Very interesting that the first response most HN commenters have when confronted with data that Bing provides better search results than Google is to doubt the data.
This despite that fact that (I'm guessing) most commenters have not actually extensively used Bing day in and day out. Shows the huge barrier to entry that any new search engine has: even if they provide measurably better search results even tech savvy users have an almost unshakeable belief that Google results will always or somehow must be better.
There seems to be some infallible belief that Google provides better search results, always will and that there is some 'magic' Google has for search that no other company could possibly reproduce or exceed.
There is no logical reason that this should be the case and in many ways its more logical to suggest that Google is so wed to its current techniques and revenue models that it has no incentive to disrupt itself. The recent furore over spam (and Adsense which funds its existence) perhaps is the first evidence that this is actually the case. Google made some noise about rectifying the spam issue but really they didn't make any hard decisions in this space.
A personal anecdote - I switched all my browsers and iPhone to default to Bing about a month ago - the experience has been pleasant, the results excellent and haven't found the need or desire to use Google search since.
Very interesting that the first response most HN commenters have when confronted with data that Bing provides better search results than Google is to doubt the data.
The very first reaction I have to most studies is to question first the methodology, then the data. Remember that 88.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Yes it's true that people are rightly doubting the methodology.
However if the data showed the exact opposite result (Google having better results than Bing) I think the reaction on HN would be to accept the results at face value. This despite the fact that there is no reason (that I'm aware of) that Google search results should be inherently better than Bing.
In this instance, I think it shows the strength of the Google brand and how the strength of that brand sets users expectations for the quality of the results.
To add to the anecdata - I switched everything across to duckduckgo.com about the same time ago and am incredibly happy. The fact that duckduckgo sends me to google when it runs out of ideas helps, but I'm finding myself needing that less and less as I go.
At this point I use google occasionally simply because I finger-macro Ctrl-T,Alt-D,google.co.uk,Enter before actually thinking "if I hit Ctrl-K I'd have duckduckgo search already".
This despite that fact that (I'm guessing) most commenters have not actually extensively used Bing day in and day out. Shows the huge barrier to entry that any new search engine has: even if they provide measurably better search results even tech savvy users have an almost unshakeable belief that Google results will always or somehow must be better.
There seems to be some infallible belief that Google provides better search results, always will and that there is some 'magic' Google has for search that no other company could possibly reproduce or exceed.
There is no logical reason that this should be the case and in many ways its more logical to suggest that Google is so wed to its current techniques and revenue models that it has no incentive to disrupt itself. The recent furore over spam (and Adsense which funds its existence) perhaps is the first evidence that this is actually the case. Google made some noise about rectifying the spam issue but really they didn't make any hard decisions in this space.
A personal anecdote - I switched all my browsers and iPhone to default to Bing about a month ago - the experience has been pleasant, the results excellent and haven't found the need or desire to use Google search since.