3 ms·

I think that's one of the objectives of this article; provide that alternate perspective. I thought that Bing was the true turning point as well, but I never g

by nchlswu 16y ago

I think that's one of the objectives of this article; provide that alternate perspective. I thought that Bing was the true turning point as well, but I never gave Live Search a fair chance then, and I don't think many others did either. To me, it looks like the author saw Bing/Live Search as something truly transformational within Microsoft. Public perception was that Live was a failure. But if I understand currently, the team was easily beating internal estimates extremely fast . For one reason or another there was a team reorganization that coincided with the PowerSet acquisition and the Bing rebrand. While there was a jump in market share, the foundation of the Bing team was taken out from under them and replaced with MS status quo. Bing's death isn't a result of their success or failure as a search engine. Bing's death refers to the loss of something that could have made a difference in Microsoft, internally. The death of a team that could have done something truly great , (EDIT: as said by Cicero, when they were at their peak).

dwc 16y ago
> Public perception was that Live was a failure. At that time I was paying a lot of attention to search results, from two perspectives: 1) I had some slightly unusual / difficult searches I performed regularly, and 2) examining search terms that brought people to some sites I ran. For case 1, Google simply wiped the floor with Live. Note that Live had the most relevant results in their index, but they'd be way down on the 5th page, 10th page, wherever. For case 2, the majority of people coming to my sites from Live were coming there with search terms indicating that they did not want my site. For example, I had content for Phoenix, AZ and some polls. My site stayed within the top 5 on Live for search terms like "phoenix polling locations." Of course every site gets some of this from any search engine, but with Live is was problematic. My perception was that Live was a failure, and I think my reasons were valid.
- nchlswu 16y ago
  I was too young and never paid attention to search results. I definitely think your reasons are valid. I didn't intend to say people's perspectives weren't, rather that from an insider's perspective, Live was very much approaching success.
- sukuriant 16y ago
  If these sites are still up, how does Bing compare now?

by nchlswu 16y ago

dwc 16y ago

> Public perception was that Live was a failure. At that time I was paying a lot of attention to search results, from two perspectives: 1) I had some slightly unusual / difficult searches I performed regularly, and 2) examining search terms that brought people to some sites I ran. For case 1, Google simply wiped the floor with Live. Note that Live had the most relevant results in their index, but they'd be way down on the 5th page, 10th page, wherever. For case 2, the majority of people coming to my sites from Live were coming there with search terms indicating that they did not want my site. For example, I had content for Phoenix, AZ and some polls. My site stayed within the top 5 on Live for search terms like "phoenix polling locations." Of course every site gets some of this from any search engine, but with Live is was problematic. My perception was that Live was a failure, and I think my reasons were valid.

nchlswu 16y ago
I was too young and never paid attention to search results. I definitely think your reasons are valid. I didn't intend to say people's perspectives weren't, rather that from an insider's perspective, Live was very much approaching success.
sukuriant 16y ago
If these sites are still up, how does Bing compare now?