After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <C66D9C30.3875A%usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Snit <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bing it, and they will come ... back to Google.
>> >
>> > Bing comes up with some great stuff on Roy Schestowitz.
>> > Try it!
>>
>> I have used it for some image searches and was impressed.
>
> Outside of COLA, in general most reviewers have found it to be pretty
> good. If Google is taken as the baseline and given a 10, Bing is getting
> about an average of 8 overall.
>
> Keep in mind that people like Schestowitz and Homer have tried Bing at
> most for a couple searches. How good or bad it is just isn't relevant to
> them.
http://mashable.com/2009/06/07/blindsearch/
Now, while my three searches may not have been definitive, BlindSearch is
using everybody's votes to provide a running tally of which search
engine is best. As of publishing, Google is in the lead with 44%, with
Bing in second at 32% and Yahoo last at 24%. This isn't a completely
random sampling, as tech-savvy users are likely the ones doing the most
searches on BlindSearch currently. Yet it provides for a good
approximation and will only increase in accuracy as the sample size
increases.
So does this put the Google vs. Bing question to rest?
As a hosting service for consumers, my only opinion is that Google needs to
improve. It's been churning like Microsoft (got an email recently about my
old "pages" sites going away eventually).
--
Celebrate Hannibal Day this year. Take an elephant to lunch.
|
|
