Microsoft Bing: Much better than expected
Microsoft on Thursday took the wraps off Bing, the rebranded and rebuilt search engine formerly code-named Kumo, designed to replace Live Search. It's a solid improvement over the previous search product, and it beats Google in important areas. It will help Microsoft gain share in the search business. It's surprisingly competitive with Google.
Bing isn't available to the public yet, but you won't have to wait long. Starting on June 1, some users will get Bing search results from Live Search. On June 3, we're told, Bing will be Microsoft's new default search. We got early access to the service. Here's how it looks.
Hands on
In search presentation, Bing wins. It uses technology from Powerset (a search technology company Microsoft acquired) to display refined versions of your query down the left side of the page. For example, I searched for the game "Fallout 3" on Google and Bing. While Google gave me good results, Bing gave me a menu of "related searches," that included Walkthrough, News, and so on.
Bing (previously Kumo, shown here) shows a useful "Related Searches" box.
(Credit: Screenshot by Rafe Needleman/CNET)Bing also pop ups an excerpt of the text on a search result if you hover over it. This saves a lot of time if you're not quite sure if you want to follow a result.
In the content of search results, Bing is not consistently superior to Google. In many searches I did (not the sample searches Microsoft sent me), the Google results were more relevant and useful. Not by miles, mind you, but in many cases Google delivered the goods just enough better than Bing to make me question the wisdom of adopting Bing as a replacement search engine. Just one example: Searching for "Best house paint for humid climates" gave me better advice links at the top of the search results with Google than with Bing.
When searching for product reviews, Google's search result pages were mostly better than Bing's -- although, again, not by a lot. However, Bing also collates user and expert reviews on many products, and this gives you a great overview. This feature doesn't always show up, though; and I wouldn't even have known about it had it not been for the Wired review of Bing.
When you want to shop for an item, both services have very strong "shopping" tabs that organize results well. Google gives you seller ratings, which Bing doesn't. But Bing offers a cashback program, which is hard to beat.
And in some searches, Bing won on results outright. When searching for "Facebook sandberg" on Google, the top link was a story from 2008. On Bing, the top item was "News about facebook sandberg" with three sublinks to very recent articles. When searching for "Obama Supreme Court," Google did show news results, but the top link was a day-old story. Bing's was from 32 minutes ago.
To be fair to Google, you can also click through to Google News on any result and sort results by date. But that's extra clicks. Bing is more aggressive about including news.
All search engines have their strengths, and many of Bing's lie in areas where Microsoft has its own content companies. For example, Microsoft owns the airfare prediction service Farecast, and it includes Farecast buying advice whenever you search for airplane travel. Bing also displays some medical data inside the search engine itself.
Bing also does very well in at least one area where Google should do better. The video search result page for "Thomas Jefferson" in Google gives you a vertical list of videos. On Bing, you get a big grid that's easier to scan, and a list of related videos on the left for "George Washington," "James Madison," and so on. The search results are about equivalent, but Bing's presentation is far superior.
Bing does a better job with YouTube than Google.
(Credit: Screenshot by Rafe Needleman/CNET)
You should use Bing
I planned to write this story with the headline, "Bing isn't Better," but the new engine won me over.
The new game in search is parsing information and displaying it in the engine itself (see Wolfram Alpha for the extreme example of this). Both Google and Bing, and other search products, have areas where they will collate and format information for you, instead of just linking you to external pages where the data reside. Bing does an extremely good job at this in several popular areas -- like product reviews, movie listings, weather, travel, and stock prices.
While the service doesn't reveal all its riches at once, it rewards exploration and yields pleasant surprises to users who poke around.
Google keeps improving in the area of in-search collation and display as well, but Bing makes Google look complacent, and that's not good for Google. For the moment, Bing's on top in this game. Try this search engine. I do not think you will regret it.
Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe. 
I think I'll give Bing a try, if it works fine for me, great... otherwise, there are always alternatives!
Yeah but umm Google has to earn a profit and be a success with the products they provide in order to improve it. How is that fair when the competition keeps failing on a product, yet it comes back again and again.
I better run. I think I stirred up a hive of MS loyalists. Here comes monkeyfun14 and ***********
With the exception of search and Youtube (which they bought) I find Google's products to be mediocre at best and weak in many cases when compared with industry alternatives. Hey, wait a minute! That sounds just like what the masses say about Microsoft! Imagine that!
The more Google succeeds, the more they start to look and behave like Microsoft and Oracle.
The only company that is pure and true to itself is Apple (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha)
darth rader -- steve jobs
jedi - google
ja ja binks steve balmer
Not that I completely disagree with the sentiment, but that's exactly what I said when Google came out. Now I use it all the time.
I will certainly try bing (damn that name is annoying), but, to be honest, I'm not changing from Google with only minor improvements from another because I use every Google product/service (except AdWords and AdSense) for their superiority, so it would be quite inconvenient to use bing.
Microsoft has really been on its game lately. Windows 7 is looking like a big hit, the Xbox 360 and Xbox Live have really taken off, the Zune HD looks awesome, and now Bing looks to be really good. Call me thoroughly impressed, Microsoft.
The combination of XBOX and XBOX Live is killer. Just like iPod and iTunes. I like the look of the new Zune, but until msft can deliver an iTunes to go with it, it will struggle.
When the bar is on the floor, it is not hard to step over it.
Of cause Microsoft hoping the last bit does not happen and we continue using the service.
Likewise, I stopped using IE and Firefox; now I use Safari and I may try Chrome but only if it doesn't force me to use Google like Firefox did at first. Unfortunately, Safari limits me to Google and Yahoo, but there is an add-on that allows the addition of alternative search engines.
I see you switched to calling it "Kumo"
Microsoft's history with any kind of search is so bad that anything they come up with would have to far surpass Google to get anyone to switch. The only ones that use Microsoft Live Search are the brain dead that don't know how to change their default engine in IE (or aren't smart enough to use FireFox or even Chrome).
As for this article, it wouldn't be the first time by far that a CNET "expert" was completely off base with a review.
.
I feel bad for your students, having ... a teacher who knows how to bring up completely irrelevant products (such as Office and Windows, since they are separate devisions from the web search team), and related it to Bing.
You're a champion.
Regardless I'm glad this guy is judging it by what it is, rather than who developed it...
[CNET editor's note: Personal attacks deleted.]
Does anyone believe in change anymore? The Germans used to be Jew hating racists does that mean they are now?
But I guest would want to at least get bing working online first before integrating it into all there products.
Went from IE to Netscape, then to Opera, and then to Firefox. When I found out that Google was feeding innovation at non-profit Mozilla (through Mozilla's for profit subsidiary), I stopped using Firefox. Chrome is fast, but it's a Google product meant to both deflect the fact that Google has its paws up Mozilla's @$$ and to funnel more people to Google sites. Google controls enough traffic already, just like Microsoft controls enough desktop apps and OS's already.
So I now use Safari. And NO, I don't own an iPod nor a Zune.
Test them side by side. You're find that you're mistaken.
Hope Bing does well!
Certainly when I have test them they rarely do better but they are often worst.
Only one I fine occasionally does better is Ask, but only occassionally.
But humans do not like change, we never have and never will and that why I congratulate companies like Google and Facebook who regularly force change down people throats and even Microsoft forcing everyone to change to a new gui design in office. I hope they all continue to do it.
I think another thing that lonestarState is hinting at is that what constitutes the best search is subjective:
It depends on what you are searching for, how you phrase your keywords, and what search engine you use and their results depend on their current index at the time of your search.
While results from Google, Bing, Yahoo, Gigablast, Mamma, Anoox, Mahalo, Cuil, Altavista, Hotbot, Looksmart, Excite, Ixquick, AOL search, Ask, etc. do overlap and have different degrees of depth and comprehensiveness, no search is perfect. The web is ever-expanding, and search engines need to crawl, sort, index, and analyze what they find. That takes time.
Most people find Google's results the best because of force of habit or force of link via Firefox or suggested by their peers.
Next time, try Blindsearch. blindsearch.fejus.com
It anonymously allows you do compare Yahoo, Google, and Bing.
I've tried it 30+ times now, and am finding that I get about 40% for Google, 35% for Bing, and 25% for Yahoo.
Your mileage may vary, depending on the terms you choose.
So why is Google at 70%+ market share: habit, word of mouth, inertia, in addition to good results.
It's brand marketing at work, whether intentionally done by Google, but more likely done by its fans and users.
So the majority of all internet users are ignorantly using an inferior product?
I can handle you being hopeful that bing might challenge google, but until then, get over yourselves.
So the majority of all internet users are ignorantly using an inferior product?"
Allow me to use an acronym. Lol.
Especially that last part, ever heard about that little operating system called Windows? What the masses throw their flowers at, doesn't necessarily make it fabulous.
Don't get me wrong, I love Google, use it all the time. What I love even more is some competition, as stated that's what really forces companies to keep going. I'll support Linux and Macs if it forces Microsoft to do a better job (Windows 7 seems to catch on, I welcome this, keep up the struggle to be the best, it benefits the users most of all). I'll support Windows if it forces the people behind Ubuntu to make their OS more perfect. I'll support Mac if it forces the rest to give me more eyecandy.
Exact same thing with browsers, exact same thing with this. I'll try out Bing, maybe even like it more and pray to science it catches on and forces Google to do an even better job.
I won't even touch MS Search service unless they change their policy of giving hell to anyone who doesn't use Windows/IE once and forever, including proof that it won't change but please, don't let me start about Google which build an empire with locking down users to their search bribing browser developers and even OS Vendors (check Apple Safari on OS X).
No the majority of people use Google not just because of results, but because of habit and marketing.
All those Ads by Google just reminds people subconsciously to use Google.
All those Google search bars just feed into Google.
Firefox defaults to Google search.
Why not see for yourself that while Google is probably the better search engine, it does not garner 65-85% of the market by good results alone. It's the above and more.
Try Blindsearch: blindsearch.fejus.com, and see for yourself.
I did, and now I am using Bing and Yahoo more often, because most of my searches came up as either Yahoo or Bing. Google was close, though.
Bottom line, the accuracy of your search results is only as good as the engine you use and the results YOU expect to find. Using the same search engine over and over out of habit may prevent you from finding results that that particular engine doesn't prioritize up front; it may be hidden in back pages.
That is what Google does best, it finds what you are looking for, normally within the first results so there is no need for additional formatting. This is the reason why they haven't change the format of searching very much, most of the times the good stuff is right on top in front of your eyes. I have to use google to find stuff inside microsoft.com, have you ever tried finding something in microsoft.com? of course this is not the same than bing but it shows that they have never really cared for the science of searching.
"when the results aren't very good"
How do you judge good or bad results? By your own subjective satisfaction. _You_ decide if the results are good enough for you to use. If I use a small search engine like Gigablast and I like the results I get, then why using Google? If I am unhappy with the results, then I'll try another engine. If you take the time to compare results from the big engines, there is a great deal of overlap, but there are also things that each engine misses.
Also, because Bing does things like Wolfram Alpha DOES NOT mean that Bing copied WolframAlpha. Software doesn't evolve nor is written overnight. Microsoft has been working on Bing for quite some time, just as Wolfram Software has been working on Alpha for a long time. Coincidence doesn't mean plagiarism in every case.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10251432-2.html
That's just funny.
Windows Live Photo Gallery
Windows Live Mail
etc
But what I don't really get is why people believe Google is so good. Of course I Google along with the rest of the planet but I don't think its very good.
Google is just the biggest index, like the net within the net but as for giving meaningful results, its primitive.
Those "advanced algorithms" that Google launched with that looked at who referenced, not what something said about itself, well, such innovation long left Google. They have been replaced with the world's most advanced advertising algorithms coupled with the world's most bizarre corporate acquisitions plan.
This has led to a sprawling mostly dissimilar empire of properties in various stages of construction or collapse, with the corporate focus shifting from new toy, to new toy while the whole web is splattered in "ads by google"
And to repeat, yes I use Google Search, News, Earth, Maps, YouTube and Blogger.
Search is whatever
News is good
Earth is crumbly
Maps is pretty good
YouTube is crumbly
Blogger is lame (I also use Wordpress which is awesome)
Yahoo
Google
Twitter
Fandago
Pepsi
iPod
Same search on Google gave a number of articles (20000+) on how to paint etc.
Better on Google so far but not exactly answering the question either...
Doing it right gives me a number of MORE relevant articles on Bing - the top link is a scientific study on how to mix paint for hmid climates "http://www.buildingscience.com/documents/primers/plonearticlemultipage.2006-11-16.8755545932/section-2-the-basic-mixed-humid-climate-house"
I'd say that Bing wins that one easily.
I'd say instead that the Google results are more relevant as this article mentions - not perfect but better than Bing where the first paint-relevant link comes as number 8 in the results...
So I now call Google the winner of that one.
"I searched the word "****" and it gave a definition of "A Microsoft Fanboy!""
And how exactly does this comment add to the value of the conversation taking place? Did you honestly believe people would look at that comment and think, "Why, this person has an excellent point and this will greatly affect my view on this new service!" Did you make the comment in hopes of being witty or humorous? Did you revel in the anticipation that people would take your comments seriously as a thought provoking statement? Or did you do it just to be an immature clown?
I think it's clear to the readers which one it is... oh, and the big red floppy shoes can be found on Aisle 14.
Get it?
- by technewsjunkie May 28, 2009 4:20 PM PDT
- It is much easier to copy or imitate than to INVENT or see the future direction of technology (like browsers for instance).
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by monkeyfun14 May 28, 2009 4:43 PM PDT
- How much more can you innovate a search engine I mean honestly.
-
-
- by viper396 May 28, 2009 6:08 PM PDT
- There's a certainly irony in people who are so narrow-minded that they can only bring up tired old arguments about copying, innovation and monopoly. There's nothing original about your commentary and you're obviously too closed minded to look beyond it.
-
-
- by Vegaman_Dan May 28, 2009 7:38 PM PDT
- I findi it ironic that you yourself are copying and imitating a very common old saw used by fanboys. Does that mean you yourself are part of the problem?
-
-
- by pentest May 31, 2009 9:28 AM PDT
- "How much more can you innovate a search engine I mean honestly."
-
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (170 Comments)If you also have a monopoly, it is much easier to propagate your imitation, and certainly gain market share.
"Too big to fail"?
It's not like Google, Apple, Linux, or any other company were actually first at everything they do. We all benefit when multiple companies make similiar products and try to one up each other. If only the innovator or inventor of a product were allowed to make that product we'd all be using one kind of computer, driving the same kind of car, watching the same kind of TV, and wearing identical clothes. Innovation is more then simply being the originator of an idea.
A lot.
I will forgive you for not understanding that the mathematics behind search are extremely difficult, which is why MS fails so consistently at it. After all, you MS shill aren't exactly known for your intelligence.