Talk:Microsoft Bing/Archive 1
 | This material was originally located at Talk:Live Search. |
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"Live"
Where does the "live" come from?
Cut MSN criticism
I removed the "MSN Search has often been criticized [citation needed] 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. [citation needed]" 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)
- 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)
picture
need a logo or picture screenshot or something google yahoo and other search articles have pictures need oneRandalllin 23:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Screenshot added Wikiolap 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Merge Rationale
Same thing, just rebranded. Much like Windows Live Messenger and MSN Messenger 129.215.149.99 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't Merge. Too soon to merge, since the full product for "Windows Live" was just released one month ago, on September 11, 2006, and the features are much different than MSN Search (had been), such as previewing enlarged images during an image search, viewing a webpage within a page, or changing the size of thumbnails displayed to several smaller image sizes. Keep the article for "MSN Search" separate as a historical reference. -Wikid77 19:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Not the same thing. Windows live search has a much better interface and more cleaner search results. The feature set for windows live and MSN are different. For historical reasons, MSN should be retained but with a reference that it is Windows live search now.
Don't Merge YET A reference should be given that MSN Search is now Windows Live Search. I agree with Wikid77 that it is too soon to merge. However I do see that unlike MSN Messenger article which has many histories, the MSN Search article is quite short. Pikablu0530 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia in search results
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)
- 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)
I would say, give this more time. Wikipedia is an important source and I am sure, like all the search engines, windows live search may also be working on incorporating wikipedia into their search results. With time, I am sure this behaviour might change (if not already changed). So a few examples are not enough to say that it is disturbing.
Windows Live Search for mobile beta
Deserves mention : http://wls.live.com/ Mathiastck 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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).
- Windows Live Search Mobile is now mentioned in the 'Search Products' section in the article Pikablu0530 10:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Merge of all Windows Live Search sites
Perhaps it would be an idea to merge all of the Live Search properties under one Windows Live Search article? This would include images, news, academic, products, feeds, books and video. As they are all simply the same thing it seems a bit unnecessary to have seperate articles for them all. Also it would bring some much needed organisation to the Windows Live pages and also declutter the WL template. I haven't included Maps, Classified (Expo) or QnA as they are destinations separate from search. --A Cornish Pasty 20:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge ONLY for certain articles listed. Please read below for more details:
- I don't mind the idea of merging Windows Live Search Academic, Windows Live Search Books and Windows Live Search Products into this article as it would make sense to do so.
- However I oppose the move for Windows Live Search Product Upload as this service is similar to that of Windows Live Publisher and is quite different from 'search' and deserves its own page (similar for maps, expo and qna).
- Regarding the move for Windows Live Video, my feeling towards the idea is mixed. Certainly the 'Video Search' section of that article could be merged, but that article does involve Soapbox on MSN Video as well - and although that has its own article as well, it is interesting to note that the term Windows Live Video used to refer to both these services. Perhaps leave a link to the main article?
- Thank you. - Pikablu0530 22:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I thought that about the Video Search page as well, keep Soapbox separate. Perhaps the Windows Live Video could be mentioned on the Soapbox article and the Video Search on the Search article. --A Cornish Pasty 11:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yea that would be a good approach for Windows Live Video Pikablu0530 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I thought that about the Video Search page as well, keep Soapbox separate. Perhaps the Windows Live Video could be mentioned on the Soapbox article and the Video Search on the Search article. --A Cornish Pasty 11:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose These are different products and deserve the different articles. Wikiolap 02:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong merge Windows Live articles are so disorganized plus there are too many stubs, if applications can be grouped together then they should be done so, about product upload, maybe that can go into a section inside the product search section, its an application that only has one purpose and is directly linked to product search. Niixdo 11:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree - Product Upload is itself an individual program (and it is developed as an individual program). You can say it's used to supplement Product Search, but that's all, it's never part of Windows Live Search. Windows Live Search is classified as a search engine (read the article), and Product Upload is not. There is nothing wrong with merging Product Search here because it's part of Live Search, but Product Upload is clearly not for searching. And about why there are so many articles and so disorganised is because Microsoft has never defined Windows Live properly and releasing a whole bunch of services and all calling them Windows Live. If we know enough about them as time progresses, those stubs will have more information. There is no need to act so quickly to merge and delete articles as things in this area is still changing rapidly as time progress. Pikablu0530 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is bloody annoying, Live Search is now no longer Windows Live Search and a third set of online services has been created, read [1]. So now we wait for definite answers. --A Cornish Pasty 12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just mention on the first line of this article also referred as Live Search. Keeping the article page name Windows Live Search keeps it consistent and organised with other live services. Pikablu0530 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- This is bloody annoying, Live Search is now no longer Windows Live Search and a third set of online services has been created, read [1]. So now we wait for definite answers. --A Cornish Pasty 12:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree - Product Upload is itself an individual program (and it is developed as an individual program). You can say it's used to supplement Product Search, but that's all, it's never part of Windows Live Search. Windows Live Search is classified as a search engine (read the article), and Product Upload is not. There is nothing wrong with merging Product Search here because it's part of Live Search, but Product Upload is clearly not for searching. And about why there are so many articles and so disorganised is because Microsoft has never defined Windows Live properly and releasing a whole bunch of services and all calling them Windows Live. If we know enough about them as time progresses, those stubs will have more information. There is no need to act so quickly to merge and delete articles as things in this area is still changing rapidly as time progress. Pikablu0530 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose: The specific search flavors are quite distinct (in terms of scope of search, features, and in some cases UI and usability) from the generic Live Search. They are only related by virtue of the fact that they are search applications - other than that they are different apps. Thats why they should be kept separate. Plus, merging all here (and when they all get expanded), the size of the article will blow out of control. --soum (0_o) 06:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I also think that a one or two line description of Search products (the section title seems somewhat awkward, though)should be given, along with the list. --soum (0_o) 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this be the same as merging Google search sites? I'd hesitate to support this merge because I'd hesitate to support merging Google Scholar with Google Search. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I also think that a one or two line description of Search products (the section title seems somewhat awkward, though)should be given, along with the list. --soum (0_o) 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't propose merging Google Scholar into Google Search as the Google Scholar article has significant information, however one-paragraph articles such as Windows Live Search Academic could easily have that paragraph moved onto the Live Search page without causing havoc, chaos and World War 3. --Joowwww 11:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: Windows Live is a number of things not just one. They all need separate articles.--Chetblong 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose These are all individually major products, with expected enormous amounts of material--it would be like merging the Google products. We have a category, Windows Live. DGG 03:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Live Search Club?
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)
- 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)
- In between which sections would be the best? Thank you for the fast response.209.91.61.223 09:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
Here's an article mentioning the relationship between club.live.com and live search: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000338 --Xyzzyplugh 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Nothing about removing Live Search
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)
The market share reference in the article seems to be somewhat out-of-date, given these two more recent articles:
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)
- Feel free to update the figures to reflect the recent changes. --Pikablu0530 10:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Live Search.png
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)
Fair use rationale for Image:MSN Search.jpg
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)
Removed criticism section
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)
Split Live Search from Windows Live
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)
Potential merge to Bing (search engine)
I undid the recent redirect of this page to Bing (search engine). Windows Live Live Search still exists, and the article should remain. Further, Bing is more than just a renaming of Windows Live, it is a new product. The articles should remain separate. Any merger should be proposed and discussed. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Corrected my typo above to indicate "Live Search" --ZimZalaBim talk 00:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- First things first, Live Search is not Windows Live, thus it makes sense for Windows Live to remain separate but there is no doubt Live Search is being replaced. Secondly, as all the sources and the article itself suggests, Bing is not a separate product from Live Search but a replacement, upgrade, and rebrand of Live Search. Thirdly, your claim that all Microsoft's search engines remain a separate article is incorrect, as far as I know, MSN Search (the predecessor of Live Search), was merged into Live Search since its inception. Thus logically speaking Live Search should also be merged into Bing.
- Additionally, all the contents in the Live Search article still applies to Bing (with the exception of Tie-ins and Promotions section which should probably go into the History section of Bing or simply removed) - this includes Histories of MSN Search, Live Search and Bing (it logically flows from one to another), and the same service offerings between Live Search and Bing (which shows it is a rebrand and upgrade).
- Therefore, I have reverted your removal of contents from the Bing (search engine) article because all the contents still applies to that article and they are properly referenced in application to Bing (check the Bing Product Guide). Those contents should be there regardless of whether this Live Search article is to stay or not, because they are completely relevant to Bing. Treat it as additional information instead of contents from this merger (thus it shouldn't need to be proposed or discussed - you don't discuss when you're adding info to articles do you?). However, I propose a discussion here to discuss whether Live Search article should stay and remain separate or not. I will not redirect it to Bing yet until Bing is officially released on June 3rd, 2009. Feel free to discuss and convince me why this Live Search article should stay and remain separate. --Pikablu0530 (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Pikablu0530, the merge is well reasoned and makes sense. Wikiolap (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Bing is already live, albeit in Beta. Digifiend (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Page history broken
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)