New MSN Search released

[Soukyan]

That's right. Google 2 point O... err... the new MSN search has been released. Easy to find and faster loading than the past at MSN.com. Bill Gates issued a letter to users for the big release event.

I've been testing it out and so far so good. Searches on competitors return valid results and it looks like they've got the targetted text ads down pat. The image search looks like it's working quite well also. They even have a Desktop Search (a la Google Desktop Search), but it looks as though they integrate theirs into the MSN toolbar instead of making it available standalone.

The unique item on their search is the Encarta search. While I don't use it often, their Encarta is a nifty tool. The catch? You get a 2 hour trial period on Encarta searches after which you must upgrade to Encarta Premium to be able to search it and use it through MSN online. Ah well, I knew they'd sneak a subscription fee in there somewhere. C'est la...

Overall impressions - Not too shabby, could perhaps become the new portal of choice.

[Alkiera]

Couple things.

1) 90% of the MSN page is covered with crap I could not care less about when I want to search.

2) See the little bar under the browser tabs, where it says it blocked a pop-up window?  Yeah.

3) Google is already integrated into my browser.  I could add MSN...  but why?  I use Microsoft products for things they are good at... Operating systems and office productivity software.  They've spent 8 years playing catch-up on the Internet... and still haven't figured it out.

Alkiera

[stray]

Try this: http://search.msn.com/

[schild]

roflpwned.

[sidereal]

Soo. . it has no competitive advantage over Google whatsoever, except it'll now be integrated into every Microsoft product that gets pumped out.  That's not good for consumers.

[Paelos]

That's not good for consumers.

That's on the Microsoft logo.

[schild]

A GIS and MSN search for "ROFL" pulled up completely different results. Though the MSN was quicker for finding the "ROFL, YOU'RE A HOMO" pictures. Just letting you all know.

[AlteredOne]

First, too much blue on that http://search.msn.com site.

Second, Google can be used as a verb.  I can tell somebody "I'll Google it."  WTF do I say with the Microsoft thing, "I'll MSN it?"

Third, they are Microsoft, and despite my respect for the charitable work of the Gates Foundation, Bill Gates has plenty of money already without me using this Google-wannabe.

Fourth, Google gives me Froogle, Local.Google, Scholar.Google, University Search, and Usenet search.  Believe it or not, I use all of them semi-regularly.

So, Google for teh winzor!

[stray]

Soo. . it has no competitive advantage over Google whatsoever, except it'll now be integrated into every Microsoft product that gets pumped out.  That's not good for consumers.

In other news, there are rumors that Google is working on their own web browser: Even so far as to hire Mozilla's lead programmer .

That, coupled with a Google OS (whatever that may be), as well as Apple working on similar projects, I'd say the consumers are all right.

[Soukyan]

I never said MSN's new search would replace Google starting today. But you'd be foolish to not realize they are well on their way. For the past 6 months or so, Google has gotten very bad about results leaning more and more toward commercial links. Bleh. I won't make the switch yet either as I still use many of Google's tools, but they had better not rest on their laurels. I think their stock is already way overrated and certainly not accurately priced. The time of their pioneering has long since past and the IPO release was just a way to pad pockets. But I digress. It's good to see two big companies compete because in the end, the innovations developed can benefit the consumers.

[AlteredOne]

In other news, there are rumors that Google is working on their own web browser: Even so far as to hire Mozilla's lead programmer .

The article mentions that this guy will continue working 50% of his time with the Mozilla foundation.  Presumably this means Google is interested in subsidizing Mozilla, and might create a Google-branded version of that browser.  I suppose it could still be open-source, if Google just integrated a bunch of Google-specific functionality into it.  Of course, Mozilla/Firefox already includes some such integration.  So long as Google releases public APIs for any of their proprietary functionality, "Googlezilla" could happen sooner than later.

[stray]

Hmm, looks like there's more Google ripoffs:

MSN Newsbot (Google News)

MSN Spaces (Blogger?)

Netscan (Usenet Search..Not exactly a ripoff, but I'll mention it anyway)

[Margalis]

The fact is, search technology these days is very basic and well understood. There is little barrier to entry. The complaints people have are things like "their page is too blue." When your "competitive advantage" is that you have bgcolor="#FFFFFF" vs "#0000FF" you have a problem.

Most search engines are actually behind the curve as far as search engine tech. For example it's possible to group results by category and some engines do that pretty well today. Both Google and MS are implementations that could easily have been done 5-10 years ago.

Google is good because the other search engines at the time were terrible. Anyone remember what Alta-Vista looked like? That was back in the days where everything had to be a portal. Those days are over.

[Krakrok]

First, too much blue on that http://search.msn.com site.

60% of people like the color blue. What I can't figure out is why the Soviet Union didn't do their research and have a blue flag instead of a red flag.

Edit: To make this post more relevent, Google does a better job of filtering out pages that are mostly the same. I have a bunch of sites with a lot of pages that are at least 50% the same. Google shows 3500 results and MSN shows 9300 results for the same search. But on Google if you go to page 3 it doesn't show any more results because it decided that the other 3473 results were mostly the same whereas MSN shows ALL the results.

And MSN search has been the default search in Windows since IE4.

[Soukyan]

First, too much blue on that http://search.msn.com site.

60% of people like the color blue. What I can't figure out is why the Soviet Union didn't do their research and have a blue flag instead of a red flag.

Because red means SALE!

[Nebu]

I found this article about the new MSN entry as well.  

Google currently dominates the search engine wars and Microsoft sees this as yet another piece of the consumer pie that they can tap into.  Like them or not, Microsoft does go where the money is.  In a capitalist economy, that's a smart thing.

[SirBruce]

MSN's first return hit from "MMOG" is http://www.player2player.net

So it's a time machine AND a search engine!

Bruce

[stray]

Your chart came up second.

I then typed "MMOG" in Google. Your chart came in first.

WTF

[Rasix]

Google's not terribly hard to fool.  I could make a page about rabbits made out of cookie dough and if so desired it could be the #1 cancer research page in no time flat.

[SirBruce]

I don't do anything special.  I'm just that popular.

Bruce

[Rasix]

I don't do anything special.  I'm just that popular.

Bruce

I don't doubt that you're heavily linked.  Inverse linking does make up a big portion of their search algorithm.

I'm just saying, Google's pretty easy to manipulate and doesn't make a call on relevance.  (again, not a dig at you)

[HaemishM]

There are companies making a decent living doing nothing but "massaging" search engine rankings and charging a monthly fee for it. What I find amazing is that people really believe search enging marketing is worth that much money, when other methods work an assload better and have better ROI.

[schild]

This thread is not about Bruce. It's about Shadowbane. Don't make me take your good things away.

[Azhrarn]

It's about Shadowbane.

Which I've somehow ended up playing.  Damn you Wrath. :(

[Murgos]

When I can type "What's the largest saltwater port in Switzerland?" into a search engine and get a relevant result then I'll know were getting somewhere.

Until then search engines really only have a limited use.

[sidereal]

What would a relevant result for that query be?  A big map of Europe with a red circle around Switzerland and "It's landlocked, newb!" scrawled across the top?

[Alkiera]

eh, google does math, too...

"c/10 in meters per second" in google gives the distance light travels in 1/10th of a second.

The same thing in MSN gives a result defining the speed of light, one about the gemini spacecraft, and something about temporary passages for fish.


Alkiera

[Murgos]

What would a relevant result for that query be?  A big map of Europe with a red circle around Switzerland and "It's landlocked, newb!" scrawled across the top?

Yes.

If you're too stupid to see how negative results are important perhaps you should try sticking to the political threads.

edit:  Just to be a little less of an asshole, I attended a lecture and then had dinner with Lotfi Zadeh where this question (the Switzerland one) in particular, among others, was discussed in the context of the future direction of search engines and thier current limitations.

Here is a link to the lecture slides
http://www.siliconvalleycs.org/Zadeh.html

Educate thyself.

[sidereal]

My what?

Edit: To be less of an asshole, I did not intend to imply that you were an idiot and/or did not know the answer to the question.  I found the question funny and the potential answer funnier.

Edit climbdowns are fun.

[Murgos]

My what?

Yes very good.  You found a typo.

[Rasix]

Settle down, girls.

[Llava]

Tested both image searches.

Google returned more usable porn, whereas MSN returned about 8 images... only 1 of which showed anything interesting.

So I'll stick (no pun intended) with Google.

[stray]

Is that with the safety filters turned off? I just ran "Jenna Jameson" through MSN and it returned about 3000 images. "Jenna" returned 17,000, most of which were of her as well.

I also ran the simple word "blonde" through and was met with 50,000 images, most of which were porn. Google returned 500,000.

Granted, there's a large disparity between 500k and 50k, but if you ask me, MSN's blondes are much more titillating.

[SirBruce]

He said usable porn.  Perhaps his particular kinks are very specific? :)

As for image searching, it's somewhat well-known that google's image search is not the best, as it's not updated frequently, so there tend to be a lot of dead links.  I don't know about the particulars of MSN's image search.  Yahoo, on the other hand, has a pretty good image search.

But I use google for everything else.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

Google returned more usable porn, whereas MSN returned about 8 images... only 1 of which showed anything interesting.

So I'll stick (no pun intended) with Google.

GOOGLE WINS HANDS DOWN under the keyboard with lotion.