
05-30-2009, 05:13 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 431
|
|
Bing (the name is growing on me) certainly looks like it will be a better tool than Live Search. I go on and on here at times about marketing and while that has been part of Microsoft's problem in search, the far bigger problem is that Live Search just wasn't that good. For example, I can't think of the last time I did a Live search that did NOT return a Wikipedia entry as one of the top three or four items. I can just search Wikipedia myself if that is the source I want...and it most often is NOT.
The Bing video and a few reviews I've seen from people who used the demo give the impression of more relevant results to most searches, though there was one disappointing result I read somewhere when the user misspelled a word and Bing returned nothing rather than suggest "did you mean....?"
Certainly the Bing meta tools may be useful and I look forward to giving it a serious try. Just no Wikipedia results please.
I understand the attraction of the name Bing to Microsoft and I thought Ballmer's responses to Walt (I really don't like Microsoft) Mossberg were right on the money: short, pronounceable around the world, understandable, etc. I think an unspoken attraction of the name was that it doesn't follow the usual and painful Microsoft naming protocal. It is just Bing. It is not Microsoft Windows Bing Search Home Premium or some such nonsense. (I did notice that as part of rolling out Bing they were planning to change the name of Virtual Earth to Bing Maps for Enterprise! What the heck is that?)
Assuming the marketers can keep the lawyers away and not screw up the name, I think there is a real chance for Bing marketing to be successful.
|
| |
|
|
|