In a continuing discussion of Microsoft's Search Beta, Fred ran a query against several search engines and found that:
I think in this one example Yahoo!'s results are the best, followed by Google, with Microsoft in third largely because they didn't get the artist high enough.
And also notes that:
Another thing I noticed was that Google was able to show six links "above the fold", whereas Yahoo! was only able to show three, and Microsoft was only able to show two. That is because both Yahoo! and Microsoft choose to take up valuable screen real estate with sponsored results. My guess is that choice will hurt them with users in the long run.
It's funny. I just realized that Microsoft is making more work for me. You see, before I switched into my new job I used Google for search. But now I run nearly every search on Google and Yahoo to compare the results. It's easy to do with a 20" LCD monitor. But now I need to start checking Microsoft's as well. You know, the one that doesn't compete with Google (yeah, right).
Anyway, it's interesting that Fred doesn't speculate about his observations a bit more. If you're forced to choose between efficiency (the Google results page, with more "above the fold") or relevance (the Yahoo results page, with a better mix of results), what do you do?
I tend to go with what's fastest--especially if I already know what I'm looking for. The faster I can scan the page and realized it's not there, the faster I can click to the next page or refine the search.
When I'm not sure what I'm looking for, I'd probably choose relevancy.
But I really want both.
Posted by jzawodn at November 13, 2004 09:00 PM