The only reason Live is catching up to google is because it is automatically the default search engine in IE7 (probably IE6 too...) so everytime it times out, can't find the site, or you type it wrong it goes to Live.com and uses the search engine to find what you were looking for. Everybody just leaves it as the default and with millions of users being forced to upgrade to IE7 (even though it sucks!) they are in turn forcing them to use Live.com therefore making it soar up the ranks.
Alexa ranking = people who use the alexa toolbar only. I'm sure if they tracked the information of all web users Google would be miles ahead and thats only taking into account Google.com and not .co.uk (the best google), .ca etc.
Live is catching Google... LMFAO. Maybe Live.com is improving... but to say they are catching Google.com is way to bold a statement... for one they would have to surpass Yahoo.com first. Then Google.com would be a whole other monster. The one thing live.com has going for it, is the fact that by default IE7 has live.com as search engine built in to the search box. However, it doesn't work for the low to moderately computer savvy folks who know how to change the search engine. I for one, always change it to Google. It will be a long time, if ever, that live.com will catch Google. I would take a very certain guess that it will never happen. Google is king of search. Period. What's really funny is that if a computer user searches for something and it doesn't search automatically with google.com, then most will use that search engine to pull up a link for google.com's website. Google provides better results than anyone... even though they could still be better. Yahoo is a close second. But that is besides the point, because everyone still uses Google. Google is the new Microsoft with a Linux attitude/mentality about doing business.
I rank a lot better in live than I do in google but their brand will never be as strong, people perceive google as a SEARCH ENGINE and live.com just another section of microsoft, so they believe that google will return better results becuase their efforts will be more concentrated. Its the law of perception.
Google and LIVE Search has different algo for searching any keywords. And, nobody can say about future...
Amount of traffic I get from Live = 5 a week. Amount of traffic I get from google = 5,000 a week. I dont think Live is a threat.
I have about 20 sites. And MSN has managed to index about 5 of them. (unlike G and Y '20') And the 5 that are indexed are probably among the lowest quality IMO. lol
Getting indexed doesn't mean it is better. Everytime I use live.com to search for something I can never find exactly what I am looking for, and end up going to google anyway to find it. In my opinion, Live.com is just a reworked version of the MSN.com search.
When it comes to the top websites, it is actually very accurate. Especially when your talking about website where every Top, Dick and Harry visits it.
Everyone is saying "alexa is crap", "I think google is better" or "live.com is crap" but that's not the point I'm trying to make. I totally agree that live's result are usually crap, but as I said earlier, the reason for the rapid growth is precsiley because IE7 has live.com as the default search tool. Sure, people may not be directly going to live.com to do their searches, but that doesn't escape the fact that people ARE using it, and using it in heavy numbers! Alexa is actually fairly representative of global traffic. Many technical magazines cite it.
I can't agree. live.com is wayyy far behind google search traffic. live.com search only accounts 10% of my total network of websites traffic.
Tech magazines cite whatever they are getting ad revenue from. Either that or they just cite what they have a prefence for no matter which is better or more true. You have pro linux and pro microsoft and pro macintosh magazines. It is the same as the automakers citing what award they won. You never hear Ford and Chevy cite the same magazine for an award they won. It is always Car and Driver vs. ??? (can't remember the name of the other magazine). Media is very tough to get any truth from. You may not think they do it, but I guarantee you that they do. I'm not saying all magazines do it... but most do and it sometimes is tough to tell truth from fiction.
Yeah, because lets face it, Microsoft didn't do a good job of catching up with Netscape Navigator or Eudora either did they. Oh hang on a minute, thats right, microsoft obliterated both products out of the market by bundling their alternative with every windows install, which is fundamentally what they are doing with Vista/Live. Frankly I LOVE google, in a way that one shouldnt love a website , and I detest most microsoft products, but lets face it, if the big M wants to I have no doubt they will knock google out of the market in the next 10 years, its just the power of being the monopoly on OS's.
Live is still far from Google. While Google and Yahoo are growing, Live is shrinking. Google's traffic is spread out through its many tailored search engine pages unlike Live search.