So I saw on Twitter recently a site where you can compare Bing search results to Google results:
http://www.bing-vs-google.com/
Bing, in case you haven’t heard (or seen the many TV ads), is Microsoft’s new web search engine, which is being advertising as the first “decision” engine.
I admit that my computers have Google search boxes at the ready all the time. But recently I read something about jux2, which tries to combine the best results from Google, Yahoo, and MSN/Live Search. These search engines had the top U.S. search engine shares according to Nielsen Online’s December 2008 data. However, comparisons of search results suggest there is less overlap between search results using these search engines than most people might expect (”typically sharing fewer than 3.5 of their top 10 results”).
Well, so I tried jux2. I wasn’t that impressed, but you should try it for yourself.
My test was “swine flu” and I liked Google’s results, because the Centers for Disease Control’s page was the first result listed. Yahoo at least had it within the first 5 results. All three search engines returned Wikipedia as one of the first resources, of course. I was still very satisfied with what I got using Google.
UC Berkeley’s Library has a web page on “Recommended Search Engines” that lists Google, Yahoo, and Exalead. They note that searching Google alone is not always sufficient, and recommend getting a “second opinion” using another search engine. You should also note, as they do, that “The contents of most of the searchable databases mounted on the web, such as library catalogs and article databases, are excluded because search engine spiders cannot access them. All this material is referred to as the “Invisible Web” — what you don’t see in search engine results.
However, for those concerned about searching for academic resources, things may be changing. The article “How Scholarly Is Google Scholar? A Comparison to Library Databases” (College and Research Libraries, May 2009) “found that Google Scholar is, on average, 17.6% more scholarly than materials found only in library databases and that there is no statistically significant difference between the scholarliness of materials found in Google Scholar across disciplines.” Why isn’t this worrying me? Well, you still need access to the full text of the articles and other resources a discovery tool like Google Scholar lists–yup, usually subscription resources you access through your library.
Imagine your life without Google.
- You would have to search the interwebs using some other search engine.
- You wouldn’t have the discrete advertising to the right of your search results.
- You might actually have to come into the library for help finding articles and scholarly information.
OMG! NOT THAT! Just kidding.
An article in this week’s Newsweek highlights the efforts of the search engine industry and their plots to steal market share from the Goog-liath of them all. Can these start-ups chip away at the behemoth’s stronghold on the search market? Google has the financial resources to squash any threatening competition, but does that matter? Do third-generation search engines like Quintura or Hakia even stand a chance? You might want to talk to Altavista about that one.
What do you think? Does anyone use Clusty or Squidoo? Where’s the best place to search?
Searching for the Best Engine from Newsweek (thanks to Ronna for the article)
