FWIW, I've taken to using Bing for image and video searches. A lot of the time "Web 2.0" dynamism and interactivity are irritating to me, but I think M$ added some value compared to Google's relatively vanilla interfaces. Intuitive too. Thoughts? This other blogger agrees.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
...Or "What I've been up to for the last week or so."
Last week was a busy travel week. I was in West Virginia for the first half of the week, on a whirlwind tour of the Morgantown area, speaking in the geology department at West Virginia University, then twice at a symposium on science…
I was going to write a series of posts describing each essay in the current Cites & Insights, and still plan to do so.
But this hit me by surprise--a LISNews item pointing to a makeuseof.com post pointing to Blind Search.
Blind Search?
People who care deeply about open web search engines spend…
Since the Perils of blogging as a woman under a real name panel at ScienceOnline 2011 there's been quite a bit of commentary floating around the science blogosphere about how women are represented within that community.
A kind of introduction:
The perils women sciencebloggers face are not that…
This quarter, I'm using a wiki with my bioinformatics class and posting sometimes about the things that I learn.
Two things I've been experimenting with are:
Setting up pages for individual students so they can take notes while they're working.
Embedding a Google form into one of my wiki pages…
The simple fact that it is Microsoft will cause some people to think it is great, others to avoid it for ethical reasons. Since I don't need it, I think I'll avoid it.
But, it is good to see someone, even if it is MS, nipping at google's heels. Whatever bing does better than MS (in real life, not some paid off review or some cranked up test MS pushes) will be duplicated and improved by google. I assume.
[snark] I wonder how well it works with non-microsoft based clients [/snark]
Having seen the way microsoft operates, I feel no need to have anything to do with it nor its censoring of various search results.
And in case my bias is not sufficiently obvious, I will add this too: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3585051300_d23a37a32e_o.png
Image and video searches? But how can Bing be useful if you can´t search for pron? ;-)
More seriously: I tried Bing and wasn´t that much impressed. To my mind Google is superior and M$ just found another way to lose money ...
While Shy's searching for pron (nuthin' wrong with that...) I search for human beauty in relation to parasitic load. Razib, didn't you have some ideas on that, once? I googled intensely on your site, but couldn't find it--maybe it's hidden somewhere among the comments.
Bing is the same as Live.com. The results are no different from Live.com's a few weeks ago. Microsoft has just "rebranded" and the hype is causing some people who never used Live.com to take a look.
Within the search industry, it's been known that Microsoft is slightly better at image search than Google. This has been common wisdom for a couple years. Their web search might not be as good, but the difference is not great (same with Yahoo.) Many of us worry about Google's high share of the market, so any news that people are trying other engines is welcome.
Wrong blog, dammit. And it was about selective pressure of pathogens, not about parasitic load, obviously... However, googling for clues I found this: Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism/collectivism--might be of interest for this blog, though clearly OT here. As for Bing, I second Greg: nothing beats healthy competition--let MS be the pathogen that applies selective pressure to Google.