<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Scobleizer - Latest Comments in Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.disqus.com/</link><description>Tech enthusiast, video blogger, media innovator, fanatical about startups at Rackspace, home of fanatical support for Internet entrepreneurs.</description><atom:link href="https://scobleizer.disqus.com/has_microsoft_caught_up_to_google_in_search/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:21:27 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701689</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Just tested.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Live still sucks on my well-known search topics.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Rick McCharles</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:21:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701699</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Tony</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2008 04:42:51 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701698</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Ok, Robert, you finally convinced me to go to Mahalo and check it out, and I just had my first SeRP accepted. &lt;a href="http://www.mahalo.com/Redux" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.mahalo.com/Redux"&gt;http://www.mahalo.com/Redux&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This could be fun...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">SarekOfVulcan</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:59:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701679</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mark Johnson</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:07:24 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701680</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;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 =).&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Justin</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:43:09 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701690</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Also take a look at this: &lt;a href="http://www.PolyCola.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.PolyCola.com"&gt;http://www.PolyCola.com&lt;/a&gt; : Google, Yahoo, Live, AOL, Ask, Dogpile, Altavista...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Steve</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:09:21 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701681</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Randy</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:31:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701682</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Still, an interesting one for us spectators.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mike Woodhouse</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:34:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701683</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Search is a commodity. Yahoo! and Google's SERP's are nearly identical to the un-trained (non-SEO) eye. Have a look: &lt;a href="http://twingine.no/search.php?q=scoble&amp;amp;lang=" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://twingine.no/search.php?q=scoble&amp;amp;lang="&gt;http://twingine.no/search.p...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If MSN or YHOO wants to win here, they better marketing AND better distribution. The SERPS are just the commodity in this game.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">marc</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 02:38:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701685</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Sifu</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:24:08 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701684</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Oh yes what cred that Barney Pell says Microsoft has caught up with Google.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;What a weak post !&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">km4</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:19:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701686</link><description>&lt;p&gt;"Take a 10-year approach. That’d STILL be cheaper than $40 billion"&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;well said!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are you sick Microsoft? I thought you are best in Marathon.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;saran&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">saran</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:55:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701687</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Microsft seems to have lost interest in search&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I launched a site q4 last year and while G and y are performing well - microsoft is ignoring the site.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Maurice</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:52:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701688</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Even if Live Search gets better than Google I will never ever evah use them.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Why? don't ask, I just hate M$ to death.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Anonymous</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:14:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701691</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;One day I realized I was using Firefox and searching with Google. I haven't gone back since.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;That was two years ago. When I started using Firefox full-time, the version number started with 1.5.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dgw</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:57:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701692</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">amorson</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:55:23 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701693</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Darren</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:53:28 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701694</link><description>&lt;p&gt;From my experience, &lt;a href="http://Live.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="Live.com"&gt;Live.com&lt;/a&gt; image search is better than Google's, but that's of course less important than web search.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Steven</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:29:26 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701695</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I completely disagree with Reinhard though can obviously only speak from experience.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://Live.com" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="Live.com"&gt;Live.com&lt;/a&gt; has a long long long way to go.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Wills</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:18:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701696</link><description>&lt;p&gt;As for the German speaking market, I think Live Search has still a lot do to catch up.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Martin Ennemoser</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:12:42 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Has Microsoft caught up to Google in search?</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2008/03/02/has-microsoft-caught-up-to-google-in-search/#comment-9701697</link><description>&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Reinhard</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:00:25 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>