Google versus MSN search

If the new all singing and dancing MSN search proves to be so good, who would use it anyway. Would people here avoid it just because of its microsoft attachments.......? btw, no attachments to microsoft here, its just I do better in the new msn search than google

 

Hi Openg - is that a drunk cat in your avatar?

 

Yeah, with a beer and a remote control..originally called 'how to tell if your cat is male'

 

LOL, Openg, absolutely spot on

I use Google search all the time because it's just "there". If MSN became "so much better" then it may be considered, but until then...

If, as Shannon says, there were little to distinguish between their algos, then, again, why change? Keep optimising for Google then we should do well in MSN...

 

I'm getting tired of google. Msn is a nicer blue lol...and the cat is watching 'Tibbles does Toronto'

 

I've got to pull you up there mate...

That is simnply not right...

We are talking about two seperate algorithms.
Both (I should Imagine), looking at the spam problem from two different schools of thought.

I have no doubt that there are similarities between the two algorithms, but to say that optimising for one will produce good results in the other just isn't true...

Goodness know I wish it was (Because I'd be getting a hell of a lot more traffic from the big G)...

I'd love to really have a play around with the MSN search and see what is going on behind the closed doors...
___

Also one other point -
Why the hell have people said

That makes no sense to me... If the new MSN search was producing more relevant results, then why not use it???

I sure as hell would.

 

That's a fair point, Openg, I hated Man U year before last and now Arsenal are getting boring.

 

I wonder how long it will be before Google lose their 'good guys with quirky work ethics' status and end up being hit by adverse opinion like microsoft are, already we are seeing slightly irked messages about the amount of money they are earning, and how they will one day rule the world through the command of information. I have not used a search engine other than google for the last few years unless it is to search for my own site for SEO, but I am being lured by MSN making me first page so much

 

No worries 'bout the haul up

OK, the word *will* is a bit of a misnoma here... in the context of my statement IF MSN and Google yielded similar traffic ratios AND one had continued to optimise for Google (as people very much *tend* to do now) then one cannot help but think that SEO for one yields similar results for the other...

The only difference will be factual evidence of relevance, for example, higher page views per user per referrer...

Hypothetical, of course, but entirely possible...

DR5.5

 

As I had mentioned in another post. I did a little test for my industry and saw that out the the top 20 results in google for my industries top city key phrase. Only 8 results were found that were real estate agent websites.

I dont see google as being relevant for my industry anyway. Msn I found that all 20 results were however real estate agent websites. So this leads me to believe that the MSN results are more relevant then google.

I have a top 10 in google for my major search phrase and I have great results in MSN. I feel though that MSn will over take google as the number 1 search engine within 2005. Google is playing around with there results to much and since going public, google has to answer to investors and the only way I know of currently to produce income for its investors is through adwords. So google doesnt want to make the results to relevant.

According to my logs MSn is running a very close second to google right now for traffic. This has all taken place over the last 15 days or so. I really hope MSN sticks it to google. Maybe next time google will stop trying to play games with all of us and listen to the feedback that we as website owners and consumers are giving them.

 

I doubt that very much. Google has a lot of kudos with all the name dropping in movies, tv shows, even the news (terrorists using google). That kind of branding as THE search engine won't die that quickly. I know AV and others came and went quickly, but they didn't have nearly the same fame that G has now.

IMO Microsoft will have to release Longhorn first (with search built in) before they will take over anything. Their results are shoddy in my opinion. I'm sure they can improve, but they have quite a way to go.

Anyway, I would rather kiss a moose than use MSN, just because I have a severe dislike of most things Microsoft. Kissing a moose sounds like something I could tell my grandkids about one day

 

LOl pucker up..I hear that moose coming for you hahaha. I know that some out there dont care for Mr Bill and I have had my moments with him as well, but google is toying with everything to much right now and trying to come up with ways to increase their profit so they can keep their investors happy.

This in its self is enough to continue to produce bad results in the serps. As I have mentioned in a few post, with the little test I did I only found 8 relevant websites for a major key phrase in serveral cities in my industry out of the top 20 resutls. So this to me is google producing bad results.

When I have looked at MSN whether the websites seem to be keyword spam or not, most that I have looked at have rich content.

 

Regardless of whether Google's results are better than MSN's or not, I think their branding as a great search engine is what will keep them on top for quite some time to come. The best comparison I can come up with is the Coca-cola vs Pepsi debate (I could use Apple vs Microsoft also ). In most blindfold tests, people tend to pick Pepsi for flavour and yet coca-cola wins the popularity contest. There's just not a lot of connoiseurs out there and when it comes down to it, people will simply choose the one they know best OR that is most convenient. This is why I think Longhorn is MSN's only real shot at bringing their search engine into contention.

Personally, I don't feel that would even be enough.

My 2c

 

How does that proof irrelevancy?

If I search for 'washing powder' do 20/20 results need to be supermarkets?

If I search 'webdesign' do I necessarily have to land on a webdesign company's website? What about tutorials, white papers etc.

Out of the top 10 for any given term, I wouldn't mind there being 5 commercial results, 1 wiki or dictionary type of result, one or two news items and perhaps some kind of forum thread.

Your comment is way too generalized.

 

Even if MSN showed as good results as Google I'd still use Google. I don't like the way Microsoft try to monopolise markets. It isn't good for developement through competition.

 

How do you think Microsoft is different than Google then? Or the other way around if you prefer? I mean in regards to them achieving their goals and penetrating their markets.

 

I think google's approach, thus far, has been a lot less of a "we're kicking your ass and smiling about it" style of competition. More refined I suppose, in my opinion.

 

So you'll be switching your vote to Kerry then