Another Google vs. Live search

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.

74 thoughts on “Another Google vs. Live search

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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…

  4. 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…

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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!.

  10. 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!.

  11. Try this search on live.com

    twitter search {frsh=100}

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

  12. Try this search on live.com

    twitter search {frsh=100}

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

  13. @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.

  14. @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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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…

  18. 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…

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. #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.

Comments are closed.