Yesterday, while I was editing Gordon Davidescu’s fine article about Mitt Romney appearing on television in Brownface — I had a devil of a time trying to find an article I swore I wrote a long while ago about Ted Danson appearing in public in Blackface while he was dating Whoopi Goldberg.  I wanted to link that article in Gordon’s article.

I can usually find anything I’ve written on the internet in a refined Google search — though it’s harder now that all the search engines have re-tuned their return results to reflect newer articles instead of older artifacts — but I could not find any article like that in Google.  I also searched my online Google Drive, too.  Nothing.  I searched all my local hard drive archives.  Nothing.  I still couldn’t let go of the notion that I’d written about Ted’s Blackface.

As a last gasp effort, I decided to give Microsoft Bing a try — just to see if they held something I hadn’t been able to find that might provide a breadcrumb of a link back to my Danson in Blackface article that didn’t seem to exist anywhere.

When I landed on the Bing homepage, I saw the “Bing it On” challenge I’d heard about en passant, and I decided my missing Whoopi Goldberg and Ted Danson Blackface article was a perfect test of the two search engine giants to see if they could help me find an article that didn’t appear to exist.

Here’s the official PR background on the Bing vs. Google challenge:

Since we launched Bing, we’ve conducted ongoing tests to measure our relevancy, assess customer feedback and satisfaction, and examine our product in many different ways. A while ago, we began to notice an interesting trend – Bing was beating Google in our search relevancy tests. After carefully following the trend data for several months, we decided to commission an independent study to test which web search results people prefer.

You may be surprised: the research shows that people chose Bing web search results over Google nearly 2:1 in blind comparison tests. People are surprised because of how deeply the Google habit is ingrained in most searchers—they are responding based on their habits rather than the facts.

I banged on Bing!

I did five searches on various iterations of my name + Whoopi + Ted + Blackface in all different forms, and while no proper article I wanted was returned, it seemed that, after an initial draw, I preferred the Google results every time — even though I never found what I was searching for…

You may wonder if I was predisposed to choose a Google result over a Bing result because I use Google every day and I’d just done a series of fruitless Google searches on pretty much the same search sets, but I’m sure Bing takes into account that tainted predisposition to lean Google and reformats and MSFT enhances the challenge to be as neutral as possible and they probably find a way to make your eye lean toward the Bing result.

In fact, I think I’d be determinedly predisposed to NOT pick Google because I’d been so frustrated by just not finding what I wanted in their results — and I honestly had no idea which side gave me the better results, I just wanted to find my article!

I think the reason I always picked Google over Bing — now that I know the results of the test — is that the option I preferred seemed to be richer and more precise in the specificity of my search want.

If the search engine couldn’t find what I wanted, it either seemed to truncate to shortened results like Bing or, like Google, tried to infer what I was really trying to ask and then anticipate what my next search would be if I wanted to keep refining my search criteria.  I like the Google attack for helping me recover from a failed search.

In the end, both Google and Microsoft failed me — I also tried Yahoo! and the Internet Archive: Wayback Machine with even worse results — and the lesson learned is that if you never wrote an article you know you wrote, then no search engine in the land can help you find what doesn’t exist.

Posted by David Boles

David Boles was born in Nebraska and his MFA is from Columbia University in the City of New York. He is an Author, Lyricist, Playwright, Publisher, Editor, Actor, Designer, Director, Poet, Producer, and Boodle Boy for print, radio, television, film, the web and the live stage. With more than 50 books in print, David continues to write 2MM words a year. He has authored over 25K articles and published more. Read the Prairie Voice Archive at Boles.com | Buy his books at David Boles Books Writing & Publishing | Earn the world with David Boles University | Get a script doctored at Script Professor | Touch American Sign Language mastery at Hardcore ASL.

21 Comments

  1. David,

    When it comes to searching for articles I know that you or I have written, I have noticed that Bing is almost always way more relevant unless I happen to know the exact title. If I only remember the topic of the article, Bing wins way more often than Google.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I know you’ve told me that in the past, but the way I search, Google always seems to beat Bing.

      I do more keyword searches than exact article titles. Maybe that’s part of it.

      The best way to search for old articles is inside our WordPress.com admin area in POSTS view and use the search box from there. That really seems to be better, in a single blog search, for getting the best results instead of using the public search box on the blog proper or even looking at the Archives page. The only problem with that admin method is you have to remember which blog you used to publish the article! With 14 blogs and more articles growing every day, that becomes a more difficult task.

      Like

      Reply

      1. David,

        That’s exactly the issue! I almost never know in which blog an article is found — unless it happens to be a music review article🙂

        Like

        Reply

        1. The pre-Boles Blues music gear reviews are all over the place, though. They were, and are, so popular, I wanted to spread around the eyes!

          Like

          Reply

  2. I did a Bing it On and Google won mine as well — http://imgur.com/l3JsU

    Like

    Reply

    1. Yikes! Exact same results with entirely different search criteria. Hmm. There must be some organic reason why we’re 100% picking Google over Bing.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Lillian Boyington September 25, 2012 at 7:50 pm

        Habit

        Like

        Reply

        1. I’m not sure what you mean, Lillian. Can you explain your one word comment?

          Like

          Reply

          1. Lillian Boyington September 27, 2012 at 11:53 am

            Google has been theeee internet search engine for ages now. “Google” it has become a verb rather than a noun. The organic reason being: Habit🙂
            My Ohio friend is a Bing-er. He has told me over and over again I’m using the the wrong search engine by using Google.
            I sent him a link to this blog and reinforced his opinion. “Thanks, I’ll stick with Bing” was his reply.

            Like

          2. Have you taken the Bing challenge yet, Lillian? If not, I’d love to know the results.

            Like

          3. Lillian Boyington October 2, 2012 at 4:29 pm

            I’m a Bing-Bong-er. I like the details and pictures that Bing provides regularly, however it usually requires a much larger processing speed than my grandpa computer (at the house) can handle.
            I appreciate them both; the lack of complication keeps me going to Google, details will inevitably find me at Bing’s front door.

            Like

  3. […] other day, I was doing a Google search on how to deblur an image that had the Photoshop box blur filter invoked when one of the search […]

    Like

    Reply

  4. […] the past, I’ve written here in the Boles Blogs Network — even though I can’t find the actual article right now to link it – about other “David Boles” people in the world or “Danny Boles” or […]

    Like

    Reply

  5. I agree competition is vital in the marketplace, Lillian. We need Google and Bing and Yahoo and Wolfram Alpha and all the other little engines that could — to keep us going!

    Like

    Reply

    1. Lillian Boyington October 12, 2012 at 3:13 pm

      Back in the late 90’s and early 2000’s my brother (may he rest in peace) was a big one for MetaCrawler as a search engine, and as time passed I’d kind of forgotten about it till now.
      Wolfram Alpha is a toy all it’s own. I never knew it existed till this post. (I don’t get out much🙂 )

      Like

      Reply

      1. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine is tons of fun, too — because you can look up pages from years ago to see what they looked like way back when. Here’s a fun one for you to play with:

        http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://boles.com

        http://web.archive.org/web/19961127183755/http://boles.com/

        WolframAlpha is a strange beast. It’s best at answering science and technical inquiries. When Siri looks up information for you on the iPhone she references WolframAlpha.

        Sorry to learn about the loss of your brother. I bet you miss him a lot.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Lillian Boyington October 12, 2012 at 4:41 pm

          Thank you. I do. He is the reason I know anything about computers. He always managed to keep me in the www loop with little or no cost. He showed me a lot of tips, tricks and how-to’s. And he was 11 yrs my JUNIOR. Go figure. 🙂

          Like

          Reply

          1. It’s good to remember him, Lillian, and thank you for sharing him with us.

            Like

  6. Lillian Boyington October 12, 2012 at 2:02 pm

    So, were you ever successful in finding your article?

    Like

    Reply

    1. Nope! Never found the article. 100% certain I wrote it. Can’t find any existence of it anywhere.

      Like

      Reply

  7. UPDATE!

    I found the nefarious “Ted Danson” article!

    It wasn’t really about Ted or Whoopi after all — that’s why I couldn’t find those keywords in a text search — but the “Whiteness” of Ted’s Blackface was rooted in my mind as the first image of the article and that’s why I was certain I’d somehow previously addressed the matter.

    Here is, “The Whiteness of Technology” published on December 22, 2009 in United Stage:

    http://unitedstage.com/2009/12/22/the-whiteness-of-technology/

    Like

    Reply

Share Your Thoughts:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s