Talk:Microsoft Bing: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:16, 12 September 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft Bing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Microsoft C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to 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.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Websites C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Websites (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Websites: Computing C‑class High‑importance

	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.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Wikipedia C‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic 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, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet C‑class Mid‑importance

	Internet portal 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet culture C‑class High‑importance

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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business C‑class Mid‑importance

	Business portal 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Technology C‑class

	Technology portal 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Microsoft Bing. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Microsoft Bing at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microsoft Bing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 30 days

Why is the academic search engine discontinued...???

Please bear in mind that Nothing Will be Perfect but Everything Can be Professional --124.78.229.155 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Bing

As with many other Wiki's, a heading (section) within the main entry: "Criticism" seems appropriate. 1. How and when does Microsoft filter out or de-prioritize search result which are competitors. 2. Do they imply that this is not done? 3. There's more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.131.179 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why does Terabyte Unlimited redirect here?

A company "Terabyte Unlimited" has a product called "BootIt NG". Perhaps some people abbreviate it to BING. Why is it being redirected here? and can someone who knows more about editing Wikipedia pages than me fix it so that it has its own page (which I'm sure is saved in some archive somewhere).

Thanks. Lehasa (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TeraByte Unlimited article was deleted; right now the mention here in Bing is the only Wikipedia mention of the company. The deletion/redirection discussion is here. Best, --CliffC (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boot-it Next Generation should not be redirecting to Bing. It should have an article of its own. While it may not be notable to the general public, it is likely to be notable among computer technicians specializing in backup and recovery. I find the Wikipedia software lists to be a useful resource on Wikipedia. Consulting Wikipedia, since it is edited, is far more reliable than consulting search engines to find software. I am noticing an upsetting trend of articles about shareware and free software being deleted over notability. The topics are notable to people who choose to read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corwin78 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What???

"On July 29, 2009, Microsoft and Yahoo! announced a deal in which Bing would power the best p0rn search in the world: Yahoo! Search" —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.daly2 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "Bing"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move?

It has been proposed in this section that Microsoft Bing be renamed and moved to Bing.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dergre (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Discussion

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

Bing (search engine) has been viewed 35566 times in 201009.
Bing Crosby has been viewed 23989 times in 201009.
Bing cherry has been viewed 925 times in 201009.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ...

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)[reply]

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 *'''Support'''  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dergre|Dergre]] ([[User talk:Dergre|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dergre|contribs]]) 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 *'''Support''' Prior to the Bing search engine, [[Bing]] used to receive [http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Bing up to 100 page views/day], now it receives [http://stats.grok.se/en/201008/Bing 300-600 pages views per day]. Following the move, we should tag the relevant pages with {{tl|for}} and then see if the disambig page continues to receive 300-600 views, or only 100 pageviews...[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk: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.  [[Special:Contributions/69.3.72.9|69.3.72.9]] ([[User talk:69.3.72.9|talk]]) 20:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 ===Discussion===