5 ms·

Bing is nowhere near "(Just as good as G)". If it was, a lot more people would have already switched. As of now, it's surprisingly behind Google in almost all b

Bing is nowhere near "(Just as good as G)". If it was, a lot more people would have already switched. As of now, it's surprisingly behind Google in almost all but the most basic searches.

viraptor 8y ago
This is visible in both the results and in the logs of any large, complex website. You'll see Bing requesting things which shouldn't ever exist, and continuously trying things which are unavailable without much persistent backoff. That still have some way to go.
crunchlibrarian 8y ago
Not really, Google has pushed the "relevancy customization" to it's extreme limit and the conclusion of this process is search results that are often just garbage. Not just in the filter bubble sense of keeping out any info that the targeted user might find unpleasant, but also in the sense that "we don't surface anything outside of very recent, very mainstream, large corporate sites" even when that's exactly what I don't want to sift through on a given search. It's a real pain if you're trying to do research in a niche area or in an academic field that isn't hip and popular, if you're not in the 90% bracket of the distribution results for what people click on you just don't exist on Google anymore. This phenomena is most obvious when you're searching for something that you know still exists on the web, you can remember it being a top result years ago, but has now been effectively eliminated from the results because it's not sitting on the domain of a large corporation. Bing will still surface these sites, at least for now.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Not really, Google has pushed the "relevancy customization" to it's extreme limit and the conclusion of this process is search results that are often just garbage. > Not just in the filter bubble sense of keeping out any info that the targeted user might find unpleasant, but also in the sense that "we don't surface anything outside of very recent, very mainstream, large corporate sites" even when that's exactly what I don't want to sift through on a given search. I think this is why many people perceive Google Search to be "better." Those people are mainly looking for mainstream topics on a small number of mainstream sites, and Google has heavily biased their algorithm in that direction. > It's a real pain if you're trying to do research in a niche area or in an academic field that isn't hip and popular, if you're not in the 90% bracket of the distribution results for what people click on you just don't exist on Google anymore. > This phenomena is most obvious when you're searching for something that you know still exists on the web, you can remember it being a top result years ago, but has now been effectively eliminated from the results because it's not sitting on the domain of a large corporation. Bing will still surface these sites, at least for now. You can also try using DDG or Google Verbatim mode: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12045959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12045959. Though, IMHO DDG is about as good as Google Verbatim.
murukesh_s 8y ago
You would be surprised. I am using Bing alone for over a year and had to use google for 2-3 cases at max. Agreed google sometimes return different results, but you cannot say it's better, especially if you are used to seeing Bing results. I would suggest you try Bing for a month and go to google if you cannot absolutely find anything in Bing.
- olig15 8y ago
  I switched my default search engine to Bing on my phone (when AMP started to become a thing) and it's been great. I do still use Google on my work PC, because it knows I'm a C++ programmer and can show more relevant results. I am against the direction tracking is going, but it is useful in some cases.
  - gagege 8y ago
    I always use Google for programming searches. It feels like I get much more relevant results than I do from DDG.
  - vanadium 8y ago
    Bing is now serving AMP pages (since the new Governance Model was unveiled), so...
    - tibaiiplus 8y ago
      Hi Vanadium....I'm a journalist and saw a post of yours on an older HN thread that I was hoping to ask you about. Any chance you'd be willing to connect so I can share details about me and what I'm working on? Cell is 847-380-0751
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- dylan604 8y ago
  What kind of queries with Bing (or DDG for other users) gives results that suggest you need to switch to Google?
zwkrt 8y ago
I think people are just used to a certain page, just like they are/were used to their favorite local news station. I doubt most people periodically run tests to see which search engines return the most relevant results for them. Plus, people know that google search is the best, so why use something else? The problem is that they seem to "know" in the same sense that they know Kleenex are the best tissues; its all marketing.
- Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
  Some people might do that (not care enough to try). That's not what I mean specifically. I did go back and I did try, again and again. Bing just misses so much of the context of each query, does not understand to switch context based on some specific keyword like "ubuntu"vs"linux", etc. etc. It does not understand my half-articulated searches, - in which Google just shines because it thinks the rest of the thought for me and gets the result I really want and am looking for, usually on the first page of results. This is not about liking the visual style of the webpage(google vs bing) or how it looks. This is about quality of results and me saving time. This is not about me being lazy not doing "good search queries". If I can search google and get a result in 5 seconds, why would I spend 1 minute figuring out the best way to phrase something, then 3 more minutes trying different things that Bing would understand? I know there is enough information in my search, because Google understands it. Why should I add more words to it (and sometimes operators) for Bing to get it? Why should I waste my time for no reason? This does not hinder my thinking ability. It's just that Google is so good that it knows what I am thinking before I am completely done with formulating the thought. Damn, sometimes I am on a wikipedia page, I stumble upon a 4-word term unknown to me in that page, I start typing it and Google knows after 2 letters, it shows the whole complete term as a suggestion! And this happens with terms starting with very common words, so it's very likely that google just knows that most people google that exact thing after going to the Wikipedia page (since google sends me to wikipedia page from the beginning). When Bing will do these little things to aid my work, I will gladly switch. I did try, and I do wish that Bing will get better. Right now it is simply not. (Yes, I know there are privacy implications, and those suck. But we were talking about quality of searching...)
jstanley 8y ago
I use DuckDuckGo exclusively and don't feel like my life is worse for it. It really is good enough. And when you also factor in that you're not helping Google build a profile on you, it's better than Google.
- justaman 8y ago
  I first tried DDG years ago. It really wasn't great. The results and astetics were not up to snuff. I went back to google. About a year ago I decided to try DDG again. I've been using DDG ever since. Maybe once a month I'll google something. I use chrome only for google products like gmail.
  - bamboozled 8y ago
    DDG sucks and hasn’t really improved at all. I’ve used it for a longtime but I use bangs endlessly. Unless you can provide some quantifiable metric to prove its “getting better” then it’s delusion getting the better of you. DDG uses other search engines for results (such as bing), so unless you agree Bing is improving, it’s just a placebo. DDG is only useful because we can all fall back on g!. It’s sad but true. There is still no substitution for Google search.
    - jstanley 8y ago
      > Unless you can provide some quantifiable metric to prove its “getting better” then it's delusion This doesn't prove anything. Unless you can provide some metric to say it's not good, then it's delusion getting the better of you. DuckDuckGo is good enough for everyday usage, for me. It has been this way for well over a year. I never use bangs.
      - swingline-747 8y ago
        To me, it comes across like a skewed, disproportionately-negative cognitive distortion, of what I won't speculate because I won't armchair/keyboard psychoanalyze.
      - 8y ago
s3r3nity 8y ago
I wouldn't leverage popularity of a service to correlate 100% with its competency - ESPECIALLY when it comes to tech. I think Bing has a marketing / brand problem, as it's been the punch-line of the joke for so long. I personally think it's actually quite good - I personally use it a lot with Safari.
- partiallypro 8y ago
  All Microsoft has to do is let people white label their Bing product, look at DDG...that's Bing's engine. Most people don't know, or care. The results are good. That's actually how Google became so popular, Yahoo used Google. Bing just needs to keep integrating itself into the next big things. Unfortunately Google often will pay a handsome sum to make sure it keeps a foothold...I mean look at Siri. It went from Google to Bing to Google. No doubt there was a negotiation that caused that. Given Apple's focus on privacy, it would be a bit surprising if they don't switch again.
drb91 8y ago
Really? It seems to work for me for all but the most intricate searches. Recently I’ve noticed the first page of google results is getting a bit useless from all the SEO pushing commercial results to the top—ideally I’d want to filter out businesses from results. I don’t see this happening any time soon, unfortunately. Finally, the quality of search results is mildly subjective the closer you get to “keyword search” and away from “text search”. Google handles this scenario the best interface wise, but quality it seems to have been going down since they introduced the knowledge base—too many unrelated bits of information being pulled in without being asked for.

Bing is nowhere near "(Just as good as G)". If it was, a lot more people would have already switched. As of now, it's surprisingly behind Google in almost all but the most basic searches.

viraptor 8y ago

This is visible in both the results and in the logs of any large, complex website. You'll see Bing requesting things which shouldn't ever exist, and continuously trying things which are unavailable without much persistent backoff. That still have some way to go.

crunchlibrarian 8y ago

Not really, Google has pushed the "relevancy customization" to it's extreme limit and the conclusion of this process is search results that are often just garbage. Not just in the filter bubble sense of keeping out any info that the targeted user might find unpleasant, but also in the sense that "we don't surface anything outside of very recent, very mainstream, large corporate sites" even when that's exactly what I don't want to sift through on a given search. It's a real pain if you're trying to do research in a niche area or in an academic field that isn't hip and popular, if you're not in the 90% bracket of the distribution results for what people click on you just don't exist on Google anymore. This phenomena is most obvious when you're searching for something that you know still exists on the web, you can remember it being a top result years ago, but has now been effectively eliminated from the results because it's not sitting on the domain of a large corporation. Bing will still surface these sites, at least for now.

ardy42 8y ago
> Not really, Google has pushed the "relevancy customization" to it's extreme limit and the conclusion of this process is search results that are often just garbage. > Not just in the filter bubble sense of keeping out any info that the targeted user might find unpleasant, but also in the sense that "we don't surface anything outside of very recent, very mainstream, large corporate sites" even when that's exactly what I don't want to sift through on a given search. I think this is why many people perceive Google Search to be "better." Those people are mainly looking for mainstream topics on a small number of mainstream sites, and Google has heavily biased their algorithm in that direction. > It's a real pain if you're trying to do research in a niche area or in an academic field that isn't hip and popular, if you're not in the 90% bracket of the distribution results for what people click on you just don't exist on Google anymore. > This phenomena is most obvious when you're searching for something that you know still exists on the web, you can remember it being a top result years ago, but has now been effectively eliminated from the results because it's not sitting on the domain of a large corporation. Bing will still surface these sites, at least for now. You can also try using DDG or Google Verbatim mode: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12045959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12045959. Though, IMHO DDG is about as good as Google Verbatim.

murukesh_s 8y ago

You would be surprised. I am using Bing alone for over a year and had to use google for 2-3 cases at max. Agreed google sometimes return different results, but you cannot say it's better, especially if you are used to seeing Bing results. I would suggest you try Bing for a month and go to google if you cannot absolutely find anything in Bing.

olig15 8y ago
I switched my default search engine to Bing on my phone (when AMP started to become a thing) and it's been great. I do still use Google on my work PC, because it knows I'm a C++ programmer and can show more relevant results. I am against the direction tracking is going, but it is useful in some cases.
- gagege 8y ago
  I always use Google for programming searches. It feels like I get much more relevant results than I do from DDG.
- vanadium 8y ago
  Bing is now serving AMP pages (since the new Governance Model was unveiled), so...
  - tibaiiplus 8y ago
    Hi Vanadium....I'm a journalist and saw a post of yours on an older HN thread that I was hoping to ask you about. Any chance you'd be willing to connect so I can share details about me and what I'm working on? Cell is 847-380-0751
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
dylan604 8y ago
What kind of queries with Bing (or DDG for other users) gives results that suggest you need to switch to Google?

zwkrt 8y ago

I think people are just used to a certain page, just like they are/were used to their favorite local news station. I doubt most people periodically run tests to see which search engines return the most relevant results for them. Plus, people know that google search is the best, so why use something else? The problem is that they seem to "know" in the same sense that they know Kleenex are the best tissues; its all marketing.

Erlich_Bachman 8y ago
Some people might do that (not care enough to try). That's not what I mean specifically. I did go back and I did try, again and again. Bing just misses so much of the context of each query, does not understand to switch context based on some specific keyword like "ubuntu"vs"linux", etc. etc. It does not understand my half-articulated searches, - in which Google just shines because it thinks the rest of the thought for me and gets the result I really want and am looking for, usually on the first page of results. This is not about liking the visual style of the webpage(google vs bing) or how it looks. This is about quality of results and me saving time. This is not about me being lazy not doing "good search queries". If I can search google and get a result in 5 seconds, why would I spend 1 minute figuring out the best way to phrase something, then 3 more minutes trying different things that Bing would understand? I know there is enough information in my search, because Google understands it. Why should I add more words to it (and sometimes operators) for Bing to get it? Why should I waste my time for no reason? This does not hinder my thinking ability. It's just that Google is so good that it knows what I am thinking before I am completely done with formulating the thought. Damn, sometimes I am on a wikipedia page, I stumble upon a 4-word term unknown to me in that page, I start typing it and Google knows after 2 letters, it shows the whole complete term as a suggestion! And this happens with terms starting with very common words, so it's very likely that google just knows that most people google that exact thing after going to the Wikipedia page (since google sends me to wikipedia page from the beginning). When Bing will do these little things to aid my work, I will gladly switch. I did try, and I do wish that Bing will get better. Right now it is simply not. (Yes, I know there are privacy implications, and those suck. But we were talking about quality of searching...)

jstanley 8y ago

I use DuckDuckGo exclusively and don't feel like my life is worse for it. It really is good enough. And when you also factor in that you're not helping Google build a profile on you, it's better than Google.

justaman 8y ago
I first tried DDG years ago. It really wasn't great. The results and astetics were not up to snuff. I went back to google. About a year ago I decided to try DDG again. I've been using DDG ever since. Maybe once a month I'll google something. I use chrome only for google products like gmail.
- bamboozled 8y ago
  DDG sucks and hasn’t really improved at all. I’ve used it for a longtime but I use bangs endlessly. Unless you can provide some quantifiable metric to prove its “getting better” then it’s delusion getting the better of you. DDG uses other search engines for results (such as bing), so unless you agree Bing is improving, it’s just a placebo. DDG is only useful because we can all fall back on g!. It’s sad but true. There is still no substitution for Google search.
  - jstanley 8y ago
    > Unless you can provide some quantifiable metric to prove its “getting better” then it's delusion This doesn't prove anything. Unless you can provide some metric to say it's not good, then it's delusion getting the better of you. DuckDuckGo is good enough for everyday usage, for me. It has been this way for well over a year. I never use bangs.
    - swingline-747 8y ago
      To me, it comes across like a skewed, disproportionately-negative cognitive distortion, of what I won't speculate because I won't armchair/keyboard psychoanalyze.
    - 8y ago

s3r3nity 8y ago

I wouldn't leverage popularity of a service to correlate 100% with its competency - ESPECIALLY when it comes to tech. I think Bing has a marketing / brand problem, as it's been the punch-line of the joke for so long. I personally think it's actually quite good - I personally use it a lot with Safari.

partiallypro 8y ago
All Microsoft has to do is let people white label their Bing product, look at DDG...that's Bing's engine. Most people don't know, or care. The results are good. That's actually how Google became so popular, Yahoo used Google. Bing just needs to keep integrating itself into the next big things. Unfortunately Google often will pay a handsome sum to make sure it keeps a foothold...I mean look at Siri. It went from Google to Bing to Google. No doubt there was a negotiation that caused that. Given Apple's focus on privacy, it would be a bit surprising if they don't switch again.

drb91 8y ago

Really? It seems to work for me for all but the most intricate searches. Recently I’ve noticed the first page of google results is getting a bit useless from all the SEO pushing commercial results to the top—ideally I’d want to filter out businesses from results. I don’t see this happening any time soon, unfortunately. Finally, the quality of search results is mildly subjective the closer you get to “keyword search” and away from “text search”. Google handles this scenario the best interface wise, but quality it seems to have been going down since they introduced the knowledge base—too many unrelated bits of information being pulled in without being asked for.