U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2011, 09:40 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,155 posts, read 14,424,555 times
Reputation: 7111

Advertisements

I have been using Google since 2002 and no other search engine, with great loyalty. After I saw that Bing had eaten some of Google's market share and is now used by 17% of internet users for searching the web, I had to do an experiment and see for myself. Here is the outline of the experiment I ran:

Purpose: To determine which search engine yields better quality results soonest in the results list.

Procedure: First, delete and disable cookies and history to prevent any tracking that my occur. Then, select five search topics to be searched in both Google and Bing. For each search engine's results, select the link that most provides what you are looking for (this may require checking other links) and record its position in the list (i.e., if it's the first one in the list, mark "1" in the result column). In addition, rate the quality of the webpage you selected as the best result of the search (-1 = bad, 0 = okay, 1 = good). Here were my results (recorded in Excel):



As you can see, 4 out of the 5 searches, Bing gave me my favorite webpage in the top of the results list upon searching! Only once, it failed miserably, with the "home workout routines" topic.

Analysis: Wow. Seriously? Okay. I think I know why this has occurred. I believe it is because Google does not deliver results based on content within a webpage, but rather based on popularity. The more people click on a link to a website, the more popular that link becomes, and therefore it will rise toward the top of the search results. Obviously, what's popular doesn't mean it's the best option. Bing, on the other hand returns results based on content within a webpage instead of popularity. That is probably why 80% of the time I got what I wanted right at the top of the results.

Conclusion: In most cases, Bing will return the desired webpage at the very top of the results. On occasion, you may have to dig deeper to find the desired webpage. Google usually does not return the desired webpage at the very top of the results, but it will almost always return the desired wepage within the top 5 results, with no extra digging required.

So, there are two ways to conclude this experiment. On a case by case basis, Bing is the clear winner. But if you are to weigh each case based on the ranking of the desired search result, then Google is the clear winner.

Both search engines are excellent!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2011, 08:40 AM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
11,815 posts, read 13,959,030 times
Reputation: 8050
It's all relative and really there are so many variables, in my opinion, it is impossible to say which is better.
I did a quick search for "Wii U Launch" on Google and the result was #1 on the search results page. Didn't even need to click the link, it was in the text under the link.
Got the same thing in Bing.... rumours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,155 posts, read 14,424,555 times
Reputation: 7111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peregrine View Post
It's all relative and really there are so many variables, in my opinion, it is impossible to say which is better.
I did a quick search for "Wii U Launch" on Google and the result was #1 on the search results page. Didn't even need to click the link, it was in the text under the link.
Got the same thing in Bing.... rumours.
You're wrong. The Google result you speak of is an article dated on June 7 and is old news. However, the top Bing result is an article dated July 5, and is new news. The article tells you that Wii U is due after April 1, 2012, whereas the Google article tells you that Wii U is due in 2012. The Bing source is more specific and accurate. Bing clearly wins in this search topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 11:23 AM
 
28,607 posts, read 40,593,270 times
Reputation: 37271
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321 View Post
You're wrong. The Google result you speak of is an article dated on June 7 and is old news. However, the top Bing result is an article dated July 5, and is new news. The article tells you that Wii U is due after April 1, 2012, whereas the Google article tells you that Wii U is due in 2012. The Bing source is more specific and accurate. Bing clearly wins in this search topic.
I disagree. The date of release is secondary as it will likely change at least twice before the stated date.

The importance of the two articles lies in the amount of information about the unit and without a doubt the Google result is the "winner", although calling for winners in a search engine contest seems a bit weird.

Your results are biased based on your expectations instead of how much useful information is supplied. You choose to pull out two pieces of information and base your entire opinion on those alone: The date of the article and the date of release. You completely ignore all the other information supplied in the Google link.

Ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,155 posts, read 14,424,555 times
Reputation: 7111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
I disagree. The date of release is secondary as it will likely change at least twice before the stated date.

The importance of the two articles lies in the amount of information about the unit and without a doubt the Google result is the "winner", although calling for winners in a search engine contest seems a bit weird.

Your results are biased based on your expectations instead of how much useful information is supplied. You choose to pull out two pieces of information and base your entire opinion on those alone: The date of the article and the date of release. You completely ignore all the other information supplied in the Google link.

Ridiculous.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference. None of the articles in the top search results from Google provide the user with the fact that the Wii U will be released after April 2012. The Bing results, however, achieve this. Duh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,209 posts, read 18,490,079 times
Reputation: 8052
Which is better - vanilla or chocolate?

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 06:49 PM
 
28,607 posts, read 40,593,270 times
Reputation: 37271
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321 View Post
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the difference. None of the articles in the top search results from Google provide the user with the fact that the Wii U will be released after April 2012. The Bing results, however, achieve this. Duh.
You're right it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a single bit of information that is so vague is much less important than all the information given on the Google link.

Seriously, stating that a claim for a release date difference of four months should be the basis of a rating when the unit may not come out until October is just plain dumb, especially when that is the only piece of data you base it on. Have you even read the two articles and compared the amount of information in each?. Duh. J. D. Powers you're not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 10:05 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,155 posts, read 14,424,555 times
Reputation: 7111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
You're right it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a single bit of information that is so vague is much less important than all the information given on the Google link.

Seriously, stating that a claim for a release date difference of four months should be the basis of a rating when the unit may not come out until October is just plain dumb, especially when that is the only piece of data you base it on. Have you even read the two articles and compared the amount of information in each?. Duh. J. D. Powers you're not.
You're completely missing the point. Obviously, no search engine on the planet will be able to magically come up with the exact release date of Wii U at this time. However, the latest news regarding its launch date has been made available just about 10 days ago. And surprisingly, Google has not picked up on this. But Bing did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2011, 10:06 PM
 
28,607 posts, read 40,593,270 times
Reputation: 37271
For the love of... I give up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-16-2011, 01:23 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,575,083 times
Reputation: 2608
Linux is better! Oh wait, wrong thread. *chuckle*
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Internet
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:44 AM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top