The strings were precisely...
- google sucks
- bing sucks
- microsoft sucks
- linux sucks
...the resulting search tallies were recorded,
and charted...
Whilst not terribly scientific, the graph appears to show more 'opinion' in the disproportionate results than 'factual' data. That's just my opinion...born out of boredom, and a need to make a decision on my own.
| Bing | Yahoo | ||
| Google sucks | 3,380,000 | 15,300,000 | 15,800,000 |
| Bing sucks | 1,270,000 | 932,000 | 988,000 |
| Microsoft sucks | 837,000 | 6,970,000 | 7,490,000 |
| Linux sucks | 2,730,000 | 4,250,000 | 4,230,000 |
and charted...
I wonder how much of your results can be attributed to google offering more selective search results (well, and "bing sucks" has no hits because it's too new and nobody uses it).
ReplyDeleteAfter all, does it really matter if there were 3 million results or 15 million results? You're equally not going to see more than maybe a hundred at most.
"Whilst not terribly scientific..."...should be a louder disclaimer :)
ReplyDeleteIt makes me wonder too. If google is more selective in its search, then the entire bing advertising campaign of being a 'decision engine' is based on a decision grounded in 'too much information' being acceptable. Fire a shotgun, you're bound to hit something :)