Another Google vs. Live search

March 20, 2007 By

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.

Filed Under: 1
Newer Comments →
  • Brian

    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?

  • Brian

    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?

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    Brian. I went to Live.com and searched for “Image Search.” Guess what it brought back? Google Image Search is #1. Heheh!

    http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=Image+Search&mkt=en-us&FORM=LVCP&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Search

    Seriously, I don’t do many image searches. When I want to see a cool image of something I go over to Flickr.

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    Brian. I went to Live.com and searched for “Image Search.” Guess what it brought back? Google Image Search is #1. Heheh!

    http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=Image+Search&mkt=en-us&FORM=LVCP&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=Search

    Seriously, I don’t do many image searches. When I want to see a cool image of something I go over to Flickr.

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    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.

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    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.

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    Here’s a Flickr search for “Scoble.” I like it nicer than the Live.com search.

    http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=scoble&w=all

    The Live.com search for “Scoble” is here:

    http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=scoble&FORM=QBIR&mkt=en-us

    Notice how much nicer the Flickr URL is.

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    Here’s a Flickr search for “Scoble.” I like it nicer than the Live.com search.

    http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=scoble&w=all

    The Live.com search for “Scoble” is here:

    http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=scoble&FORM=QBIR&mkt=en-us

    Notice how much nicer the Flickr URL is.

  • Jim

    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.

  • Jim

    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.

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    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.

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    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.

  • met

    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.

  • shravan

    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.

  • met

    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.

  • shravan

    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.

  • Kevin

    Live Search doesn’t even rendering properly in Safari. The layout completely falls apart: http://zolknetwork.com/misc/livesearch-safari.png

  • Kevin

    Live Search doesn’t even rendering properly in Safari. The layout completely falls apart: http://zolknetwork.com/misc/livesearch-safari.png

  • shravan

    @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.

  • shravan

    @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.

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    Shravan: you could have stopped at “Google is probably better.” :-)

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    Shravan: you could have stopped at “Google is probably better.” :-)

  • John

    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.

  • John

    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.

  • shravan

    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.

  • shravan

    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.

  • http://www.jonespc.com/ David Jones

    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.

  • http://www.jonespc.com David Jones

    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.

  • http://www.liveside.net/ Chris

    Interesting timing on the post Robert. Nielson just posted their latest stats and Live Search was up 0.7% at the expense of Yahoo. Google continued growing.

    http://www.liveside.net/blogs/main/archive/2007/03/20/yet-more-live-search-news.aspx

  • http://www.liveside.net Chris

    Interesting timing on the post Robert. Nielson just posted their latest stats and Live Search was up 0.7% at the expense of Yahoo. Google continued growing.

    http://www.liveside.net/blogs/main/archive/2007/03/20/yet-more-live-search-news.aspx

  • Master Williams

    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.

  • Master Williams

    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.

  • Isaac

    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.

  • Isaac

    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.

  • Guiness

    I haven’t used Google in months and haven’t missed it at all.

  • Guiness

    I haven’t used Google in months and haven’t missed it at all.

  • Trev

    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.

  • Trev

    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.

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

  • hadi

    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?

  • hadi

    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?

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    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.

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    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.

  • http://blog.loaz.com/timwang Tim Wang

    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…

  • http://blog.loaz.com/timwang Tim Wang

    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…

  • shravan

    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!

  • shravan

    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!

  • shravan

    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. :-)

  • shravan

    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. :-)

  • http://scobleizer.com/ Robert Scoble

    #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.

Newer Comments →