fully adopt web-based services (a long-dated proposition), or for software developers to port their applications over to Chrome OS."
â€"Google's track record outside of search is poor: Google has launched other high-profile attacks on Microsoft products, with only limited success so far. The company has gone after Office with Google Docs and Internet Explorer with Chrome. Both products may have generated lots of buzz but not much market share. And, of course, Microsoft is also going on the offensive, with its revamped search engine Bing, which directly targets Google's core business.
From Bing, the Imitator, Often Goes Google One Better:
At first, Bing is pretty much Google. Oh, there's a big National Geographic-y photo on the home page instead of plain white, but otherwise it's the same deal: a search box; a menu that offers to complete what you're typing; and inconspicuous links to Images, Videos, News, Shopping and Maps.
Once you hit Enter, however, you can't help noticing Bing's more concerted effort to get you answers faster. To minimize the clicking, the hunting, the dead ends.
For starters, how's this for a dream feature? Point to any search result without clicking; a pop-up balloon shows you the first few paragraphs of text on it. Without leaving the results list, you know if it's going to be helpful. Simple and irresistible.
Here's another example. On Google, search results usually appear as a long list of blue text links. Occasionally, a photo appears, too. Or, if there's only one possible answer for your query (weather, stock price, sports scores, street address), you get that answer right at the top: a five-day weather forecast, a stock chart, game scores, a street map. In those cases, you don't have to click through to anything on the search results list.
Bing does all that, too. But it also expands those "let me make sense of this for you" results â€" in a big, beautiful, very successful way â€" by introducing a new panel to the left of the search results.
For example, if you search for a celebrity's name, that space offers an attractive table of common-sense links: News, Movies, Quotes, Biography and Images. When you search for a sports team, you see Schedule, Tickets, Stadium, History and Wallpaper. When you search for a medical condition, that table offers Causes, Remedies, Treatment, Prognosis and News.
Aren't those almost always the answers you're really looking for?
That panel also lists Related Searches, which require one click and zero thinking. If you searched for "barbecue," it offers Barbecue Grills, Barbecue Recipes, Barbecue Ribs and so on.
Finally, the same panel maintains your search history, to save you the trouble of reformulating your quests. (It also offers Turn Off and Clear All buttons, for the benefit of â€" well, you know who you are.)
Yes, that left-side panel creates more clutter; Google's appeal has always been its sparse, streamlined look. But it's well worth the space.
Both Bing and Google offer an Image Search page, where you can find photos from the Web of anyone or anything. On Bing, however, the results page scrolls forever â€" you don't have to keep clicking Next, Next, Next. More photos fit in less space, too, since all the cluttery text details (pixel size, file name, originating Web site) are hidden until you point at a thumbnail. And you can adjust the thumbnail size.
Options on the left-side panel let you limit the image results in various ways: by size, by graphic type, even "just faces" or "head & shoulders" shots. Amazing.
As on Google, you can search for videos. But on Bing, you can preview the results far more efficiently. Just point to a thumbnail (without clicking) in the search results, and the video begins to play back sample segments, seven seconds at a time, right there on the thumbnail.
The rest of Bing's advantages are supposed to stem from four huge search categories: travel, shopping, health and local business information. These sorts of searches produce special displays that trounce Google's eye-glazing text lists â€" sometimes.
When you're shopping for a particular product â€" "Canon SD870," for example â€" the top result is a tidy chart, summarizing everything you'd want to know: a photo, price, average rating, and even a Photo Quality graph.
(Bing's Shopping results also make it clear when you'll get 1 to 5 percent cash back, courtesy of Microsoft's Cashback program. In essence, Microsoft passes on to you some of the bounty that it receives from 540 online advertisers, such as J&R, Hewlett-Packard, Gap and others. Paying you to use Bing for shopping feels desperate and even a little sleazy on Microsoft's part, but it's real money, and you may as well exploit it while it lasts.)
When you search for a flight, a similar table offers the cheapest fare ("$259 JFK>LAX") and links to other deals. An icon tells you whether prices are about to go up, down or stay the same. That detail is brought to you by Farecast.com, which Microsoft bought last year for $115 million.
Unfortunately, these features don't always work. You get the shopping info summary with "Canon SD870," but not "Nikon D5000," let alone "Palm Pre," "TiVo HD" or "iPod Nano." (Microsoft points out that the summary table appears more often if you click the Shopping link before you search. But come on, who has time for that?)
Similarly, it's hard to predict when those fare-prediction icons will appear. Last week, they were showing up when you searched for "Chicago to Atlanta," but not when you use the corresponding airport codes ("ORD to ATL"); Microsoft fixed that this week. But fare predictions aren't available for smaller airports (Cleveland, New Orleans, Washington National).
In short, these much-vaunted Bing specialty searches feel a little flaky.
Google is still way ahead on other kinds of searches, like movie showtimes: You get a complete table of nearby movies, complete with trailers, reviews and even links to IMDB.com (the Internet movie database).
Google also wins with maps and driving directions; it offers features like Street View (actual photos along your route) and the ability to drag the colored route line to alternative roadways with your mouse (to avoid a traffic jam or take a favorite shortcut).
On the other hand, Bing wins on traffic searches (such as "traffic nyc"), where you get a color-coded map of current traffic speeds without having to dig. It also excels with company name searches; the 800 number for customer service appears right in the results list.
But search services are constantly in flux. They're online, so their creators can keep refining them without making you install anything. Bing will keep getting better â€" but so, inevitably, will Google. If Google doesn't eventually respond by making its own results more manageable in Bingish ways, I'll eat my hat.
Furthermore, beyond the basics, Bing is still just a baby. It lacks some of Google's mature additional services like book searches and Google News (built-it-yourself online newspaper).
People won't start dumping Google en masse; Google is a habit. Everyone already knows how to work it, and it may be built right into your Web browser. But if you value your time, you should give Bing a fling.
Put another way, even if Bing really did stand for "But it's not Google," that is not necessarily an insult.
From Search Smackdown: Bing Vs. Google:
- searching for 'Google'
Google will show news results about themselves first, and a link to their homepage later, which makes sense since people are probably already on there. The rest of the results consists of Google products and local versions of the search service. Noteworthy difference is the presence of a button that lets you drop down a widget displaying information about Google's stock without the need to leave the page.
Bing, on the other hand, provides a list of possible extended search queries on the left sidebar, and a list of useful direct links to Google services below the first result. It also lists 'similar' searches on the right sidebar (not visible in this screenshot) with alternative services - Bing being the first one they recommend. It also displays a box that you can use to jump to Google search, and it keeps track of your search history right on the page, unless you turn that feature off.
- searching for 'TechCrunch'
Google only shows internal network links on the first SERP with the exception of our Twitter account, Netvibes profile and Wikipedia entry, while Bing mostly shows links to third-party services (Wikipedia, OnSugar, Flux, Blip.tv, AboutUs.org, Facebook, GitHub, Mahalo, etc.). From the viewpoint of TC the company, the latter situation is not ideal, and to top it off running the query on Bing apparently means potential visitors will see the names of competing blogs in the left sidebar. On the upside, you can open the Wikipedia article on TechCrunch on the same page, which makes for a seamless user experience if information about us was what you were looking for.
- searching for 'Linux'
Using Google, you get much better results for this query, period. Google lists at least five very relevant links (Kernel.org, Debian.org, RedHat.com, LinuxJournal.com and LI.org) that you will not find in the first 15 search results on Bing. No nifty sidebars, nor any amount of spot-on similar results will help Microsoft here.
- searching for 'Office Space quotes'
Here, Bing takes the top prize, although with this particular query the results are much more similar, which can be attributed to the fact that it is more detailed (three words instead of one like the other examples). Why do I say that? Because Bing is the only one of both that correctly lists the movie Office Space's Wikipedia entry in the first few results, while Google doesn't even list until the fifth page of results (both rank Wikiquote quite high). Also, this is where the extended search options in the left sidebar at Bing really shine: 'Office Space sound clips', 'Office Space WAV files', 'Office Space Clips', etc. - that's the stuff you'd likely be looking for.
It is far too early and this is far too unscientific a research method to jump to any conclusions - we'd need a Jump to Conclusions mat for that - but using Savage's tool gives you a nice clean overview of what most people who've tried both engines today: Google and Bing at the very least feel very different, and while you can argue about the quality of one engine versus the other back and forth as much as you want, it's painfully clear both need improvement. Of course, if there continues to be no clear winner on the quality front, then Google has already won the battle before it starts, expensive ad campaigns be damned.
That said, please allow me to reiterate a point Michael made yesterday as well as in the past, that I most definitely agree with: Microsoft is damn right not to give up the search game yet like some are suggesting they should. Please stop calling for a monopoly in search, let these companies compete and fight hard for every user, and I'm sure we'll see more innovation in this space soon enough.
From Bing vs. Google vs. Yahoo: Feature Smackdown:
In the arena of world-class search, can Bing bring the hurt to Google and Yahoo? Microsoft's newest search engine comes packed with search tools such as an Explorer Pane for refining searches, Quick Previews for sneaking a peek at a site before visiting it, and Sentiment Extraction for making sense of product reviews.
Google and Yahoo, meanwhile, are no chumps. Google has outwitted its competitors by delivering solid search results and cool tools such as Street Views. Yahoo has done a masterful job of integrating search results with its rich network of Yahoo content. Search for the musician Sting within Yahoo, and presto-you're watching Yahoo music videos or listening to streaming audio of Sting singing "Desert Rose" from within your search results.
How do these services stack up against each other? Bing targets four categories of search: shopping, local, travel, and health. In a highly subjective comparison, I tested Bing, Google, and Yahoo in these areas and in others.
From Microsoft bets that Bing will beat Google:
Ashley Highfield, the managing director of consumer and online for Microsoft in the UK, said: "Having a single dominant player in any market is a huge opportunity. Agencies and clients are crying out for a rival to Google."
Microsoft's Windows system currently runs a search engine called Live Search, which has struggled to capture even 10 per cent of searches in the US. Google has 64 per cent and Yahoo! 20 per cent. Rebecca Jennings, an IT market analyst at Forrester, said: "Clearly Microsoft has to differentiate itself. Looking to overtake Google is brave, even Yahoo! will prove a challenge. People are so used to Google, shifting them will be hard."
Bing goes live in the US on 1 June, and will launch in Britain later this year. It is currently running a beta, or testing, site in Britain.
There is a team of 60 people working on tailoring the site to the UK market and the search centre has been developed in the UK since October. Mr Highfield added that it is not an extension of Live; "it is more starting again".
The engine is run on cutting edge algorithms, which work on tailoring searches much closer to what customers want. "The more you use it, the better it gets," Mr Highfield said. It is hoping to entice consumers with the relevance and quality of its information, as well as simplify the searches.
"People are used to web search 1.0. Google pretty much looks the same as it did 10 years ago. This website really takes it on. It cuts out so much of what isn't wanted. In two or three years this is how search will happen," he added.
Forrester's Ms Jennings said: "Bing will live or die on how clever it is, and how it learns what consumers want. It is creating a brand from scratch so marketing will be crucial."
Microsoft is betting heavily on this being a success. It has spent "a lot of money. This is a major investment," Mr Highfield said, although would not reveal the exact sum. The company is believed to have earmarked a budget of between $80m to $100m on marketing the launch alone. Mr Highfield said: "It is important that the product lands well. This is a statement of intent for a product that is game changing. It is the next generation of research."
He also pointed to dissatisfaction with the current search engines. Data provider comScore found that almost a third of searches are abandoned without a satisfactory result. The company added there were currently 37 million search users in the UK alone.
Microsoft was highly secretive in the run up to the launch and gave the project a codename of Kumo, which is Japanese for cloud or spider. It launched yesterday with the line: "What you have Bing searching for."
There are huge advertising revenues to play for. Search ads have held up relatively well despite the downturn according to Alex Hoye, the chief executive of the digital marketing agency Latitude. The UK search industry was worth £2.75bn in 2008, according to Econsultancy, up from £2.2bn in 2007. In the US, the value of the search market was put at $15.7bn (£9.83bn) by the Search Engine Marketing Professional Organisation.
Mr Hoye of Latitude, whose clients including Tesco Personal Finance and Land Rover, said: "It is a relatively lopsided market share for Google at the moment. We market across all three of the major search engines, but the majority spending is on Google.
"Live struggled to bring in advertising revenue and the company has changed its plans to make the service pay. "We can monetise it more effectively because of the information detail. It can be more actively targeted," Mr Highfield said. Mr Hoye said Bing looked good but it was hard to judge whether it would pull in the users: "People will go to where the results are best and the advertising will follow."
Which search engine do you use? Has the introduction of Bing influenced your search habits?
Link to original post