• kevint

    Those great images, do nothing for their search quality.
    The brighter packaging does not necessarily mean a better product.
    When will people figure out that just because something stimulates their senses
    does not make it a great tool, or product, or person. Its just marketing.

  • http://braddlibby.wordpress.com Bradd Libby

    I think kevint is missing the point. One thing that search engines do poorly is serendipity – That is, showing you something interesting that is not what you have indicated you want. Bing’s images are one way to address this.

    My biggest gripe is that this feature does not go far enough – There should be more than one image per day and in many different categories (Science, Nature, Art, History, etc.)

    Google tried to copy this feature with their ‘Change background image’ link on their main page, but missed all of the important aspects. I wrote a blog post about Google and Bing’s images a while ago.

    Kevint is right – these images do not affect the quality of search results – but to me they do affect the quality of the search process.

  • jlibrizzi

    As both a web enthusiast and amateur photographer I’m torn on this story. But really it boils down to one thing – the purpose of a search engine visit. Most users visit a SE with a query in mind and expect that SE to get them an answer quickly. Offering them a detour from that objective is, for me, harmful. That’s why Google has such strict rules about what it does and does not put on its homepage. Asking a user to process more information – whether it be too many words or pictures of squirrels – incrementally adds to the total time on site and thus detracts from my original objective.