<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Stop Presses! Google Bested In Search Shoot-Out!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://searchengineland.com/stop-presses-google-bested-in-search-shoot-out-11065/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://searchengineland.com/stop-presses-google-bested-in-search-shoot-out-11065</link>
	<description>Search Engine Land: Must Read News About Search Marketing &#38; Search Engines</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:37:07 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: chrisf</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/stop-presses-google-bested-in-search-shoot-out-11065/comment-page-1#comment-2109</link>
		<dc:creator>chrisf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:49:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/beta/stop-presses-google-bested-in-search-shoot-out-11065.php#comment-2109</guid>
		<description>Wow, am I missing something?  The PC World article barely describes the methodology used, though I think (can this really be true?) that they used 10 queries?  They used 10 queries to evaluate engines that handle millions of real-world queries.  Please tell me I&#039;m misreading something...

The article states:  &quot;Google is indeed the best search engine, even though two other services topped it--barely--in our text-search tests.&quot;  Ahm, OK...That&#039;s confusing.

And the notes in the chart are mostly about UI.

I know that every relevancy test has its naysayers and normally I would have let this one pass like others I&#039;ve seen, but I couldn&#039;t because the chart takes it beyond anecdotal.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, am I missing something?  The PC World article barely describes the methodology used, though I think (can this really be true?) that they used 10 queries?  They used 10 queries to evaluate engines that handle millions of real-world queries.  Please tell me I&#8217;m misreading something&#8230;</p>
<p>The article states:  &#8220;Google is indeed the best search engine, even though two other services topped it&#8211;barely&#8211;in our text-search tests.&#8221;  Ahm, OK&#8230;That&#8217;s confusing.</p>
<p>And the notes in the chart are mostly about UI.</p>
<p>I know that every relevancy test has its naysayers and normally I would have let this one pass like others I&#8217;ve seen, but I couldn&#8217;t because the chart takes it beyond anecdotal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Cutts</title>
		<link>http://searchengineland.com/stop-presses-google-bested-in-search-shoot-out-11065/comment-page-1#comment-2108</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Cutts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:28:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://searchengineland.com/beta/stop-presses-google-bested-in-search-shoot-out-11065.php#comment-2108</guid>
		<description>The mainstream press may like to talk more about new Google products or features, but the search quality team at Google is quite focused and works very hard. It&#039;s kinda funny; I went to mail the article to a few other Googlers to say &quot;Cool, now how can we improve search quality even more for these types of queries&quot; and another Googler had already beaten me to it. :)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The mainstream press may like to talk more about new Google products or features, but the search quality team at Google is quite focused and works very hard. It&#8217;s kinda funny; I went to mail the article to a few other Googlers to say &#8220;Cool, now how can we improve search quality even more for these types of queries&#8221; and another Googler had already beaten me to it. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
