• josephjrobison

    Every time I test out Bing searches for everyday queries that I’m actually looking for, and not the currently trending ones, I’m reminded why I still use Google. The simple fact is that if industry leaders started realizing that Bing results were actually better, they would push for it in blog posts and announce it from the mountain tops, and that would trickle down to the general population. But that really isn’t happening much. The majority of people keep using Google because for the most part, it’s just better.

  • Jeff

    Wallaert fails to address the biggest flaw in Bing It On. Specifically, that “10 blue links” is not representative of how either of the two search engines operate. I remember when I first heard about the challenge and took it home for the missus, she tried a few of the keywords that “Bing won” on the actual search engine pages and had an overwhelming preference for Google. If I recall correctly, it was because of local results.

  • willyj

    People still using the retro Google? You must be bored all your life courtesy of white space subliminal message. lol

  • Colin Guidi

    “The Bing It On claim is 100% accurate and we’re glad to see we’ve nudged Google into improving their results.”

    so when did this happen? No mystery that Bing has always been playing catch up.

  • Ryan Aslett

    “the thing that was most interesting to me about the Ayers findings was the fact that Bing won 41 percent of the time.” – well, yes, except you arent really comparing bing to google in that test. You’re comparing bing to a version of google thats missing “geolocation, personalization, and Knowledge Graph” – all things that google uses to improve relevancy and therefore its results. Not even remotely an apples to apples comparison.

  • JadedTLC

    I have to disagree with you on this one. Brand influence is a huge barrier, even for industry experts. If you’ve only consumed Coke your entire life and love it, switching to Pepsi (even if it was the better product) would be very, very difficult, unless somehow it came out that Coke was putting drugs in their drink.

  • Alice Lee

    How did bing not store the results but still figure out they won 2:1?

  • http://www.tweedsolutions.com/ Tweed Solutions

    I still use Google for 99.9% of my searches

  • http://www.v2interactive.net/ Josh

    This article and source article are both jokes.

  • http://www.mattwallaert.com/ matt wallaert

    I don’t address it because I’m responding to Ayres, who doesn’t address it. I think that’s a valid critique, although to do good science, sometimes you have to narrow down to a single apples-to-apples comparison (which would be hard, given that we have things like the social sidebar that become more relevant when you log in, etc.)

    (Note: I work at Microsoft)

  • http://www.mattwallaert.com/ matt wallaert

    Please read my comments; the claims were made using 3rd party research in a controlled lab setting.

  • http://www.mattwallaert.com/ matt wallaert

    And a version of Bing that is lacking all of those features (which we also have, if you consider Snapshot and Knowledge Graph to be similar) and no social sidebar from us, etc. See my earlier comment about the difficult of doing comparisons on non-aligned features, hence the emphasis on the algo block.

    (Note: I work at Microsoft)

  • Ryan Aslett

    Therefore the analysis of the survey results presented in the blog post and subsequent marketing is making dubious claims based off of evidence from a study with a dubious structure.

    Doing comparisons on only the *aligned* features, and leaving out the non-aligned features, and then claiming a 2:1 preference in “web search results” is disingenuous.

    I believe that most would consider a web search result to be the entire page delivered by both bing and google, including ads, maps, and other ‘non aligned features’, and not *just* the algorithmic block. With css you could present the whole page in a non-branded neutral manner.

    The “New York Hotels” search used as the example search in your post is a great example. The map would probably be a very relevant result on both pages for many people, and where their click would go next.

    For a search that includes the phrase “near me” in it, Bing actually includes the map in the algorithm block, wheras it’s on the side on google. (Thats the behavior on the ‘bing it on’ site anyhow). What did people see as ‘algorithm block’ in this study?

    Perhaps to dispel some doubt microsoft would be willing to share the actual data and research from the independent agency. It’s probably unfair of Ian Ayres to sharpshoot the validity of your study without actually seeing it.

  • Sudeep Chakravarty

    The holidays are coming and eCommerce sites are heavily dependent on organic search results for their sales. By analysing one of our major eCommerce site I can say that Google has already started playing with the organic results, simply Google wants you to spend in ads if you are not, you are doomed. So there is no better time to shift to Bing and support their good work.

  • Jeff

    I’m failing to see the “good science” behind Bing It On or the study that launched it. It’s nontrivial that features from both search engines were stripped from the results page because these features (presumably) mean to enhance the quality and usefulness of the results. This would be like doing the Pepsi Challenge but both colas have to withhold parts of their formula. Even if a preference is being determined, it’s a meaningless one.

    But maybe more to the point, when was the verbiage switch made between people “choosing” Bing and people “preferring” Bing? That’s quite a leap if you ask me. If I understand the methodology of the study correctly, a participant choosing Bing 6/10 times is being labeled as having a preference for Bing, whereas a more accurate label might be “no preference.” I’m left wondering on a single search basis, how many times was Google chosen over Bing? If all of Bing’s 57.4% wins were 6/10 and all of Google’s 30.2% wins were 10/10, then people actually chose Google 59.4% of the time (if I’ve done the math right). I doubt the true results were so dramatic, but hopefully my point isn’t missed.

  • neotrope

    HI, sorry … I can’t help post a link to my “humorous” meme I did when the Bing Challenge ads started (moderator: I won’t be offended if you decide to quash this, just thought it funny to this discussion) :-) I think I also included this in retweet of article, so please don’t think I’m spamming here. For those who need a chuckle: http://ga-ga.com/christophers-memes-bing-it-on-the-bing-challenge/

  • DaymonH

    People use Google search, because their friends do, and don’t know any better.
    Microsoft is superior to Google on almost every level, and Google would
    not be where it is if it weren’t for the webmasters of the world who
    embraced Google for their “don’t do evil” approach. That didn’t last
    long, did it? They’re as evil as they come, and the same webmaster
    community that embraced Google is now turning to Bing’s search engine. It’s only a matter of time before Bing is on top, and Google may even have to contend for the 2nd spot with Marissa Mayer now at the helm for Yahoo! search. You heard it here 1st folks. Google’s best days are behind them.

  • http://www.telusplanet.net/public/stonedan Doug Pederson

    For personal search neither can touch Swamp search.
    Randomly pick a video then a random start point, plays for a preset number of seconds then the next.
    All my favorite bookmarks, passwords are placed in the clipboard for pasting.
    My emails since 1996 are searchable at 20,000,000 characters per second.
    Random groupings of text video audio pictures are playable as a question answer or marketing tool in storefront window displays.
    If you have a cause that you are fighting for. You need good access to your facts.
    See “nobody shares knowledge better than this” That’s the challenge to the rest of the 2nd place pack.
    Doug Pederson AKA SpectateSwamp

  • haertelnr04

    The true reason why you use a search engine is the quality of the links provided, not the look/feel/layout of the links on the serp. Bing It On is pointless because you cannot visit the websites of the links provided, which is how one should judge a search engine. Beauty isn’t serp deep, Bing.

  • Dave

    You say that 41% success for Bing means parity with Google, but I respectfully disagree.

    First, the actual, meaningful result is “55-57% preferred Google while only 35-39% preferred Bing”, because it’s from more realistic user queries.

    Second, the difference is still huge in terms of productivity. If we give Bing the benefit of the doubt and go with the 53% vs 41% numbers, then someone using Bing would experience a 29% improvement in productivity by switching to Google. That’s huge. If you could do that for every task across an 8 hour work day, you could leave work 1.8 hours early, every day. (In Bing’s worst case numbers, the productivity gain from going Google is 62%; you could leave work 3 hours early.)

    (I do realize that the leap to productivity is assuming that people are making a correct judgement of the search results, but I think it’s reasonable to make.)

    Third, Bing is in a come-from-behind position. And, unfair as it may be, you have to be better than the market leader in some way to win significant market share. Because of that, I read these numbers as evidence that Bing could currently be losing marketshare from people making a conscious decision about the search engine they use, as Bing is still behind on quality. The only thing they really have going for them is people who aren’t aware of what search engine they use…in that regard, advertising increases awareness, so Microsoft’s advertising could actually be a bad thing!

  • Caio Japiassu

    I don’t know, but it seems that nowadays people are getting more and more different, multitask and embracing more content/tastes/positions, there are less retricted and selected kind of tastes, music, political position, etc. So if people are getting more “ecletic”, maybe even 1,500 sample of results wouldn’t be enought to say something.