Phil Bradley's weblog

Internet Explorer losing browser share

This just in from the BBC News, which is going to further depress Microsoft. IE now accounts for less than 60% of the market it's lost 35% from the heady days of 2003 after it's rout of Netscape. Firefox continues to grow apace, up to 24.5% and Chrome is doing well with 6.7%.

Those are global figures - in the UK IE still has about 70% of the market; the UK has never embraced Firefox for reasons that escape me. However, that's still a drop of 6%, while Firefox is at 18%. Much of this is down to security scares, greater awareness of other options, use of Safari on iPhones as well I suspect.

This is going to put further pressure on organisations that are still using IE6 as their main operating tool. I understand that in some situations, particularly the NHS there are tools that will only run within that environment, but I still don't see why they can't move to different browsers - I can't believe that people are incapable of working with different bits of software, but I guess I must be wrong in that assumption!

Bing is now my search engine of choice

It's been a long time coming, and I've thought long and hard about it, but the time has come. I've decided to move across to using Bing as my main search engine. It was a difficult call - Google or Microsoft; which is less evil? (Actually probably about equal on that score!) I've been keeping a note of the type of searches that I tend to do, and Bing matches Google on just about all of them. For example, site: works on both, nested logic is fine, define: works, convert function works, movies: is fine, weather/time and location are all fine, intitle: does what it should, filetype:, inanchor work perfectly. I can't get synonym search with the tilde symbol, and inurl: doesn't work, which is a bit of a minus. On the other hand, I have prefer: which adds emphasis to a term, rather better than the quite frankly ridiculous Google sinker approach (repeating a keyword several times). I also lose the option of searching in Creative Commons (though Google isn't great at that anyway, so I'm not missing that much.)

So, on the functionality aspect it's pretty much a draw. When it comes to search layout it's a different matter entirely. Google's serps (search engine results page) is a complete mess. It's becoming increasingly difficult to find what I want, which is information. Having said that, the 'Show options' flyout is nice, but when I analysed how I search, the number of times that I actually use it is quite limited - usually to the 'any time' function. On the other hand, Bing has the very nice 'More on this page' flyout, which is really helpful. I also have the 'All Results' option with links directly to News/Images/Video as well. 

On the image front, I'd still put Google ahead to be honest. While I like the continual scroll that Bing provides, I do like the extra functions that Google's put into image search. However, when I want images, I tend to go to Flickr or TagGalaxy instead, so no real loss there. Video function is nicer than Google, and the instant mouseover and play is fun. 

News is a harder choice - Google gives me more immediate information, and a nice option to search back in time periods which Bing doesn't provide. However, once again I'll turn to a third party resource for that, in this case Silobreaker, which is a far superior product to anything the big two can put out. 

Maps are fairly equal in both engines, but Google has Bing beaten with the aerial option; I can zoom in much closer than on Bing. Then there's street view as well, so it's no contest on that. 

The tool bar is a real issue for me though. The vast majority of my searching is done using the toolbar, and I really like the Google version - it's small and doesn't take up much space on the browser. It also has a very nice 'search on this site' function which saves me a huge amount of time. The Bing option is very poor in comparision. It's large and clunky, looks very old fashioned and doesn't have anywhere close to the functionality of the Google counterpart. I'm not going to be getting rid of the Google bar, and I'm not going to be using the Bing one any time soon.

Of course, I've presented these elements as an either/or, and it's not like that of course. I shall continue to use both search engines (as well as the dozen or so others that I use for other more specific purposes), since they both have good functionality, and why should I deprive myself? It's just that I'll be using Bing more as a default general search engine than Google now.

I'll let you know how it goes. Oh, and I'm aware of the date, but this isn't an April Fools prank, just in case you were wondering.

Bing adds quick reference/location option

A nice piece of functionality from Bing has recently been introduced. It's a quick reference/location option, and turns up on most searches now - just check the left hand menu for 'Reference articles on'. Clicking on this pulls up content from Wikipedia, with data from the original article, and an overview box on the right for outline, images, locations. It's a very nice idea, discussed in more detail on their blog. I particularly like the location option, which displays a map and you can zoom in and around as necessary, all without leaving the page. I'd have preferred a greater variety of content, pulled from more sources than just Wikipedia, but the concept is great. This is what it looks like:

Bing - same image, different sizes

Bing has introduced a very nice image feature which allows you to find different sizes of the same image. Find an image you want, mouseover it and chose the 'Find more sizes' option. You'll then get a page of results a little like this:

You can then simply mouseover each title to see the image, and you've already got source, resolution, file size and type on the screen already. Great if you're looking for a particular image and don't want to have the hassle of trying to resize it. Also interesting to see if there are any copyright violations as well I should think! Nice bit of functionality. Well done Bing!

Bing adds recipe option

Bing is continuing to compete against Google by offering a variety of different options. This seems to be a very sensible approach - they can't compete head to head, but if they're able to offer options that can attract people a few of them will stick with the search engine.

Anyway, back to recipes. Pop in a particular recipe, or element and Bing will give a list of results. On the left hand menu searchers can choose to click on recipes. Users will then see something like this:

I've chosen a search for chilli and then limited to Vegetarian. Other options include Rating, Occassion (Yes, they have got it wrong), main ingredients, course and cooking method. I liked the fact that it also gives details on calories and fat. There are limitations - I tried 'quorn' and didn't get much joy, and I also tried some medical conditions which affect what people can eat, and that wasn't impressive either. However, that's getting very picky. It's hugely more impressive than the result you get on Google. Give it a try!

Bing launches new visual search

No sooner does one new visual search option come along, than you get another. Neck and neck with Google's fast flip idea (blogged below) do we have Bing's Visual Search. Note that you have to have the US version enabled or you're just going to get an error message. Clearly any sort of re-direction is a little too difficult for Microsoft to manage. Not even a 'Sorry, you need to go to the US version to see it.' Oh well. That gripe out of the way, let's look at it in more detail.

It's a simple concept - people like searching visually. Provide them with pictures of something and they can narrow down really quickly ("It had a red cover and was on the third shelf down" sound familiar?) to exactly what they're after. Bing is starting off slowly here with some popular concepts - US presidents, Film heroes and villains, tv shows, dog breeds, cars and so on. The idea is that you simply click on what interests you, and you'll get a bunch of images. You can then mouseover the one that interests you and immediately see some information below the search box, with the person/thing/whatever added into the search box for you. I like that idea, as long as it works in a sensible way.

Some of the options are obvious - US presidents for example are arranged in date order, with the oldest at the front of the screen, with newer ones behind. Though I'd have thought people would have been more interested in having Obama, Bush and so on at the front, rather than having to scroll up the screen (yes, up, which is counter intuitive) to see them. However, once you get the idea, it's obvious. The dog breeds is arranged alphabetically with A at the front, going back to B and so on. This is a good example of the visual element - there are very few net resources that allow me to find something if I don't know really what I'm looking for, but if I can visually see breeds I can then quickly work out that I'm looking for information on a Labrador.

I do have other concerns however. Let's take a look at the Heroes and Villains option:

 

In order for this list to make sense we need to know the first name of the hero or villain. Auric Goldfinger isn't listed under G, but under A. What kind of system is that? If it's him that I'm going for I'm liable to miss him since I'll be scrolling straight up to the G's. (Though the obvious response to that is that if I know who I want I'll just search for him anyway). Second point - he's actually on a line of B's. This is really confusing, since the first B is actually Arthur Chipping. The first B doesn't start until half way along the line with Baby Jane. Could they not have done a half indent up a line or something to indicate that we're moving from A to B and so on?

It's a nice idea, and I can see how it's going to work in some areas, but it's going to take a lot of hard work to make it work properly, and much of it by hand I suspect. Worth familiarising yourself with in case you ever need to discover information about dog breeds, but otherwise, interesting, fun and perhaps of limited value - yet.

50 Tips & Tricks for Researching with Bing

50 Tips & Tricks for Researching with Bing. Nice article from 'Becoming a computer technician'. It covers basic search, Best uses for Bing, Best basic Bing tricks, Best advanced tricks, blogs, reviews and downloads.

Blakeman blogs Bing Bash

I've mentioned the Bing meeting in my weblog, and Karen has now posted her views on the Bing UK Round Table Meeting. Our views of the product are very similar which isn't surprising given that we work in the same sector.

Microsoft Bing: 7 Quick 'n' Dirty Tricks

Ok, we've got an interesting post ( Microsoft Bing: 7 Quick 'n' Dirty Tricks ) from Microsoft on some of the things that Bing can do. Let's take a look, and remember, these are some of the best things it can do, else why talk about them?

1. You can search for desktop backgrounds; there's a special image size category. Yes, you can do that in Exalead, you can also choose specific sizes in Google and there's a wallpaper option in Google and Yahoo as well. So, nothing new there then.

2. Consumer tools. You can get the contact numbers of any company quickly. It's helpful that the Customer service number is on the results page, so a point for that. However, the same information is available (though one click away) via Ask, Yahoo and Google. Better than Exalead, which doesn't have extended information.

3. Search categories are great for quick gadget research, with a menu of subsearches. Yes, I'd rate this better than the Google related search options. It's also better than Exalead and Ask. Yahoo is the search engine that comes closest here, but I'd still give the edge to Bing.

4. Background image on the home page. Quite frankly, why do I care? It's a complete irrelevance to me. Even Bing says 'it'd be nice if you could turn it off, but it's sorta fun'. No, it's not 'sorta' anything. It's of no value or assistance at all. You can change the background in Ask, you have Google doodles, and Exalead allows you to have the much more useful thumbnail short cuts.

5. You can create an RSS feed for any search. Even then they admit that it's not as up to date as Google Alerts. You could create RSS feeds in previous versions of the search engine, so this isn't an addition or enhancement, it's simply the status quo. While I can't add feeds from Exalead, Ask or Yahoo, I can with Icerocket, so this isn't that much of a new or exciting feature.

6. Video preview. This isn't bad. Mouseover the video link and you'll get to see some of the video. I can't do that in Yahoo or Ask, but I can watch the video on the results page in Google, Exalead. Of course, what this also means is that Bing is not going to be allowed in schools since a couple of mouse clicks gets you to unlimited porn. Bing also makes the point that I can sneak around IP filtering for sites like Hulu. Yes, I bet they're going to love that, but is Microsoft really thinking that I'm prepared to sit and watch a postage sized stamp video?

7. Results previews create summaries for each result. Exalead allows users to preview a page, but I'd have to say Bing wins out on all of the search engines I've used as examples here. So another point.

All told though, not exactly a winning combination. I'm aware that Bing is trying to position itself as a decision engine with marketing towards people who want to buy products, and that's fine, as far as it goes. But I'm still not convinced that Bing is offering anything exciting or innovating or different enough to make any serious searcher want to move from their original choice of engine.

More on Bing removing UK content

Regular readers will know that I identified a search in the UK version of Bing which indicated that content had been removed from the search results. If you've not seen it you can read it at Phil Bradley's weblog: Bing: excluding results from UK version? Stefan from Microsoft kindly responded to say the following:

Hey there - Did some digging on this. We occasionally receive notice that content accessible through our search service presents legal or public policy concerns such as potential harms to privacy, intellectual property rights, or the potential exploitation of children. In such cases, we may remove certain links from our search index or not return results for certain search terms in order to improve the customer experience for search results we deliver. When we do so, we indicate to users that content was removed, attempt to limit both the amount of content removed to only that which is necessary, and limit the geographic scope of removal only to the markets where we believe such removal is appropriate, for example, given local public policy considerations. The consequence, in some cases, may be that different results appear in different versions that are tailored to local markets.

It is important to note, however, that users are not limited to one version of Bing and can choose to run queries on versions tailored to other markets.

We are looking into this particular result in the UK.

Now I don't want to be particularly obtuse on this, but as far as I'm concerned this raises a bunch of other questions:

Who sends Microsoft such notices? How does Microsoft check their validity? Does Microsoft tell the website owner their content has been removed? How is removing content but not telling users what content has been removed 'improve the customer experience'?

Clearly Microsoft is only going to remove 'that which is necessary' - but necessary to who? If Microsoft is choosing to remove material that it believes is appropriate why are they making that decision, and upon what grounds? What are the 'local public policy decisions', and why are these not made public?

I fully accept that it's possible to view content from other versions of Bing, which I illustrated in the previous post. Consequently, is there any real point in removing content in one version when I can simply go elsewhere to see exactly the same material?

I'm pleased to see that they're looking into this result. Let me help further. Every single Martin Luther King search I ran, including the 'Related searches' resulted in the results removed message. I'm pretty sure that what's been removed is reference to the martinlutherking dot org site (which is a site that I have NO time for and think it's vile), but this isn't made clear. All I know is that Microsoft is not letting me see all the results, isn't telling me WHY I can't see all the results and is also not telling me which pages I cannot see. This is not helpful.

I'm am further confused because the said website is available if I search on Google, Ask, and Exalead, though it's missing entirely from Yahoo. Now, if someone or some authority in the UK wanted that site removed why didn't they also request removal from those search engines as well?

I'm just as confused as ever - if not more so!