It's a video demo of bing, a supersonic flyover of the features. The demo is obviously consumer oriented, but the teaser in interesting enough that I will give it a try for my consumer searches. Recently my SO and I made a trip to Virginia and Washington for her daughter's wedding. We did a lot of tedious planning using Google. If bing can ease the process, I'll use it.
Most of my searches are tech related. Google is pretty painful, but I hold little hope that bing is going to be my salvation. When in the name of <insert your favorite deity> is anyone going to implement HN-style modding for search results?
How about xmarks (used to be foxmarks)? They highlight search results depending on which of their users have bookmarked them (they are a bookmark sync service so they have access to that data). After all, bookmarking is a way of upmodding. http://www.xmarks.com/about/features/smarter_search
Xmarks search is indeed a cool concept (much like delicious search), but I don't bookmark everything useful I find on the web - so bookmark-based search will never be quite as comprehensive.
In a way, search engines already account for up-modding by factoring in which links you click on when you are given a page of search results. But you are more likely to click on results already at the top, so I wouldn't give too much weight to that information.
The SearchWiki concept has a lot of potential if Google decides to go down that path though.
I agree that a bookmark based search will never be comprehensive. Neither will any other kind of social solution - I doubt anything will do sort of a search engine that looks at semantics.
The real problem with SearchWiki (or other upvoting/downvoting) is that you keep going back to the search page while your search is failing. As soon as you click through and find the page that you want, you stop - you do what you wanted and get on with your life. Whereas if that is the page you need and bookmark it (granted your point that we don't bookmark everything), that is a true and accurate indicator of success.
Since HN was explicitly mentioned upthread, it would be interesting to know how many people upvote/downvote stories (which you have to get back to the main page to do) versus comments (which are in your face in their totality when you are asked to vote). I can only speak for myself, but I vote on comments massively more often than I vote on stories, exactly for the reason I described. So in order for SearchWiki to really work for me, I want to express my happiness when I am viewing the target page, not the search page. (I am sure this can be accomplished in theory, I just don't think the support is currently there).
How about a history-based search engine? A plugin that simply submits every link you visit (when your privacy features are off) to the aggregator, along with how long you kept each page open before you closed it/surfed away. I know it would be incredibly invasive, but it would basically be a Nielsen Box for the Internet.
I don't think you can do that just via the history. A lot of pages are just sitting there in my tabs because I am not paying attention to them, not because I am engrossed in them. You need to be able to see what the user is really doing.
I remember a while back in the UK there was a study to actually measure real attentiveness while the TV was on. Cameras were installed inside people's TVs to record the viewers so their focus could be noted. This was all very clearly explained to them, but as time went by, and people being people, they eventually started to forget the camera was there; so in some cases the poor researchers got a bigger share of, err, domestic activities than they bargained for.
I like what I see so far - the usability of Kayak and its similar aggregators is pretty poor at times, and recently the quality of their results have been dropping precipitously. If MS can step in to fill this void... oh boy.
I think MS has something worthwhile here - they've realized that people are looking for information, not links, and if they can get good data together, they stand a good chance of beating Google at the search engine game, without ever building a traditional search engine.
That is if they even realize that they are supposed to perform a search.
I'm all for market competition and I realize that MS feels as though they HAVE to do this, but this seems a lot like MS's failed attempt at revamping their search a few years ago. And back then they had the advantage of having an operating system that people didn't despise. Without a good tie in (unfair advantage) with an OS and what appears to be an attempt to get people to shift the way they search I think this is doomed.
Honestly, man, most people don't care enough about their OS to despise it. My parents or wife or non-techie friends have ever said anything bad (or good) about Vista. It's just there.
I firmly believe it's a case of tech echo chamber at work.
I will add that when I gave instructions on disabling UAC it did result in "oh, that's good" type of comments. But I did that proactively. Never had them come to me seeking relief from it. Kinda like when a loud furnace shuts off in the winter and it's so much more pleasantly quiet, but you didn't even notice it when it was on.
What I find fascinating about this is not the technology itself. It is that Microsoft has, as much as possible, done their best to hide the fact that this is a Microsoft product. Unless one looks at the page footer, which is in a small light grey text (in zone-out land, in other words), one would have no idea.
This is right in line with their "surprise! it's a PC" campaign. If one watches the corresponding campaigns, Apple is unabashedly proud of being Apple, Google about being Google, but Microsoft seems to be embarrassed about being Microsoft.
I am rather curious where this will go, and how consumers will react. Of course, Microsoft wins if people ignore the company and just buy the product.
Monopoly/near-monopoly has let them abuse their brand to the point of trashing it.
One ironic aspect of this: one can see this as Microsoft trying to compete by offering "better customer service," if you can call repackaging search results "customer service." Perhaps it's better termed as "superior, seamless customer experience."
Perhaps they're onto something. If Google really doesn't offer better data than Microsoft or Yahoo, then Google's advantage is in their Brand. Microsoft can combat this by starting a new Brand, and stand behind it with the same quality of data, but a superior customer experience.
EDIT: On second thought, Microsoft may be behind the game again. The target to chase shouldn't be Google Search. I suspect it should be Facebook and Twitter. Google Wave might leapfrog Microsoft here.
this could work.
i see strong tendency to easy of use and simple tools.
people are sick of searching and fighting with technology. nobody wants IT, yet they are addicted to it.
That's a really good point about customer service. Google's customer service is awful (AdWords & AdSense) because they're so insistent on not involving a human. In the same way as 90's MS they've used their monopoly as an excuse for bad customer experiences.
Testing indicates its not the result quality that makes people like Google's results better, but the brand. So I agree - going directly after the brand makes a lot of sense.
I have a few friends who work in OSO at Google and they most definitely talk to customers all the time. In fact when you first start in ad-sales at Google you have to man the 800-help line taking calls from frustrated customers. Or at least you did a year ago.
Pimping "Google Wave" seems a little too deep into the hype machine for my tastes. Nobody ever heard of it last week and now it's going to "leapfrog" something..
We'll see. A lot of things stand in the way of Bing gaining traction, the least of which is a product that itself has no traction. IMO, naturally.
Because "Microsoft", as a brand, is recognized as a corporation. "Google", as a brand, is a search engine. People don't want to use corporate branded things daily. It's why the IM is called MSN Messenger and not Microsoft Messenger.
On a branding level, some things work better if corporate branded, some if independetly branded. You can't just throw the same brand identity at everything.
Imagine for example using "Procter & Gamble Soft Soap", "Procter & Gamble cleaning fluid", etc.
Apple is a brand for consumer electronics, and that's where you see their brand. There is no 'Apple' search engine, for example. Their OS for example is not branded Apple OS, it's branded as OS X or Mac OS X.
This probably has nothing to do with Microsoft's brand equity and everything to do with the fact that people's first association to Google is (and always will be) search, and their first association with Microsoft will never be search.
You could make the same observation about the fact that people use Kleenex and not Kimberly-Clark Wipes.
What's the benefit of KimWipes vs Kleenex in a lab? Wikipedia, surprisingly, shed no light on this, but I know that my parents definitely use KimWipes in their lab.
The brand is the only thing that matters. Everyone here saw the post last week, consumers gave Live Search the highest marks when it was dressed up with a Google logo and stylesheet.
The brand is it. And branding doesn't sink or swim based on name alone, but it isn't a trivial factor.
I don't disagree that a name is important, but it's not what makes or breaks a product or company. The reason people think the search results labeled Google are better is because of the brand behind it, not because of the letters G O O G L E.
this is a little silly because I think we're both in agreement. Brand is what matters in search, more than the (often minor) algorithmic differences. That's what that "placebo test" last week demonstrated.
And the reason I brought up brand is that Microsoft has to build one now. And for that task, the letters matter.
Are we all forgetting why Google has the brand it does? There may be minor algorithmic differences between search engines now, but in 2000 Google's results completely crushed those of other SEs.
Quality of results (and speed) matters most. Brand starts to matter when a product or service becomes a commodity and competitors need to differentiate themselves, which is essentially the situation we find ourselves in now with search. But to say that brand is all that matters is a little simplistic. If Microsoft has truly created a better search product in terms of results and/or speed then brand matters much much less.
But I do agree that there is a perception that Microsoft doesn't know how to innovate in search and on the web generally, so the decision to leave the Microsoft name off of Bing makes complete sense.
That perception only exists among the sort of people who read this site. The other 99% of the populace doesn't think that deeply about it, and even if they did, they have a much more favorable opinion of Microsoft.
They started going to Google for whatever reason and stuck there because for many years it was light years ahead of the rest in terms of quality. Now it's going to take a much better search engine to top them. And if Microsoft made that engine, they could just leave it at live.com and grow (and at least it'd have the old 8% market share to start with). And if they don't, they can change the name every week and totally disavow any involvement but it still won't matter.
The name and logo is weak branding so far. But,I think that Google built their service not by marketing but by functionality. So they have a chance. However Googling something and Binging it is much different in verbiage.
I think that digg or (dig) is actually a great name for a search engine. I think for the branding after the fact it has to be something that works in a verb. Bing it! is better than live or MSN search it but still, bing?... Cannot help but think of Chandler Bing and it isn't as mathematically cool as Google is.
But I guess Bing does mean these, as to which it will become is yet to be determined.
- Bing is a Unix program which is essentially a ping with added network throughput measurements.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(program)
- Bing is a Chinese term used to describe dough-based Chinese flatbreads, pancakes, unleavened dough foods, or indeed any food item with a flat disk ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(Chinese_flatbread)
- A slag heap (also called bing, Boney piles, culm, waste coal, Terekons (Russian), gob piles, or slate dumps) is a pile built of accumulated tailings, which are by-products of mining. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(mining)
- Prison solitary confinement, a term used by inmates; A heap or pile, such as a slag heap
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bing
53 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 110 ms ] threadThere is only one Bing, Chandler Bing!
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_Bing ]
Most of my searches are tech related. Google is pretty painful, but I hold little hope that bing is going to be my salvation. When in the name of <insert your favorite deity> is anyone going to implement HN-style modding for search results?
Google already has it. Have you played with SearchWiki?
In a way, search engines already account for up-modding by factoring in which links you click on when you are given a page of search results. But you are more likely to click on results already at the top, so I wouldn't give too much weight to that information.
The SearchWiki concept has a lot of potential if Google decides to go down that path though.
The real problem with SearchWiki (or other upvoting/downvoting) is that you keep going back to the search page while your search is failing. As soon as you click through and find the page that you want, you stop - you do what you wanted and get on with your life. Whereas if that is the page you need and bookmark it (granted your point that we don't bookmark everything), that is a true and accurate indicator of success.
Since HN was explicitly mentioned upthread, it would be interesting to know how many people upvote/downvote stories (which you have to get back to the main page to do) versus comments (which are in your face in their totality when you are asked to vote). I can only speak for myself, but I vote on comments massively more often than I vote on stories, exactly for the reason I described. So in order for SearchWiki to really work for me, I want to express my happiness when I am viewing the target page, not the search page. (I am sure this can be accomplished in theory, I just don't think the support is currently there).
I remember a while back in the UK there was a study to actually measure real attentiveness while the TV was on. Cameras were installed inside people's TVs to record the viewers so their focus could be noted. This was all very clearly explained to them, but as time went by, and people being people, they eventually started to forget the camera was there; so in some cases the poor researchers got a bigger share of, err, domestic activities than they bargained for.
It's not explicit, just like all sorts of other ranking details and polcies are secret, to keep manipulators in the dark as long as possible.
From http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/11/google-searchwiki-l...:
"At this time we aren't using SearchWiki to influence ranking but it is easy to see how that could happen in the future," says Marissa Mayer.
I suppose they are going to wait until they get a meaningful amount of user data before they start using it.
I think MS has something worthwhile here - they've realized that people are looking for information, not links, and if they can get good data together, they stand a good chance of beating Google at the search engine game, without ever building a traditional search engine.
Only a Q&A - but the up/down voting on answers is kinda nice.
I'm all for market competition and I realize that MS feels as though they HAVE to do this, but this seems a lot like MS's failed attempt at revamping their search a few years ago. And back then they had the advantage of having an operating system that people didn't despise. Without a good tie in (unfair advantage) with an OS and what appears to be an attempt to get people to shift the way they search I think this is doomed.
I firmly believe it's a case of tech echo chamber at work.
I will add that when I gave instructions on disabling UAC it did result in "oh, that's good" type of comments. But I did that proactively. Never had them come to me seeking relief from it. Kinda like when a loud furnace shuts off in the winter and it's so much more pleasantly quiet, but you didn't even notice it when it was on.
This is right in line with their "surprise! it's a PC" campaign. If one watches the corresponding campaigns, Apple is unabashedly proud of being Apple, Google about being Google, but Microsoft seems to be embarrassed about being Microsoft.
I am rather curious where this will go, and how consumers will react. Of course, Microsoft wins if people ignore the company and just buy the product.
One ironic aspect of this: one can see this as Microsoft trying to compete by offering "better customer service," if you can call repackaging search results "customer service." Perhaps it's better termed as "superior, seamless customer experience."
Perhaps they're onto something. If Google really doesn't offer better data than Microsoft or Yahoo, then Google's advantage is in their Brand. Microsoft can combat this by starting a new Brand, and stand behind it with the same quality of data, but a superior customer experience.
EDIT: On second thought, Microsoft may be behind the game again. The target to chase shouldn't be Google Search. I suspect it should be Facebook and Twitter. Google Wave might leapfrog Microsoft here.
Testing indicates its not the result quality that makes people like Google's results better, but the brand. So I agree - going directly after the brand makes a lot of sense.
Classic case of something that was a tactical advantage becoming a key weakness.
We spend $300,000 a month on AdWords and have a team of 5 people we can talk to at any time.
We'll see. A lot of things stand in the way of Bing gaining traction, the least of which is a product that itself has no traction. IMO, naturally.
On a branding level, some things work better if corporate branded, some if independetly branded. You can't just throw the same brand identity at everything.
Imagine for example using "Procter & Gamble Soft Soap", "Procter & Gamble cleaning fluid", etc.
You could make the same observation about the fact that people use Kleenex and not Kimberly-Clark Wipes.
Not only is this not about Microsoft, it's not about Search either. It's all about Decision now, in a sort of semantic landgrab.
The brand is it. And branding doesn't sink or swim based on name alone, but it isn't a trivial factor.
And the reason I brought up brand is that Microsoft has to build one now. And for that task, the letters matter.
Quality of results (and speed) matters most. Brand starts to matter when a product or service becomes a commodity and competitors need to differentiate themselves, which is essentially the situation we find ourselves in now with search. But to say that brand is all that matters is a little simplistic. If Microsoft has truly created a better search product in terms of results and/or speed then brand matters much much less.
But I do agree that there is a perception that Microsoft doesn't know how to innovate in search and on the web generally, so the decision to leave the Microsoft name off of Bing makes complete sense.
They started going to Google for whatever reason and stuck there because for many years it was light years ahead of the rest in terms of quality. Now it's going to take a much better search engine to top them. And if Microsoft made that engine, they could just leave it at live.com and grow (and at least it'd have the old 8% market share to start with). And if they don't, they can change the name every week and totally disavow any involvement but it still won't matter.
It's more like the other 99.999%.
I think that digg or (dig) is actually a great name for a search engine. I think for the branding after the fact it has to be something that works in a verb. Bing it! is better than live or MSN search it but still, bing?... Cannot help but think of Chandler Bing and it isn't as mathematically cool as Google is.
But I guess Bing does mean these, as to which it will become is yet to be determined.
- Bing is a Unix program which is essentially a ping with added network throughput measurements. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(program)
- Bing is a Chinese term used to describe dough-based Chinese flatbreads, pancakes, unleavened dough foods, or indeed any food item with a flat disk ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(Chinese_flatbread)
- A slag heap (also called bing, Boney piles, culm, waste coal, Terekons (Russian), gob piles, or slate dumps) is a pile built of accumulated tailings, which are by-products of mining. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing_(mining)
- Prison solitary confinement, a term used by inmates; A heap or pile, such as a slag heap en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bing
Anyone else notice that? Microsoft is using the GNU style recursive acronym. Irony at its finest.