|
02 Jun 09 - 06:18 AM (#2646278) Subject: BS: Bing From: Mooh Bing. Anyone tried this new search engine? Any reason to switch from Google? Peace, Mooh. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 06:33 AM (#2646284) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: Tug the Cox Couldn't find it on Google! |
|
02 Jun 09 - 07:48 AM (#2646323) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: Mooh Came up top of Google's list for me. www.bing.com Peace, Mooh. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 02:12 PM (#2646690) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: Tug the Cox Erm, it was supposed to be a funny. You know, irony/paradox and that sort of thing |
|
02 Jun 09 - 02:32 PM (#2646705) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: Mooh Oh...I thought maybe Google blocked it. Peace, Mooh. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 02:41 PM (#2646717) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: Bee-dubya-ell Bing was great! He single-handedly moved popular song from the age of the tenor voice into the age of the baritone voice. What's a "search engine"? |
|
02 Jun 09 - 02:57 PM (#2646728) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: ClaireBear Seems to work, but I still like Clusty better (www.clusty.com) because of its wonderful clustering left nav bar, which I find spectacularly useful for purposes of narrowing down results. I never use Google. C |
|
02 Jun 09 - 03:03 PM (#2646731) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: PoppaGator Didn't Bing used to smoke reefer with Satchmo? |
|
02 Jun 09 - 03:09 PM (#2646737) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: Stilly River Sage Is this the clusty address? http://cf31.clusty.com/search?frontpage=1&v%3aframe=form Strange address if they want to take themselves seriously. I've never heard of this one before. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 03:26 PM (#2646760) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: Bee-dubya-ell On a more serious note, I just tried an image search using Bing. It attempted to display around 1000 images on the page. That may be fine for broadband, but it's far more than my dial-up connection can handle without timing out. I couldn't find any way to have it display fewer images per page. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 03:28 PM (#2646764) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: ClaireBear Sorry, no www. should have typed http://clusty.com. My browser autocorrects, so I never noticed. Here's a Clicky. C |
|
02 Jun 09 - 03:29 PM (#2646766) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: PoppaGator Even with a high-speed connection, I would think that 1,000 images on one page would be too small to see or too many to scroll through. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 05:41 PM (#2646891) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: Mooh Okay, so far, no reason to switch from Google. Right? Peace, Mooh. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 05:59 PM (#2646906) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: Bee-dubya-ell Bear in mind that what we're looking at is a "preview" version of Bing, which probably means they haven't worked all the bugs out. Also, bear in mind that Bing is a Microsoft product, which probably means they never will work all the bugs out. |
|
02 Jun 09 - 11:58 PM (#2647097) Subject: RE: BS: Bing From: EBarnacle I've used it several times now with no problems. It even found obscure stuff that eluded Ask. |
|
03 Jun 09 - 09:00 AM (#2647306) Subject: RE: Tech: Bing (search engine) From: Rapparee Still the same sort of old-fashioned search engine: it searches the past, not the present. |
|
03 Jun 09 - 01:57 PM (#2647547) Subject: RE: Tech: Bing (search engine) From: dick greenhaus What we're looking for is one that searches the future. |
|
03 Jun 09 - 02:03 PM (#2647551) Subject: RE: Tech: Bing (search engine) From: Richard Bridge What is its position on targeted marketing? Being Microsnot I suspect it will collect shedloads of data on users... |