Google or Bing
just passin thru
TR
Bill Kinkaid
It would be nice if there were a useful alternative to Google. Bing
ain't it.
Virtual Earth isn't much of an alternative to Google Earth either, and
Bing Maps is even more useless. MSN Maps or whatever it was called at
least gave better coverage of some areas than GE, but it doens't
appear to be available any more.
And Yahoo's offerings aren't competitive with those from Google or M$.
--
Bill in Vancouver
()
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:57:16 -0800 (PST), just passin thru
>
> >Which one works better for you? Or is there any difference?
> > TR
>
> It would be nice if there were a useful alternative to Google. Bing
> ain't it.
> Virtual Earth isn't much of an alternative to Google Earth either, and
> Bing Maps is even more useless. MSN Maps or whatever it was called at
> least gave better coverage of some areas than GE, but it doens't
> appear to be available any more.
>
> And Yahoo's offerings aren't competitive with those from Google or M$.
>
Try http://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html . Google results without the
irritating ads.
Glenn Dowdy
"just passin thru" <htt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a099e110-c927-4cb5...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Which one works better for you? Or is there any difference?
> TR
Bing is popular on the computer forums I frequent for their cash back
programs. Other than that I don't see a use for itt.
Glenn D.
John Hatpin
*shrug* Firefox, Ad-block, Google. No ads.
--
John Hatpin
http://uninformedcomment.wordpress.com/
Jim Ellwanger
Bill Kinkaid <davel...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> And Yahoo's offerings aren't competitive with those from Google or M$.
Which is probably why they're going to be farming out many of their
search functions to Bing within the next 12-18 months, or thereabouts.
--
Jim Ellwanger <use...@ellwanger.tv>
<http://www.ellwanger.tv> welcomes you daily.
"The days turn into nights; at night, you hear the trains."
Ray
> Tryhttp://www.scroogle.org/scraper.html. Google results without the
> irritating ads.
Google has ads now? Huh.
Dana Carpender
Has for a long time; they don't bother me. They make Google free to the
user.
I've looked at Bing, and fail to see how it's remarkable in any way. I
surely don't see how it's a "decision engine."
Dana
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
> Which one works better for you?
I can't say I gave Bing an incredibly thorough evaluation including the
digital prostate exam, but what I have seen of it hasn't been impressive.
It hasn't helped that all the big proponents of Bing that I know are
also the people who think that any problem can be solved merely by
transforming some trivial sub-set of it into XML. Yes, all your
deck-chairs are now neatly expressed in XML, but *your dab-burned ship
is still sinking*, dumbass.
Xho
Xho Jingleheimerschmidt
So, princess, how is that pea?
Xho
Greg Johnson
>Which one works better for you? Or is there any difference?
Hopefully they've improved it since, but at launch Bing was just so
absolutely hopeless as a search engine that I never went back to look
at it again.
David J. Martin
Leroy. I went to Bing expecting something new and different. It wasn't.
David
groo
> I've looked at Bing, and fail to see how it's remarkable in any way. I
> surely don't see how it's a "decision engine."
>
I think it is a very good decision engine. I tried it, then decided to
never use it again.
--
"I was nimble as a cat. I always managed to land on all fours." - Dr.
Tobias Funke on "Arrested Development"
Snidely
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:57:16 -0800 (PST), just passin thru
>
> >Which one works better for you? Or is there any difference?
>
> Hopefully they've improved it since, but at launch Bing was just so
> absolutely hopeless as a search engine that I never went back to look
> at it again.
They've partnered with the Mathematica people to front end Alpha on
it, reportedly, but I haven't explored how to get there. (When I
tried out Alpha directly, it didn't do well on my attempts to expand
upon the examples. Baseball stats were involved, IIRC [which is of
limited probability].)
/dps
()
<RemoveThisjfhop...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
> () wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 3:43 pm, Bill Kinkaid <davelis...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:57:16 -0800 (PST), just passin thru
>
> > > <http...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >Which one works better for you? Or is there any difference?
> > > > TR
>
> > > It would be nice if there were a useful alternative to Google. Bing
> > > ain't it.
> > > Virtual Earth isn't much of an alternative to Google Earth either, and
> > > Bing Maps is even more useless. MSN Maps or whatever it was called at
> > > least gave better coverage of some areas than GE, but it doens't
> > > appear to be available any more.
>
> > > And Yahoo's offerings aren't competitive with those from Google or M$.
>
> > irritating ads.
>
> *shrug* Firefox, Ad-block, Google. No ads.
Scroogle avoids the possibility of personally identifiable search data
getting published. You may also have to use a computer with only IE
installed with less than superfast internet connection.
Snidely
> You may also have to use a computer with only IE
> installed with less than superfast internet connection.
I read this reply several times before I realized this wasn't listing
a *requirement* that scroogle places upon potential users.
/dps
Neal Eckhardt
Kinda like other products from Microsoft that are "new and different".
Why did anybody expect anything else?
--
Neal
Never go to a plastic surgeon whose favorite artist is Picasso.
Snidely
> Dana Carpender <dcarp...@kivanospam.net> wrote:
> > I've looked at Bing, and fail to see how it's remarkable in any way. I
> > surely don't see how it's a "decision engine."
>
> I think it is a very good decision engine. I tried it, then decided to
> never use it again.
So it's solved your search overload issue?
/dps