Comments on: Enlightening or disturbing?

By: zayıflama

zayıflama — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:06:51 +0000

I’m not at all surprised that Bing did as badly on some cases as it seemed to do well on others.

By: JURN

JURN — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 01:29:34 +0000

I saw very good results from Bing, better than Google, in my recent academic search group-test: http://jurnsearch.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/an-academic-search-group-test/

By: markk

markk — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:25:09 +0000

Thanks, I’ll look. It is an interesting issue. There are good points on both sides. “Inherency” as they used to call it in HS debate makes me somewhat leery. On the other hand I think it may force legislation to deal with copyright.

By: Walt Crawford

Walt Crawford — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:02:42 +0000

Markk: A classic case of YMMV--I'm not at all surprised that Bing did as badly on some cases as it seemed to do well on others. I guess I'd assume Yahoo! is still a viable alternative to Google... As for your second note, such discussion hasn't been lacking. The current Cites & Insights (see this post and a forthcoming abstract) includes a followup essay on reaction to a 30-page discussion I published in February (Cites & Insights 9:4); that essay points to lots of other discussions. On the other hand, my perspective may not agree with yours--I may be in the minority among those discussing this.

By: Markk

Markk — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:55:54 +0000

I gave Bing a try and it was horrible at technical searches and pop searches. It really does seem to be livesearch renewed. I hope it stays around though. I want some kind of viable alternative to Google.
Welcome by the way to Science blogs! Speaking of Google I hope you and the other librarian types here will do some discussion about this book deal that now seems to be under scrutiny with Google essentially gaining control over orphan works.