• http://www.cnet.de wingthom

    If you don’t only look at rankings but on how many pages getting crawled the bias is obvious.

    Yahoo crawls 9 times more of its own content than from compitors, Live.com crawls 15 times more of its own content and Google crawls 1,06 times mor of its own content.

    Or in other words: Microsoft looks in its own Search engine 15 times bigger thant it really is, Yahoo 9 times bigger and Google shows a slightly bigger picture from itself.

    This needn’t be a bias by plan, only a side effect of Google being able to crawl almost the whole web and Live/Yahoo not being able to crawl external sites well.

    So if you use only one search engine you miss between 98 % and 90 % of the pages that are out there – a strong hint that a meta search engine like search.com and others really make sense if you need a big picture.

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/wordpress/ Michael Martinez

    You’re dealing with very complex systems here. The claim of bias is flawed because it doesn’t take into account the fact that each search engine does its own crawling. They don’t shape their results from a common pool of crawled/indexed pages, so the mix going into each search engine’s calculations is unique.

    You would have to map out several hundred truly random queries (not selected by human testers) to get a better picture of bias. It’s quite possible that a “crawl bias” exists, if the search engines begin their outward crawls from their own content (which doesn’t make sense for Microsoft since they don’t really have a vetted directory like Yahoo! and Google).

  • http://www.seo4fun.com/blog/ Halfdeck

    You can’t deduce anything from looking at SERPs. When it comes to TBPR, people will easily note that there are 200 ranking factors, but when it comes to anti-Google propaganda, all logic apparently flies out the window.