5 ms·
I didn't say, hint or imply that it was listing inaccurate results. I stated that it's superficial, subjective and devoid of context. Frankly, it means nothing.
by carbon8 17y ago
I didn't say, hint or imply that it was listing inaccurate results. I stated that it's superficial, subjective and devoid of context. Frankly, it means nothing.
For example, someone searches for "bongo". The forth results are a radio station, a page about the animal and an email/calendaring system. Given those results, someone votes for one. Why? We don't know. They might barely now. One thing we do know: it was a one-off search anyway, not something that was part of someone's normal workflow.
- vaksel 17y agothe context seems pretty obvious, to let people compare the different search engines without being biased that they are using a search engine other than Google
- carbon8 17y agoYou are misusing the word "context" - http://www.answers.com/context http://www.answers.com/context : 1. The part of a text or statement that surrounds a particular word or passage and determines its meaning. 2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting. The searches here are without context, the rating of results are without context. All we know is that on arbitrary, one-off searches, a set of people who may or may not be representative of anything clicked the button above a certain set of results for some unknown reason.
- enomar 17y agoThey're comparing search results, not search engines. Results matter, but so do speed, usability, features, privacy, etc.
- anigbrowl 17y agoI strongly disagree. Incidentally, while this may be new since your first message, there is disclosure on the landing page which I found quite adequate. I notice Google leads by a significant margin. Is Bing looking better than it really is? Who knows, but while I don't plan to switch away from Google, Bing is OK by me - the quality of results are pretty good and its fast. Yahoo not so much (and I got no Yahoo results to my tests at this site) but I'd given up on Yahoo search before Google came along. You assume it's a one-off search and that the users are simply licking randomly on whatever they see that's immediately interesting. I see no justification for this assumption. Personally, I did what I did with any new search engine: perform 10 searches on topics ranging from topical to deeply obscure, and look at the first 5 results for each search to evaluate the quality of both the returned sites and the text clips for each. If this was the subject of a paper submitted to the journal of information processing, you'd have a valid point. But as a 'what happens if...' experiment on the web, I'm just fine with it.