Talk:Microsoft Bing/Archive 1

message: I removed the "MSN Search has often been criticized  for its relatively poor search results, compared with those of Google and Yahoo!. However, based on early impressions, Microsoft appears to have improved the quality of its search results in Windows Live Search. " lines, because it needed several citations that just aren't there. Also, 'poor results' cannot be defined. The first line comes across as a disguised jab at Live Search in favor of Google and Yahoo. In other words, POV.
:03-October-2006:  Agree.  I used MSN Search extensively in 2005, and found it far, far, far superior to Google and Yahoo! for indexing new pages faster & finding webpages closer to requested keywords, while avoiding the linkspam pages that swamped Yahoo and the off-beat pages that Google ranked higher.  In fact, I was stunned that MSN Search was so fast about re-indexing recent topics, and that MSN Search was so clever about matching important webpages.  Did I mention, after analyzing performance objectively for an entire year, I found MSN Search to be far, far, far SUPERIOR???  -Wikid77 19:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 02-August-2007:  This may need to be revisisted.  I'm going to recuse myself from actually removing any criticism here as (by day!) I'm an employee of Microsoft (though not the Live Search team), but the criticism listed in the article is from mid-2006 and doesn't seem that relevant to me anymore. (Though the comment about "in general search share dropping..." is still valid) --mariusstrom 04:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut MSN criticism 

message: need a logo or picture
screenshot or something
google yahoo and other search articles have pictures need oneRandalllin 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Screenshot added Wikiolap 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: Same thing, just rebranded. Much like Windows Live Messenger and MSN Messenger 129.215.149.99 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Rationale 

message: Hm, here is nothing mentioned about wikipedia, which is disturbing: if you compare search results of for exdample google and yahoo against msn search (or live.com) you will see that wikipedia is found much less often compared to the other services (see for example here).
Also, live.com seems to filter wikipedia articles: check for "Drude Model", you will find only wikipedia pages which are mentioning the Drude Model, but not the wikipedia article itself.
I haven't seen real statistics for the second one, that is just personal experience, but at least the first one should be mentioned: When the wikipedia is filtered by live.com, that kind of discrimination should be listed here. --141.35.17.32 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the Drude model article isn't linked to from any external sites that the engine has looked at?  That's an important factor in the MSN search algorithm.  Anyways, your conspiracy theory is completely bunk... try doing a search for "Windows Vista", for example; we come in third, after Microsoft's two most important pages on it.  Google's search results aren't too much different.  I tried a whole bunch of other searches and Wikipedia always shows up in the first page of results, sometimes in the #1 slot.   -/- Warren 22:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia in search results 

message: Deserves mention : http://wls.live.com/ Mathiastck 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically this is another product Windows Live Search Mobile, and there is link to it from navbox. We can add link to the article into the 'See Also' section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiolap (talk • contribs) 05:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Windows Live Search Mobile is now mentioned in the 'Search Products' section in the article Pikablu0530 10:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Live Search for mobile beta 

message: Does anyone know anything about http://club.live.com or if there is an article for it?209.91.61.223 02:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's worth starting an article for it. Feel free if you wish to make a section in Live Search for it though! Pikablu0530 06:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In between which sections would be the best? Thank you for the fast response.209.91.61.223 09:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Live Search Club?

message: Frankly, if I am like millions of users, I just want these annoying popups to go away. I would like to see information re. removing it in the article.68.5.64.178 15:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nothing about removing Live Search

message: The market share reference in the article seems to be somewhat out-of-date, given these two more recent articles:
http://www.liveside.net/blogs/main/archive/2007/07/16/comscore-windows-live-gets-a-search-share-bump.aspx
http://www.liveside.net/blogs/main/archive/2007/07/11/live-search-market-share-surges-according-to-compete.aspx
Not sure if there are other more recent sources that contradict that, but if not the Criticisms section should probably be updated to reflect those more recent figures. Tophtucker 04:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to update the figures to reflect the recent changes. --Pikablu0530 10:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Share 

message: :Image:Windows Live Search.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Live Search.png

message: :Image:MSN Search.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MSN Search.jpg

message: Hello, I removed the criticism section because the whole section was substantiated by only a single reference, and that one reference was a blog.  Blogs are generally not considered to be reliable sources for most purposes.  
Further, the section used phrases like "much criticism" and "many reviewers".  These are weasel words and they are generally frowned upon because they provide no real information. (How many is many?  10?  10,000?).  
With only the one questionable source, there was nothing here worth saving.  
If the tool has really received criticism from experts or that has been noted in reputable sources, then it should be easy to cite those sources.  If those sources are hard to find then that would imply the criticism may be off base. Johntex\talk 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed criticism section

message: Since Microsoft split the development of Live Search from the Windows Live Suite of products, it is technically no longer part of Windows Live. Live Search should be split into a dedicated unit like Office Live or Xbox Live instead.
Alexhooren (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split Live Search from Windows Live 

message: The correct way to merge these articles was most certainly not to cut-paste the contents of Live Search into Bing (search engine). I've requested that this merge be reverted and fixed by an administrator. Please ensure that merges are performed in the most logical way in future, where the longer existing article is used as the new base and not the stub started a couple of months ago. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page history broken