DISQUS

Reinhard · 1 year ago

I used Microsoft's Live Search search consistently for the last about 18 months, and I use Google only in case of doubt to double check. This is not scientific but I tend get the same quality usually - Google often has more results, but not necessarily more relevant results.

Martin Ennemoser · 1 year ago

As for the German speaking market, I think Live Search has still a lot do to catch up.

I guess they are concentrating on the US market first, but Microsoft shouldn't forget that market share for Google is even bigger in Europe, so it's even more difficult to catch up.

That said, as a developer searching for domain specific information in English, I don't notice a big difference between Live Search and Google anymore.

Wills · 1 year ago

I completely disagree with Reinhard though can obviously only speak from experience.

Live.com has a long long long way to go.

Live will almost always give you a page of relevant results, but Googles page will contain more *relevant* relevant results if you get what I am saying.

Steven · 1 year ago

From my experience, Live.com image search is better than Google's, but that's of course less important than web search.

Darren · 1 year ago

I very seriously doubt MSLive is anywhere close to Google in relevancy. In my experience they haven't even caught Yahoo yet. The last time I tried to do real work with a non-Google search engine (a couple of months ago) was a complete disaster.

Pith Helmet is the name of a Safari web browser extension. To find it using Google you simply search for Pith Helmet. On the other hand, Yahoo's results for Pith Helmet are bad, and MSLive's results are completely 100% irrelevant.

Maybe Google just knows that I'm more interested in web browser extensions than traditional head gear, but whatever they're doing it's working very well indeed.

amorson · 1 year ago

Microsoft should spin off it's entire web operations under a different name as if it was a separate company and than it might attract a decent crowd. But thats entirely against their branding policy which is probably why they are so far behind.

Voyagerfan5761 · 1 year ago

I actually used to use Live Search, back when it was still MSN Search. (What a stupid re-branding they did with that "Live" crap.) I also used to use IE6. I shunned Google and Firefox.

One day I realized I was using Firefox and searching with Google. I haven't gone back since.

That was two years ago. When I started using Firefox full-time, the version number started with 1.5.

In the months and years following that, I have since switched completely from Outlook email to Gmail. I have been constantly adding more Google services to my account as they are released, and I absolutely loathe Hotmail as it is now. (What's up with the required advertisements? Notice how Google doesn't do any of that? No ads in your inbox, no taglines, nothing.)

Since the switch, I haven't really tried Microsoft's search sites. I know my dad uses them (because he uses IE7 and it's built in and he doesn't know either that it's possible to change it or how to do so). But I refuse to.

Anonymous · 1 year ago

Even if Live Search gets better than Google I will never ever evah use them.

Why? don't ask, I just hate M$ to death.

Maurice · 1 year ago

Microsft seems to have lost interest in search

I launched a site q4 last year and while G and y are performing well - microsoft is ignoring the site.

saran · 1 year ago

"Take a 10-year approach. That’d STILL be cheaper than $40 billion"

well said!

Are you sick Microsoft? I thought you are best in Marathon.

saran

km4 · 1 year ago

Oh yes what cred that Barney Pell says Microsoft has caught up with Google.

What a weak post !

Sifu · 1 year ago

Certainly, I've noticed over the last year that Google search has become less useful to me, but instead of turning to MS search, which always aggravates me a bit, I use speciality search engines or go to a site like Wikipedia and start the search there.

marc · 1 year ago

Search is a commodity. Yahoo! and Google's SERP's are nearly identical to the un-trained (non-SEO) eye. Have a look: http://twingine.no/search.php?q=scoble&lang=

The difference in market-share comes from brand equity and (more importantly) DISTRIBUTION. People 'google' and advertisers spend budget with Google because of their vast network of publishers who syndicate their SERP's, adsense and domain-related adsense.

If MSN or YHOO wants to win here, they better marketing AND better distribution. The SERPS are just the commodity in this game.

Mike Woodhouse · 1 year ago

As long as they can see the potential for profit in it, Microsoft should probably persist with search. But I'd love to know how they figure that potential. I just can't see what would make it compelling enough to make me (or worse, the man in the street) switch my googling to MS.

The search eyeballs will have to come from a stealthier approach (an ethically stealthy one, please!) whereby something really new and exciting - or at least substantially better than before - is presented to the mass-market. Which means innovation, and that's just not something in whcih they have a great track record.

Still, an interesting one for us spectators.

Randy · 1 year ago

Here we go again, some idiot claiming Microsoft's search engine is now as relevant as Google's (or Yahoo's). Every time I hear this claim, I rerun some of my test searches including my brother's Buffalo Wing Sauce business. Usually my brother's business comes up on page 1 or 2 of a search (and still does with Google and Yahoo). Well, I just tested with Live Search and it doesn't even make it in the first 10 pages. I realize this is not all that scientific, but a few other searches I ran revealed similar deficiencies still in Live Search.

Steve · 1 year ago

Also take a look at this: http://www.PolyCola.com : Google, Yahoo, Live, AOL, Ask, Dogpile, Altavista...

Justin · 1 year ago

All I can say is for my niche Microsoft sucks. In Google the first page or results for my industries top keywords is filled with highly relevant sites. On live search there are 1-2 good sites and the other 8-9 are spam or old. Google still seems way better at filtering out the spam and finding the new relevant content to me.
It's funny cause a lot of the spam sites listed are filled with Google Adwords ads. Google's doing a good job at sucking off MS search profits it looks like =).

Mark Johnson · 1 year ago

Discussions about the most relevant search engine always surprise me. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific. The only way to test two engines is in a blind study with thousands of queries crossing many verticals.

Now, I use Yahoo instead of Google. From my naive user perspective, I find the two engines "equivalent." Maybe at this point we're in the realm of talking about whether a BMW is better than a Mercedes: it just comes down to personal preference.

Garrett Fitzgerald · 1 year ago

Ok, Robert, you finally convinced me to go to Mahalo and check it out, and I just had my first SeRP accepted. http://www.mahalo.com/Redux

This could be fun...

Tony · 1 year ago

I used Microsoft’s Live Search search consistently for the last about 18 months, and I use Google only in case of doubt to double check. This is not scientific but I tend get the same quality usually - Google often has more results, but not necessarily more relevant results.

Rick McCharles · 1 year ago

Just tested.

Live still sucks on my well-known search topics.