MSN Search Roundup 371
Thomas Hawk writes "Well after almost 24 hours of public release, The Seattle Post Intelligencer seems to have the best round up on the professional opinions on the new MSN search beta. Bottom line seems to be that nobody is going to be switching over to MSN Search from Google anytime soon. The story includes opinions by
Walter Mossberg,
John Battelle,
The Wall Street Journal and others.
"
what is he smoking? (Score:5, Funny)
What is he talking about? Microsoft hasn't been a feisty upstart since about 1986.
Re:what is he smoking? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what is he smoking? (Score:3, Informative)
Funny, but Microsoft has actually been around longer than that. Subtract eleven years [microsoft.com] and you will be right on the mark.
look and feel (Score:5, Funny)
Re:look and feel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:look and feel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:look and feel (Score:3, Insightful)
Each search result on both engines are very very similar:
Blatant rip off (Score:4, Informative)
Re:look and feel (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft does not innovate. It copies, assimilates, and polishes. Microsoft software is never groundbreaking in any significant way - it just is usually more usable, better integrated, more reputable, and cheaper than the competition. Of course, once they have eliminated the competition, they no longer have anyone to copy.
Also on the BBC... (Score:5, Informative)
BBC conclusion is that Google is still the search king, but others (Yahoo, Ask Jeeves) also offer interesting search results.
Ask Jeeves Is Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Ask Jeeves is interesting because unlike other search engines which work by assuming you at least have a hunch on what you need, AJ doesn't. The BBC's example is perfect: Searching for "raleigh" could mean the famous historical figure, multiple cities around the world, different buisness and brands, etc. Google is inclined to dump them all onto you and make you sort it out. If Google presents what you need on the first page it might be more by popularity or luck but AJ shows you a bunch of fast ways to filter out results from the huge disparaging set of matches.
This is a feature I wish Google had. If I get too many matches that appear to not be what I'm looking for I rephrase the querry which AJ does on the fly with these filters.
Re:Ask Jeeves Is Interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Also on the BBC... (Score:5, Interesting)
I find much better results with alltheweb now than Google.
Google needs to find a way to filter out shit content - content that just takes usenet stuff and posts as html; content that just is a set of hyperlinks to other content and has nothing else to contribute.
Right now, it's hard to find relevant web content through google because of google-spammers. If google isn't careful, people will start switching away from it, as easily as people switched to it.
Re:Also on the BBC... (Score:5, Funny)
I think Google's simply reflecting the web turning to shit real fast...
Re:Also on the BBC... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Also on the BBC... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sad that google-spamming has become a busienss model. It doesn't cost too much to copy usenet content and post it on a site, and watch the search results come rolling in.
I actually like
Gates Logic (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone Else: Google is works, without any extra crap, and that's why we like it.
Bill Gates: Use our new rounder search engine! It is powered by Yahoo, until 2005! Plus we have added lots of special crap! (mostly because so many people asked for it!)
Everyone Else: Don't you ever learn? We said we didn't want anything but a simple, accurate search engine. We have that already. Do something else.
Bill Gates: But the first 50-100 results now show the websites that have *paid* to be listed! How can you beat that? If they are going to fork over this extra cash to be listed, they must have really quality websites, right?!
Everyone Else: Yeah, that makes total sense to us.
Bill Gates: Plus Google doesn't have neato browser interstitials! They are lacking in the creative marketing department! Seriously!!
Everyone Else: What excites you, does not excite us.
Bill Gates: Our search is easier to get to because a link comes with every copy of XP! You know how hard it is to put a link on the desktop or in the Start Menu? We should be given the Nobel Peace Prize, or something.
Everyone Else: I think we want a search engine that filters out any website or company affiliated with Microsoft.
Re:Gates Logic (Score:5, Funny)
CNet: Good, won't be put in front-line use for a few months
John Battelle: Potentially better than Google
Search Engine Watch: Very promising, not quite good enough to replace Google
WSJ: Pointless anecdote
Slashdot: Exprets agreee! Mirco$oft sucks, noone wil use it!
Re:Gates Logic (Score:2)
Feel free to be fed websites from MSN, but you are being led down the garden path (and it leads to Redmond).
Near mee isn't so near.. (Score:2)
Didn't work too well.. I'm in Iowa...
Web Results Near Me (denver, colorado)
try pizza parlor near:
1-10 of 931 containing pizza parlor (0.12 seconds)
Re:Near mee isn't so near.. (Score:2)
Re:Near mee isn't so near.. (Score:2)
Re:Near mee isn't so near.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Near mee isn't so near.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Near mee isn't so near.. (Score:2)
clean interface, too few pages indicized (Score:3, Informative)
Options page is even more googlish
Unfortunately, too few pages are indicized. My site is used to be in the first page of relevant searches in most search engines, but in msn it does not wshow at all :(
M.
Re:clean interface, too few pages indicized (Score:2, Funny)
Kierthos
it is beta.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it is beta.. (Score:3, Insightful)
it should be functional. it should be usable. if it's full of bugs that show up in routine use, then it shouldn't be a beta. it should still be an alpha because beta is testing for bugs, not for core functionality.
Re:it is beta.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I view "betas" like this as version 1 release. Companies (MS in this case) just call it a beta so they don't have to support it or deal with bad publicity of releasing a buggy product.
IMO if you release it to the public, its Version 1.0. "Public beta" is an oxymoron. Either its ready for release, or its not.
Re:it is beta.. (Score:2)
Gmail is relatively new and still under active development, so is a beta in practice.
Google news and Froogle on the other hand are beta in name only. The reason the beta monicker is still on them is because Google hasn't figured out a way to make money off of them yet. Seriously, that is the reason.
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not until the next Service Packs make it the default search engine, anyway.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
But tell that to bozos who claim MS IE hurt Netscape, WMP hurt RealMedia, etc.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Funny)
Come on, we all know that people don't patch their Windows machines...
Google forever... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google forever... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Google forever... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah. Google will float on top until someone better comes along, or Marketing brings it down.
Re:Google forever... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kinda like for many americans AOL = Internet?
Things have a funny way of creeping up on you when you least expect them.
If Google continues to become more and more useless in the results it brings up, it provides incentive to move to a different search engine.
Re:Google forever... (Score:3, Insightful)
if MS provides something superior, people will switch. (if they are just "copying" google, then it won't happen.) sadly, the fact they can default 95% of the computer to use msn search means it may not take much of an improvement, at at all to take over.
What reason would someone switch? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What reason would someone switch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What reason would someone switch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeez, do I really have to explain monopoly expansion via bundling for umpteenth time on Slashdot? OK, here it is short and sweet. If someone has a monopoly, their customers have no other practical choice than to use their product. If that monopoly then enters another market, and bundles their two products, there is no way any competitor can survive, even with a better product. If you follow this to it's end conclusion, you end up with one company that sells everything. This is why we have a regulated capitalist system. Because monopolies are bad for everyone except the monopolist.
Microsoft has already set back the computing industry by a decade. Think of all the great companies they bought and killed, or squashed with bundling. When MS incorporates a search engine into their browser, all the cool stuff google (and everyone else in the search space) would otherwise bring us will not happen.
Re:What reason would someone switch? (Score:3)
It's not a monopoly
Yes it is, or near enough not to make a difference. Legally, it has been declared one. As to our other options, they are not options for most people since most people cannot write, or even install software themselves.
I don't complain that the lyrics in the songs I listen to aren't different, if I don't like them, I just don't use them.
Songs don't have interoperability issues. Well except DRM'd ones.
not because they sell software
You're right, it's because they bundle software
Re:What reason would someone switch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or did you not get that memo? :)
Re:What reason would someone switch? (Score:2)
Re:What reason would someone switch? (Score:2)
Just try it yourself (Score:2)
You're just imagining this sig is here. It isn't, really.
The best part is (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The best part is (Score:3, Funny)
However, it doesn't show up if you search for "more evil than Satan and all his little devils".
Nor does it show up if you search for "more evil than all Satan's little devils".
If we assume that:
x = Satan
y = All of Satan's little devils
z = Microsoft
then we can deduce the following based on MS's search results:
x <= z is true.
y <= z is true.
x + y >= z is true.
x <= z + y is true.
Thus, if all of Satan's little devils decided to
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
MSN is the default homepage for a gajillion browsers out there. It just has to be good enough to keep them from looking for something different.
Besides, it's still a beta, and TFA says they won't replace much of the core searching until 2005.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
How can Googel and MS(N) be wrong (Score:2, Funny)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miserable+fa
Re:How can Googel and MS(N) be wrong (Score:2)
URL: http://beta.search.msn.com/results.aspx?...
Reason: Banned site: beta.search.msn.com
Category: Banned domains - Pornography
Group: Filter A
Your username: anonymous
Bob
Not quite so negative. (Score:5, Insightful)
The bottom line is not quite so overcast as this statement seems to imply. None were negative, but most mentioned that this is beta quality and had the potential to tackle google in the future.
Re:Not quite so negative. (Score:2)
Re:Not quite so negative. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to ask, Why are we not rejoicing? We now have two competitors trying to add more useful features. They are already driving innovation -- to the benefit of us. And, so long as Google exists, MSN must do no evil, else it will never gain customers.
Re:Not quite so negative. (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because (right or wrong) many people are thinking "we now have one competitor and one big monopoly looking to extend its reach".
IOW, we look back on what happened to Netscape and wonder if it will happen again.
a farm of Windows boxes (Score:2)
MSN can't do that. The NY Times says they built their own hardware for it. A Windows farm! - yuck.
Microsoft depends on Linux (Score:2)
Re:a farm of Windows boxes (Score:2)
Some MSN sites are driven by Soliaris, like www.nhl.com for example. I wouldn't be so sure...
more evil than satan (Score:5, Funny)
"more evil than satan"
on
http://beta.search.msn.com/ [msn.com]
Re:more evil than satan (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:more evil than satan (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:more evil than satan (Score:2)
xfree86 is *still* "sexually explicit" (Score:5, Interesting)
The difference is that the defalts "Safesearch" settings [msn.com]are set to "Moderate - Filter sexually explicit images only">. I changed it to "Strict - Filter sexually explicit text and image results">, I got this message for xfree86 [msn.com]
The search xfree86 may return sexually explicit content.
We didn't return results because your SafeSearch setting is set to Strict. To get results using the current search, change your SafeSearch setting.
That's ok (Score:2)
Test Search (Score:2)
too complicated (Score:2, Funny)
The url for Google is google.com
The url for MSN Search is beta.search.msn.com
That's way too many letters to type for most people.
Google front-end, nothing more.. (Score:2)
I think Microsoft just took a subscription on the Google WebService API
or
"How many NT admins does it take to keep up MSN search? 100.000"
-adnans
Re:Google front-end, nothing more.. (Score:2)
MSN vs. Google (Score:2)
Re:MSN vs. Google (Score:2)
Wow. That was a comprehensive test. Type in one seach, and decide from that. That's like saying that Linux sucks because Slackware didn't find my sound card. Besides, you didn't even compare against Google's special Linux search [google.com].
Strange Results (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is something strange: Search for Tolkien [msn.com] (a search that is close to my heart).
Why is this [xanga.com] result coming up as second?
I can't figure that one out, any ideas. Other than Its Broke
ads at top of results - bad (Score:2)
Re:ads at top of results - bad (Score:2)
--Ender
Once again... (Score:2, Insightful)
Its just the next in a long line of products they've just stolen, including Windows, Office, IE, C#,
Why don't they actually INNOVATE and create something from a new idea for once?
what will we see next? A trading website called mbay.com?
Re:Once again... (Score:2)
The hell with this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The hell with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS trying to get back into the search business only serves to push Goggle to continue to innovate, we should thank them for that. Or if they come out with a better product, hey, shouldn't we thank them for that too? If all of these company shared your "Who needs another search en
Re:The hell with this... (Score:4, Insightful)
What do they have?
Froogle, copy of JungleE
news, standard search on a subset of sites
groups, dejanews, bought in a firesale
toolbar, just another spyware toolbar
cache, less useful Internet Archive
gmail, it is just e-mail, that goes down at least as much for me as hotmail ever did.
The truth is, for all their thousands of millionaire PhD's they haven't done very much truely innovative. The other thing that is scary for google stockholders is that Microsoft only spent $100 million, to be almost google, what do you think they could do for a $billion?
When you are a abusive monopoly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not exactly complete yet (Score:2)
Washington Post had good summary too (Score:4, Informative)
In her usual thorough fashion Cynthia Webb of the Washington Post has summarized the punditry concerning the impact Microsoft's pending search service will have on Google's business [washingtonpost.com]. Most of the analysis says MS has a weak product and miles to go to overtake Google...but thats the position they were in vs Netscape once upon a time. The
Microsoft Windows 1.0? (Score:2, Insightful)
Was MS Windows 1.0 better than an X-capable terminal? Or a similar GUI of that era?
I'll be interested to see how Microsoft's search offering stacks up against its competitors in twenty or more years down the road.
My point being that Microsoft's successes have come from the years of refining its products in a monopolistic environment, not from the initial offering. How will this product do when bundled with Longho
A few things an MS search engine must overcome: (Score:2, Insightful)
Holy Crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Holy crap. There must be something seriously twisted about this guy, if his reaction to the fact that somebody else being successful and admired is rage.
paperclip (Score:5, Funny)
*blink* *blink*
Clippy XP SP3 (Score:3, Funny)
It looks like you're searching for porn.
Would you like help?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.
[ ] No, but turn on one-handed browsing.
MSN search says Evil is google and Firefox (Score:2)
http://www.marketingshift.com/
more evil than satan
#1 Google
more evil than god
#2 firefox
#3 google
Neat Censorship (Score:2)
So at least we know this won't last as a porn search engine, but what is much worse is that it won't be an accurate imprint of what is actually out there. We need to have the ability to find anything with the option to filter out crap.
Thank God for experts. (Score:2)
yahoo for up-to-date images. A9 for searching in books. Google for the web.
Right?
Have any search engines fixed it so that you can type in a product name (like a particular digital camera) and not get a billion crappy web store spam entries? That's the main thing Google doesn't work for.
Re:Thank God for experts. (Score:3, Informative)
"kodak digital camera" -800
doesnt cure them all, but a lot of the merchants have 1-800 numbers. I also sometime append:
-search -index
enjoy
The Reg (Score:5, Interesting)
But much more interesting is his commentary on what all search engines are missing. Most of the "data" people want to find isn't on any computer network. It's in our social network, our minds. So how do we get the technology to adapt to society? Or do we force society to adapt to the technology.
The "search engine wars" might be a little interesting. But are they missing the big picture? From a non-technical person's perspective they might be.
Answers (Score:2)
Beta or not this is irritating. (Score:2)
2004-11-09 15:17:56 sync.X-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 14:25:37 permit-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 10:32:15 cdp-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 06:25:07 sync.X-1.0.tar.gz 207.46.98.33
2004-11-09 06:19:18 permit-1.0.ta
Scariest part.. (Score:2)
The Death of Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM then went into a dark period with OS2, OS400, MVS, TSO, JSL, CICS, MQ, DB2, Websphere, PC, AIX etc etc etc. They became all things to all people and had an application to do anything you wanted. The sales guys treated the customers like cash cows and leveraged the datacenter iron like crazy. Customers hated it and you physically could see the pleasure on their faces when UNIX and PCs arrived so they could stick one on IBM.
Sound familiar?
Today there is a buzz about OSS that MS can only dream about. But more to the point, MS are falling into the same trap as IBM. They are trying to diversify into areas best left alone for example Handsets and Search Engines. They do both badly, they leverage their installed base like crazy and the sales guys treat their customers like cash cows (coincidence? not really. There is every chance it's the same sales guys).
The reason such mega-companies act like spoilt two-year olds is a result of how capitalism works. Investors always want growth. It is unacceptable to stand in front of the AGM and say: "We made 100 gazillion again last year. Same as the year before and the year before that". So if you already own 98% of the PCs then you can't go up - you have to go sideways into new revenue earners, eg search engines. And you will never, EVER be as good at that because its a market or a technology or a customer or a partner or a culture you do not understand. Mistakes are made. Things go wrong. People get sued. Then you start to die. Its a bit like bacteria in a flask. Ironically anyone with a pension scheme will have some money invested however indirectly in this process. I smile every day knowing I am doing my bit to eat away Microsoft from the inside just as my serial installations of Linux of friends systems eats them from without.
I digress.
Add to this death spiral Bill's insane need to WIN AT ALL COSTS and you have the recipe for a firm that is at odds with itself: It has to grow but can only do so by changing but it can't change because it always has to be RIGHT. When it is more important to be RIGHT than to be ACCEPTABLE then it's only a matter of time until you have no customers.
*I didnt come across Linux until a month or two later after which I became a Linux advocate.
They can't win against Google (Score:3, Interesting)
They only time Google doesn't come up with relevant search results is when I'm forced to use so generic words that I get a wide spread of hits. No traditional keyword based search engine can beat that.
The next search engine people will switch to is the one that can help you focus in on a more specific topic or type of information, without using specific keywords and without using keyword searching. I have seen some experimental search engines that will group pages depending on what they are about and then let you do subsearches withing a selected group. This technology is still too raw to be useful, and it is still based on keywords in the pages and links, but someday somebody will have an idea as bright as Google, adn searching will leap to the next level.
I'm not betting on that it will be Microsoft. Actually, the company most likely to do such a thing is Google themselves. They still haven't lost the inventive touch, as Gmails user interface shows.
But... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait until it's built into Longwait.