Msn.com is now better than Yahoo and Google

[mscsrrr]

Hello:

At present, the only search engine that is impressing me is msn.com

I know what millions of people think of Bill Gates and Microsoft.

Also, I have read that many websites were adversely affected by Msn recent update (mine included)

Despite that, I have to praise them for what they are doing with msn.com: fast indexing and ranking of websites.
And their submission page is very easy and fast to use.

Compare this to Google who will take 6 months to index your page and then ages to give you any favorable ranking (if at all) despite all SEO efforts you've made to follow all their convoluted lunatic optimization rules.

I have many well optimized pages in Google for 2 yrs now, without any ranking or traffic and still they claim gazillion billions of people are using their search engine.

If that is true, where is the traffic then?

Compare this to msn.com. You submit your website to msn and in 3 days, it appears in their search engine result and you're getting traffic.

How come when you submit the same website to both Google and msn.com, it takes 6 months for Google to index and still don’t give you any ranking or traffic, but as for msn.com, it takes them 3 days, I repeat 3 days (not 6 months) and you’re indexed and ranked and traffic begins to come?

I don't even want to mention yahoo. It appears they have all gone to sleep.

Otherwise how do you explain the fact that their submission page has been mal-functioning for more than 2 months now? When you write to them about any problem, they don't respond by e-mail or phone??

So, I believe history will repeat itself.

In a couple of yrs, I see msn.com overtaking both Google and Yahoo and dominating the internet completely.

Bill Gates is still there as active and in control as ever. And Steve Ballmer is still breathing out fire.

So, I say to Yahoo and Google, If you keep fumbling and fooling around with peoples’ websites and businesses, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves when you're knocked aside by the fellas from Redmond.

I-key

http://forexmillionaire.com/mscs10.htm

[Chris]

Originally Posted by mscsrrr

So, I say to Yahoo and Google, If you keep fumbling and fooling around with peoples’ websites and businesses, you'll have no one to blame but yourselves when you're knocked aside by the fellas from Redmond.

if that WAS going to happen, it would've already. meanwhile, every report about search engine marketshare shows msn search is actually losing ground.

another thing i've noticed about these "MSN is better than Google" discussions is that most everyone on the MS side has good rankings in their search engine... coincidence? you decide.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by mscsrrr

Hello:

At present, the only search engine that is impressing me is msn.com

I know what millions of people think of Bill Gates and Microsoft.

This answer is written in IE 7.0 with MSN Search in the upper right corner (default of course) and Vista Beta 2.0 as an operating system.

May be security (fishing filter etc. in IE 7.0) will be a key word, and then my cards show a MS King.

Did you know, Microsoft has hired a lot of hackers that is employed to make Vista more secure. In addition I like their philosophy.

You have to grant rights. I will launch two new words if they are not already used in the English language.

Upward security: Nothing is allowed and you are granted rights.

Downward security: Everything is allowed and you turn of rights.

Conlusion: I already like IE 7.0 and Vista with the MS toobar. I have a multiboot with Windows XP as an alternative. There I use IE 6.0 with the Google toolbar. Time will show if I allow the Google tollbar on IE 7.0.

It is too early too know the future.

Who has the Ace?

[brian.mark]

Personally, with as obstructive as Vista is from a corporate standpoint, we won't be using it any time soon. We don't like the idea that there are so many changes to make to the security rights that it'd take literally hours to set up a new PC to make it function properly. The option? Let everything go. Not good.

We're looking into Linux solutions more and more every day. Suse has made running the terminal emulator that our main software package runs in very easy, as has ubuntu. Vista is just pushing us further from using Windows.

Brian.

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by Chris

"MSN is better than Google" discussions is that most everyone on the MS side has good rankings in their search engine... coincidence? you decide.

I will admit to it. No doubt. Google Bashers dont rank well on Google and if they rank well on another then that SE is far better.

Personally, I think MSN stinks with the newest algo. Another loss in market share coming soon to a Neilson near you.

And yeah before it gets brought my rankings totally suck on MSN. From #1's to not in top 100? But hey that mapquest selling gift baskets with adsense deserves top 10. LOL

Google rocks - (As long as they list me top 10)

DMC

[jackson992]

The same could be said of Google LOL

I love MSN. It is far easier to rank in msn then google and their algorithm at least makes sense unlike google.

[freetraff]

I love all search engines because they give traffic ;)

But I have special love for MSN because they have this cute Search Builder box next to the search field. It pushed people to search the sites *wiser*

P.S. But I hate Windows based servers. Plus I have two friends: one of them is a pro on Windows servers and sets up them for big banks, another is a faithful Unix/Linux fan. Each time they get together and drink some beers, it's a real fight.

[Rob_TID]

It's still pretty easy to game msn by stacking links with specific keywords. They haven't caught up to google in that respect.

[jackson992]

It doesn't look like Google has caught up with it either:)

[rumblepup]

t's still pretty easy to game msn by stacking links with specific keywords. They haven't caught up to google in that respect.

On the contrary, it seems to me that the BigDaddy alg was a BigInvitation to spammers everywhere.

Sub-domain spamming got incredibly hot, and url masking and bot masking in general got even bigger returns in SERP's.

MSN, on the other hand, was able to avoid these little doohickyes.

Google OWNS the market, but as there search result relevancy is getting a little hooey, I've seen some preliminary reports showing a significant percentage of people first use Google, don't get squat, then switch to MSN or Yahoo.

So Google gets the first volley, but loose it when they don't perform.

[DMC_34]

You know I keep reading a slew of threads bashing Google and praising MSN.

I dont see it guys. MSN results are freaking pathetic guys. Hell I was talking to rep of MSN adcenter and he told me "Yea our newest changes within the last month isnt looking so good." in regards to organic results.

Funny how so many people gripe about how bad Google is and how great MSN and what are the market shares time after time?

Google owns over HALF of the internets searches up from last quarter....where was MSN, down again. Seems perfectly clear when MSN lists "mom and pop shops" all over the top 10 which cant be found in top 500 on Y! or Google. Get a clue.

Time for a reality check. MSN stinks and Googles results are FAR better than any other SE...bar none.

FYI Last year at the MSN adcenter launch the inside joke at the conference was something about a treasure hunt in LA, and the only way MSN people could start looking for it was to search on Google.

DMC

[rumblepup]

Tell me how you really feel. LOL.

[DMC_34]

Well its pretty clear what MSN's strategy is. Yeah here goes the conspiracy theory....

Point 1.
When MSN released its new adcenter they purchased a list of Yahoo Search Affiliate's from a marketing firm in California. Gee, I wonder why? Same reason Yahoo Search Marketing like to shovel this trash down your throat....money. Give Google its props here, adsense and affiliate SE's are optional.

Point 2.
I have had 2 experiences with MSN adcenter: The first was for a no name site. Waiting close 3 months to get a call back. The other was for a highly visible site which toke 13 hours to get a call back. On the latter, the MSN rep was all so pleased to push our site listings and told me they rush the "important and high volume sites"....not saying I blame them but it does point again to money.

Do a search on MSN for computers. Who do you see in Google and Yahoo organics? Dell, Gateway, Apple, Hewlitt Packard. this is what people expect to see. What do see on MSN? Garbage sites. Yes even the ODP is garbage. Dont give me that crap either "its all subjective" BS or "why should all SE's show the same results" crap. A search engine wants to display what the average searcher is looking for. If you asked 100 people "what are the names that come to mind when you think of computers?" Most will say Dell, Apple, IBM, HP, Gateway, etc ..... not "www.thalescomputers.com"!

In short the conspiracy is MSN has it freaking backwards. Rank new sites and gain favor from the webmaster "Mom and Pop" sites while forcing well known companies to advertise to get any traffic from them. But the crap results will show another significant loss in the search market.

So to all who priase MSN about how great they truly are, Get Real! MSN results simply suck and lack quality. Google and Yahoo are FAR BETTER! There is something to be said talking about the top 3. Keep it perspective:


1. Google - 50%
2. Yahoo - 30%
3. MSN - 11%

Do the math. Just how great is that #3? Maybe it should change to the top 2 with talking about the big SE's when it covers 80% or more. Just think if new computers shipped out without windows and and its default MSN search how much would that drop again? LOL.

DMC

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by DMC_34

Do a search on MSN for computers. Who do you see in Google and Yahoo organics? Dell, Gateway, Apple, Hewlitt Packard. this is what people expect to see. What do see on MSN? Garbage sites. Yes even the ODP is garbage. Dont give me that crap either "its all subjective" BS or "why should all SE's show the same results" crap. A search engine wants to display what the average searcher is looking for. If you asked 100 people "what are the names that come to mind when you think of computers?" Most will say Dell, Apple, IBM, HP, Gateway, etc ..... not "www.thalescomputers.com"!

This is true. The problem is the only way Google and Yahoo can get these larger companies to be listed is by hand jobbing them into certain top queries like "computers", "hotels", "hotel", "airline tickets", "DVDs", "CDs", etc. If the Yahoo and Google just let their regular algo work on these top queries, I am sure their results would be full of shit ball spam.

Compare anyone one of those links above for MSN on Yahoo and Google and the results are so radically different it is not even funny.

Now with that being said it is interesting concept that you picked up on MSN. Your theory that they are doing the opposite of what Yahoo and Google is doing is somewhat believable. The results for many top keywords on MSN are not full of spam or top brands, just regular mom and pop shops or very average websites. Very interesting.

I made a post that I wanted feedback on comparing results in all three search engines and it never took off for some reason.

Yahoo and MSN Beat Google, MSN and Google Beat Yahoo, etc...

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

The results for many top keywords on MSN are not full of spam or top brands, just regular mom and pop shops or very average websites. Very interesting.

Two more things standout to me.

1. This new "mom and pop shop" algo was released soon after the adcenter was released.

2. The first question the MSN rep ask in both cases was "How much do you spend on Google Adwords and Yahoo a day?" He did mention the MSN latest organics dont seem to be favoring your site but we can fix that by driving traffic via adcenter.

3. One of my sites received a flyer in mail for promoting adcenter. Some signup now and get $30.00 gift card" or somthing like it. Granted all SE's call or send crap out but this was the first from MSN soon after this "mom and pop shop" algo.

Dell isnt in the top 10 on MSN but I see their adcenter placement for computers. Coincidence, I doubt it. What MSN fails to realize is most big business will still do PPC's even if they rank well organically. We run "bonus" position adwords on words we rank #1 and #2 on Google. Yeah some poeple dont understand that but its one more listing and we still make money.

DMC

[jackson992]

Seeing mom and pop stores up there is a good thing. This is the only engine these sites have a chance with. As far as relevancy, several of them are still relevant. It's not like the searc was for Compuer Companies. In that case I would expect to see Dell et al. MSN listings seem to make much more sense to me than Google. Google doesnt seem to have any rhyme or reason to their rankings.

[DMC_34]

Originally Posted by jackson992

Seeing mom and pop stores up there is a good thing. This is the only engine these sites have a chance with.

Not true. We have two 1 year old sites in the top 10 for keywords on Google and Yahoo.

Originally Posted by jackson992

As far as relevancy, several of them are still relevant. It's not like the searc was for Compuer Companies. In that case I would expect to see Dell et al.

I disagree. Seeing the numbers from Yahoo and Google prove that point rather easily.

DMC

[jackson992]

You're assuming Google and Yahoo is relevant:) I feel MSN is much more relevant. Add to that the fact that the reason a lt of sites are ranking well on those engines are because of their backlinks.

[DMC_34]

status quo jackson.

As usual you keep referring to relevant. All result for a given should be relevant to that search. The order should best to worst of the results. Sorry but bv gift baskets isnt what I consider as a top notch site for gift baskets. But if you think the average searcher want to see "Mom and pop shops" as the top 10 results you are sorely mistaken.

MSN is clueless and hence the reason they keep dropping to miserable depths of the cellar. You mention links cause irrelevance? Sorry but links support content. Google is still the best. Dont take my opinion for it or any other webmaster's....take nielson's data as proof.

Even if MSN was to steal 1% of Google's share a year, it would take them 40 years to overtake Google. My bet is MSN drops to single digits next quarter.

I do find these webmaster "which Se is better" very funny. It doesnt take a genius to figure this out. You rank good on MSN and bad on Google. Hence the love for MSN. Whereas I rank good on Google and bad on MSN, hence the Google love. Subjective views. =)

DMC

[jackson992]

I acutally get much moretraffic from Google:) But I always feel that using links as a basis for ranking is sheer idiocy.

[DMC_34]

But you rank better MSN, eh? My guess is yes.

I think its by far the best gauge of the best sites. Press Releases and article links for example from the Wall Street Journal and of course the normal "Great site" links, should determine the order of the results. Links support content.

It is why Google is king.

[jackson992]

I actually rank much better overall in Google. Links to me mean nothing as it is very easy to just buy links, a practice I abhor. I am against anythng that can influence rankings that is got through money.

Add to this the fact that MSN doesn't have the supplemental results disaster.

[brian.mark]

Originally Posted by jackson992

Seeing mom and pop stores up there is a good thing.

Sure... mom and pop store gets to #1 for "computers", has 30,000 orders for some hot PC system that day, and suddenly says "Sorry, Mr. Customer. We can't handle the volume, so it'll be 12 months until it ships".

No, mom and pops don't belong at the top on huge keywords like that. Heck, most of them can't handle the traffic to their site, let alone the orders. I'm speaking from experience here... it's just too difficult to scale a business to match good rankings. "Hire More People" doesn't take into account training periods or even lack of quality applicants.

Businesses need to grow into top rankings, not just have them handed to them.

Brian.

[jackson992]

I don't agree with that at all. What makes a new business any better than an old one. Bear in mind that I did state if the searcher was looking for computer companies that would be different.

[dviney]

Google have been focused on search for a long, long time - and the spammers have been focused on Google for almost as long.

MSN are relative newcomers and this means (1) it will take them a while to learn and respond and (2) they will be under less pressure from direct spamming of their algo.

The real question is surely 'how fast are they catching up'? Public opinion is fickle and people hardly have the same affinity for a search engine than they do for Nike trainers or Mercedes.

Lots of <20 yr olds are big fans of MSN Spaces and have three or more email addresses, so who knows what combination of Windows Live, Vista and related items will do? Live is already outranking MSN's own site on Alexa (pos 13)

I agree its no contest at the moment - Google still big winner on share - but they used to say that about Altavista! I'm watching with interest.

[florabalance]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

This is true. The problem is the only way Google and Yahoo can get these larger companies to be listed is by hand jobbing them into certain top queries

Is this right? I have never heard of it before but it sounds like a revelation!

[incrediblehelp]

Nah, I was just pontificating, but I wouldn't doubt it to be true. The larger companies are so severely under optimized and most have no reason to rank for top queries other than maybe some IBL's.

Like it has been stated before, hand jobbing is a necessary evil for search engines and I don't mind it at all for some queries. If I type in computers I better see Dell, Apple, etc. The same goes for 100s of other top queries.

[jackson992]

Here we go again:)

[dviney]

...to have the big corporates at the top of the rankings and the mom and pop sites at the bottom?

Big corporates have big pockets - and well paid marketing executives who would have nothing to spend their big budgets on if their sites received loads of natural organic traffic.

Search Engines would watch their ppc income evaporate overnight and would have to return to the garages they came from (firing all their staff in the process).

I realised this for the first time really at SES London, where I witnessed one marketing exec after another literally begging Google, Yahoo and MSN (all on the podium together) to introduce dayparting for ads.

Why you might ask? Surely this further segments the market and means they will probably end up paying even more for their ads! Answer easy - marketing execs (and most importantly their bossses) are used to doing dayparting around big TV ads - and want their search results to peak in unison.

My point in summary? There is a "conspiracy of mediocrity" going on here - if search engine results were all as good as they supposedly are for "computers" (see postings above) then the search engines would be out of business, along with the marketing executives!

[webnecker]

I guess I too like MSN better and it is because I place better with them than YH or GOOG but I get minimal traffic. But then again my SEO isnt what it needs to be.

Here is something interesting if you look do a search for weaver classmates which is main keywords for one of my sites I pegged it on Google and MSN, but as for Yahoo who knows where it shows up. So where does relevancy come into play here.
Is Msn as relevnat as Google in this case Or is Yahoo the most relevant.

As far as the mom and pop vs coporate PC buiders with the keyword "computers" I disagree that Dell, HP, Toshiba etc.. should be at the top of the search results for "computers"
If I start a well established business of manufacturing computers tommorrow and selling "PUNK PC's" across the world. Does this mean I will automatically be placed on the first page of search results with the rest of the PC Corp. I dont thinks so. It depends completely on the website or it should be.
As far as a M&P site being more relevant yes it can be as relevant or not.

Ownership of the product does not = more relevancy

Ok one more example keyword "Mustang"
Who would be more relevant Ford or horse rancher?

Just a nickels worth from an amateur webmaster

[kgun]

Here, Microsoft a sinking ship? is another religious thread.

XAMP with MySQL, PHP +++, installed in five minutes, on my Windows Xp coumputer with multiboot and Windows Vista Beta rules.

My hope: PHP, MySQL will be free also in the future.

Vectorman211 wrote:

"We all know PHP is a great back-end application but few realize that it is also a great desktop application language particularly for running applications on windows or linux workstations that connect to a remote PHP Web API. Check out PHP-GTK! PHP has evolved from a simple web scripting language to a virtually limitless object oriented programming language :D"

Related link: PHP-GTK

[kgun]

Originally Posted by jackson992

I love MSN. It is far easier to rank in msn then google and their algorithm at least makes sense unlike google.

Please explain.

Do you mean that voting yourself through onsite factors is better than offsite votes through inbound links?

Originally Posted by brian.mark

Businesses need to grow into top rankings, not just have them handed to them.

Should become a slogan.

Originally Posted by kgun

Conlusion: I already like IE 7.0 and Vista with the MS toobar. I have a multiboot with Windows XP as an alternative. There I use IE 6.0 with the Google toolbar. Time will show if I allow the Google tollbar on IE 7.0.

That was july 14, before I have updated the Google toolbar.

Be sure, I already love the new Google toolbar. It is excellent, and I can not see any reason that it should not be my preferred browser toolbar in the foreseable future.

Today it is august 22 and I have used the new toolbar in about a week. It is excellent.

Example:
Put a search term in the search box that you are unsure of how is spelled. The toolbar figures it out for you. Brilliant Google.

[Heal3r]

I have top rankings on all the search engines. And I get more traffic from google. On every site.

And what search engine do I use? Go ogle. Is it better. Not sure. But it's what I use 90% of the tme. I don't even check my yahoo or MSN rankings. Every moning though, I Go Ogle.

[jackson992]

Of course I would rather search engines rank based on on page factors and not off page factors. That is the main reason I do not like Google. Backlinks mean nothing when it comes to relevance.

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by jackson992

Backlinks mean nothing when it comes to relevance.

Yikes!

[kgun]

"Academic citation literature has been applied to the web, largely by counting citations or backlinks to a given page. This gives some approximation of a page's importance or quality. PageRank extends this idea by not counting links from all pages equally, and by normalizing by the number of links on a page."
Source: The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine

Also read section

2.1.2 Intuitive Justification

and

2.2 Anchor Text

Of that paper.

You are fighting a model that has been used for centuries, citing other peoples important and related work.


Note the following sentences:

"PageRank can be thought of as a model of user behavior."

"Intuitively, pages that are well cited from many places around the web are worth looking at."

"The text of links is treated in a special way in our search engine. Most search engines associate the text of a link with the page that the link is on. In addition, we associate it with the page the link points to. This has several advantages. First, anchors often provide more accurate descriptions of web pages than the pages themselves."

So why is your onsite factor model better?

[jackson992]

simple you can have backlinks that have content not even on your page and yet still rank for it. If it's not mentioned on the page it shouldn't rank.

[kgun]

1. And you can have "content" on your own page produced by software like The Article System or ArticleBot and distributed through The Article Blaster.

2. I think, especially Google, is better to identify linkspam today than when the article, The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, was written.

3. Nevertheless, I think external voting (through IBL's) is a better model than voting through only onsite factors. Google uses a combination, and that is the best model IMO.

[kgun]

"Note that when a page votes its PageRank value to other pages, its own PageRank is not reduced by the value that it is voting. The page doing the voting doesn't give away its PageRank and end up with nothing. It isn't a transfer of PageRank. It is simply a vote according to the page's PageRank value. It's like a shareholders meeting where each shareholder votes according to the number of shares held, but the shares themselves aren't given away. Even so, pages do lose some PageRank indirectly, as we'll see later.

.................................................. ........................................

The toolbar value is a good indicator of a page's PageRank but it only indicates that a page is in a certain range of the overall scale. One PR5 page could be just above the PR5 division and another PR5 page could be just below the PR6 division - almost a whole division (toolbar point) between them".
Source: Pagerank explained.

Note: The webs total pagerank increases as the number of pages increases. Your sites pagerank increases when you add pages (with unique) content to your site. There are good and bad ways of linking. The reason why it is more difficult to go from pagerank 5 to 6 than for 3 to 4 is that most probably the scale is nonlinear (logaritmic). The exact forumlae is only know to some people inside Google.

For additional information go the the excellent Stanford University searh page and search for "pagerank".

Related link: Ian Rogers "The Google Pagerank Algorithm and How It Works."