Google or Bing?

[Mise]

I can confidently say that google results are better than duckduckgo, for example. About 50% of the time I have to re-search the thing in google after using DDG.

I don't know how much of my finding Google superior to Bing is as a result of learning how to search properly with Google but not with Bing. I can't say I have a good reason to use Bing over Google though. Frankly I end up searching wikipedia or tfd more than google.

 

[warpus]

That's what every search engine specializes in.

And it's really not my experience that Google's results are much better than Bing's.

Yes, but google as a company was initially set up as a search engine and a search engine only - staffed by brilliant programmers who specialized in building data indexes and sorting through them. They built brand new algorithms when google came out. They specialize in the field.

Microsoft is such a broad company - they try to do it all. Sure, google is a bit like that now too, but the algorithms their search engine uses were built up from the ground up by people who specialize in that stuff. Meanwhile Microsoft just sort of threw a "hey, let's build a search engine" at one of their development teams. That's why I trust google's results and algorithms a bit more than Bing's.

 

[Zelig]

One thing about search engine preference that studies have shown is that they're pretty sticky, far more so than you might expect from something that takes essentially no effort to change. If you blindly test people with search results from different search engines, nothing short of massive result quality differentials will get people to actually change their search habits. And then once people are set on something (not limited to search engines), they suffer from confirmation bias.

I don't know how much of my finding Google superior to Bing is as a result of learning how to search properly with Google but not with Bing.

To be fair, most people don't know how to search properly with any search engine.

Yes, but google as a company was initially set up as a search engine and a search engine only - staffed by brilliant programmers who specialized in building data indexes and sorting through them. They built brand new algorithms when google came out. They specialize in the field.

Microsoft is such a broad company - they try to do it all. Sure, google is a bit like that now too, but the algorithms their search engine uses were built up from the ground up by people who specialize in that stuff. Meanwhile Microsoft just sort of threw a "hey, let's build a search engine" at one of their development teams. That's why I trust google's results and algorithms a bit more than Bing's.

Google is primarily an advertising company which makes software to maximize their advertising profit.

Microsoft is a software and devices company which maximizes profit on selling software, services and devices.

 

[Mise]

I would argue that Google is a company that has one single product: a Bayesian analysis engine. Google's engine is really, really good -- much better than most other companies' engines. Originally, they only applied the engine to web search, but they eventually stuck it in most other products, such as voice recognition and translation, even predictive text on Android phones. But they also realised they could use the same engine to target adverts better. This engine is now the biggest thing on the planet. All of its products are either designed to feed the engine with masses and masses of data to better target adverts, or as a platform for delivering adverts (or, more often, both).

Basically, the way I see Google is that it's a bunch of good developers who made a really good product, and then looked for a whole bunch of other things to do with the same product, and now they're one of the biggest companies in the world. "When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Turns out a lot of things really are nails.

 

[TomYo689]

I have tried bing a lot in hopes of finding an alternative to google. Bing does not give as good search results as google. Also bing map is extremely misleading by putting wrong entries if they're not totally absent. The 'bing it on' thing months ago was sad

 

[Quintillus]

Depends on what I'm using it for. But for searching, which is most of what I use Internet searches for, Google. And even according to Bing's challenge, 80% of the time Google results are better for me.

But due to inertia, I've yet to trial Bing for an extended period of time. I might come to prefer it if I tried it for a month instead of 10 minutes.

For maps, I usually prefer Bing, both because of their color schemes (including highlighting toll roads, unlike Google), and their bird's eye view (although I think Google Maps is now copying Bing in the latter). But Bing Maps hasn't been working as well for me lately, in terms of the website itself, so I've been using Mapquest (which also highlights toll roads) a bit more often instead . I don't dislike Google Maps, I just don't like it as much. It's also kind of annoying that Google Maps always default to sateillite view, which is slow on my poor Internet connection.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

To be fair, most people don't know how to search properly with any search engine.

This is pretty much Google's reason for success though.

 

[stfoskey12]

For maps, I usually prefer Bing.

Much of the time I still prefer paper maps (unless I don't have one of the area I'm interested in) because they are more detailed. However, I do use online maps when I want to look at places I don't have a map of or figure out how long it takes to get someplace in which case I use Google Maps.

 

[nerdfighter13]

well, 42 for google and the first vote for bing.

 

[ls612]

well, 42 for google and the first vote for bing.

I'd be #2 for Bing. I love their pictures (infact I use them for my desktop), and also the results seem to be more useful (totally not scientific, but that IMO is what matters) to me as a technical person.

 

[dutchfire]

Much of the time I still prefer paper maps (unless I don't have one of the area I'm interested in) because they are more detailed. However, I do use online maps when I want to look at places I don't have a map of or figure out how long it takes to get someplace in which case I use Google Maps.

What kind of maps do you have that are more detailed than Google Streetview?

 

[Quintillus]

Much of the time I still prefer paper maps (unless I don't have one of the area I'm interested in) because they are more detailed. However, I do use online maps when I want to look at places I don't have a map of or figure out how long it takes to get someplace in which case I use Google Maps.

I like to have paper maps available too, but often don't have one of the local area I'm interested in. I have an okay-but-not-great atlas, a good map of the state I live in, and a so-so local map, but not much for other areas. What I often end up doing is figuring out how I'd go on Bing Maps, then asking it for directions, comparing, deciding which is better, and then printing out the route I want. After looking at the bird's eye view for a couple nearby landmarks, and usually forgetting to memorize cross-streets so I'll know how close I am.

What kind of maps do you have that are more detailed than Google Streetview?

Paper maps can be more detailed in some respects like street numbers, highway exit numbers, and well-labeled local landmarks (albeit usually without pictures of them). stfoskey might have more examples; I rarely use paper maps as a first stop these days.

I also like that you can take paper maps with you anywhere and they still work. Even if I had a GPS or cell phone with data, there are places that those don't work well, and sometimes they break. I've also held out on GPSs since I've been on more than a few trips where the driver was following one and got send either the wrong place, or on a very roundabout route. Useful in a pinch, undoubtedly, but if I'm planning in advance I'd rather look at the maps myself, whether on paper or online, than trust that the GPS will figure out a good route from A to B after I get in the car.

 

[dutchfire]

Paper maps can be more detailed in some respects like street numbers, highway exit numbers, and well-labeled local landmarks (albeit usually without pictures of them)

Google has 'em.

When I used to plan cycling trips, I'd usually just look at google maps and write down the most important roads I'd have to take/towns I'd have to pass. Or I'd pencil draw some of the more complicated situations.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Today my professor tried to find the a particular website that aggregated all of the super bowl ads. The default search bar is Bing and she typed in 2013 Super Bowl Commercials and searched through 2 or 3 pages of Bing results. Almost simultaneously 10 or 15 people shouted at her, 'try google' and we all laughed because everyone was thinking it.

Oh and Google had the correct website as hit number 5 or 6 on the first page.

 

[sophie]

Today my professor tried to find the a particular website that aggregated all of the super bowl ads.

...nfl.com?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

No, it was a .org.

 

[stfoskey12]

What kind of maps do you have that are more detailed than Google Streetview?

The thing about streetview is that it only shows a particular intersection. A paper map can show a whole city in detail (no images but still generally well) without having to scroll around a lot.

 

[antimuff]

Not a big fan of Bing.... Yahoo in a pinch but usually google.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yahoo is Bing these days.

 

[TomYo689]

I wonder why yahoo is even still around. What does it do and how do they get money?