I was searching for my friend Alison Branch’s wedding web site. Into Google, I typed “branch wedding,” “alison branch wedding,” “branch meade wedding,” “branch wedding site:wedding.com,” etc., etc. To no avail: Google insisted on showing me wedding planners in Branch, SC; the Facebook page of an unrelated Ms. Branch; a story about the engineers from Allison Turbine Co. who contributed oxidizers to the Apollo command module; a bizarre and seemingly unrelated page entitled “Profile of God. Zilla.”; and other Web drivel.
At this point in a search, I usually conclude that the information I want can not be found on the Internet. Rarely have I typed something into Yahoo, Ask, Live Search, etc. and found anything approaching, much less beating, Google results. Google is God or, shall I say, God. Zilla.
This time, having heard the buzz about Bing, Microsoft’s new search engine, I decided to give something else a chance. I typed “bing.com” and pressed enter: already I had saved two keystrokes! And not only that: my screen was filled with a picture of illuminated cubes floating on a lake, with a slightly anachronistic search box superimposed. No matter, into the Bing box I entered my original and oh-so-obvious query: “alison branch wedding”.
To my delight, the first result read:
ALISON BRANCH and THOMAS MEADE IV – WeddingChannel Profile
That was it! Bing had bested Google — and informed me of the groom’s lineage in the process. With that seemingly mundane but apparently complex task behind me, I clicked on “Macy’s” and confronted the real question: cake plate or ceramic tuna? When will Bing decide that?
{ 7 } Comments
Perhaps it’s geographical differences, but I’m getting different results.
Assuming you didn’t have the quotes as part of the query, ‘alison branch wedding’ on bing gives me nothing on the first page of either bing or google. That’s the one you said worked for you on bing.
I find the site on both search engines by using ‘”alison branch” wedding’, which you apparently didn’t try (drop the single quotes, keep the doubles). It is first on bing, which is better. It’s sixth on google, but the first and second are both your blog. So it could well have been fourth before.
I wouldn’t expect ‘branch wedding’ to work on either – branch is far too common a word. It’s not giving me the wedding on the first page of either bing or google.
‘branch meade wedding’ not on first page of either.
‘branch wedding site:wedding.com’ isn’t going to work cos it’s the wrong site.
Hi, Molly. You are right that I didn’t use quotes in the query. I included them in the blog post to group the search terms.
I’m not sure why you’re getting different results. “alison branch wedding” on Bing does indeed give me the wedding site as the top result. The same query on Google, oddly enough, now gives me this blog!
I didn’t think to quote just the name and, honestly, I shouldn’t have to. How many Alison Branches are there, and how many are getting married in the next month?
As for “branch wedding,” I agree that there is more ambiguity here, but I still think a good search engine should give the desired page in the top 10 or 20 results, especially when the results currently delivered are such junk. The Dahler-Branch wedding in Canton, OH is listed. Why isn’t the Meade-Branch wedding in Warwick, RI, closer to me and my IP address and taking place in two weeks, also there?
Of course, I understand I searched for the wrong web site, but that term, wedding.com, still provides valuable information: If I’m looking for something on wedding.com, why not display highly relevant results from similar web sites — a kind of supersized “Did you mean”?
Molly, I think the difference between our perspectives is that you are willing to cut the search engines more slack, to justify, in a way, their current behavior. I am reluctant to do that. The ultimate search engine will overcome my human failings and find me what I need, like a good librarian.
Maybe I’ve just been using them longer, from before when they were so intelligent. I’m also a fast reader and happy to skim a couple of pages before giving up. Also, I don’t know what your background is, but mine’s programming, so I probably look at things differently as well as cutting more slack.
Quoting the name will make sure the two words appear together. If you don’t, the “how many Alison Branches” question is redundant, because you’ll get pages that refer to Alison and Branch, but not necessarily “Alison Branch”.
That results from similar websites idea is a good one. They could provide 3-4 results like they (google) do for images and “did you mean”.
The differences in our searches must come down to geographical ip differences (I’m in Ireland). Weird that it’s so different though – I’ve gone through 10 pages of ‘alison branch wedding’ on bing, and still not seen yours. I’m getting brides, designers, guests, musicians and a cartoonist called Alison, tree parts as decorations and favours as well as branches of companies, but no Branch-Meade.
One thing that is annoying about the google results is that the Branch Meade wedding on ewedding is coming up earlier and more often than the weddingchannel one, and the ewedding one has zero information. I hate SEO gaming.
I really don’t know anything about which is the superior search engine, but this Alison Branch chick sounds pretty awesome.
Alison–I don’t know what your background is, but I’m a Pisces – if it doesn’t work out with the Meade kid, want to hang out?
Hey come on, guys! This is supposed to be a forum for discussing technology, not a singles’ lounge.
p.s. Swinging Single, email me if you swing both ways.
Kudos to you. Personally, i could never find anything useful with Bing.
Post a Comment