Another Google vs. Live search

Uncategorized 1 Minute

OK, OK, I’m an arrogant a##h@@e. But, everytime I do a Google vs. Live search Google wins.

Here’s another one. I remember a few days ago someone on Twitter announced a Twitter search engine. I didn’t remember the URL, so I went to Google. Typed “Twitter search.”

Google came right back with the correct answer. And came back with the best blogs on the topic.

But, some people at Microsoft are saying that I’m being unfair to Microsoft. I really still do love Microsoft (and I still own stock in Microsoft, I don’t own stock in Google or Yahoo). So, I want them to do well.

But, I go over to Live.com and do the same search. The site I’m looking for is nowhere to be found. Even better, the first result brings back Google!

So, sorry, when I say Microsoft’s Internet execution sucks, this is what I’m talking about.

I wish Microsoft were better. I really do.

Oh, and Twitter Search is here.

UPDATE: Look at the advertising Microsoft is bringing back too. Microsoft is trying to raise its advertising revenues by showing non-relevant ads. That’ll hurt Microsoft long term cause anyone on Live will know the ads really have nothing to do with the search being done. Google’s approach will lead to more consistent advertising users. Advertising IS part of the search. Microsoft treats searchers as something to take advantage of, while Google puts far more relevant ads in front of a searcher, or none at all.

Published by Robert Scoble

I help entrepreneurs build their technology business' story, help with getting ready for investors, with other launch plans, and many other strategic things that can help your new startup. Call to talk: +1-425-205-1921 (text first).

Published

74 thoughts on “Another Google vs. Live search”

  1. What about images though…..live image search is a ton better.

    Plus they have that scrath pad that is gold because you can drag the images you think you want then look later…

    What do you think?

    Like

  2. What about images though…..live image search is a ton better.

    Plus they have that scrath pad that is gold because you can drag the images you think you want then look later…

    What do you think?

    Like

  5. Brian: I just did an image search for “Scoble.”
    Google brought back 9,000, Live brought back 3,000.

    I do like the Live.com layout, though, better, although I like that Google shows me the URLs without having to hover over each image.

    I LOVE the infinite scroll, though. So, Live.com wins here.

    Problem is, I don’t do many image searches.

    Like

  6. Brian: I just did an image search for “Scoble.”
    Google brought back 9,000, Live brought back 3,000.

    I do like the Live.com layout, though, better, although I like that Google shows me the URLs without having to hover over each image.

    I LOVE the infinite scroll, though. So, Live.com wins here.

    Problem is, I don’t do many image searches.

    Like

  9. Dude, what are YOU doing? I searched on Twitter and Live returned (first hit):

    Twitter: What are you doing?
    A global community of friends and strangers answering one simple question: What are you doing? Answer on your phone, IM, or right here on the web! Look at what these people are doing right now

    twitter.com · 3/18/2007 · Cached page

    I’ll grant you the ads had nothing to do with the search subject.

    Like

  10. Dude, what are YOU doing? I searched on Twitter and Live returned (first hit):

    Twitter: What are you doing?
    A global community of friends and strangers answering one simple question: What are you doing? Answer on your phone, IM, or right here on the web! Look at what these people are doing right now

    twitter.com · 3/18/2007 · Cached page

    I’ll grant you the ads had nothing to do with the search subject.

    Like

  11. Jim: I’m searching on:

    Twitter Search

    No quotes.

    I didn’t get back the right answer. Google gave it back to me.

    Since Twitter Search is only about a week old, Google is much better at indexing new things.

    Like

  12. Jim: I’m searching on:

    Twitter Search

    No quotes.

    I didn’t get back the right answer. Google gave it back to me.

    Since Twitter Search is only about a week old, Google is much better at indexing new things.

    Like

  13. Yesterday a huge branch fell off a tree in my backyard. Since then I’ve been advising people not to go out there since its the single most dangerous place on the face of earth.

    Like

  14. Search for “Roger” on Google and live. The first linke on Google is Rogers.com while the first link on Live is Roger Waters’ website. They’re different. Which one is better? I don’t know.

    The ads are irrelevant. I agree.

    Like

  15. Yesterday a huge branch fell off a tree in my backyard. Since then I’ve been advising people not to go out there since its the single most dangerous place on the face of earth.

    Like

  16. Search for “Roger” on Google and live. The first linke on Google is Rogers.com while the first link on Live is Roger Waters’ website. They’re different. Which one is better? I don’t know.

    The ads are irrelevant. I agree.

    Like

  19. @6: “Since Twitter Search is only about a week old, Google is much better at indexing new things.”

    I think you’re right. Google is probably better at indexing new things.

    Like

  20. @6: “Since Twitter Search is only about a week old, Google is much better at indexing new things.”

    I think you’re right. Google is probably better at indexing new things.

    Like

  23. I purposefully boycott clicking on ads that come back from a search. Same thing with banners or sponsored searches on sites. I’m not sure if that stops anything by way of money being made, but I just refuse to be pushed ads based on what some engine thinks I want to see. Sorry, I might read the ad, but then I’ll just type in the URL myself.

    Like

  24. I purposefully boycott clicking on ads that come back from a search. Same thing with banners or sponsored searches on sites. I’m not sure if that stops anything by way of money being made, but I just refuse to be pushed ads based on what some engine thinks I want to see. Sorry, I might read the ad, but then I’ll just type in the URL myself.

    Like

  25. In general, the results on Google are at least as good as the ones on live.com or yahoo search.

    With Live.com you can never be sure of the results. Even if you use Live.com by default, you have to verify your results with the results with those on Google occassionally. I don’t think this has come out right, but I hope you get the point.

    Like

  26. In general, the results on Google are at least as good as the ones on live.com or yahoo search.

    With Live.com you can never be sure of the results. Even if you use Live.com by default, you have to verify your results with the results with those on Google occassionally. I don’t think this has come out right, but I hope you get the point.

    Like

  27. I have done quite a bit of image searching lately, and usually go to Google, sometimes flicker. haven’t used live.com or MSN search in ages. But now that Ive looked at it, I do think live image search has a nice layout, probably the best out of the 3.

    Like

  28. I have done quite a bit of image searching lately, and usually go to Google, sometimes flicker. haven’t used live.com or MSN search in ages. But now that Ive looked at it, I do think live image search has a nice layout, probably the best out of the 3.

    Like

  31. I use Live Search as my default (I work for MSFT), and the number of times each day I have to retry the query into Google is quite frightening. Probably 8 out of 10 times I revert to google.

    Heres an example:

    I was looking for some more information on the rumoured Google / Orange mobile phone deal in the works. Live.com returned NOTHING until the very bottom of the page. It had the orange toolbar as the number one link.
    http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=orange+googl&mkt=en-us&FORM=LIVSOP&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Search

    Google gave me a page of the best people in the business speculating on the Goolge / Orange deal. Om Malik, Engadget/Ryan Block, the Guardian, the Inquirer etc.
    http://www.google.com/search?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&q=orange+google

    the difference is night and day.

    Like

  32. I use Live Search as my default (I work for MSFT), and the number of times each day I have to retry the query into Google is quite frightening. Probably 8 out of 10 times I revert to google.

    Heres an example:

    I was looking for some more information on the rumoured Google / Orange mobile phone deal in the works. Live.com returned NOTHING until the very bottom of the page. It had the orange toolbar as the number one link.
    http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=orange+googl&mkt=en-us&FORM=LIVSOP&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Search

    Google gave me a page of the best people in the business speculating on the Goolge / Orange deal. Om Malik, Engadget/Ryan Block, the Guardian, the Inquirer etc.
    http://www.google.com/search?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&q=orange+google

    the difference is night and day.

    Like

  33. 0.7%? I guess if you take the statistical error into consideration it will probably be nil…

    To MS: Increase “relevancy”, not user count! Do the search right, and users will come.

    I have found NO reason to use live (except for testing) for a very simple reason: Google search instills confidence when MS does not. I know Google IS giving me the best result. Even if I use Live I always go back to Google to make sure the results are good. Why do I have to do that?

    If you see the interview with Eric Schmidt, there is ONE obvious advantage Google has over MS: they just have more machines and they KNOW have to build machines cheaper than MS. Unless MS forgets its other business and focus on machines that can crawl faster and cheaper than Google (which is not 100% certain anyway), MS just cannot compete with google in raw text search.

    Vertical search, however, is another matter.

    Like

  34. 0.7%? I guess if you take the statistical error into consideration it will probably be nil…

    To MS: Increase “relevancy”, not user count! Do the search right, and users will come.

    I have found NO reason to use live (except for testing) for a very simple reason: Google search instills confidence when MS does not. I know Google IS giving me the best result. Even if I use Live I always go back to Google to make sure the results are good. Why do I have to do that?

    If you see the interview with Eric Schmidt, there is ONE obvious advantage Google has over MS: they just have more machines and they KNOW have to build machines cheaper than MS. Unless MS forgets its other business and focus on machines that can crawl faster and cheaper than Google (which is not 100% certain anyway), MS just cannot compete with google in raw text search.

    Vertical search, however, is another matter.

    Like

  37. Finding individual cases where Google is better than Live.com doesn’t really provide a strong argument that Google is universally better.

    Myself, along with countless others, could give the real example of when I search on my fullname, Live search actually comes back with more results that are more relevant. But is that a good argument?

    The majority of support for google and arguments against Live.com I feel are unfair and assumes that there is no innovation or change happening on Live search. They formed an opinion awhile ago (e.g. over a year) and now do surgical searches to re-inforce their belief that Live search sucks. When they do find a query where Live search performs better, it’s discounted for some one reason or another.

    I haven’t used Google search in quite a few months (in favor of Live search) and frequently go to Google to do comparion search and normally don’t find that google outperforms Live search. Sure, results are sorted differently, but not so much that I’m cursing Live search for being incompetent.

    I’m not saying the Google or Live Search is universally better. I’m just saying the difference isn’t as great as people continue to claim.

    Like

  38. Finding individual cases where Google is better than Live.com doesn’t really provide a strong argument that Google is universally better.

    Myself, along with countless others, could give the real example of when I search on my fullname, Live search actually comes back with more results that are more relevant. But is that a good argument?

    The majority of support for google and arguments against Live.com I feel are unfair and assumes that there is no innovation or change happening on Live search. They formed an opinion awhile ago (e.g. over a year) and now do surgical searches to re-inforce their belief that Live search sucks. When they do find a query where Live search performs better, it’s discounted for some one reason or another.

    I haven’t used Google search in quite a few months (in favor of Live search) and frequently go to Google to do comparion search and normally don’t find that google outperforms Live search. Sure, results are sorted differently, but not so much that I’m cursing Live search for being incompetent.

    I’m not saying the Google or Live Search is universally better. I’m just saying the difference isn’t as great as people continue to claim.

    Like

  39. Pingback: Tour of Microsoft Research's TechFest « Kempton’s blog

  40. To Trev: I am constantly testing out the two sites and never once have I found Live.com to have better results than google. Why use a search engine that you know will give you worse search results (even if its only 5% of the time)?

    In other words, why do you use live?

    Like

  41. To Trev: I am constantly testing out the two sites and never once have I found Live.com to have better results than google. Why use a search engine that you know will give you worse search results (even if its only 5% of the time)?

    In other words, why do you use live?

    Like

  42. Hadi: Trev works for Microsoft. I’d love to see a list of 50 searches where Live is better than Google.

    I’ve done a lot of searches and just have not found that Live is as good as Google. Is Live getting better? Absolutely!

    But so is Google.

    And the search for a name is really irrelevant.

    How many people search for Matt, for instance?

    Not many.

    Oh, and Google orders searches based on what people actually click on. So, if everyone clicks on the third entry for “Matt.” Eventually that one will move to the top.

    Like

  43. Hadi: Trev works for Microsoft. I’d love to see a list of 50 searches where Live is better than Google.

    I’ve done a lot of searches and just have not found that Live is as good as Google. Is Live getting better? Absolutely!

    But so is Google.

    And the search for a name is really irrelevant.

    How many people search for Matt, for instance?

    Not many.

    Oh, and Google orders searches based on what people actually click on. So, if everyone clicks on the third entry for “Matt.” Eventually that one will move to the top.

    Like

  44. Robert: Are you sure about this? Audience clicks will actually effect Google’s ranking? Because according to Google, this can not be true. Because they can’t possiblly handle all the spam from the ones that try to get high ranks. But I have always been wondering if clicks effect Google placement. It does make sense though…

    Like

  45. Robert: Are you sure about this? Audience clicks will actually effect Google’s ranking? Because according to Google, this can not be true. Because they can’t possiblly handle all the spam from the ones that try to get high ranks. But I have always been wondering if clicks effect Google placement. It does make sense though…

    Like

  46. Search for a professional team on both Google and Live.com. For example, search for “Suns” on live and google and see the difference. Do it for 50 different teams and you have what you want!

    Like

  47. Search for a professional team on both Google and Live.com. For example, search for “Suns” on live and google and see the difference. Do it for 50 different teams and you have what you want!

    Like

  48. OK. Here’s another cool search: Search something like “Where is Tucson” or “Where is Elizabeth City” on both. Live.com gives you information about the cities from Encarta. The links are otherwise similar.

    So, I’m done for the day. 🙂

    Like

  49. OK. Here’s another cool search: Search something like “Where is Tucson” or “Where is Elizabeth City” on both. Live.com gives you information about the cities from Encarta. The links are otherwise similar.

    So, I’m done for the day. 🙂

    Like

  50. #24: Shravan: I just did a search for my favorite team, the 49ers. Google is FAR better on layout.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=49ers&btnG=Google+Search

    http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=49ers&mkt=en-us&FORM=LVCP

    Where is Tucson pulls up Wikipedia in #2 spot. Live puts it at #3. I’ve learned over time to just go to Wikipedia for those kinds of things. So, in my mind Google wins there. If you aren’t familiar with WIkipedia, though, Live has slightly better choices. Not enough to make me go ‘wow’ though.

    Put quotes around the term, though, and Google runs away with it. Live shows you advertising that doesn’t have to do with “where is Tucson?”

    Look at Google’s ads. They are FAR more targeted. That’ll lead to much better advertiser satisfaction, and much more clicky audiences on Google.

    Live’s layout sucks too. Way too much advertising space at top. Google takes far less space and gets three more organic results in the browser on my Window.

    If that’s your best example, I’m not impressed. Sorry.

    Like

  51. #24: Shravan: I just did a search for my favorite team, the 49ers. Google is FAR better on layout.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=49ers&btnG=Google+Search

    http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=49ers&mkt=en-us&FORM=LVCP

    Where is Tucson pulls up Wikipedia in #2 spot. Live puts it at #3. I’ve learned over time to just go to Wikipedia for those kinds of things. So, in my mind Google wins there. If you aren’t familiar with WIkipedia, though, Live has slightly better choices. Not enough to make me go ‘wow’ though.

    Put quotes around the term, though, and Google runs away with it. Live shows you advertising that doesn’t have to do with “where is Tucson?”

    Look at Google’s ads. They are FAR more targeted. That’ll lead to much better advertiser satisfaction, and much more clicky audiences on Google.

    Live’s layout sucks too. Way too much advertising space at top. Google takes far less space and gets three more organic results in the browser on my Window.

    If that’s your best example, I’m not impressed. Sorry.

    Like

  54. http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=twitter&form=QBRE

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Twitter

    This is the first result from Live.com

    Twitter: What are you doing?
    A global community of friends and strangers answering one simple question: What are you doing? Answer on your phone, IM, or right here on the web! Look at what these people are doing right now

    twitter.com · 3/18/2007 · Cached page
    Twitter
    Sign in to Twitter. If you’ve been using Twitter from your phone, click here and we’ll get you signed up on the web.

    twitter.com/home · Cached page
    +Show more results from twitter.com

    So It seems fine to me

    Like

  55. http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=twitter&form=QBRE

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Twitter

    This is the first result from Live.com

    Twitter: What are you doing?
    A global community of friends and strangers answering one simple question: What are you doing? Answer on your phone, IM, or right here on the web! Look at what these people are doing right now

    twitter.com · 3/18/2007 · Cached page
    Twitter
    Sign in to Twitter. If you’ve been using Twitter from your phone, click here and we’ll get you signed up on the web.

    twitter.com/home · Cached page
    +Show more results from twitter.com

    So It seems fine to me

    Like

  56. Sidestepping the “my dad’s web spider is bigger than your dad’s web spider” debate for a moment….

    I was more interested in the philosophical differences implied in the update to this post.

    I think the implication comes down to this:

    GOOG want to deliver stuff that people want to pay for;
    MSFT want people to pay for stuff that’s delivered.

    Does that about sum it up? I’m particularly interested because I think it’s an important differentiator between “old” and “new” business models. I’m looking at what may be a similar situation in the financial services sector: whether there’s extra profit to be made by moving from extracting all the fees possible to extracting the lowest fee from all the deals possible. Obviously the moral approach is the latter, but is it better business? Not that I’m in any position to actually implement changes, of course…

    Like

  57. Sidestepping the “my dad’s web spider is bigger than your dad’s web spider” debate for a moment….

    I was more interested in the philosophical differences implied in the update to this post.

    I think the implication comes down to this:

    GOOG want to deliver stuff that people want to pay for;
    MSFT want people to pay for stuff that’s delivered.

    Does that about sum it up? I’m particularly interested because I think it’s an important differentiator between “old” and “new” business models. I’m looking at what may be a similar situation in the financial services sector: whether there’s extra profit to be made by moving from extracting all the fees possible to extracting the lowest fee from all the deals possible. Obviously the moral approach is the latter, but is it better business? Not that I’m in any position to actually implement changes, of course…

    Like

  58. MSFT, with all the cash they have in the pocket, still tries to monetizing search. GOOG, even though search is its ONLY source of revenue, understands that delivering good contents is the best weapon.

    Also, Master Williams and Trev, if you guys are working for MSFT, please post your blog sites as well. At least then we know who you’re speaking for.

    Like

  59. MSFT, with all the cash they have in the pocket, still tries to monetizing search. GOOG, even though search is its ONLY source of revenue, understands that delivering good contents is the best weapon.

    Also, Master Williams and Trev, if you guys are working for MSFT, please post your blog sites as well. At least then we know who you’re speaking for.

    Like

  60. @26:
    “Live has slightly better choices. Not enough to make me go ‘wow’ though.”
    Exactly, but it’s “slightly better” and that’s the point I was trying to make.

    “Put quotes around the term, though, and Google runs away with it. Live shows you advertising that doesn’t have to do with ‘where is Tucson?'”

    The advertising sucks, I agree. Otherwise the results were on par.

    “If that’s your best example, I’m not impressed. Sorry.”
    I was only trying to show you searches where Live.com was slightly better than Google. Overall, Google is much better and I wouldn’t use live unless I was paid for it.

    Like

  61. @26:
    “Live has slightly better choices. Not enough to make me go ‘wow’ though.”
    Exactly, but it’s “slightly better” and that’s the point I was trying to make.

    “Put quotes around the term, though, and Google runs away with it. Live shows you advertising that doesn’t have to do with ‘where is Tucson?'”

    The advertising sucks, I agree. Otherwise the results were on par.

    “If that’s your best example, I’m not impressed. Sorry.”
    I was only trying to show you searches where Live.com was slightly better than Google. Overall, Google is much better and I wouldn’t use live unless I was paid for it.

    Like

  62. Try this search on live.com

    twitter search {frsh=100}

    to search for most fresh results. Click “Advanced” to see all options.

    Like

  63. Try this search on live.com

    twitter search {frsh=100}

    to search for most fresh results. Click “Advanced” to see all options.

    Like

  64. Robert,

    Microsoft has made other interesting things for Internet, the request object for IE (today is a standar), .Net, Messenger (most popular IM), Hotmail (most popular email client)…

    What about Google?, hello world!, this people make a good text-search!. WE ALLREADY KNOW IT!.

    Like

  65. Robert,

    Microsoft has made other interesting things for Internet, the request object for IE (today is a standar), .Net, Messenger (most popular IM), Hotmail (most popular email client)…

    What about Google?, hello world!, this people make a good text-search!. WE ALLREADY KNOW IT!.

    Like

  66. Pingback: With the twitter bandwagon « Sharing my thoughts…

  67. Also notice that AAPL and MSFT stocks show up on both Google and Live, yet GOOG is nowhere to be found in a Live Search.

    Like

  68. Also notice that AAPL and MSFT stocks show up on both Google and Live, yet GOOG is nowhere to be found in a Live Search.

    Like

  69. I totally agree, i kept putting in things like replace live search with google into the search bar about 12 times then i put in get relevant search results with google about 12 times then i just put in live search sucks about 12 times hoping that someone would notice my frustration, and i found friends like you guys, but i was hoping to actually find what i was looking for so instead i wanted to be noticed by msn or somebody behind live search, it will be awesome one day maybe but in the meantime can i get some damn relevant search queries attended too damnit msn you punks, geeze man wasted my whole night on your crap im installing opera browser just for that… sob i still havent found the right web site that 99 out of 100 times i just have to look a little on google whats the trip and not only that but hey its ok google can’t have a monopoly but i need some relevant mofo search damnit thats all thanks and maybe links might work and if they do go here http://squidoo.com/jappermon

    Like

  70. I totally agree, i kept putting in things like replace live search with google into the search bar about 12 times then i put in get relevant search results with google about 12 times then i just put in live search sucks about 12 times hoping that someone would notice my frustration, and i found friends like you guys, but i was hoping to actually find what i was looking for so instead i wanted to be noticed by msn or somebody behind live search, it will be awesome one day maybe but in the meantime can i get some damn relevant search queries attended too damnit msn you punks, geeze man wasted my whole night on your crap im installing opera browser just for that… sob i still havent found the right web site that 99 out of 100 times i just have to look a little on google whats the trip and not only that but hey its ok google can’t have a monopoly but i need some relevant mofo search damnit thats all thanks and maybe links might work and if they do go here http://squidoo.com/jappermon

    Like

  71. What about Google vs. Live mobile search?
    You wish Microsoft were better. You really do? try m.live.com
    Compare local search (business and people search), driving directions and more…

    Like

  72. What about Google vs. Live mobile search?
    You wish Microsoft were better. You really do? try m.live.com
    Compare local search (business and people search), driving directions and more…

    Like

  73. Do the search “Twitter Search” again. Now you will find relevency has increased a lot in live. Though google is still better, but live is just behind it to be called as real competetor of google.

    Also for the above search I have not seen ad on both google and live.

    Like

  74. Do the search “Twitter Search” again. Now you will find relevency has increased a lot in live. Though google is still better, but live is just behind it to be called as real competetor of google.

    Also for the above search I have not seen ad on both google and live.

    Like

Comments are closed.