How Bing is out-innovating Google

By Ironman273
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Rookie

solcroft

Posted
Posted

I have been a google fan since well as far as i can remember.

Anywyas when Bing was launched, i decided to give it a go just because it was the new toy to play with it and i kept finding myself return to google.

However I decided that for a month i would leave Bing as my homepage and every day the results get much better and better and now i have been using it for a good 4-5 months and havent needed google.

give it a real shot and see how you like it.

Same here. I'm not 100% sure if Bing is definitely better than Google at this stage, but I made the switch because Bing has matured enough during the last year to meet or exceed my needs most of the time, AND I'm making a conscious effort to reduce my dependence on Google for my online life. Recently made the switch from Chrome to Firefox/Opera and Gmail to Hotmail as well, though I'm still sticking with Google Docs and Maps, simply because they still outstrip the nearest competitor by far.

Experienced

Omen1393

Posted
Posted

Bing is also the most likely candidate to get slapped by an antitrust lawsuit in the next 5 years.

Actually Bing is probably helping Google out because if Bing can increase their market share it shows that Google isn't a monopoly breaking FTC regulations. But one item to note. Bing uses freebase for about 1/2 of its instant answers. Google just bought freebase so we'll see how this works out.

Grand Master

Lechio

Posted
Posted

Google is the bare bones search engine. No bloated crap like Bing has.

So Google will remain my favourite for some time yet.

Exactly. What the majority of people look for in a search engine is simplicity, ease of use and accuracy while doing a search. They do not need to have a "decision making" search engine loaded with crap.

Google is the best at its game and will stay there for quite a long time, even if Bing! gets pushed into user's desktops with Windows.

Grand Master

Calum Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Google is the bare bones search engine. No bloated crap like Bing has.

So Google will remain my favourite for some time yet.

Exactly. What the majority of people look for in a search engine is simplicity, ease of use and accuracy while doing a search. They do not need to have a "decision making" search engine loaded with crap.

Google is the best at its game and will stay there for quite a long time, even if Bing! gets pushed into user's desktops with Windows.

I see no bloated crap on Bing. People are different. Many of us love decent designs as well as functionality. I'd much rather take a nice look and decent functionality over just decent functionality any day

Rookie

solcroft

Posted
Posted

Exactly. What the majority of people look for in a search engine is simplicity, ease of use and accuracy while doing a search. They do not need to have a "decision making" search engine loaded with crap.

Google is the best at its game and will stay there for quite a long time, even if Bing! gets pushed into user's desktops with Windows.

As always, Lechio, you never fail to impress, and it looks like your latest piece of flapdoodle buffoonery is that, unlike Bing, Google isn't "loaded with crap".

Which part of the original article, which tells us how Google is frantically plagiarizing Bing's features, did you not understand?

Grand Master

jakem1

Posted
Posted

Google is the bare bones search engine. No bloated crap like Bing has.

So Google will remain my favourite for some time yet.

Did you bother to read the article? The whole point is that Google is copying the "bloated crap" from Bing.

Besides, Google is hardly a posterchild for simple, elegant design. Just take a look at the stupid fade-in effect they added to the links on their homepage about a year ago. To this day it annoys me, it serves no useful purpose and it just looks stupid. Did you notice how slow and sluggish Google was on the day they chose to copy Bing's homepage image? Bing's homepage loads instantly but Google couldn't even get a picture right.

Personally, I prefer the look of Bing and just find Google looks a bit amateurish. Especially the pointless sidebar that they added in a pathetic attempt to copy Bing.

Grand Master

brentaal

Posted
Posted

Exactly. What the majority of people look for in a search engine is simplicity, ease of use and accuracy while doing a search. They do not need to have a "decision making" search engine loaded with crap.

Google is the best at its game and will stay there for quite a long time, even if Bing! gets pushed into user's desktops with Windows.

How about replying to posts that refute your arguments?

Proficient

BillyJack

Posted
Posted

Both engines give me bad results most of the time anyway. For example, you want to buy some transformers that aren't robots from cybertron. And of course both give you an onslaught of crappy blogs no matter what you're looking for. They need an option to filter out blogs entirely.

I am the opposite. When I am searching for something and want to find user experience, a review, are some kind of information I am always getting shopping results.

Grand Master

Ironman273

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Google is a great search engine, there's no denying that. It rewrote what searching on the internet was about. That being said, it's remained mostly the same for a long time. When you're not #1 you need to do things to differentiate yourself, and one of those is to try to offer a better service. That's where innovation comes in. To me this is very evident when you do a search for something like "flights to Dallas" and see the difference in the results between Bing and Google. While you can argue that Google returns better results for your type of searches, you can't argue with the fact that Google is taking various features that were introduced by Bing, which means Bing must be doing something right, which is the point of this article.

As to the argument of "bloat." [begin cool story bro] I have a friend that would never put a desktop background on his computer because he said it slowed the system down. Not that he had relatively slow systems but somewhere along the line, starting from Windows 2000, he felt that the extra desktop background was cause the computer to hiccup. It was probably true at the time with crappy video cards et al. He had an XP machine that was pretty beefy and also kept it with the classic theme and no background, arguing the same logic (btw, he liked the Luna design and told me he wished he could run it if it didn't slow everything down). He finally has a desktop background in Windows 7 with his new computer and even has the background cycle. He admits that he might've been a little silly for keeping up the argument as long as he did.[/begin cool story bro]

Unless you're living with dialup, I can't imagine that the Bing homepage loads that much slower than Google. You can even begin typing your search before the graphic loads if you're in that much of a hurry.

Grand Master

Ironman273

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just for kicks I checked with WebSiteOptimization.com and here are the results:

Google:

Web Page Speed Report

URL: http://www.google.com/'>http://www.google.com/

Title: Google

Date: Report run on Fri Aug 6 09:41:08EDT2010

Diagnosis

Global Statistics

Total HTTP Requests: 3

Total Size: 13028 bytes

Object Size Totals

Object type Size (bytes) Download @ 56K (seconds) Download @ T1 (seconds)

HTML: 4139 1.02 0.22

HTML Images: 8889 2.17 0.45

CSS Images: 0 0.00 0.00

Total Images: 8889 2.17 0.45

Javascript: 0 0.00 0.00

CSS: 0 0.00 0.00

Multimedia: 0 0.00 0.00

Other: 0 0.00 0.00

External Objects

External Object QTY

Total HTML: 1

Total HTML Images: 2

Total CSS Images: 0

Total Images: 2

Total Scripts: 0

Total CSS imports: 0

Total Frames: 0

Total Iframes: 0

Download Times*

Connection Rate Download Time

14.4K 10.70 seconds

28.8K 5.65 seconds

33.6K 4.93 seconds

56K 3.20 seconds

ISDN 128K 1.40 seconds

T1 1.44Mbps 0.67 seconds

*Note that these download times are based on the full connection rate for ISDN and T1 connections. Modem connections (56Kbps or less) are corrected by a packet loss factor of 0.7. All download times include delays due to round-trip latency with an average of 0.2 seconds per object. With 3 total objects for this page, that computes to a total lag time due to latency of 0.6 seconds. Note also that this download time calculation does not take into account delays due to XHTML parsing and rendering.

Page Objects

QTY SIZE# TYPE URL COMMENTS

1 8558 IMG http://www.google.com/'>http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/images/logo2.gif Header size = 298 bytes

1 4139 HTML http://www.google.com Header size = 614 bytes

Congratulations! This file was compressed.

View a formatted version of this HTML file

1 331 IMG http://www.google.com/'>http://www.google.com/images/mgyhp_sm.png Header size = 297 bytes

3 ^ 13028* Total (^unique objects)

# Congratulations. This site is using HTTP compression, otherwise called content encoding using gzip. The sizes reported here are for compressed content sent from the server to the client.

* CSS alternate stylesheets may be referenced in the HTML but are not actually downloaded until they are needed and are therefore not included in the total page size.

Analysis and Recommendations

TOTAL_HTML - Congratulations, the total number of HTML files on this page (including the main HTML file) is 1 which most browsers can multithread. Minimizing HTTP requests is key for web site optimization. Y

TOTAL_OBJECTS - Congratulations, the total objects on this page (including the HTML) is 3 which most browsers can multithread in a reasonable amount of time. Minimizing HTTP requests is key to minimizing object overhead (see Figure II-3: Relative distribution of latency components showing that object overhead dominates web page latency in Website Optimization Secrets for more details on how object overhead dominates web page latency.

TOTAL_IMAGES - Congratulations, the total number of images on this page is 2 . Most browsers can send multiple requests, which can speed display of multiple images.

TOTAL_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of this page is 13028 bytes. This page should load in 3.20 seconds on a 56Kbps modem. Based on current average web page size and composition trends you want your page to load in less than 20 seconds on a 56Kbps connection, with progressive feedback. Ideally you want your page to load in 3 to 4 seconds on a broadband connection, and 8 to 12 seconds for the HTML on a dialup connection. Of course, there's always room for improvement.

HTML_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of this HTML file is 4139 bytes, which less than 50K. Assuming that you specify the HEIGHT and WIDTH of your images, this size allows your HTML to display content in under 10 seconds, the average time users are willing to wait for a page to display without feedback.

IMAGES_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of all your images is 8889 bytes, which is less than 50K. Even with a 50K HTML page this page should load in less than 20 seconds on a 56Kbps connection. Ideally each image should be less than 1160 bytes, to easily fit into one TCP-IP packet.

MULTIM_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of all your external multimedia files is 0 bytes, which is less than 10K.

And Bing:

Web Page Speed Report

URL: http://www.bing.com/'>http://www.bing.com/

Title: Bing

Date: Report run on Fri Aug 6 09:41:52EDT2010

Diagnosis

Global Statistics

Total HTTP Requests: 1

Total Size: 11035 bytes

Object Size Totals

Object type Size (bytes) Download @ 56K (seconds) Download @ T1 (seconds)

HTML: 11035 2.40 0.26

HTML Images: 0 0.00 0.00

CSS Images: 0 0.00 0.00

Total Images: 0 0 0

Javascript: 0 0.00 0.00

CSS: 0 0.00 0.00

Multimedia: 0 0.00 0.00

Other: 0 0.00 0.00

External Objects

External Object QTY

Total HTML: 1

Total HTML Images: 0

Total CSS Images: 0

Total Images: 0

Total Scripts: 0

Total CSS imports: 0

Total Frames: 0

Total Iframes: 0

Download Times*

Connection Rate Download Time

14.4K 8.75 seconds

28.8K 4.48 seconds

33.6K 3.87 seconds

56K 2.40 seconds

ISDN 128K 0.87 seconds

T1 1.44Mbps 0.26 seconds

*Note that these download times are based on the full connection rate for ISDN and T1 connections. Modem connections (56Kbps or less) are corrected by a packet loss factor of 0.7. All download times include delays due to round-trip latency with an average of 0.2 seconds per object. With 1 total objects for this page, that computes to a total lag time due to latency of 0.2 seconds. Note also that this download time calculation does not take into account delays due to XHTML parsing and rendering.

Page Objects

QTY SIZE# TYPE URL COMMENTS

1 11035 HTML http://www.bing.com Header size = 1165 bytes

Congratulations! You saved bandwidth by compressing this file.

View a formatted version of this HTML file

1 ^ 11035* Total (^unique objects)

# Congratulations. This site is using HTTP compression, otherwise called content encoding using gzip. The sizes reported here are for compressed content sent from the server to the client.

* CSS alternate stylesheets may be referenced in the HTML but are not actually downloaded until they are needed and are therefore not included in the total page size.

Analysis and Recommendations

TOTAL_HTML - Congratulations, the total number of HTML files on this page (including the main HTML file) is 1 which most browsers can multithread. Minimizing HTTP requests is key for web site optimization. Y

TOTAL_OBJECTS - Congratulations, the total objects on this page (including the HTML) is 1 which most browsers can multithread in a reasonable amount of time. Minimizing HTTP requests is key to minimizing object overhead (see Figure II-3: Relative distribution of latency components showing that object overhead dominates web page latency in Website Optimization Secrets for more details on how object overhead dominates web page latency.

TOTAL_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of this page is 11035 bytes. This page should load in 2.40 seconds on a 56Kbps modem. Based on current average web page size and composition trends you want your page to load in less than 20 seconds on a 56Kbps connection, with progressive feedback. Ideally you want your page to load in 3 to 4 seconds on a broadband connection, and 8 to 12 seconds for the HTML on a dialup connection. Of course, there's always room for improvement.

HTML_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of this HTML file is 11035 bytes, which less than 50K. Assuming that you specify the HEIGHT and WIDTH of your images, this size allows your HTML to display content in under 10 seconds, the average time users are willing to wait for a page to display without feedback.

MULTIM_SIZE - Congratulations, the total size of all your external multimedia files is 0 bytes, which is less than 10K.

Sorry for the formatting. I can't link the results but you can go to the site and try it yourself.

Grand Master

TheElite

Posted
Posted

Just for kicks I checked with WebSiteOptimization.com and here are the results:

Google:

And Bing:

Sorry for the formatting. I can't link the results but you can go to the site and try it yourself.

How is it possible that Bing is faster to load up than Google?

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted

How is it possible that Bing is faster to load up than Google?

why not? If you are referring to the background imagine, bing doesn't wait for that image. You can start using it rightaway.

Grand Master

thealexweb

Posted
Posted

So Hotmail updates their whole look and shortly thereafter Google does the same. Coincidence?

Microsoft updates their online services on a yearly basis, Google updates their services all the time, are you saying Google should delay updates during the summer months when Windows Live is updated.

Proficient

tanjiajun_34

Posted
Posted

Both get automatically detected as html5 for me. Using Opera here, not IE.

I got 166 Errors, 107 warning(s) on bing maps.

So Hotmail updates their whole look and shortly thereafter Google does the same. Coincidence?

Microsoft have been spamming releases. Xbox 360 Kinect, New hotmail, New Bing, New StreetSides, New Windows 7 Mobile, New Wave 4 and Windows 7 SP1.

So, Sony, Nintendo, Google, Apple, RIM, Yahoo, Nokia, Samsung and some others companies all must stop production for Microsoft to release all their stuffs?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.