Study finds Bing to be more accurate than Google

A recent survey conducted between the two search engine giants, Google and Bing, have shown that visitors on Microsoft's search engine are more likely to find what they are looking for in less time than Google users.

The study, conducted by Experian Hitwise, via ITproportal.com, shows that Bing users clicked on search results 81.54% of the time, while Google users only clicked 65.58%. According to Experian, this shows that Bing users are more likely to find what they are looking for, making the search engine more accurate than rival Google.

As Bing has a higher click percentage than Google, it shows that Microsoft's decision engine is returning results that users are looking for the first time, without the need for a second or third query.

Just last week, Google accused Bing of stealing their search results, even setting them up in a sting operation to determine if Bing really was stealing results. Bing later fired back at Google, claiming their search bar was watching what users are searching and clicking, sending the information back to their servers for processing. As the rare search results from Google later showed up on Bing, the arguments and accusations started to fly between the two giants.

Just yesterday, Neowin announced that Bing's market share has gone up by 6%, while Google is slowly losing its dominance. Although Google still holds the top spot with 67.95% market share, Bing is slowly catching up. Bing-powered searches, including both Bing.com and Yahoo.com, claim a total of 27.44%.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

HP Veer, Pre 3 and Touchpad WebOS devices leaked on website

Next Story

HP announces the Pre 3, HP Veer and TouchPad devices

88 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What I don't see mentioned is SEO. What Bing/Yahoo looks for in search terms for the highest ranked pages is different than Google's algorhythms. Apples and oranges. What might come up as #8 on Bing might be #1 on Google, and vice versa.

These Bing vs Google stories on Neobing are getting pretty tiresome already... seems to me like you're deliberately creating bait for google vs bing trolls on a daily basis.

Comments always the same, by the same people.

SuperHans said,
Neobing
SuperHans said,
seems to me like you're deliberately creating bait for google vs bing trolls on a daily basis.
Hypocritical much?

bing has vastly improved in the last year, it used to take me multiple searches, but i've been surprised how good its been recently

I trust myself more than these studies.
How many people are using Google? Of course the failure rate will be high.
Google has really fast indexing too. I will stay on Google too.

I'm sorry but 81.54% seems very high for a clickthrough rate and doesn't mean anything. As far as I know from these stats people who use bing are more likely to click on the first link they see rather than deeply searching for the best content.

Half of the people who clicked this article were looking for evidence that Microsoft sponsored the study and had a snarky comment all set to post.

They left disappointed.

Joshie said,
Half of the people who clicked this article were looking for evidence that Microsoft sponsored the study and had a snarky comment all set to post.

They left disappointed.

And how many Anti-Google clicked to chime in how much they hate Google, works both ways

Bing users clicked on search results 81.54% of the time, while Google users only clicked 65.58%.
That's because 15% of all Google search results are adds -.-

Conjor said,
That's because 15% of all Google search results are adds -.-

Eh? There's sometimes an ad at the top and some at the side, that's it.

thealexweb said,

Eh? There's sometimes an ad at the top and some at the side, that's it.

Not really. I quit using Google soon after reaching the point where my first several blue links went to content generators or people selling things only distantly related to my search terms.

Maybe it's changed since then, but even if so I've no need nor interest in going back to Google.

Bing users clicked on search results 81.54% of the time, while Google users only clicked 65.58%
Does this have anything to do with the fact that Google offers in-line page previews? The study probably just shows that Google gives users more of the information they want right away without having to visit the link. Maybe Google offers more relevant ads with search results, and Google users tend to find what they want in the ads more than they do on Bing.


Ok, maybe you disagree with this speculation, but it only calls into question the quality of the speculation presented as a conclusion via this study. Then the adage "correlation is not causation" applies here in both cases.

You aren't the only one who see is like that. In this page, there are many comments from people who thinks that way.

Google gives me the results first time everytime i search....and as others have pointed out sometimes the summaries are that good you don't even have to click on it.

BS survey. what about those who search, read the brief description of the page without c licking on anything, and then do a new search and try to get better results.

Besides, what you type in the search field makes A LOT of difference. If you looking for a Corvette and only type cars, you wont get good results. A lot of people dont put good enough keywords in the search.

jbrooksuk said,
I don't use Bing because I don't like the results page. It feels cluttered.

I don't drive American vehicles because they feel like they're made for fat people.

jbrooksuk said,
I don't use Bing because I don't like the results page. It feels cluttered.

I don't drive American vehicles because they feel like they're made for fat people.

Am I right in assuming that those not clicking on the search results would be clicking on adverts? As if that's the case then this study just demonstrates that Google is more profitable, as they'd be making more from ad revenue. And that doesn't necessarily make Google less accurate. I've seen plenty of people that are happy to click on the advertising links and it gets them to where they wanted to go.

And how many new computers have Bing already set as the default search engine? Lots of computer newbs will just use whatever is already set up for them.
That's got to be where their 4% is coming from because Bing completely sucks compared to Google.

James Riske said,
And how many new computers have Bing already set as the default search engine? Lots of computer newbs will just use whatever is already set up for them.
That's got to be where their 4% is coming from because Bing completely sucks compared to Google.

And how many installers make Google your default search engine because of the Google Toolbar checked by default?

Vice said,
Easy to beat Google when your aggregating their results on top of your own

The Google claim of Bing stealing results of some days ago has been proven false or irrelevant by the same author of the original post, sorry.

Vice said,
Easy to beat Google when your aggregating their results on top of your own

Google was manipulating those results using the Bing toolbar, Microsoft wasn't stealing them.

Vice said,
Easy to beat Google when your aggregating their results on top of your own

Wouldn't the accuracy be equal (or Google being slightly ahead)

I don't think this study completely concludes that Bing is more accurate than Google. There's quite a few more factors than just that stat. Regardless, I'll stick with Google. It's simple and always finds what I need.

Aethec said,
It'd be better if it was true in other languages too...Bing in French is IMO much worse than Google.

True. Luckily I live in the US.

So they concluded that Bing must be more accurate than Google because of the higher click ratio. What nonsense. Higher click ration does not equal more accurate searches.

How about actually testing the search engine by putting them both to the test?

Wow. Talk about a pointless study. Common sense dictates that this would be the result. Who honestly takes the 2-3 seconds extra each time to disable Instant Search. If you don't that means that by the time you put in a two word search, you have looked at 2 or 3 results pages without actually clicking anything and every few letters is a new query.

ILikeTobacco said,
Wow. Talk about a pointless study. Common sense dictates that this would be the result. Who honestly takes the 2-3 seconds extra each time to disable Instant Search. If you don't that means that by the time you put in a two word search, you have looked at 2 or 3 results pages without actually clicking anything and every few letters is a new query.

Hmm I see your point but I guess for this research they didn't use the Instant Search option.

ILikeTobacco said,
Wow. Talk about a pointless study. Common sense dictates that this would be the result. Who honestly takes the 2-3 seconds extra each time to disable Instant Search. If you don't that means that by the time you put in a two word search, you have looked at 2 or 3 results pages without actually clicking anything and every few letters is a new query.

And you are basically proving that Instant Search is not that helpful in finding what you need. It just wastes bandwidth, for something that's 1 Enter Keypress away.

thenonhacker said,

And you are basically proving that Instant Search is not that helpful in finding what you need. It just wastes bandwidth, for something that's 1 Enter Keypress away.

Or 10 keypresses. You know you can filter queries with the -/+ signs, and putting some words in "quotes", etc? If my search doesn't return what i was looking for, I start putting in -filters to filter out the results I don't want (and pressing enter every time).

ILikeTobacco said,
...

Instant search isn't enabled by default in my region, OS or browser

I was pretty sure you needed to log into google in order to get instant search.

Meaning, if you've gone through the time to create a gAccount, then of course you're going to be biased toward them.

I am using bing for like a year now instead of google in english search and it is very awesome!
way better than google! google just now copy bing stuff

but in rtl language google is better than bing

Google seems to give me the best IT related results. Has me thinking that Bing isn't as good at finding results for weird blue screens etc...

RedMike said,
Google seems to give me the best IT related results. Has me thinking that Bing isn't as good at finding results for weird blue screens etc...

Agreed here. I use Bing for everything except IT Searches, Image Searches, and "define:". I use Bing for most searches, and Maps is excellent.

RedMike said,
Google seems to give me the best IT related results. Has me thinking that Bing isn't as good at finding results for weird blue screens etc...

True. I use Bing for everything except IT or academic searches.

Ehm, I think that that number is kind of incomparable to the one of Google's (IMO ).
First, Google have a bigger user base than Bing. This means that there is going to be a bigger number of people who will not click the first thing they see.
Second. By clicking on search results, it doesn't always mean that it is accurate, and is what users are looking for.

Jose_49 said,
First, Google have a bigger user base than Bing. This means that there is going to be a bigger number of people who will not click the first thing they see.

That's not how percentages work.

acnpt said,
Nice theory, but in reality...

Agreed. For some reason my site is highly optimized on Google and it barely makes any appearance on Bing.

Isn't it more accurate to say that Bing users are more accurate than Google users? Wouldn't it make more sense to perform an experiment of searching for the same terms in Google and Bing and comparing the quality of the results over a wide range of terms?

rakeshishere said,
Still i would stay with Google

+1. Yeah. In most of my searches (Not for saying all), Google provides me with more accurate info than Bing.

rakeshishere said,
Still i would stay with Google

Haven't used google in ages..f or IT searches its too much spam.. amazingly over the past few months bing has really optimized their long tail searches that failed miserably and now shine

Kirkburn said,
I don't understand then ... what *would* make you consider switching, if not the quality of results?

The phrase, I'm staying with Google regardless is becoming more common. If your comfortable then fair enough but holding onto Google just because doesn't seem logical. We wouldn't be using Google if we didn't try new things. Bing is worth a shot and I quite like it so far.

Good job Bing & Microsoft. I'll still never stray away from Google, it finds what I am looking for, all the time, the first time.

NeoDecay said,
Good job Bing & Microsoft. I'll still never stray away from Google, it finds what I am looking for, all the time, the first time.

Well, you know how to Google for something, most users are terrible at making search queries.

As with any study, they can interpret the results as they like. Doesn't make their conclusion the only valid one.

Has it crossed their minds that maybe Google presents better summaries than Bing (users don't even need to click to find out what they were looking for)?

NeoDecay said,
Good job Bing & Microsoft. I'll still never stray away from Google, it finds what I am looking for, all the time, the first time.

how about instant search??? usually Google gives you result before you even enter and no one clicks on those results until they finish entering or found the result. I think this study is pointless.

still1 said,

how about instant search??? usually Google gives you result before you even enter and no one clicks on those results until they finish entering or found the result. I think this study is pointless.

Good point there. Actually I believe that feature is being overlooked.

Argote said,

Well, you know how to Google for something, most users are terrible at making search queries.

You are right. No matter the engine, there are countless persons that think that searching for something using only ONE word will yield the results they are expecting...

GreenMartian said,
As with any study, they can interpret the results as they like. Doesn't make their conclusion the only valid one.
That's not really how studies work - you can't take a random study and interpret the opposite, because that very likely means one of you is taking liberties with the facts.

Kirkburn said,
That's not really how studies work - you can't take a random study and interpret the opposite, because that very likely means one of you is taking liberties with the facts.

I know how studies work. The result of theirs is that more users click on Bing search results. The question is, did they take into account that *maybe* people don't click on Google's because they present better summaries? This idea was not explored, nor mentioned at all.

Any good research design should try to eliminate confounding variables like this. You can't confidently present your conclusion (Bing is more accurate because people click on them!) if there are still OTHER factors that may have caused the observed result.

Argote said,

Well, you know how to Google for something, most users are terrible at making search queries.


That's true, but the essence is that the search engine can deliver the best results, no matter how the user search for it. The algoritms have to be smart, not the user.

Jose_49 said,
Good point there. Actually I believe that feature is being overlooked.

More like underused by the consumer base, since you need a gAccount to use it.

GreenMartian said,

I know how studies work. The result of theirs is that more users click on Bing search results. The question is, did they take into account that *maybe* people don't click on Google's because they present better summaries? This idea was not explored, nor mentioned at all.

Any good research design should try to eliminate confounding variables like this. You can't confidently present your conclusion (Bing is more accurate because people click on them!) if there are still OTHER factors that may have caused the observed result.

Where the results posted anywhere? If not how can you make the claim that those variables you mentioned were not examined? In addition, how would you know if they did not find the results they were looking for? Maybe the point of the study was not do delve deep into every possible vairable that exists. Point is.....if they did include every possible variable that could affect the outcome of the study and it went in Bing's favor, you'd likely still refut it.

Argote said,

Well, you know how to Google for something, most users are terrible at making search queries.

I think you've got something there... I can be looking for something (googling) at the same time with a friend or co-workers (or my wife) and I'll find exactly what I was looking for and they won't. I don't know how or why I issue queries differently, but it seems that I do.

Kirkburn said,
Based on what?

That when using Instant Search, you don't actually click "Enter" and a search is effectuated.

Let's take the following example:
Imagine you want to look for "Earth's history".
When you start typing the word "Earth's", a Search would have been effectuated due to Instant Search. Now, you know that the results displayed on the current page aren't the ones that you are actually looking forward to, since none of them (at least in this case) talks about Earth's history. That's why you keep typing, and type the word "history". After that, and a complete new search is done; showing different results.
This means, that two searches have been carried out, and you found what you were looking for at the "second search", while it was really the first one.

NPGMBR said,

Where the results posted anywhere?

The source article.
..Experian Hitwise
has found that users performing searches through Bing are more likely to visit a website than those searching via Google.. some numbers ..
According to Experian, this implies that Bing is offering more accurate results than Google.

How the hell do number of clicks imply that one is more accurate than the other?

I'm all for proper research. Going "hey, look at these numbers, they must mean X" is NOT a "study".

Then again, it could turn out to be a badly written/sensationalist article, and maybe the guys did do a proper study.

I'm not defending Google. I use Bing for those times when Google gives me spammy results.