A treatise in support of Bing over Google

[XDaDePsak]

Three reasons you should use Bing instead of Google

#1 - Superior image search.​

This isn't even up to debate. Even staunch Bing haters concede superiority in this area. Google image search is a joke by comparison.

#2 - You get ~$10/mo just for using Bing.​

Bing Rewards points are redeemable for anything from XBOX LIVE GOLD memberships to iTunes giftcards, and much more. There's a long list of shizzle you can get (NOTE: referral link) especially since Tango Cards are like "universal gift cards" and can be divided up into numerous different gift cards from a wide variety of companies. Not to mention you currently get about $10 for every 4 of your friends you refer. Imagine if Google let you download a free album of your choice every month? Well with Bing that's reality.

#3 - Bing homepage is more interesting than Google.​

Bing has interesting (often trippy) wallpapers that switch every couple days. Google tries to mix things up by changing their logo every day to celebrate a holiday or point out some esoteric historical reference no one cares about. Again, Bing is a the winner.
​

Really, the only time not to use it is if you're doing school research. For casual searching, Bing is just as good or better than Google in some cases. But if you're digging deep, nothing replaces Google.

If you're like me where 90% of your searches are for simple terms, word definitions or Wikipedia articles then Bing is the obvious winner here.
TL; DR - Use both. Bing for your default search engine, Google for research. Get the best of both worlds. Duh. You just got scienced.

Anyway, hope I disspelled some needless hipsterish "Bung" hate.

 

[Dodongo]

My blind hatred prevents me from reading even a word of that post. Away with thee, vile bunger!

 

[Teran]

I miss 2004 Google Images so much.

 

[theeboredone]

I would switch over to Bing, but most of my searches are stuff looking for discussions or forums. Bing has a hard time giving me results in that regard.

For example: "Bodybuilding.com rippetoe diet"

Google would return thread discussions. Bing would just give me some random websites.

 

[XDaDePsak]

I would switch over to Bing, but most of my searches are stuff looking for discussions or forums. Bing has a hard time giving me results in that regard.

For example: "Bodybuilding.com rippetoe diet"

Google would return thread discussions. Bing would just give me some random websites.

Are you sure you don't have that backwards. I just tried searching Bodybuilding.com rippetoe diet in both Bing and Google. Here's the results:

it's just like you said, except the opposite

 

[theeboredone]

You just have to look at the very first result and see how there are additional threads available for one to click in the Google Search. And you have an option to see more thread results.

 

[XDaDePsak]

You just have to look at the very first result and see how there are additional threads available for one to click in the Google Search. And you have an option to see more thread results.

I understand that. But that's not how you described it in your first post.

You said:

Google would return thread discussions. Bing would just give me some random websites.

All I'm pointing out is how that statement isn't totally accurate. In fact it was Google that displayed the random websites, not Bing. And instead of displaying random websites, Bing displayed almost ONLY relevant links. So, it's almost the exact opposite of what you said, other than the fact that Google does have a relevant composite result at the top.

If I were to have just read what you said and not checked I might have thought Bing wasn't so great after all, but with a simple check it turns out the results page is nowhere as bad as you made it sound.

Another way to look at it is like this:

Google: Displays just 1 relevant composite result at the top (with just post titles and no further info about each link), followed by a bunch of irrelevant search results.
Bing: Displays almost only relevant results with information about each result.

I don't have an opinion on which of those two is better. I'm sure there's good arguments for both sets of results. I'm just making sure there's no misunderstandings here.

 

[theeboredone]

Actually it's a flawed argument on what you're saying about Google. Google consolidated all their thread discussions into essentially one space, where as Bing opts to have a space for each thread discussion. There are 5 links to click + an option to expand on that. Bing gives you 4 (the last one doesn't count as it's a .doc file).

Also another thing. Note the average responses per thread in the Google results is in the 20s, where as Bing only gives you one in the 20s, with the other containing only 2-3 responses.

Furthermore, yes my original statement said it's good for thread/forum search (which I still stand by), but the irrelevant results are also much better. As I stated earlier, I don't have to worry about each "thread" result taking up its own space, because Google consolidates it. The other are articles from Bodybuilding.com + reputable fitness gurus like Scooby. Bing does that as well, but in my opinion not as well.

Conclusion: When you are searching how I do usually, mainly for specifics. Google gives you more punch on your first page. I rarely never cross over to the next page as I find it then to be a pointless search.

 

[XDaDePsak]

Actually it's a flawed argument on what you're saying about Google. Google consolidated all their thread discussions into essentially one space, where as Bing opts to have a space for each thread discussion. There are 5 links to click + an option to expand on that. Bing gives you 4 (the last one doesn't count as it's a .doc file).

How is that a flawed argument on my part? I already mentioned everything you just wrote.

Furthermore, yes my original statement said it's good for thread/forum search (which I still stand by), but the irrelevant results are also much better

Talk about switching the goalposts! First, including irrelevant results is a BAD thing about Bing, but when it turns out that's a total falsehood and the in reality the situation is the opposite, the same thing (having irrelevant results) is somehow a GOOD thing for Google. That's hilarious.

I hate to be insulting, but it seems like you're just writing things down while only vaguely giving any consideration to what's happening in reality -- whether it's concerning the reality of this discussion, or the reality of the search engine results.

 

[Mic_128]

Sorry, but when Bing decided to use Google search results as its own, they became dead to me.

If they're actually having to pay people to use it, then it really can't be that great.

 

[theeboredone]

Bing: Displays almost only relevant results with information about each result.

Take Google's 5-6 thread results that were condensed into one page, and spread them out like Bing...you get one full page of the results I need. That beats Bing's results right then and there. By condensing the thread results into one space, it let's them post other relevant results that maybe useful. It can open the gate for irrelevant results, but see my second statement below.

Talk about switching the goalposts! First, including irrelevant results is a BAD thing about Bing, but when it turns out that's a total falsehood and the in reality the situation is the opposite, the same thing (having irrelevant results) is somehow a GOOD thing for Google. That's hilarious.

So you're accusing the guy who owns a Windows Phone and actively used Bing for a month of writing things vaguely? Actually, I think you should go re-read my post.

"but the irrelevant results are also much better." Meaning, while they are not linked to the website, they still are a secondary source that provide information that I need. The experience I had with Bing in this regard was quite inferior and led me to be frustrated. Hence, my original statement of "random websites".

The way you are construing your arguments are similar to a politician. The moment they speak a word they didn't mean, it comes back to bite them in the butt repeatedly, and you attack it over and over again. I didn't mean what I said, and now I'm trying to clarify my point, while you keep harping on it.

I hate to be insulting, but it seems like you're just writing things down while only vaguely giving any consideration to what's happening in reality -- whether it's concerning the reality of this discussion, or the reality of the search engine results.

Thanks for insulting me! I really appreciate it! You have a great day!

 

[XDaDePsak]

If they're actually having to pay people to use it, then it really can't be that great.

Flawed logic. People develop brand loyalty. Incentives are needed to break habits.

 

[Pachinkosam]

i heard very time you go to google they get 15 cents of money.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Hey guys, you realize that you don't have to choose between Xbone and PS4, you can buy both.

If you're like me where 90% of your searches are for simple terms, word definitions or Wikipedia articles then Bing is the obvious winner here.

I wasn't aware that bing.com is better at searching through wikipedia.org than google.com.

 

[INFINITEJUSTICE]

As far as actual searches, I don't really care. Google is probably marginally better.

The image searching is a lot better than Google's, as is video. If we want to speak honestly here, let's face it. Bing is much better for looking up porn. If you search a specific girl (or whatever you like, it's your business ), you'll just come up with a bunch of crap on El Goog. They filter out everything you want (even with safesearch off, which is idiotic). Bing will bring you everything you want and more. Google is crap for search videos too, whereas Bing is perfect.

One thing I greatly prefer Google on is searching for a location or business. Search for it on Google and it comes up with what you're looking for 9 times out of 10. Google Maps looks great and is easy to navigate so that's great. Bing Maps and all that is just garbage so there's just really no comparison for me on this.

 

[Dodongo]

I have noticed that Bing does a little less filtering

 

[XDaDePsak]

I wasn't aware that bing.com is better at searching through wikipedia.org than google.com.

It's not. Which is why I never said it was.