28 May 2009

Microsoft's "New" Search Engine, Bing. New Name, Old Engine?

From today until the end of next week Microsoft will be rolling out its new search engine, Bing, in an attempt to claw back some of the monopoly Google currently holds in the world of search.

The Guardian, Times and Twitter are all a flutter over this "new" search engine, care of Bill Gates' empire. But how new is this?


Microsoft already has a number of search engine identities out there, of which MSN Search features as one of the big 3 in the UK, aside from Google and Yahoo!. However, currently it still retains active domains for the other names of its engine, Windows Live Search and Live Search. So now if there's a fourth domain name/identity for what is simply another (or the same) Microsoft search engine, are we going to see any added value this time around?

Apparently:
"...it will be powered by semantic search engine Powerset, which the company bought last year.

This means that whatever you type into the search engine, you will get a number of related queries in response.

Type in a band's name, and you should bet biographical details, lists of songs, alongside links to their official website and the likes of Wikipedia."

Source: MSN UK, Tech and Gadgets, Daily News, 28.05.09

Sounds nifty, but isn't Google's new 'show options' feature already pretty much doing this...?

According to The Guardian, Microsoft's CEO, Steve Ballmer claims the engine will offer:
"Guided search, which categorises searches and attempts to get users to useful information speedily. The system also integrates with a number of other technologies, bringing news and maps straight to searchers, as well as linking in to the company's Cashback scheme – which effectively pays users a small dividend every time they buy a product through the site."
Funny, isn't that what Live Search already offers?

To be fair though, MSN is my favourite engine out of the top 3 so far as it's visual design, usability and crawling capabilities go, so I shouldn't poke fun. Good luck Bill, may the best search engine win.

Lou_geek

17 May 2009

Is Wolfram Alpha already flawed?

After spending two days away from a computer, visiting friends in Bournemouth, I feel that this post may already be a little dated; but, I'll continue on regardless.

As most of you are aware by now, Google has a new rival going by the name of Wolfram Alpha (WA). However, to date I'm sure Google hasn't much to worry about in the short term.


Since returning from soggy Dorset I've attempted to put WA through its paces by typing in a myriad of search terms, questions, etc. including, "When was wolfram alpha established?", and I only ever seem to get one response - an error message referring to me as 'Dave'. Now the engine is quite close - my Dad's name is Dave, but he lives 150 miles away, so not close enough. By using this laid-back approach to error messaging I understand it's trying to 'connect' with me, but I must admit, calling me Dave doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.

Now on top of its error messaging being slightly obscure, I've also come across a few other factors which may flaw its impending success:
  1. The name 'Wolfram Alpha' - not really memorable, is it? You wouldn't really replace "Let's Google it" with "Let's Wolfram Alpha it". I even had to look up the name again to type this point!

  2. When it does show you the Dave error message, the continued journey is a link to a video of the WA employees (which I don't have the patience to watch). I wasn't looking for a video of a dark room with monitors...

  3. When clicking on their help forum I was taken straight back to their homepage. Odd.
Hmm, good start WA... or am I just using it incorrectly?

What does go in WA's favour however, is a PageRank of 7 (thanks to their PR, I've no doubt) and a staggering 40 DMOZ entries, along with 10 Yahoo! Directory categories - not an easy achievement when you've only been live for 3 days.

So like an earlier post I wrote about Twitter; I'm yet to be convinced, but I'm sure in time I will be. Twitter certainly proved itself.

Lou_geek

04 May 2009

URLs vs. Search Terms in Advertising: An Evolving Trend for the UK

A growing trend in advertising seems to be upon us. Like me, you'll probably have noticed we've recently been asked to "search for" at the end of TV advertising, rather than the traditional "visit our website" approach.

Some examples of this practise in UK advertising include the NHS's advert for children's nutrition and their search slogan 'Change 4 life'. Another one is the British Army's "Start Thinking Soldier campaign", where they go a step further and show this search term being typed into a search box to further drill in the message.


This trend seems to have stemmed from Japan where, according to Nominet, 35% of adverts carry an image of a search box with the required search phrase within it as a direct call to action. This has probably steadily increased since goo carried out it's survey in September 2006 asking "Which is better in TV ads: Keywords or URL?". 83% of the Japanese participants agreed keywords were preferred.

This use of advertising was also picked up on a lot when Cabel Maxfield Sasser of Panic Inc. visited Japan on business; examples of which can be seen on his blog.

What seems to be its obvious success factor is that the majority of people find it easier to remember a search term, rather than a URL; especially when it comes to remembering the domain, "was it .com or .co.uk...?".

Another area of its success, I'd imagine, comes from the way a lot of the world uses the internet. Less-savvy surfers believe search engines are the internet and they're the place to start, rather than typing a URL directly into the browser bar.

This begs the question, “Are there any success stories in the west?”. Well the only one I've found info on at the moment is one from America, through Read Write Web, where Kellogg's Special K began a campaign with the help of Yahoo!. They used their advertising to ask consumers to type "Special K" directly into Yahoo!'s search engine. As a result, this campaign produced "a 10 times better response rate than previous campaigns the company had run on Yahoo!".

So it looks like this trend is something we could be seeing a lot of, the more our marketers get to grips with the ever-fiddly issue of combining online and offline communications. I'll certainly be pitching it to my lot back in the office!

Lou_geek