Bing, Microsoft's re-branded search engine is an improvement over the previous "Live" user experience, but with what appears to have been a very intentional attempt at targeting younger, more visual users with bright colors, images & a more functional image search, they might have alienated some of their loyal, older, Live users. Google, on the other hand, seems universally friendly to almost all demographics. While they have had a long-standing reputation of minimalism, they do it in a way that doesn't put anyone off. I think Microsoft still has the ability to leverage their vast network to push Bing ahead of Google in the long run (Windows, IE, Facebook, etc), but they have some work to do on their product. For instance, one can assume that referrals through the MSN network are probably adults. Is orange the right color for those users? What if they used cookies to remember theme preferences, or the Live or MyMSN accounts to automatically adjust or suggest display settings for various user-input demographic parameters? Furthermore, Microsoft has yet to enable webmaster syndication of their content through home-page widgets. Google does, Yahoo has even started doing it - although they struggle with dramatically different user-experiences in almost every single Yahoo feature - the result of giving designers too much freedom to express their individuality. I think Microsoft started throwing way too much money into TV advertising before receiving feedback through user-behavior. And the algorithm still isn't there... But I like the name - Bing, and I like the new auto-category "decision" feature... also not "there" yet.
What Google did wrong & what Bing did right. When Millions searched Google News for "Micheal Jackson" the day he died, they got no results for about a half hour because Google thought it was under attack. Users went to Bing and Yahoo for results.
I agree that Bing still has a way to go. The idea with the neat backgrounds is a good one but if the engine itself doesn't deliver that alone won't cut it. I am getting some organic traffic from bing more than I got with live, so evidently they're doing something right.
I personally don't understand what is so mysteriously difficult about SERP algorithms. It's just relevance, quality, authority, trust, popularity, behavior, semantics, grammatical syntax & user intent. Why is that so friggin difficult?
What if they made a Bing Browser and offered both that and Internet Explorer standard on all Windows 7 operating systems? Would they get the monopoly slap? They already have a Bing Box for custom & web search. Bing Bar toolbar? Bing it Home? Bingo? Oh, how about iBing or MyBing? That would be original.
What bing did right Left a big enough impact, to have people still making topics and talking about the site.
I don't think one is right and the other is wrong . Bing is re-brand live search . It is in its infant stage/beta version but google is mature giant. That is the differences .
Bing is doing right, I think they have learn how google could be success. When live is exist I didn't get any traffic of its but when bing coming I get nice traffic everyday.. maybe bing try to be one of internet marketing tools beside google. Bing can not kick google because google is for all the world and bing still only for some countries.
... maybe ... But a whole lot of their increase in traffic has been due to TV advertising, and their initial curiosity burst in traffic is starting to taper off. iGoogle has been a great retention mechanism for Google. There are so many iGoogle services users have become dependent upon. Gmail, Google Checkout, Blogger, YouTube, Google Reader, Adwords, Adsense, etc. What is Microsoft using to gain & retain market share? Hotmail? MSN? IE? Messenger? None of these tools really bring Bing home. Microsoft makes it very difficult to syndicate out-of-network content through MyMSN... designed for the affluent, almost exclusively. As for their algorithm - maybe it's poor right now because they want to rank the lesser known (low-quality) sites ... to gain webmaster interest & participation... or something? I suppose that could be a strategy of some sort. Didn't say it was a good one. They'll eventually get it, but it seems to be taking a while.
I think Bing was a good idea for Microsoft. Their commercials appeal to people who have had bad experiences with google search results even though their engine is pretty much a copy of google's (who's was a copy of search engines that came before it), and their name is very viral. I'd say though bought themselves a significant share of the search market. You're right that iGoogle has been a great retention mechanism for Google. Lots of good aps that make people stick around in there.
I am not a Bing's fan. But now I will go there to see its background picture. Maybe that is the right thing they have done to attract new users.
I can definitely see where you are coming from. Microsoft definitely put a big emphasis on Bing's visual representation and user interface. I do not think that Bing is all form and no function though. In my opinion, Bing has a very slick and very appealing interface while keeping things relatively simplistic at the same time.
still bing is much more better than older live and it shows they can compete google if improved in each area
After bing was published, I immediately changed my default search engine from Google to bing. I find bing very good just like Google. The results are almost the same in both search engines and I am sure now that I am not sharing my personal information with Google when I use bing from Microsoft.
I am using Bing for video search now, just try it out and you will see why the interface is superior to Google