Bing is a bang
Still not much better than google and yahoo.
Microsoft has added Twitter messages to some search results in a desperate attempt to snatch some market share from Google following the launch of Bing last month. Redmond’s revamped search engine has indexed some popular Twitter pages using the all-talk-no-trousers site’s public API. “We picked a few thousand people to start …
I've got it all figured out, using meerkats and everything.
It has taken me six months of not leaving the house or watching television but I think I could pull it off.
The first meerkat says to the second meerkat "Bing is pointless posturing" and the other one says "But it indexes Twitter."
The first one says "Ah yes but I'm going to nobble them by Tweeting about how rubbish Bing is. Easy eh?"
And the second one could reply "Simples".
... to try and appear to be relevant. Everyone knows they are still around *only* because they bribe the OEMs into shipping only windows machines.
@ Richard 69: "is a search engine just for searching websites?" oh c'mon. The major search engines are now all close to useless because on any vaguely popular subject they will return 5 pages of half-arsed blog posts _before_ the relevant sites. Hey I know, let's add twitter messages, what could possibly go wrong? Why not add MSN (or live whatever) traffic too?
ok.. in the States, M$'s Bing campaign is all about "search overload" and how Bing is a less of a search engine, and more of a "decision" engine.. whatever the hell that means...
Now they are adding Twitter to search results? uhm... Yes.. I consider Twitter an important tool for making decisions.
I think it's a good idea. Google itself admits its real time search is rubbish - usually if I want to find out online why ten ambulances are racing down a road, I have to wait for google to index a newspaper who contacts the emergency services for this to show up normally. If a search engine could index search.twitter.com as well, it would be great. the one thing which would be interesting is that most twitter posts are so banal I wonder how it would affect relevance. If I search 'iran' and get updates that way; good. If I search iran and found out some celeb went to an iranian restuarant: bad.
"usually if I want to find out online why ten ambulances are racing down a road"
Why would you even think of doing that is way beyond my poor imagination. You must have far, far too much time in your hands. But if you really want to find out in near real time, you can tune in to the police frequencies. Of course that's not actually permitted, but if you don't interfere who's gonna find out? And that way you will have the real info, not some wild ramblings by attention-craving webwhores. In any given situation where 10 ambulances race down a street, I can already tell you what you'll find on Twitter:
"OMG a plane crashed on $LOCAL_BIG_BUILDING" =40%
"OMG a gang is shooting pregnant women in front of Wall-Mart": 30%
"OMG they discovered a nest of flu-infected zombie swines in the sewers and the "pandemic" is spreading": 30%
Real explanation ("A bus missed a turn and 10 people have light bruises. One might even suffer from nosebleed."): 0%
Yeah, that's a "good start", as you say. If it was a start, that is. It's more like a good step further the "please wave your hands in panic and shout "we're all gonna die" at the slightest evidence that something not 100% good might have happened" road. Good ol'US.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022