Talk:Bing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Business (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 


User Agent[edit]

Why was the user-agent information removed? Most webmasters (like myself), expected Bing to have their own user-agent, though they actually continue to use msnbot. It might not mean anything to you, but it's worth adding for webmasters. m0z (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

Search for "Bing"[edit]

  • Should a search for "Bing" redirect to here by default? I bet this article gets the most hits of all the "Bing" articles by a lot

216.244.60.55 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

  • of course it should; I can't understand why it isn't already. Just move it yourself and see what concerned users have to say.--intraining Jack In 08:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Move? (September 2010)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus (therefore, no move). Off topic: Bigger digger should be thanked for fixing the incoming links to Bing. Orlady (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Bing (search engine)Bing — and Bing to Bing (disambiguation)

  • In answer to some messages sent to me. See also discussions in Talk:Bing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Bing Crosby and Bing cherry are just as likely to be searched for with the simple term "bing" as the search engine is. None of them is the primary topic. Haven't we been over this enough times already? Gavia immer (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, if you take a look at the previous discussion over at Talk:Bing, the reason why the previous request for the move was not actioned was because it was thought to be "buzz generated". However, the administrator did mention that this topic should be revisited should Bing (search engine) remains elevated for several additional months. It is now more than one year after Bing (search engine)'s launch. --Damaster98 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Approve I think the search term Bing should direct to this page with one of those for other uses see sentences on the top. I also think the bing crosby argument is stupid.--intraining Jack In 22:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dergre (talkcontribs) 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Prior to the Bing search engine, Bing used to receive up to 100 page views/day, now it receives 300-600 pages views per day. Following the move, we should tag the relevant pages with {{for}} and then see if the disambig page continues to receive 300-600 views, or only 100 pageviews...Smallman12q (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose because based on the statistics provided on Talk:Bing a year ago, the operating system is not the clear primary topic. Several other articles have significant page views and together they are on par to the operating system, despite the traffic driving that is apparent in the redirects. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose it is the sound of a bell. Stephen Colbert even bings the Bing. 70.29.210.72 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support – The search engine is the most likely result readers are looking for. MC10 (TCGBL) 18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think the search engine has a clear enough lead in the fight for primacy per discussion below. 'sides, cherries have more history, more staying power, if you will. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support – Bing Crosby may be popular, but I would never expect to get there by just searching for Bing. The only article with the exact name "Bing" is the search engine, so it should be the default result. If a reader really doesn't know how to spell Crosby, the "other uses" tag would still get them there. They already have to go through the disambig page; this change just adds one more step. They should search for Bing Crosby if that's what they want. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, the disambiguation page lists 8 articles about subjects with the exact name "Bing"; those are the ones with parenthetical disambiguation. Bing (province) for example: an important historical province in China, it is mentioned in over 300 articles on English Wikipedia but until this week had no article here, so most mentions are unlinked. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry about that, I must have been doing too many things at once. Thanks for the correction. I still remain in the support column, with a modified rationale. The stats quoted indicate that the only likely contender for primary subject is Bing Crosby, which I still discount for the same reasons. If you can show stats or a convincing rationale that the other subjects are likely targets, I will reconsider. The missing links to Bing (province) aren't a concern. They should all go directly to the article and not the disambiguation page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    UncleDouggie, it sounds like you assume that in every instance there is a clear primary topic, we have only to find it. However, I think in this instance the data show there is no primary topic. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    Um, I think the the support by Smallman12q clearly shows their is a primary topic i'm not sure what data you are reffering to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.208.139 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support and if the stats suggest we're wrong we can move it back. It'll be a wiki-experiment, what would be the harm in that? Bigger digger (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, realistically, the search engine is now unrivalled as the primary topic for "Bing". (Lots of hits for Bing Crosby don't change that - people looking for him know to type his surname as well.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tough call, but the burden is to show that the search engine is clearly the primary topic, for which the criterion is: "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box". Considering that this page had 100 views/day before the search engine was launched, I don't see how the search engine can be primary per this criterion. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
But the statistics say that since the launch it's been getting 300 to 600 views per day. This implies that 200 to 500 views per day are for the search engine, and 100 for everything else combined - which would definitely make the search engine the primary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This looks like a classic example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 13:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's the best conclusion we can draw from the data given. What other theory do we have for why the page views suddenly jumped up?--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
K, my friend, like I said, it's a tough call. But if you take the very lower end of that 200-500 spread, and presume that 100 views/day is still accurate for all the others combined (even though it might be more now), that's as many hits for the search engine as for all others combined, making it as likely, not more likely, than all others combined. Giving it to the search engine smacks of WP:RECENTISM as well. I say revisit in a year or so. By then it could dominate, or be defunct. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree it's a tough call, but I don't think there's a primary topic here. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Why?--Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

This month's page view stats show the search engine leading, but not by a huge margin:

I didn't look at most of the other articles. I see Bing (search engine) has a lot of incoming links that I don't understand, at best. They likely are inflating the page view stats. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I would have assumed the cherry got more page views, but you know what happens when you assume. Thanks for actually looking that up. Gavia immer (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Cherries are seasonal. In the northern hemisphere the cherry fruit crop peaks in June. Page views for Bing cherry in June 2010 show a surge[1] and page views for Bing show the same surge.[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.72.9 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how much weight the page views have in this discussion unless it's possible to determine how many people are typing in "Bing" to view the search engine article compared to how many people are typing in "Bing" to view the Bing Crosby article. Every comment I have read here and on the Bing talk page indicate that more people are typing in "Bing" to view the search engine article. Also Gavia immer just picks random reasons why bing shouldn't direct to the search engine wether it's based on fact or not (he likes making shit up).--intraining Jack In 05:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The incoming links to Bing (search engine) include numerous redirects for different phrases with the word "bing" in them. I think they are intended to manipulate Google and other external search engines. There are also redirects where I would have expected articles. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It would help to repair the ~40 incoming links to Bing. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow. Smallman2q links to Bing page views for May 2009,[3] which shows a huge surge in page views beginning that month. But looking at the page history I see something else. Take a look at September 2009. Now imagine you are looking at a page of Google search results. All you would see of Bing is a snippet of text like this:

Bing
Bing (search engine) is a web search engine operated by Microsoft.

Wouldn't a lot of Google users who want information about the operating system be fooled into clicking through to the disambiguation page? 69.3.72.9 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are the top 7 Google Web search results for "bing site:wikipedia.org", and their Wikipedia page views in August 2010:

  1. Bing (search engine) 67161
  2. Bing 9490
  3. Bing Crosby 55128
  4. Bing (company) 583
  5. Bing cherry 3911
  6. Dave Bing 6005
  7. Steve Bing 12556

In August 2010 the operating system did not get even half the page views of all articles on this disambiguation page. The disambiguation page got a lot of page views (9490), though, and viewers are not coming in through Bing (disambiguation): it got only 41 page views that month. The likely cause then is the incoming links to Bing: here. At the moment I looked, there were 21 incoming links:

Would someone care to fix these links? Then in a couple of days we should see a big drop in the number of page views on Bing. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I must need some sort of help, I fixed the links... Bigger digger (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Microsoft's Bing uses Google search[edit]

Of interest: Microsoft's Bing uses Google search 66.11.179.30 (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

hahaha, yeah google even used wikipedia in the stunt they recently pulled... certainly gives an interesting perspective into the nature of the "encyclopedic knowledge" and wikipedia itself :D

Yeah it's bullshit, just a stunt by google http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-accusations-63279

Other criticism[edit]

Where would criticism like Common Sense Media deeming it "not for kids" because of pure filtering? Sources: [4], [5]. Glimmer721 talk 00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as other criticism....bing tried to permanently hijack my homepage for internet explorer ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (August 2011)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Bing. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


Bing (search engine)Bing – Clear primary topic. 21st-most popular website, powers the fourth-most website in the world, second-most used search engine in the United States. Page views: website 90,156, cherry (partial title match) 3,603, bread 2,903, company 994, drink 342, surname 305, former province 207, mining (redirect) 122, acronym 141, Chinese surname 97. Marcus Qwertyus 19:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
is not clearly met. That is, it's not clear the search engine is much more likely to be the topic being sought than any other topic when a user searches for "Bing". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
that's a retarded oppose vote, you can not prove those page views are linking from the disimbiguation page. even google has bing (search engine) as the top search result.--intraining Jack In 01:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree that the case for primary topic is pretty marginal, though we don't know how many people are looking for Mr. Crosby by typing "Bing". =) Powers T 22:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Move and don't worry about Crosby. No one searching for Bing Crosby is gonna type in "Bing" D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I messed Crosby's link up for the purpose of this move and he is only getting less than a dozen clicks a day. Marcus Qwertyus 05:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's to be expected, since virtually no articles link to Bing Crosby (actor). Powers T 12:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Well der. That's the whole point of the test, to find out how many people are clicking Bing Cosby at Bing (disambiguation). Marcus Qwertyus 13:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, condescension, is there no argument it can't make worse? Anyway, how do those numbers, then, compare to the click-throughs on Bing (search engine), and all the other uses? Powers T 14:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
cherry, search engine. Marcus Qwertyus 03:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(Out of curiosity, is there a precedent for abrogating MOSDAB by using unique redirects to gather clickthrough statistics?) So the cherry and the singer together are already up to about a fourth of the search engine's clickthroughs. With all the other uses, I don't think we can say the search engine is overwhelmingly most likely. Powers T 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with Dondegroovily. Although I've never heard of the actor, I find it unlikely that people will search for him using his first name only. And if they do, they won't be surprised to get somewhere else and then they can click on the hatnote. Rennell435 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all opposes to this are NPOV trolls, the evdence clearly indicates this is the primary topic 01:31, 7 August 2011 User:Theoneintraining
  • Support I highly doubt that people who are searching for Bing Crosby will search for just "Bing". Illegal Operation (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • And what about all the other uses listed on page Bing? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The traffic stats provided by the nominator reach the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC threshold. How many people typing "Bing" in the search box are looking for Bing Crosby? I'm just going on common sense here. –CWenger (^@) 19:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Against The opening post provides false numbers for the cherry, which got 10,000+ pages views last month.108.46.97.251 (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
that fiqure shows bing cherry has less than 1/10th the page views of bing search engine....bing (search engine) is clearly the primary topic as defined by the wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.104.83 (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Numbers are numbers so don't be deceptive. 1/10 would be 9,293 views. and this got 10,111 so less than 1/10 is either an outright lie or you're not a math wiz. I don't know that about nine times the results means the search engine is "much more likely" than the fruit to be searched for, but the fruit will will always be searched for but the search engine won't and this does not add in the page views of other bing pages.108.46.97.251 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
the simple fact is on wikipedia fact>consenus; consensus can easilty be gamed by making these stupid little claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.104.83 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I can't imagine many people would search for Bing Crosby using only his first name. Same with the cherry. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Common sense + page views comparison = no brainer Jebus989 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? (number 3)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


BingBing (web search engine)

  • And Bing (disambiguation) to Bing. Is one among many web searchers a dominant meaning, as it gradually becomes one more feature of the internet and no longer the latest news? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • just two months ago there was a consensus that the search engine is the primary topic. Has anything changed since then? Jenks24 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We had this discussion not long before. I do not see why we should have this discussion again. And I do not see why we should keep changing the name of one article. In my opinion, stability is far more important than constantly changing to proper title on such pretexts as primary topic and so on. Fleet Command (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per previous comments from previous discussions on why Bing should have stayed a dab page. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I second Jenks24 comment above. A consensus was reached just in August (and it's right above this!). There had been no major changes since then. I don't see a reason for re-raising this requested move. --Damaster98 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, per my reasons for opposing the previous move request. Powers T 11:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I am not surprised that it is anthony appleyard who is requesting this move, he is a NPOV troll and nothing more. AA is clearly pissed off that this was moved. The fact is that Bing (the search engine) is clearly and overwhelmingly the primary topic. Would AA care to explain his reason [this time] for wanting it to revert back?--intraining Jack In 07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and keep to the issues please. We should be especially cautious in this case, being aware of the enormous resources available to promote the search engine. The safe route is to have the DAB at the undisambiguated name. Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Basically, you are opposing, you have written "Support" instead of "Oppose". Fleet Command (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most people online looking for Bing are looking for the search engine....a disambig is only a click away for the rest.Smallman12q (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bing PR[edit]

I guess the public relations people from Bing edited this article, I removed some spindoctor nonsense. Von Restorff (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

BING Registered Trademark[edit]

The article should reflect that BING is also a registered trademark of TeraByte, Inc (you can search Registered Trademarks at the ) who uses it for BootIt Next Generation product (which should have its own page to know where the EFI and GPT came from - http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/history-bootit-bare-metal.htm) . Or BING should refer to a page that offers users which BING they mean. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:qm589p.4.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.134.152 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Translate functionality[edit]

The article currently says "For example, to translate "me llamo" from Spanish to English the user would simply type "translate me llamo in english" and he or she would be redirected to a search results page with Bing Translator with the translation from Spanish to English." - but trying this on the Bing website, I just get a typical page of search results. (It does work with Google, though. Did an editor get them mixed up?) --McGeddon (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's working here: http://www.bing.com/search?q=translate+me+llamo+in+english&mkt=en-us --Damaster98 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm definitely just getting a standard page of results, there. Does it perhaps not work outside of the US? (I'm in the UK.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Name Origin[edit]

Due in part to the legal aspects and also the lack of any solid documentation except speculation from someone at the Guardian, I assert that the idea of Bing standing for Bing is not Google to be at best a backronym and at worst, rumor. I suggest deleting that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennglazer (talkcontribs) 14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know the real origin of the name?109.158.43.139 (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Social search is US only[edit]

The "killer" feature of Bing is its Facebook integration but it does not work worldwide -- that note should be added since it leaves it as a pretty weak alternative to Google in non-US countries. See also comment under http://vimeo.com/57613378 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.153.230.50 (talkcontribs) 12:58, 2 July 2013‎

Proposed merge with Decision engine[edit]

The only sourced bits of information in this page are about Bing. The rest of it extrapolates the Microsoft marketing term "decision engine" to other, hardly related, types of websites. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Update for Alexa ranking[edit]

I think the current Alexa ranking for bing is out of date.. the ranking states that bing is 19 in Alexa's ranking which is false, the current rank for bing in alexa is 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hims01 (talkcontribs) 19:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Homepage photo localized?[edit]

Does Bing localize the homepage photo, so that users in different countries see a different photo? Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)