Bing's traffic grows larger than CNN, Digg, and Twitter

A little more than a month ago, Microsoft officially launched Bing.com. Preliminary reports that are now being released are showing that the search engine is again continuing to climb in terms of unique visitors and total number of searches.

Last week it was revealed that Bing took 8.23% of the U.S. markets web searches for the month of June, which was up from 7.81% in the month of May. And today reports are coming in that Bing has continued to grow in terms of unique visitors for the month of June.

According to Compete.com, Bing saw a total of 49.57 million unique visitors in June. Surprisingly the number trumps CNN's 28.54 million, Twitter's 23 million, and even Digg's 38.96 million. It is to no surprise that Bing is continuing to grow, given the positive press coverage it has had in the last month.


Image credit - Mashable.com

Another interesting thing to note is that according to Compete.com's numbers, Bing is ranked #13 in the United States in terms of unique visitors. Microsoft's previous search engine, Live.com, is still sitting in the #12 position with 79.4 million unique visitors in June.

It is no doubt that Microsoft has a long road ahead if they want to give Google a tough challenge, but they are heading down the right path with Bing. As Microsoft continues to push the Bing platform, yes we said platform (More on that soon), expect to see Bing incorporated into more Microsoft products.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google confirms Chrome OS will be free, reveals OEM partners

Next Story

Microsoft's Laptop Hunters campaign: Meet Matt and Olivia

46 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

The movie theaters show Bing. TV ads about Bing. Luckily, from personal experience, if I see some good website on an ad on TV, I forget about it by the time the show's over.

The name still sucks. Bing it and decide. Or, just Google it. Having actually used the Bing for about a week as a default on Firefox. Searching for "Windows Beta Screenshots" gave me 6 links on page one about Mac OS X Leopard Beta's brand new Quicklook feature. What? I even gave them the upper-hand by searching for a Windows thing. The rest of the results were mixed. Usually there was one good result and the rest wasn't relevant. Using Bing Travel was a nightmare. A flight to San Francisco cost $478 through the lowest-price thing - but clicking a link to a sponsor brought me down to $407.

The point? It's 2nd place. It's not Google. I won't be Binging anything and I don't expect the public to accept "binging" as the new "googling". Maybe in 10 years, but not anytime soon.

But I sure hope it gives Google a run for their money. Competition is always good. But honestly, Micorosft needs to do something right for a change. Windows 7 was that first step, this seems to be going back and saying "Oh, we do search too! And Just about every other computer product!".

/rant

Just for fun, I looked up "Windows Beta Screenshots" and they all had something to do with either Windows 7, Windows Vista, or Longhorn. Well except one with Windows Live Messenger beta. I don't know exactly which OS you were expecting, but there they are.

I have no clue how you could get 6 links about Quicklook.

Sad part is I want bing to do well.. although I still keep using google.. lol its hard to get rid of a habit, especially when you are comfortable with it.. Microsoft sure has its work cut out for them..

This is what I thought when looking at the graph:

Nothing-Nothing-Nothing-Nothing-Nothing-Nothing-BING!

I know it's lame.....

Another interesting thing to note is that according to Compete.com's numbers, Bing is ranked #13 in the United States in terms of unique visitors. Microsoft's previous search engine, Live.com, is still sitting in the #12 position with 79.4 million unique visitors in June.

That doesn't make sense. As soon as Bing went public, Live.com redirected to Bing.

I find that a few searches are more definitive on Bing than on Google. I've actually automatically went to Bing.com instead of Google a couple times this past week. I'm usually a big google fan, but as long as the team from Microsoft continues to work hard at it it'll gain marketshare. Competition is always good.

I love MS but hate Bing. I love Google, but occasionally the IE search box isn't set to it on some of my work machines, so I'll accidentally search Bing. The results are NEVER what I want. When I search for something in Google, the result I'm looking for is usually first or second, but with Bing, I'm lucky if it's on the first page at all!

I have been able to find what I need on Bing as well. I like being able to preview content from the right side of results on there. There are occasions where I find myself going back to google because Bing didn't provide the most relevant results, but for those particular searches, I don't think google did either, but it was able to lead me to the right place.

I like Bing also, tried it out the day it was released and haven't used Google since. The video search is so much better than Google's, and the regular results are just as good and sometimes better. Seems to give me less garbage, particularly those idiotic results that have nothing at all to do with what I was searching for and say "These terms only appear in links pointing to this page". Bing's image search could use some improving however.

I've usually been able to find what I need on Bing too. All the well-known search engines are at least on par with what you query.

Just curious, can you tell me these search queries you looked up? I mean I'd at least expect Bing to get the results on the first page, if not the next few pages.

Another interesting thing to note is that according to Compete.com's numbers, Bing is ranked #13 in the United States in terms of unique visitors. Microsoft's previous search engine, Live.com, is still sitting in the #12 position with 79.4 million unique visitors in June.

Hotmail is still hosted at live.com so that's where all the visits come from. You should compare bing.com to search.live.com.

CNN, Digg, and Twitter are not Search Engines, so they shouldn't be compared to Bing. Bing should be compared with Google, Yahoo, Ask, etc. This comparison makes this a useless article for me.

Also anyone who installs IE8 and accepts defaults automatically gets Bing as their default search provider. Many people won't even know how to change it or even realise that there search results are provided by Bing.

I have used it to check it, and then moved back to the better search engine.

Adnan Rana said,
Also anyone who installs IE8 and accepts defaults automatically gets Bing as their default search provider. Many people won't even know how to change it or even realise that there search results are provided by Bing.

That's wrong. The IE8 installer does not alter the existing search engine provider when upgrading from IE7.

And anyone who installs Opera automatically gets Google. You install FF, you get Google. Hell, you install Safari and you get Google as the default search engine.

That is possibly what the users of Opera, FF, and Safari demanded. Or these browsers choose to make Google default because its better, and not because they want to give google a lot of hits.

Sorry I meant IE7 not IE8 in the first comment.

Adnan Rana said,
That is possibly what the users of Opera, FF, and Safari demanded. Or these browsers choose to make Google default because its better, and not because they want to give google a lot of hits.

Sorry I meant IE7 not IE8 in the first comment.


No, the browser makers chose Google because Google pays them per search run from their browsers address bar and etc. That's why Opera makes money still while the browser is now free.

Why don't other search engines like Bing pay them more money then? Or maybe that Microsoft only know how to charge money and doesn't know the concept of paying.

Adnan Rana said,
Sorry I meant IE7 not IE8 in the first comment.

I think you meant "Sorry, I was wrong".

Neither IE7 or IE8 change your default search engine settings.

Adnan Rana - My God that was terrible! I think I felt a few million brain cells die off as I read your post. Here's a bit of advice: When trying to use words to deride someone or something; you really want to be sure those words match what you are thinking and have knowledge on the topic.

You failed miserably.

Focus on this (doesn't know the concept of paying) and all the things wrong with that statement and try again.

Adnan Rana said,
Why don't other search engines like Bing pay them more money then? Or maybe that Microsoft only know how to charge money and doesn't know the concept of paying.


Are you that disparate to hang onto a pretty iffy argument? You obviously seem to have a dislike of Bing, or else you wouldn't be deriding Bing so much as a search engine that does not have much if any popularity.

These browsers may have put Google by default, possibly because the programmers who made those browsers are used to Google, and perhaps since Google is already the popular choice, they put it as the default because many people already do use it. You know, the same way that businesses often support the most popular credit card companies? It's not necessarily because those credit card companies are the best, but because they're already used by more people.

Microsoft can buy practically anything if they need to. They certainly can buy money, and pay the EU's extortion fines. They're just not that desperate to bother with it yet.

I dont get it? to say

Bing grows larger than CNN, Digg, and Twitter

when all that graph is showing a number of people visiting the website is larger than the others does not make it a more popular website? I bet 90% of those visits are curiosity about the site, as was my one and only visit.

It should be reoccuring visits shown above not unique.

barteh said,
I dont get it? to say

when all that graph is showing a number of people visiting the website is larger than the others does not make it a more popular website? I bet 90% of those visits are curiosity about the site, as was my one and only visit.

It should be reoccuring visits shown above not unique.


It shows unique visitors, and nowhere did the article state it made it a popular site.

barteh said,
I dont get it? to say

when all that graph is showing a number of people visiting the website is larger than the others does not make it a more popular website? I bet 90% of those visits are curiosity about the site, as was my one and only visit.

It should be reoccuring visits shown above not unique.

Notice there is no data on number of searches through bing? I doubt unique visitors is directly proportional to searches...

Sean Bradford said,

It shows unique visitors, and nowhere did the article state it made it a popular site.

I think it is safe to say that Bing is a popular site. It has to have more visitors than neowin, which in itself is pretty popular.

This shows that the redirection from search.live.com and everyone's preferences has successfully (forced) everyone who was using Live search to use bing, with a 1% drop in users. Think about that for a second ;)
It has nothing to do with bing advertising, bing cemented my gradual change back to google as a permanent one.

smithy_dll said,
This shows that the redirection from search.live.com and everyone's preferences has successfully (forced) everyone who was using Live search to use bing, with a 1% drop in users. Think about that for a second ;)
It has nothing to do with bing advertising, bing cemented my gradual change back to google as a permanent one.

Precisely. This article falsely posits that bing has gained market-share on its own merits which we all know is entirely fallacious. Then again when has MS genuinely completed in any market without using its OS dominance to give it an advantage? So these figures are actually from live.com redirection; are the editors here biased much? It seems to them ignorance of the facts really is bliss.

The only reason bing has any users at all is because of the MS tax on OEM PCs. When that monopoly gets broken they can say bye bye to all the rest of their so called bloatware.. oops.. I meant products xD.

liberatus_sum said,


Precisely. This article falsely posits that bing has gained market-share on its own merits which we all know is entirely fallacious. Then again when has MS genuinely completed in any market without using its OS dominance to give it an advantage? So these figures are actually from live.com redirection; are the editors here biased much? It seems to them ignorance of the facts really is bliss.

The only reason bing has any users at all is because of the MS tax on OEM PCs. When that monopoly gets broken they can say bye bye to all the rest of their so called bloatware.. oops.. I meant products xD.

Yup, because all that really helped Live Search out

oh wait...

The graph shows nothing at all. All it shows is that Live is now redirecting to Bing, Live is a big website, therefore there is a sudden spike of traffic.

Here are the graphs that show the true story. Live.com was always bigger than CNN. So is it surprising when Live redirects to Bing that suddenly Bing is bigger than CNN? Of course not :)

Andrew Lyle said,
I didn't think Yahoo was reporting the same amount of visitors as Google was. That is surprising

A lot of people use Yahoo! as a homepage even though they use Google as a search engine.

liberatus_sum said,
The only reason bing has any users at all is because of the MS tax on OEM PCs.

Exactly! The cost of an operating system by manufacturers directly correlates to the usage of a search engine!