Tag Archives | Search Engines

Bing it Is!

Bing LogoI feel like I have around five percent of my brain cells back to devote to other, more productive purposes. After way too many months of way too much speculation, it’s official: Microsoft’s new search engine will be known as Bing. Steve Ballmer unveiled it this morning at the Wall Street Journal’s D conference, and on next Wednesday it replaces Live Search.

Don’t expect Microsoft to position Bing as a Google killer, even though others will presumably (most likely pejoratively, as usal) use that phrase as they size it up. Do expect the company to call it a decision engine–a phrase that Bing team member Stefan Weitz used when I spoke with him this morning. (There’s even a Bing video demo up at DecisionEngine.com.) Rather than provide Google-like results in a Google-like format, Microsoft has has focused on providing customized results for four common action-oriented search tasks: making a purchase, planning a trip, researching a health condition and finding a local business. It aims to provide information and tools to satisfy those goals right within Bing, eliminating the need to search elsewhere and providing a clear differentiation from Google and other search engines.

I’ll report back on Bing when I’ve had a chance to try it out. Meanwhile, here’s a review by Search Engine Land’s Greg Sterling (he likes it quite a bit) and one by TechCrunch’s Erick Schonfeld (who I think may have forgotten that Live Search in its current form already has the fancy photographic backdrop).

6 comments

A Search Engine Based on Retweets

(Topsy LogoOver at TechCrunch, Michael Arrington has a good review of Topsy, a new search engine that bases its relevance rankings on retweets–the action, on Twitter, of repeating a tweet from another Twitterer to share it with your followers. The idea makes sense–in theory, at least, an item on the Web that lots of folks retweet should be more interesting than one that nobody retweets (or nobody tweeted in the first place). And Topsy gives more value to retweets that come from particularly influential Twitterers. Which is logical for a number of reasons, not the least among them that it helps prevent people from gaming the system.

In its current form, Topsy still feels more like a good idea than one that’s been absolutely nailed–when you perform a search, it comes back with a ton of stuff, and it’s not always sure what’s what. (For instance, in this egosearch for my @harrymccracken twittername, I’m not entirely clear what the organizing principle is behind the list of Twitterers on the right-hand side of the page.) But the potential is huge. Like much of Twitter, retweets are a useful but crude crutch invented by Twitter users, and I suspect that Twitter will replace retweets as we know them with something more elegant. (FriendFeed already has far more sophisticated mechanisms for sharing information and expressing your approval of it.) If Google and other general-purpose search engines aren’t figuring out how to incorporate retweets and other retwe

One comment

Breaking: We May Know What the First Letter of the Bing Logo Looks Like!

You know you’re desperate for news about a new search engine when the possibility of one letter of its logo being accidentally revealed merits comment. But what the heck: The ever-enterprising M.G. Siegler of TechCrunch popped into Bing.com, which may soon be revealed to be the home of Microsoft’s replacement for Live Search, and saw that it had a Favicon–a tiny blue-and-orange letter “b.” When he checked again, it was gone.

The logical assumption here is that Microsoft is indeed girding itself to unveil the new service at the D conference this week, and that Bing is indeed the new name. I still think it would be cool if  all the scuttlebutt about the engine being named Bing, Kumo, or Hook was a conspiracy on Microsoft’s part, and it has an entirely different name up its corporate sleeve that nobody’s ever heard. In any event,

Normally, I’m opposed to technology products changing their names–I presume that even the search team at Microsoft would agree that changing a name does nothing to improve a product. In this case, though, the name “Live Search” is so lifeless and confusing that it makes sense to start fresh. I’m not at D, but will chime in again as events warrant.

Meanwhile, I’m trying to cozy up to the name Bing. It’s a sign of my age that it brings pleasantly nostalgic associations to mind, like…well, this:

2 comments

The Very First Review of Google?

Original Google LogoLast week, I rounded up some of the earliest reviews of Google–most of them positive, none of them predicting what would become of it over the next few years. Karen Wickre of Google saw the story and wrote to clue me in to a piece even earlier than any of the ones I found, which it rediscovered when putting together a tenth anniversary corporate timeline last year. Fittingly enough, it’s by search guru Danny Sullivan (now of Search Engine Land), and it appeared in the August 4th, 1998 issue of Search Engine Watch’s Search Engine Report newsletter:

So how about the results? I think many people will be pleased, especially for the ever-popular single and two-word queries. A search for “bill clinton” brought the White House site up at number one. A search for “disney” top-ranked disney.com, and sections within it like Disney World, the Disney Channel, and Walt Disney Pictures. Yet interesting alternative sites, such as Werner’s Unofficial Disney Park Links, also made it on the list.

Will Google be going commercial? [Co-founder Larry] Page has no opposition to it, but said there’s no particular hurry.

“We’re Ph.D. students, we can do whatever we want,” he said. And what they want is to find the right partners to let them focus on improving relevancy. “I’d like to build a service where the priority is on giving users great results,” Page said.

The whole thing is such an entertaining read that I’m tempted to quote it in its Google-related entirety, but go here to enjoy it.

One comment

Microsoft Advertising Its Way to Top of Search

Well, I’m not sure why it thinks it would work any different this time, but Microsoft at it again trying to advertise its way to better search marketshare with the search engine supposedly now known as Bing (previously known as Kumo). Altogether, about $80 to $100 million will be spent to promote the latest reboot, Advertising Age is reporting.

Microsoft will ask consumers to rethink what search is. Instead of directly going after its competitors, it will challenge consumers to think if search really does work as well as they thought.

If it does go as far as reports claim, it would be the largest ad campaign for any search product yet. You’d have to think that the saturation–ads will appear online, on TV and radio, and in the print–would at least cause a good portion of consumers to at least give the new search contender a look.

Consumers are generally happy with their searches. About two-thirds of all users are satisfied with search performance, although four in 10 searches require refinement to get what the user wants.

Bing’s (or Kumo, whatever) challenge if it is going to take on Google in this manner is to eliminate the need for refinement. So far from what we’re hearing it seems that it does seem to answer this to some extent, but it’s not a massive difference.

4 comments

How Long Did It Take for the World to Identify Google as an AltaVista Killer?

Original Google LogoEarlier this week, I mused about the fact that folks keep identifying new Web services as Google killers, and keep being dead wrong. Which got me to wondering: How quickly did the world realize that Google would come to dominate Web search in a way that few businesses have ever been dominated? Did anyone know from the get go that it would whip AltaVista and other once-mighty sites?

It’s still surprisingly hard to search the Web for information from a particular time period. But I found some early references to Google–mostly positive, and none of which were prescient enough to realize its implications.

Continue Reading →

56 comments

New Microsoft Search Next Week?

Rumor has it that Microsoft’s revamped search engine may debut at Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher’s D conference next week. There’s been plenty of scuttlebutt about the new version for months, but very little of it has had anything to do with its capabilities–it’s mostly involved speculation as to whether it’s going to be called Kumo, Bing or Hook, or something else. In a new post, search guru Danny Sullivan seems to lean towards thinking it’ll be Bing, but also proposes two good options that are so obvious they’re unexpected: MSN or Microsoft.

One thing people aren’t doing is calling Kumo-or-Whatever a Google killer. That’s not a knock against it so much as a healthy acknowledgment that even if it’s extraordinary, it’s not going to bump off the world’s dominant search engine any time soon. But with the current Live Search stuck at under three percent market share and Google at 81 percent, Microsoft would presumably be thrilled if its new engine was good enough to get the company’s search of share creeping upwards again.

4 comments

A Brief History of Google Killers

Google KillersIt’s the Web’s biggest straw man, and it keeps getting built up, torn down, then built up again. I speak of the idea that a startup is a potential Google killer–a notion that once meant that it promised to be a better search engine than Google, but has lately morphed into suggesting that a Web company of almost any sort could end up dominating the Web the way Google does today.

The phrase dates to at least 2001, and its usage consistently follows the same cycle: At first, pundits thoughtfully wonder if a promising new service might be a Google killer…and then, once it’s clear it’s an unlikely scenario, they cockily explain why it won’t come to pass. The latest example is going on right now, as the Web judges the new Wolfram|Alpha service. With the term ringing in my ears once again, I was moved to review fourteen examples of alleged Google killers, and to consider whether any of them are, in fact, likely to crush Google to death. My overall conclusion? If anyone compares your Internet startup to Google, it’s time to panic–it’s more of a curse than a compliment.

Continue Reading →

28 comments

Wolfram|Alpha: This Could Be the Start of Something Big

Wolfram|Alpha LogoBack in March, Radar Networks CEO Nova Spivack blogged about Wolfram|Alpha, a new Web service from Mathematica creator Stephen Wolfram, and said it could be as important as Google. Nova’s a smart guy, but it was reasonable to greet his enthusiasm with skepticism–new stuff gets favorably compared to Google all the time, and often turns out to be massively disappointing. But Wolfram|Alpha is now live–albeit in a preview mode that’s struggling to keep up with the sudden influx of users–and Nova’s assessment turned out to be cool and collected. The service is a work in progress, but it’s the most interesting new research tool since Wikipedia–and yes, it’s not unreasonable to discuss it in the same breath as Google.

Continue Reading →

11 comments

Google Falls Down, Gets Back Up

Google DownLast year, I wrote a post called A World Without Google. This morning, people have been living it: As you can tell from the chatter on Twitter, Google suffered some sort of major outage this morning. Google.com was unavailable, and as Cnet reporteed, folks also had trouble getting into everything from Gmail to Google News to YouTube to Blogger.

As of right now, Google is back–at least for me. There’s no mention of the troubles on the Google Blog, but I hope that the company acknowledges them and explains what happened. Like last January’s bizarre glitch that left Google identifying the entire Web as dangerous, this morning’s outage is a sobering reminder of just how dependent we are on the world’s most popular search engine. (Betcha Yahoo, Live Search, and Ask.com saw massive spikes in usage this morning.)

How instinctively do I use Google? When I was trying to find info on why Google wasn’t working, I…Googled for it. Or tried to, at least. Betcha I wasn’t the only person who did that…

5 comments