Comments on: Microsoft’s “circular conundrum”

By: Greg, Baltimore, MD

Greg, Baltimore, MD — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 06:09:04 +0000

Huh? You mean google does searches? I use it entirely to find ads for products that I don’t even care about. I thought “google” was a synonym for “find meaningless ads”. Where have I been? I also love all of the extraneous features of Microsoft products and am anxiously awaiting a better “ad display” product from them. Maybe they can make it pop up like my favorite Netflix popup. Ballmer is trying to give Bawlmer a bad name.

By: theantibush, honolulu, hawai'i

theantibush, honolulu, hawai'i — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 04:07:10 +0000

No, Ballmie, damn it. Please get a clue: we dont search with msft because google offers better results, not ads. Nobody searches for ads…do you watch TV for commercials? Or use that time to take a dump? Is it really so lala land there in Redmond? JC…and I bet those Wall Street Mc-Wheres-My-Cain types actually bought that crap. I swear you ever built a rocket it would be pointing straight down…but the algorithms would be cool.
Yippee.

By: Tom, Newport, Rhode Island

Tom, Newport, Rhode Island — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 16:28:12 +0000

Microsoft is creating a B2B search and trying to market it as an end user product. They are competing an inferior product in a mature market. It’s a flawed strategy. MS needs to learn the lessons from their Zune player and re-market live as an integrated business solution.

By: Danzo, Phoenix, Arizona

Danzo, Phoenix, Arizona — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:49:51 +0000

the ONLY reason ANYONE would EVER use MSN search is because it’s the default page on the default browser on the defunct computer they bought.

Oh, and yea, Ballmer is delusional… not the first time.

By: Brandon, Muskego, WI

Brandon, Muskego, WI — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:33:24 +0000

Obviously, Microsoft’s approach has been and always will be to cram what users don’t want down their throats and this seems to be no exception. How disinterested are you and how much have you disenfranchised your users when you infer that it’s the ads that bring people to search engines. I have NEVER clicked on a search engine ad and I NEVER will. I use GOOGLE because it provides THE MOST RELEVANT information, which is why I went there in the first place. Maybe this is one of the two or three concepts that the Live Search team is working on?

By: John, Cambridge MA

John, Cambridge MA — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:22:30 +0000

Its amazing how corporate officers eat their own BS. I used to use microsoft search, now I use google. Why ? Because it gives better results. I never look at ads on a web search. In fact I avoid them.

By: dawg in TX

dawg in TX — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:43:05 +0000

If Ballmer thinks that the reason people uses searches to look at the ads, then he needs to step down and let someone else take the helm. I have never meant or talked to anyone that searches for ads! Geez. Have the top brass at MS gone absolutely out of touch with the real world or are they so obsessed with being number one at everything they lose focus?

By: Larry, Sherwood, OR

Larry, Sherwood, OR — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:56:32 +0000

I agree. I usually DON’T click on the ads, because they are ads. I stay away from many of the other engines because they are filled with ads.

By: Kai MacTane, San Francisco CA

Kai MacTane, San Francisco CA — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:37:13 +0000

I was going to point out that nobody uses a search engine based on the ad relevancy; users are interested in the actual search results' relevancy... but it seems lots of other people have already beaten me to it. If Ballmer actually thinks people are using Google instead of MS Live Search because the ads are better, then Google has absolutely nothing to worry about.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:29:16 +0000

Wow.. Ballmer really thinks its ad…

Personally I hardly look at the ads.. It’s the result that matters and obviously Google is better than live.

By: Jeremy, Burlington, VT

Jeremy, Burlington, VT — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:36:53 +0000

Hey Yi-Wyn, take a look at these comments… do you see a theme emerging here? Newsflash: we use Google to search, not to look at ads. You’ve written an article about complete and utter nonsense. Next time Steve Ballmer makes a pronouncement about Google, think it through for a few seconds before using it as the basis for an article.

By: Bob, NY, NY

Bob, NY, NY — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:53:47 +0000

“…people don’t want to search on the site unless there are more relevant ads…”

Wow – does he really believe people use Google because of the ads?

By: Anonymous, City, ST

Anonymous, City, ST — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:33:59 +0000

Ballmer’s premise is wrong. People don’t use a search engine based on whether or not it shows relevant ads. People would prefer to have no advertising. People use whichever search engine returns the most relevant search results. Right now, that’s Google.

By: Christopher Stith, Quincy IL

Christopher Stith, Quincy IL — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:27:43 +0000

How about some more relevance to the search results first? Relevant ads are nice, but people don’t search based on the ads. They search based on the search engine returning good results.

By: James Parker, Columbus, OH

James Parker, Columbus, OH — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 03:22:47 +0000

Does Ballmer REALLY think that people choose a search engine based on the relevancy of the ads it contains?

By: Matt, St. Joseph, MI

Matt, St. Joseph, MI — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:44:26 +0000

“advertisers don’t want to sell on Live Search unless there’s more people using the site, and people don’t want to search on the site unless there are more relevant ads”

Do people really pick their search engines based on what ads they’re going to see? I think that factor is limited to how -few- they’ll see, but not how relevant.

By: Randy Jensen, Seattle, WA

Randy Jensen, Seattle, WA — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:44:07 +0000

The solution is obvious and easy. Produce relevant, good quality search results with no ads whatsoever for two to three years. Problem solved, all it takes is deep pockets — and Microsoft has those.