Are Bing Search Results better than Google now?

[MrFlicks]

Are Bing Search Results better than Google now?

Are Bing Search Results better than Google now?

OK Google came along and became the #1 SE.

It was never all that great and delivered up somewhat OK results on occasions and even excelled at times.

However since Bing got released and since Google added their geo map places things that costs masses of companies thousands whilst giving those lettered A to G a Google monopoly (note the word monopoly there as there is a buying game to think of for future ref there) Google search results leave a lot to be desired in many ways.

Take into account the god awful tracking systems that Google also deploys that detract from the natural search experience I put it to you that in many cases Bing now deliver far superior results to Google

That is Bing has more natural search results...

Your thoughts?

I might add you have likely heard of Shaun Anderson (Hobo-web) well he and I are #1 and #2 for the most important SEO search terms in the UK in regards to the word hire and on his site he has said the same and I already thought the same before I read what Shaun also made mention of on his website hobo-web I saw yesterday after an unusual click for me.

So is Google now pants and is Bing better (obviously not for image search as Bing really is pants there) but text searches?

This should make a good debate me thinks?

Keith D Mains
<snip>

[Stevie D]

Are Bing Search Results better than Google now?

OK Google came along and became the #1 SE.

It was never all that great and delivered up somewhat OK results on occasions and even excelled at times.

However since Bing got released and since Google added their geo map places things that costs masses of companies thousands whilst giving those lettered A to G a Google monopoly (note the word monopoly there as there is a buying game to think of for future ref there) Google search results leave a lot to be desired in many ways.

Take into account the god awful tracking systems that Google also deploys that detract from the natural search experience I put it to you that in many cases Bing now deliver far superior results to Google

That's quite an Anti-Google crusade you're launching there ... and I have to say, it smells more like sour grapes than solid evidence.

To say that Google was "never all that great" doesn't do justice to what it has achieved over the last 10 years. Sure, its popularity has been helped partly by good marketing and publicity, but it was able to make use of that leverage by being far and away the best search engine for most people, most of the time. There may be some niches where it hasn't been as good as others, but by and large, Google's success has come from being able to deliver consistently better results than any of its competitors.

It has also led the field in innovation, both in breadth and depth. Google combines so many more features in one place than any other search engine can manage, and it offers a much richer experience – not to mention a much cleaner and more readable output – than Bing, which is cramped, cluttered and makes me want to look anywhere except at the search results. Google is able to answer many questions directly without needing to even click through to a website. While some other search engines have copied some of Google's features, I've not found any that do anywhere near all of them, or do them quite as well.

In terms of the local search, sometimes it can be a bit frustrating when Google tries to second-guess what you're after, but on the whole it comes up trumps more often than not. So it lists the first seven businesses it finds at the top ... and what's new there? For years it has been listing the first ten results on page 1, and given that some of those probably weren't local businesses you've likely got a better chance of being in the top 7 now than you have traditional had of being on page 1 ... and as any SEOist will tell you, if you aren't on page 1 then you might as well not bother.

But finally ... what's so special about "natural" search results? I want Google to know the websites and the kind of websites that I go to most, and to prioritise those. Those are the results that are most relevant to me, and (as a searcher) that is precisely what I want.

If you're unhappy because Google doesn't rank your site as highly as Bing does then that's one thing, but if you're using that as a justification for criticising Google then that's not on. Obviously I can't speak for other people's experiences, but I've not seen (or seen any evidence of) any deterioration in the quality of results from Google.

[MrFlicks]

That's quite an Anti-Google crusade you're launching there ... and I have to say, it smells more like sour grapes than solid evidence.

To say that Google was "never all that great" doesn't do justice to what it has achieved over the last 10 years. Sure, its popularity has been helped partly by good marketing and publicity, but it was able to make use of that leverage by being far and away the best search engine for most people, most of the time. There may be some niches where it hasn't been as good as others, but by and large, Google's success has come from being able to deliver consistently better results than any of its competitors.

It has also led the field in innovation, both in breadth and depth. Google combines so many more features in one place than any other search engine can manage, and it offers a much richer experience – not to mention a much cleaner and more readable output – than Bing, which is cramped, cluttered and makes me want to look anywhere except at the search results. Google is able to answer many questions directly without needing to even click through to a website. While some other search engines have copied some of Google's features, I've not found any that do anywhere near all of them, or do them quite as well.

In terms of the local search, sometimes it can be a bit frustrating when Google tries to second-guess what you're after, but on the whole it comes up trumps more often than not. So it lists the first seven businesses it finds at the top ... and what's new there? For years it has been listing the first ten results on page 1, and given that some of those probably weren't local businesses you've likely got a better chance of being in the top 7 now than you have traditional had of being on page 1 ... and as any SEOist will tell you, if you aren't on page 1 then you might as well not bother.

But finally ... what's so special about "natural" search results? I want Google to know the websites and the kind of websites that I go to most, and to prioritise those. Those are the results that are most relevant to me, and (as a searcher) that is precisely what I want.

If you're unhappy because Google doesn't rank your site as highly as Bing does then that's one thing, but if you're using that as a justification for criticising Google then that's not on. Obviously I can't speak for other people's experiences, but I've not seen (or seen any evidence of) any deterioration in the quality of results from Google.

Why would you say "Sour grapes" I am not the one losing money form the Google places search it is thousands of other Businesses.

As for Google being good.

I don't think Google ever was that good IMHO but then I am entitled to my opinion I have never thought much of any of the search engines overall if I am honest and being brutal

they all suck to me as are much inferior to what there will be in the future.

I am on page one for thousands of search terms related to SEO btw so no SEO can tell me much I don't already know

However if you like your skewiff results and do not prefer natural results each to his own as they say I guess you will like them then and we shall never agree on much at all ever fact

Irrelevant to you I guess that Google Map Places Letters A to G results are losing money for thousands of Companies every day Yes?

Google one day will be no more though so this conversation will be meaningless when that happens but in the meantime you can use it to say or compare to the best available is all, nothing more presently to compare to, but there will be

btw way I am on page 1 for >

find the best ZEO (think about it!)

amongst thousands of related search terms are you?

I can hardly have sour grapes when I have page 1 on all of the SE's where would such a notion as sour grapes enter the maths here? It is merely a calculation.

I am pointing out what I deem a factual observation from a machine like perspective (eg overall from masses of angles not my personal experience in any way personal as you try to imply) as well as any human perception

You do know as a SEO Guru Google is losing anyone not lettered A to G money every day Yes?

[Stevie D]

You do know as a SEO Guru Google is losing anyone not lettered A to G money every day Yes?

I am well aware of the importance of getting into the top few spots on Google, yes.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that anyone who is in the A–G spots is getting free advertising from Google, and anyone outside that is not. No-one owes Google anything for their organic search results. Sure, companies that don't make it into the top few are going to attract fewer visitors than those that do. That's true whether you're looking at a map view showing the top 7 or a page showing the top 10 – some people are going to be on it and some aren't. Bing has a cut-off point just the same as Google does. Until you can't find a way to simultaneously show 50 results in equal prominence, while still being readable and navigable, there are always going to be winners and losers, and that is something that you can't avoid.

OK, random semi-scientific study. I've searched for "cafe in York" (because I want to try a new one at the weekend) in both Google and Bing.

• What Google shows me:
  At the top, a review site.
  Then seven brief 'telephone directory' type listings, along with a map showing those seven, plus markers for another 60 or so, indicating that there are plenty of other choices
  Six other organic search results, including some businesses not "featured" in the directory section
• What Bing shows me:
  Three businesses' websites (all three are in the local listing section on Google)
  Three 'telephone directory' type listings and a map showing those three only, not indicating that there are any other options
  Seven other organic search results, including some repeats of businesses already mentioned and a couple of irrelevant sites

Overall, Google's first page listed nine relevant businesses and gave the address and phone number for seven of them. Bing's first page listed five relevant business and gave the address and phone number for three of them.

Google is making it easier for more people to find out about – and visit – more businesses than Bing is. On that basis, we should just be thankful that Google is so much more popular than Bing, because if we were reliant on the majority of searchers using Bing then there would be four more cafés in York who were "losing money" by not appearing on the first page of the SERPs.

[MrFlicks]

I am well aware of the importance of getting into the top few spots on Google, yes.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that anyone who is in the A–G spots is getting free advertising from Google, and anyone outside that is not. No-one owes Google anything for their organic search results. Sure, companies that don't make it into the top few are going to attract fewer visitors than those that do. That's true whether you're looking at a map view showing the top 7 or a page showing the top 10 – some people are going to be on it and some aren't. Bing has a cut-off point just the same as Google does. Until you can't find a way to simultaneously show 50 results in equal prominence, while still being readable and navigable, there are always going to be winners and losers, and that is something that you can't avoid.

OK, random semi-scientific study. I've searched for "cafe in York" (because I want to try a new one at the weekend) in both Google and Bing.

• What Google shows me:
  At the top, a review site.
  Then seven brief 'telephone directory' type listings, along with a map showing those seven, plus markers for another 60 or so, indicating that there are plenty of other choices
  Six other organic search results, including some businesses not "featured" in the directory section
• What Bing shows me:
  Three businesses' websites (all three are in the local listing section on Google)
  Three 'telephone directory' type listings and a map showing those three only, not indicating that there are any other options
  Seven other organic search results, including some repeats of businesses already mentioned and a couple of irrelevant sites

Overall, Google's first page listed nine relevant businesses and gave the address and phone number for seven of them. Bing's first page listed five relevant business and gave the address and phone number for three of them.

Google is making it easier for more people to find out about – and visit – more businesses than Bing is. On that basis, we should just be thankful that Google is so much more popular than Bing, because if we were reliant on the majority of searchers using Bing then there would be four more cafés in York who were "losing money" by not appearing on the first page of the SERPs.

Remember the words "Google Monopoly" when I say to you that those with A to G letters are now worth more as domains and Businesses and those not already with A to G are locked out

in 2 years if people are happy to tolerate 7 page 1 links for thousands of search terms tell me then it is OK to lock out thousands of others form now on who can never gain A to G without buying an A to G domain and Company

I got a message to say this was deleted how come we are still posting here?

Stevie boy you are completely missing the point RE those not in A to G Google Map places btw!

I did a calculation the other day here and the numbers are too mind boggling in just rough estimates using very conservative figures.

May I ask whilst we are here

Do you think Google results how they display starting with the top 10 and then the other choices you have are good search results?

I mean that this way we are accustomed to seeing search results is a good way for search results to be returned?

Bearing mind it is a display carried through from antiquated models like say Alta Vista for example.

As for being thankful

Google should be thankful we use it not the other way round!

It is after all just a transient SE nothing much more and will be bettered as is the nature of things

BTW pulling one example does not an argument make as that is just one example and not only that it does not address that A to G is a new game and that geo searches like this are to be charged at some point to display a to g results that lock out page 1 natural serps in the inferior top 10 search results we are accustomed to that can and will be bettered at some point

hence Google planning to sell those maps place results (clickwise) for the ones that get the most clicks is an about face in regards to displaying the best natural search results

Soon the saying

you can't pay for Google search results will be a bare faced lie

Google places turns Google into liars!

Liars lose trust

PS you avoided the question I am talking about Google places as are you not top results but Google places which are going to be paid in the future

[Stevie D]

I am talking about Google places as are you not top results but Google places which are going to be paid in the future

Do you have any evidence for this? Google have always been very careful to separate paid listings/advertisements from the main organic listing, and not to allow the paid listings to overwhelm or dominate the page. I have seen nothing from Google that suggests they are moving away from this model. They recognise that their primacy only exists while they are seen as providing genuine, unbiased results. If they ever went down the route of having the main listings being tainted by paid listings being prioritised over organic listings, there would be a mass exodus away from Google. The tech media are far too savvy to let a change like that pass without comment, and there are enough savvy people using the web that they would haemorrhage users. Unless you've got any cold, hard evidence from the horse's mouth, I simply do not believe that it is going to happen.

[TehYoyo]

they all suck to me as are much inferior to what there will be in the future.

What's in the future?

However if you like your skewiff results and do not prefer natural results each to his own as they say I guess you will like them then and we shall never agree on much at all ever fact

And using SEO to manipulate search results isn't "natural"?

Google one day will be no more though so this conversation will be meaningless when that happens

Oh, undoubtedly...but this isn't "one day". And right now, as you later pointed out, it's the best we got (imo, ofc)

But finally ... what's so special about "natural" search results? I want Google to know the websites and the kind of websites that I go to most, and to prioritise those. Those are the results that are most relevant to me, and (as a searcher) that is precisely what I want.

Yes! Yes! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!!! Exactly! I love searching w/ my Google account logged in! I love how Google tracks my searches! I get relevant ads and I get relevant information! As I pointed out on Sitepoing Podcast 156 (I'm Zach Wong), I enjoy having Google present me with relevant searches! I don't want...irrelevant stuff, right???

I also think that Google is a great search engine, has tons of great features (if you know how to use different options in Google search, it really helps, mainly '- "blank"' and 'site:').

But other than that....Google has great...stuff! Ads! Browser (but that's another thread)! Gmail (Love, really)! Calendar! I couldn't tell you how essential Google is to my life! I am a true Google fanboy.

~TehYoyo

Edit: Did you just make this post to proclaim your SEO awesomeness? There's been no doubt about any of your skills in this thread...I believe you! Honest! You don't have to press it on me...

[waynemorrise]

Are Bing Search Results better than Google now?

Are Bing Search Results better than Google now?

OK Google came along and became the #1 SE.

It was never all that great and delivered up somewhat OK results on occasions and even excelled at times.

However since Bing got released and since Google added their geo map places things that costs masses of companies thousands whilst giving those lettered A to G a Google monopoly (note the word monopoly there as there is a buying game to think of for future ref there) Google search results leave a lot to be desired in many ways.

Take into account the god awful tracking systems that Google also deploys that detract from the natural search experience I put it to you that in many cases Bing now deliver far superior results to Google

That is Bing has more natural search results...

Your thoughts?

I might add you have likely heard of Shaun Anderson (Hobo-web) well he and I are #1 and #2 for the most important SEO search terms in the UK in regards to the word hire and on his site he has said the same and I already thought the same before I read what Shaun also made mention of on his website hobo-web I saw yesterday after an unusual click for me.

So is Google now pants and is Bing better (obviously not for image search as Bing really is pants there) but text searches?

This should make a good debate me thinks?

Keith D Mains
<snip>

Hmm, It' really tough to be at the top of the Search Engine Result both organic listing and local listing. It's not just about what you are paying other local listing site to be listed in their list. It is just about the popularity of your website.

Hmm, About Bing Search Result better than Google. Ohh way enough better in Google than Bing. As a normal user, I will definitely use Google(there are some that doesn't really know that Bing is existing) as my resource website of great information's. And some information's blog's/new's etc. that some of Google Search Result was copied or something similar of some search result. What I am trying to say about this is that, Google has more reliable search result than others, that's why I am using Google.

[MrFlicks]

Do you have any evidence for this? Google have always been very careful to separate paid listings/advertisements from the main organic listing, and not to allow the paid listings to overwhelm or dominate the page. I have seen nothing from Google that suggests they are moving away from this model. They recognise that their primacy only exists while they are seen as providing genuine, unbiased results. If they ever went down the route of having the main listings being tainted by paid listings being prioritised over organic listings, there would be a mass exodus away from Google. The tech media are far too savvy to let a change like that pass without comment, and there are enough savvy people using the web that they would haemorrhage users. Unless you've got any cold, hard evidence from the horse's mouth, I simply do not believe that it is going to happen.

It's late Steve and I have some pages to work for someone with bootstrap but back in September I think it was there was stuff about it depending on how many clicks EG traffic to the map places and it being set so popular ones would be paid clicks after a certain amount


finding that stuff now six months or so late now that I think will take some doing as I will need to try and recall the exact words used to find the references buried amongst all the other dribble but will take a look tomorrow to see if I can find it again as I remember when I read it it slowly dawned on me this was something rather devious being sneaked in that perhaps not many got to read about.

Above and beyond these Places ending up being paid though as is the nature of such a money making beast as Google and it's baby adwhore it carries the other thing you are missing is my point

Google monopoly and the buying and selling of domains and Businesses offline connected to such which is an altogether different ballgame most will not have even contemplated.

Now I know for a fact those A to G domains are tempting as there is one just up the road from where i live in the same niche as some of my things and it is a dropped domain listed as a map place

I did not buy it only as I could not play it the way it would need to be played but I did look at how it could be played and also how it can be played in an offline Buying Biz Monopoly game that is a big boys only game that is for the likes of major players able to buy whole Businesses lock stock and barrel.

Do you see what I mean?

It occurred to me from the ideas I had in regards to one dropped domain imagine what real power players are contemplating as the song goes "with the types of mates they are contemplating"

It is a case of there is a much bigger box and picture to look at in these regards

I will find the ref to the paid listings after a certain amount of clicks tomorrow (I hope unless it is really buried deep).

[MrFlicks]

Hmm, It' really tough to be at the top of the Search Engine Result both organic listing and local listing. It's not just about what you are paying other local listing site to be listed in their list. It is just about the popularity of your website.

Hmm, About Bing Search Result better than Google. Ohh way enough better in Google than Bing. As a normal user, I will definitely use Google(there are some that doesn't really know that Bing is existing) as my resource website of great information's. And some information's blog's/new's etc. that some of Google Search Result was copied or something similar of some search result. What I am trying to say about this is that, Google has more reliable search result than others, that's why I am using Google.

The figures presently will be circa 88% pro Google in this regards across the board
(bar China/Chinese) this is a given factor

PS do you mean tough to get to the top of Google?

as it is not tough it is easy!

You need only "best" (as in best = better than all others) answer the search query and make sure google knows about it in a way google likes

[MrFlicks]

What's in the future?

And using SEO to manipulate search results isn't "natural"?

Oh, undoubtedly...but this isn't "one day". And right now, as you later pointed out, it's the best we got (imo, ofc)


Yes! Yes! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!!!!!! Exactly! I love searching w/ my Google account logged in! I love how Google tracks my searches! I get relevant ads and I get relevant information! As I pointed out on Sitepoing Podcast 156 (I'm Zach Wong), I enjoy having Google present me with relevant searches! I don't want...irrelevant stuff, right???

I also think that Google is a great search engine, has tons of great features (if you know how to use different options in Google search, it really helps, mainly '- "blank"' and 'site:').

But other than that....Google has great...stuff! Ads! Browser (but that's another thread)! Gmail (Love, really)! Calendar! I couldn't tell you how essential Google is to my life! I am a true Google fanboy.

~TehYoyo

Edit: Did you just make this post to proclaim your SEO awesomeness? There's been no doubt about any of your skills in this thread...I believe you! Honest! You don't have to press it on me...

You are among the circa 88% Teh yoyo

I will be in a 1% in all such things

skill is something all have btw

And I mean in such a regard as to that you are referring as any monkey who can type can get page 1 search results on google if they best answer a query above all others. It's not exactly rocket science now is it.

Oh and I completely disagree with all of your sentiments whole heartedly. I mean RE what you think is so great about the oh so "precious" G

How come stating Bing results are more natural equates to my SEO skills btw? What has that got to do with the topic other than getting mentioned so as to affirm I know about SEO only so it is known I am not a newb with no knowledge - you are defending I take it you see my words as an attack on one SE

It is just an SE not god or something ya know.

your biggest spyware on the planet to boot (casting second line with baited breathe).

I do find it bizarre such mentality as "Google ads are good" exists for you in your head though!

[MikeBigg]

I haven't used Bing for a while - when I did it wasn't very good.

I take your point about Google's results not being natural anymore - I think that is a step in the wrong direction for Google.

Regards,

Mike

[amsknox]

Bing is still behind but it keeps improving. Seems like they just try to mimic everything Google does.

[mackyanderson]

The figures presently will be circa 88% pro Google in this regards across the board
(bar China/Chinese) this is a given factor

PS do you mean tough to get to the top of Google?

as it is not tough it is easy!

You need only "best" (as in best = better than all others) answer the search query and make sure google knows about it in a way google likes

So it's not tough to be at the top. It's so tough to be the best!

[lonking]

The only thing i could say is that bing is getting better and better in its searching service or experience, but exceeding Google still takes a lot of efforts and time. But now, it is no doubt that the Google is the largest search engine and the most convinced one.

[varul]

Bing is still behind but it keeps improving. Seems like they just try to mimic everything Google does.

OK what Google has done?. Are you thinking that they have invented the idea of Search Engine logic. Google just followed the idea of Search Engine which someone has already invented, but implemented that idea in the great way and became as a tough competitor in the industry in which it involved. This is what Bing is also try to do and to become the competitor in the search industry

[MarkTheUser]

I personally dont like bing much. Google works great for me and i find the results satisfying. Google is still no1 in my book.

[ratulbosh]

Actually Google is always the best. Bing never can give such realistic result like Google. Besides all of the services of Google are best. But Microsoft have some dame service such as bing.