Talk:Microsoft Bing

Bing Name Origin Discussion

B.I.N.G. - Best Information Not Google. (www.urbandictionary.com)

My interest in linguistics and ethymology gives me little expertise for creative analysis. I may be wrong, but my hypothesis (proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon) makes sense. Let's discuss it. It is important to interpret all meanings (sometimes not so obvious) in the name of every company as the name is their face to the public. For obvious reasons Microsoft is mum about it. --Dave da Vienna (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious edits by certain users

Hi, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that if you look up this article's history, you will see that a subset of contributors only seem to edit Microsoft-related articles, and in a pro-Microsoft, PR-driven manner. There is also the issue with these users, such as User talk:HAl, that they never state their conflicts of interest on their usertalk pages or elsewhere, and blatantly deny all knowledge of a biased angle in their work. I have tried to deal with some of these edits, by adding references for alternative points of view, but they just seem to get deleted all the time.Shane (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The only person acting suspicious is you as you are repaetly adding information on Google in the article which is clearly offtopic. This article is not a comparison of Bing and Google. hAl (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole article sounds like it was written by an advertising person.

Agreed, and many of the people defending the 'unbiased viewpoint' (laughable by the way) of the article are also very suspicious. It would not surprise me if this were being done from a couple of very specific IP numbers of microsoft employees themselves. Although, I'm sure my part of this discussion will be removed very quickly if that is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.76.17 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. I've seen it in many different articles, and on this page I added to the "Criticism" section (back when there actually was a criticism section) a problem with Bing's image searches that brings up porn, even when the "safesearch" is switched to "strict"! I didn't have a source, but rather than ask for a source, someone deleted it without discussion and accused me (in the edit summary) of "bashing Microsoft". Am I supposed to call up Microsoft and ask them if "your pornographic results with Bing (on 'strict' "safe search"-mind you) may please be criticized"?! Sounds like someone either has a disturbing love-obsession with Microsoft or...happens to work there. My, that would be a strange coincidence! If you are working for Microsoft, and frequently edit articles on Microsoft-related topics, and are reading this, I want you to know that you are "skating on paper-thin legal ice"! IP addresses can help pin-point an offender (aka Microsoft) if there's enough warranted interest. (While the accuracy of IP address-bound searching is disputed, it gets legal people on the right path.) Maybe MS can pay you to start a fork of Wikipedia called Microsoftipedia. That's fine with me! (Sorry about the long sentences--say that 5 times fast!) 98.202.38.225 (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Bing

This article was objectively, because of previous entry. The entry does not boast it's search engine as being better than anything it's own company has done before, it simply lists the difference. There is no bias. This is a person trying to sway against a new product.Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.6.1 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft the one we love to hate. and why?

Microsoft, neglected and treated like trash. Why, since the interference several years ago, ignorant persons everyhere have been speaking against Microsoft with complete loss of admiration and humility is really beyond me. I laugh when I read that Bing is "forced upon me". Really ? as if AOL did not exclusively use Google for HMMNN, How many years? It is simple to type in a heading, any heading in fact. Just the other day, I tried using this new Bing.( because there are just so many "nay-sayers that have a hyped sense of what they have coming to them" ) I really did not expect much of this lowly Microsoft company that usually releases mere fizz's in it's pool of tech. Low and behold, I found that it worked just as good as Google, but with a better layout!! Hmmph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.6.1 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This section was duplicative of Talk:Bing#Requested_move, which was the one listed at requested moves. As such, most of the discussion took place there. Overall, there was no consensus to move - see Talk:Bing#Requested_move for full explanation.

---

Bing (search engine) → Bing — Most people are searching for Bing the search engine(as page views can show), and are being forced to needlessly see a bing disambiguation page. Smallman12q (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Bing → Bing (disambiguation)

• agree - Traffic for Bing used to be 50 hits a day [1] and has increased to about 2k a day since the introduction of the Bing search engine. That means 97% of traffic on Bing is likely meant for this page. hAl (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
• Support - I agree with the above. The current disambig page should become Bing (disambiguation) instead, with the Bing article (current search engine article) a line on the top saying "For other uses of Bing, see Bing (disambiguation". --Pikablu0530 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

-Well I'll give it a week, if no one opposes, I don't see why it can't be moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why someone else is moving the page to another location whilst this section is listed on the talk page. hAl (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is not acceptable this discussion took place somewhere else outside the socpe of people reading this talk page. The talk page was the primary target for discusion and here there was no opposition. So I think the move shoul take place or the move request should be reopened. As something like 95% of people entering Bing need to be at this page that should not be taken so lightly. hAl (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Interface Languages

A word about interface language would be nice (well that's what I'm searching for.)

Noticed that Bing uses a different technique than Yahoo or Google which use domain ISO country extensions (.it, .fr, .jp) If you enter bing.jp you'll redirected to bing.com/?cc=jp

Microsoft has a rather poor language support in general (eg.: Can't change OS UI language, some Live.com services only let you access the language of the country where you are (Switzerland uses 3 languages but Live.com only shows you german and you couldn't change it)...)

For in case here are the listing of major search engines: [2] yahoo! Google A comparaison chart could be nice... The google article list all available languages

Can anybody wise about this write about it? - YCC 14:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cy21 (talk • contribs)

Accuracy of Instant Answers

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I test the "flight to" and "What is the capital of Germany?" options they seem to promote on our page, and both did nothing more than what (for example) Google or other search engines would bring up, which was two links to the correct answer's Wikipedia page. I didn't encounter any Encarta-like entries. But if not, I suggest removing these promotions from the article - if I can search "Capital of ___" on any search engine and find the answer the same way - then its not noteworthy. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)