Microsoft's Bing WTF



  •  In one of the Bing forums  (www.bing.com/community/forums) user prathaban1 writes:

    "I have submitted my website, www.kidandparent.in, to the Webmaster Console, using a sitemap.xml almost 6 weeks ago. It is a new website with unique content and Bing calculates about 14 Backlinks to it. However, just the homepage has been indexed so far (with help from Brett). Google and Yahoo have indexed almost 400 and 200 pages respectively. Any pointers on what I can do to get indexed by Bing? "
    He gets a reply from Brett Yount, Program Manager, Bing Webmaster Center:
    "It is well known in the industry that MSNbot is fairly slow. I suggest reading our FAQs stickied at the top of the indexing forum to get some ideas of what to do."
    So what does the stickied FAQ say? (written by Mr. Yount who has 985 posts)
    If your site is not in the index, please do the following:

    1. verify in our tools that your site is not blocked

    2. run a site: query to verify there are no pages in the index

    3. Copy the URL of the site query and post on this thread.

    I will work with you to at least get your home page indexed. Deeper indexing will require good content and backlinks as described in the FAQ.

    Note item number 3 -- If your site doesn't show up in Bing's index after submitting it using the "Webmaster Console", you can post your website's address in the forum, and someone will manually add it into the index for you.



  •  I see the problem here... user prathaban1 thinks Bing actually matters.



  • @DOA said:

     I see the problem here... user prathaban1 thinks Bing actually matters.

     

    TRWTF is your ignorance. Read up on Bing a bit and try it out some times. :-) It is not as bad as the old MSN search engine and is actually a good competitor to other search machines now. I personally prefer Google and do not use Bing because I like the interface of Google more, otherwise I would surely use Bing more often.



  • @pbean said:

    @DOA said:
    I see the problem here... user prathaban1 thinks Bing actually matters.
     

    TRWTF is your ignorance. Read up on Bing a bit and try it out some times. :-) It is not as bad as the old MSN search engine and is actually a good competitor to other search machines now. I personally prefer Google and do not use Bing because I like the interface of Google more, otherwise I would surely use Bing more often.

    Bing still isn't close to Google yet, at least in quality.  And even if MS tries to claim any comparison numberswise, a closer look at the numbers would show that they come from (1) games like MS's crossword thingie, that do a Bing search for EVERY.  FREAKING.  WORD. in what looks like a sleazy attempt to feed the hit counters, or (2) MS redirecting every 404 (including stuff they used to have a page for, but don't anymore) to a Bing result.



  • I like Bing. I set it to my default search in Firefox.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I like Bing. I set it to my default search in Firefox.

    I know someone else who does.

    But he uses Internet Explorer with IE7pro.

    And he speaks Swabian.

    Weird fella.



  • @cHao said:

    ...

     

    Gota get hits somehow. Its sleezy but hey it works. If MS comes out saying "oh we got 10 searches per day" nobody will index with them, especially with these problems.

     

    Also I dislike bing because of relevance. I search for a problem in google: 1st or 2nd result is what I need. In bing it might be a page away. I just can't use it.



  • @astonerbum said:

    Also I dislike bing because of relevance. I search for a problem in google: 1st or 2nd result is what I need. In bing it might be a page away. I just can't use it.

    To its credit, it does as well searching msdn as google does.  Gone are the days when MSDN search's first hit for CreateWindow was always the version from Windows CE.



  • @astonerbum said:

    I dislike bing because of srelevance. I search for a problem in google: 1st or 2nd result is what I need. In bing it might be a page away. I just can't use it.
     

    ^ This. Except Bing is relevant, because users are forced into it being the default search, and 99% of them won't know how to change it.



  •  Everytime I see "Bing" I read it as "Bling". Pimp up your search engine!



  • @cHao said:

    Bing still isn't close to Google yet, at least in quality.  And even if MS tries to claim any comparison numberswise, a closer look at the numbers would show that they come from (1) games like MS's crossword thingie, that do a Bing search for EVERY.  FREAKING.  WORD. in what looks like a sleazy attempt to feed the hit counters, or (2) MS redirecting every 404 (including stuff they used to have a page for, but don't anymore) to a Bing result.

     

    Are you saying there aren't thousands of things that do automated google searches?



  • @tster said:

    @cHao said:

    Bing still isn't close to Google yet, at least in quality.  And even if MS tries to claim any comparison numberswise, a closer look at the numbers would show that they come from (1) games like MS's crossword thingie, that do a Bing search for EVERY.  FREAKING.  WORD. in what looks like a sleazy attempt to feed the hit counters, or (2) MS redirecting every 404 (including stuff they used to have a page for, but don't anymore) to a Bing result.

     

    Are you saying there aren't thousands of things that do automated google searches?

    Oh, there are.  But Google doesn't host them -- in fact, IIRC, they even implement limits and blacklist machines that bog down the search engine too much.  This in comparison to MS, who is apparently using automation to beef up Bing's stats.



  • @cHao said:

    This in comparison to MS, who is apparently using automation to beef up Bing's stats.

    Well, not entirely automated.  Getting your website indexed in the first place may involve posting a message to a Bing forum so that someone can manually add it to the index, because
    "It is well known in the industry that MSNbot is fairly slow."

     



  • @DOA said:

     I see the problem here... user prathaban1 thinks Bing actually matters.

    While I completely agree that for the end user it does not matter, things are different for webmaster (that prathaban1 clearly is).

    End user needs to use just one search engine. The one that gives most complete and well ranked results for their searches. They certainly have better options than Bing.

    However webmaster needs to make it possible for all users to find their site, even those poor souls who think some crappy search like Bing is a good choice. Therefore to a webmaster all search engines matter, even Bing.



  • Results of http://blindsearch.fejus.com/ surprised me quite a few times...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @bannedfromcoding said:

    Results of http://blindsearch.fejus.com/ surprised me quite a few times...
    Indeed:
    blindsearch



  •  @Bulb said:

    However webmaster needs to make it possible for all users to find their site, even those poor souls who think some crappy search like Bing is a good choice.

    Bing's not a crappy search engine, and I think it's a good choice. It's especially good for multimedia searches, like images or videos... I do admit that its image index is smaller than Google's, but the layout of the results is so much better. Unless you're searching for something you know is really obscure (like: "The Tod from plaguedogs") you're better off with Bing.

    As for their site results, well, I'd say they're on-par. Maybe slightly below.

    Point is, it's not by any stretch of the imagination "crappy." It's far better than Yahoo was when Yahoo was the number 2 engine, far far better.



  • I should also admit I'm a bit biased, as I think Google's attribution model on paid search is just this side of "scam". Not close enough to call it a scam, but damned close.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I should also admit I'm a paranoid tin-foil-hat-wearing loony, as I think Google's attribution model on paid search is just this side of "scam".
     

    Fixed.



  • @Zylon said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    I should also admit I'm a paranoid tin-foil-hat-wearing loony, as I think Google's attribution model on paid search is just this side of "scam".
     

    Fixed.

     

    Nah, they rely on the fact that most Internet users find a site by Googling it, even if the URL is obvious. For example, if a banner from ElectroCity convinces a user to buy a TV, that user is more likely than not going to type "ElectroCity" into a search box. The banner gets no attribution, and Google's search gets all the credit. (As of awhile ago) Google doesn't correct for this in any way, nor do they split attribution.

    Like I said, it's not really a "scam", they're just over-valuing search by a large degree. It's enough that I like to avoid them if I have a chance.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    they rely on the fact that most Internet users find a site by Googling it, even if the URL is obvious. For example, if a banner from ElectroCity convinces a user to buy a TV, that user is more likely than not going to type "ElectroCity" into a search box. The banner gets no attribution, and Google's search gets all the credit. (As of awhile ago) Google doesn't correct for this in any way, nor do they split attribution.

    Like I said, it's not really a "scam", they're just over-valuing search by a large degree. It's enough that I like to avoid them if I have a chance.

    So exactly how do you presume Google should identify the banner ads that inspired people to enter in search criteria to get their products?

    The best I could see them managing would be limited to just the banner ads that they provided, and even there, it seems like an awful lot of work to do to convince the world they're not evil.  It's much easier to simply say their motto is "don't be evil", and have that be enough.

    As a publicly traded corporation, it's probably not even possible for them to really not be evil.  I mean, fiduciary responsibilities, and all...



  • @tgape said:

    So exactly how do you presume Google should identify the banner ads that inspired people to enter in search criteria to get their products?
     

    They inherited all the DoubleClick customers, remember? And their API is integrated with almost every other provider out there-- Atlas being the biggest non-Google one. The complaint isn't that Google isn't technically capable of doing it, they are. They just don't do it because it would lower the value of their paid search.

    Atlas, to give one example, uses a much more fair attribution model.

    @tgape said:

    As a publicly traded corporation, it's probably not even possible for them to really not be evil.  I mean, fiduciary responsibilities, and all...

    True. But people need to call Google on bullcrap when they see it, as much as any other company.



  • @Zemm said:

     Everytime I see "Bing" I read it as "Bling". Pimp up your search engine!
    There's got to be a "Yo dawg, I herd you like" joke in there somewhere.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    There's got to be a "Yo dawg, I herd you like" joke in there somewhere.
     

    Yo dawg.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @Zemm said:
     Everytime I see "Bing" I read it as "Bling". Pimp up your search engine!
    There's got to be a "Yo dawg, I herd you like" joke in there somewhere.
     

     

    Yo dawg I heard you like to search so I put some Bling in your Bing so your search is well pimped and you can't find a thing?



  • @Nyquist

    You seem to have missed the herd/SSDS joke.

    In the mean time, I don't get what's up dhromed's "Yo Dawg" google link.



  • @Zecc said:

    I don't get what's up dhromed's "Yo Dawg" google link.
     

    I put a google in your google.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Zecc said:

    I don't get what's up dhromed's "Yo Dawg" google link.
     

    I put a google in your google.

    Ah, ok. I was distracted by the change of language to NL and didn't realize it was a search for "google".

    Heh, "het internet" looks like a misspeeling of "the internet".



  • @Zecc said:

    Heh, "het internet" looks like a misspeeling of "the internet".

    I think you meant mispeling of "teh internet".



  • @Zecc said:

    You seem to have missed the herd/SSDS joke.

    Linky?



  • @Lingerance said:

    @Zecc said:
    You seem to have missed the herd/SSDS joke.

    Linky?
    Oops! Confused 'herd' with 'hoard'!  My bad!



  • @Zecc said:

    @Lingerance said:
    @Zecc said:
    You seem to have missed the herd/SSDS joke.

    Linky?
    Oops! Confused 'herd' with 'hoard'!  My bad!
     

    Dammit I really did miss a perfect opportunity for a Swampy joke though.

    Okay: 

    Yo dawg I herd hoard you like to search so I put a 2TB txt file in yo SSDS so your memory's maxed out and your computer cant do shit?



  • @Nyquist said:

    Yo dawg I herd hoard you like to search so I put a 2TB txt file in yo SSDS so your memory's maxed out and your computer cant do shit?
    Win



  • "It is well known in the industry that MSNbot is fairly slow. I suggest
    reading our FAQs stickied at the top of the indexing forum to get some ideas of what to do."

    However, MSNbot has plenty of time to launch DDoS attacks:




  • @joeyadams said:

    However, MSNbot has plenty of time to launch DDoS attacks:

    http://blogs.perl.org/users/cpan_testers/2010/01/msnbot-must-die.html

     

    Let's see.

    - Revelling in creative conspiracy theories as to how Micro$oft is deliberately DDoSing a firefox distribution site to slow down the spread of firefox (Of course doing this from officially registered IP addresses and with "MSNBot" in the user agent string...)

    - Finding a multi billion dollar company doing a rooky mistake
    (which of course only affects THEIR site) more likely than maybe some
    script kiddy doing a DRDOS attack. Because, after all, it's Micro$oft;

    - Matching an IP address by converting it to a string and running it through a regex;

    ... yup, we're on CPAN.



  • @PSWorx said:

    @joeyadams said:

    However, MSNbot has plenty of time to launch DDoS attacks:

    http://blogs.perl.org/users/cpan_testers/2010/01/msnbot-must-die.html

     

    Let's see.

    - Revelling in creative conspiracy theories as to how Micro$oft is deliberately DDoSing a firefox distribution site to slow down the spread of firefox (Of course doing this from officially registered IP addresses and with "MSNBot" in the user agent string...)

    - Finding a multi billion dollar company doing a rooky mistake
    (which of course only affects THEIR site) more likely than maybe some
    script kiddy doing a DRDOS attack. Because, after all, it's Micro$oft;

    - Matching an IP address by converting it to a string and running it through a regex;

    ... yup, we're on CPAN.

    +1, Ball-Dippingly Awesome



  • @PSWorx said:

    - Revelling in creative conspiracy theories as to how Micro$oft is deliberately DDoSing a firefox distribution site to slow down the spread of firefox (Of course doing this from officially registered IP addresses and with "MSNBot" in the user agent string...)

    - Finding a multi billion dollar company doing a rooky mistake
    (which of course only affects THEIR site) more likely than maybe some
    script kiddy doing a DRDOS attack. Because, after all, it's Micro$oft;

    - Matching an IP address by converting it to a string and running it through a regex;

    ... yup, we're on CPAN.

    My reading of that page's text is a bit different from yours:

    • One user mentions that MSNBot is overloading his server with bogus requests for nonexistent firefox temp files.  Over the course of three responses and about 82 hours, he develops a theory that it's deliberate - but probably that either Microsoft has been hacked, or it's the result of rogue server admin activity, rather than something approved by management.  Nobody responded to this user's comments.
    • CPAN, Bill Gianopolous's site, perldesignpatterns.com, and Open Watcom all indicated they've had similar problems with msnbot.  Google returns over 6k hits for msnbot "ignoring robots.txt"  (Admittedly, only 31 from this year.)  So not just CPAN.
    • Yup, we're on the Daily WTF.


  • @tgape said:

    @PSWorx said:

    - Revelling in creative conspiracy theories as to how Micro$oft is deliberately DDoSing a firefox distribution site to slow down the spread of firefox (Of course doing this from officially registered IP addresses and with "MSNBot" in the user agent string...)

    - Finding a multi billion dollar company doing a rooky mistake
    (which of course only affects THEIR site) more likely than maybe some
    script kiddy doing a DRDOS attack. Because, after all, it's Micro$oft;

    - Matching an IP address by converting it to a string and running it through a regex;

    ... yup, we're on CPAN.

    My reading of that page's text is a bit different from yours:

    • One user mentions that MSNBot is overloading his server with bogus requests for nonexistent firefox temp files.  Over the course of three responses and about 82 hours, he develops a theory that it's deliberate - but probably that either Microsoft has been hacked, or it's the result of rogue server admin activity, rather than something approved by management.  Nobody responded to this user's comments.
    • CPAN, Bill Gianopolous's site, perldesignpatterns.com, and Open Watcom all indicated they've had similar problems with msnbot.  Google returns over 6k hits for msnbot "ignoring robots.txt"  (Admittedly, only 31 from this year.)  So not just CPAN.
    • Yup, we're on the Daily WTF.

    Yours was a lot less funny.



  • @PSWorx said:

    DRDOS
    So we have Ms. DOS, Mr. DOS, and finally Dr. DOS.  Anyone seen Rev. DOS?



  • Data General Nova and Eclipse minicomputers used RDOS. You can get a copy on the SIMH emulator's page.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.