
Why Google is better than Bing and it’s likely to continue that way - nikhilbd
https://medium.com/@nikhilbd/why-google-is-better-than-bing-and-it-s-likely-to-continue-that-way-9cbe81ccff87
======
sosuke
I was hoping for some kind of deeper dive, that list is very 10,000 feet. I've
found Google's results to be increasingly frustrating, but Bing is no better.
I do like how Bing extracts date, post count, and last post date information
from forums. I really don't enjoy a page of results that don't match my query
which I tend to get more of on Google than Bing. Google is still king for code
searches. Yahoo is so very far behind both of them.

I firmly believe the next "search engine" will be a curated directory of
content and not automated. Then I can just leave out the spam sites and junk.

~~~
Nadya
_> Yahoo is so very far behind both of them._

Yahoo is just a front end for Bing, so can't really be behind it.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8174763.stm)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Yahoo is just a front end for Bing, so can't really be behind it.

Back when Apple Maps on iOS was just a front-end for Google Maps, many people
found it to be considerably behind Google Maps as used through other
mechanisms. Being a front-end for X doesn't mean you can't be behind X, or
even ahead in UX.

~~~
Nadya
They were talking about results - so I'd argue UX/UI was an irrelevant issue.
They want relevant results, which Google is increasingly getting worse at
(with Bing no better) and "Yahoo far behind".

Yahoo would be equivalent to Bing in regards to search results.

Context is important.

~~~
dragonwriter
> They were talking about results - so I'd argue UX/UI was an irrelevant
> issue.

What I said was an alternate front-end to a service can be behind in _any_
way, and even (as a side note) ahead in UX/UI (its less likely to be ahead in
other ways, unless a service has useful features in its back end that aren't
accessible through the primary front-end.)

------
data_spy
In the Plex had an interesting section where they highlighted that Baidu vs
Google in China. The interesting piece was Google was better in every way for
search engine relevance except for recent events or trending topics in terms
of relevance for that day. Google eventually fixed that.

My point is, to beat Google it may be better to own niche search topics or
elements of search. I remember when Bing tried the aesthetics way for a while
there. I'd argue in terms of value, Amazon may be the closest competitor in
search to Google. Mainly because Amazon's search data is extremely valuable as
these are people set on buying things.

------
m1sta_
Microsoft have a genuine opportunity through SharePoint and Windows. The sun
will set on it soon though if they aren't able to capitalise.

------
alblue
Because Google has a new logo?

Frankly the article doesn't have a better reason ...

------
dogma1138
No offense to the writer as he seems to be quite an accomplished guy but this
seems to be a list that for lack of better wording a 5 year old can come up
with.

Google had a head start: that's true but eventually there will be diminishing
returns on it as the company matures. Also since the field of search engines
have advanced by quite a bit since Google first came to be and allot because
of it other companies can reap the rewards of that work.

Google has a bigger set of data: Again something that kinda combines point 1
with the fact that they have a larger market share while this is probably one
of the most relevant points of the article this advantage again eventually
will hit diminishing returns. The amount of data point's isn't the only thing
that is important, at some point there won't be much difference in the data
you can mine from fact that 10000000 users between the age of 12 and 16
searched for Justin Biber vs just that 1000000 users searched the same. Having
larger dataset also presents a challenge on it's own since it might be more
costly and difficult to analyze while not getting much additional insight than
you would from a smaller dataset as many of your datapoints might be identical
or reaching entropy.

Google can attract better talent: Again something i highly doubt so
considering the amount of world class scientists and engineers working for
Microsoft. Microsoft also is the 4th largest spender in R&D in the world it
spends as much as Intel so not only can they attract talent but they seem to
be also spending much more on research.

Google invested more resource: Maybe maybe not, but MSFT spends more on
Research than Google does this can eventually cause Bing to be competitive on
a technical level (and i don't have any way to effectively measure it) than
Google. Google also spends allot of resources on other things than it's search
engine, it would be actually quite interesting to see how much of it's R&D
spending relates to it's search engine/s vs other products.

Company focus: Considering where Google has been going for the past few years
i really don't think that's true anymore, sure the search engine is and always
be an integral part of the company but I don't know if you can say that it's
their main focus.

What makes this list nothing but fud is the fact that those points are so
generic that you can replace Google and Bing with any 2 companies competing
for the same market and they'll fit exactly the same and sound just as logical
and thought through. For example replace Google with Nokia and Bing with Apple
and search engine with Phone and you could've published that same article when
apple released their 1st iphone and i would read just the same and would seem
perfectly viable but we all know how that turned out.

