MobilityLeaks: Nice Try, Simmons

I want to see for myself right now how evil — or helpful — Google Shopping is versus Bing. I’ll liveblog it too right here.

I want… I want, … an RC helicopter with camera, and I want the best deal damnit, and I want the best deal aggregation outfit to hook me up, okay, so here goes (let me google Bing Shopping)…

Here’s Google’s results, here’s Bing’s results.

Looking at the Google page, Google’s showing me which heli people tend to buy the most, okay, they’ve also got listings from over fifty stores for some of these choppers, here’s one of those blown up which lets you see that I might be better off with B&H Photo (good store, knew that already) as 29,924 Google Shoppers voted them five stars versus a lower and less popular Fry’s Electronics, good stuff. Google knows where I am so what’s closest, Google breaks down the price by the listed price, tax and shipping.

Let’s see Bing… elegant, got the choppers in a grid formation, got a search narrow-downer thing on the left like Google except less comprehensive, not bad, but what about visitor/shopper feedback, I’ll click the first listing. Hmm only three stores? And what’s this, no feedback?

So on Google I have data (in part because Google is popular) like this shopper feedback stuff, I have a much larger selection of stores from which to choose (and therefore a more efficient market of helicopter sellers fighting for my business), and on Bing I don’t have that, but I have a merry reminder that they, unlike brand X, are trustworthy.

I’m going with Google, Ram. Sorry. Not buying a chopper but I do have some Christmas shopping and most of it will go down right here on Google not Bing and having just seen Bing’s answer to Google Shopping I can add BECAUSE IT DOESN’T CLEARLY SUCK IN COMPARISON to the list of reasons I’ll be using Google Shopping — right next to BECAUSE I HAD UNTIL NOW NO IDEA BING SHOPPING EFFING EXISTED YOU DEE-BAG BUT NOW THAT YOU POINT IT OUT I THINK MAYBE THEY SHOULD SORTA YOU KNOW GIVE THE HECK UP AND LET GOOGLE RUN THE SHOW. You fairy.

But let’s get someone known more for levelheadedness than I am for a verdict about which thing is better: Marti or Jim, could you please settle this, either with the helicopter thing I offered off the top of my head or whatever product you want?

Jim Schneider:

What is with the insults pointed at each other lately in emails?  Shouldn’t this be reserved for trolling forums to see who has the bigger genitals?  Seriously what does that add to anyone’s point.  I know we’re all passionate about our ecosystems but why abuse each other to get a point across?

Colby:

im sure doug is just having fun. right doug? no hard feelings towards anyone? lol.

Matt Anderson:

Because Simmons is Simmons. Throw it right back. He’s a redhead so its not like he has a soul to worry about.
Sent from my Windows Phone

Marti:

M’kay.

Before we start: We’re all Very Passionate about our OS of choice. We’re all friends here, and some leg-pulling is expected, as long as it doesn’t get out of hand.

 

Okay, first consider the source of the article: msn.com. NOT exactly biased. J

Second, Google’s historic stance: Don’t Be Evil, and (shall I say) Fair & Balanced Searching. HOWEVER, Google has also never claimed to be a search, software, or hardware company – they are an advertising company and make absolutely no bones about that.  EVERYTHING they do has that in mind!  Gmail? Data mining about you, to serve you targeted ads. Voicemail? Same. Search engine? Ditto. It really was inevitable that Don’t Be Evil and Fair Searching would be compromised to advertising.

Third: We’re not exactly comparing apples to apples.  If that were the case, we’d be comparing Google search to Bing search. Google Shopping is a pay-for-results subset of Google search. As a consumer, what that tells me is that I’d rather use Google search if I’m looking for all the best deals: the best deal may not be paying Google to appear on Shopping, so why use it? Lame, if you ask me.

 

Okay, I’m going to start with Obscure: Rosencrantz & Gildenstern are Dead on DVD.
Google Shopping: Hmm, never used this so I’m unfamiliar with the UI. So it shows the item, brief abstract, reviews underneath. On the right, as low as $7 from “50+ stores, 25+ nearby stores” (although I’ll bet “nearby” means online as well. Very conspicuously absent from the list of online stores selling this item is Amazon! Although B&N has it for $6.60! Dang, I should tell my folks for Christmas…

Bing: First on the list is Amazon. No surprise here. Then eBay, B&N. Looking at the Amazon link, hey! I can buy it for Prime instant video for $5.99. And evidently they have some affiliated store selling it used for $4.68.  There’s the best deal so far, and I’ll assume that it didn’t show on GS because Amazon didn’t want to pay. (Makes me wonder if this is a selective-item contract, or blanket items, or number of items. Amazon, if they decide to pay for GS would probably only do it for highly popular/in demand items in that case.)  Looking at eBay, eh. Things that look like real copies, things that look like bootlegs, listings for the book.  B&N link took me to the same place as GS.

Google search: Amazon, IMDB, Wikipedia are the first 3.

 

Okay okay, something “popular.” Hmm. I’ll use Wii U.

GS: okay, first 3: 32G in black, 8G in white, system w/Batman Arkham City & Scribblenauts for $350, $300, and $419.97 respectively.  I kind of like that it lists the item, then you drill down to lists of who’s selling it. But in the back of my mind will always be: is this really the best deal?

Bing: First up is an add for scroogled.com LOL. Next News about Wii U, Wikipedia article. So for shopping, maybe not the best.

Google: Nintendo’s site, Best Buy, Target. The links for the items on GS are on the right. Still not the best, but meh.

 

So mixed results? Well, I kind of expect that from the Internet anyway.

Ram:

Matt,

You are right Simmons is basically Simmons. I just want to pull his legs whenever and wherever possible. Just try say something nasty about Google, you will notice his reactions. .

Simmons

Ok, I did read your entire supporting post about Google, boy it is very lengthy and I suggest to whoever is reading to have a relaxed mind before you start reading. I am serious.

Now coming to the point, basically you are saying it is ok as long as you get an RC Helicopter from Google suggested sellers. What if Company A is paying heavy $ to Google to shove their RC Helicopter for say $100, and at the same time a company, which never did business with Google to list their site is selling the same for $80 and they are also present in the cyber world, and you are not aware of it because you are so much into Google? Wouldn’t that be cheating practice by Google to its users? I am not saying consumers, I am saying users. In this case you as a buyer. You want to know why it is cheating. Google is cheating there because, they are taking money from Company A and are not telling you about the existence of Company B at all.  What happened to your beloved lord Page’s mantra, Do No Evil – It is not good practice to take money and adulterate the search results. He only said it would be harming the user’s request, in this case yours? Just asking.

–Ram–

Sent from Windows Mail

Evan aka The Fight:

Nice try Simmons.  You use Google shopping results for one example and DON’T use Bing shopping for the other.  http://www.bing.com/shopping/search?q=rc+helicopter+with+camera&qpvt=rc+helicopter+with+camera&FORM=HDRSC6
Try one more time.  Better yet, don’t.  I expected the Fox News approach from you and I got it.  Carry on.

Van:

Thanks Evan. That’s a very good response.

Sent from Windows Mail

Doug Simmons:

Evan, sorry, Bing Images came up first, I copied that one, but everything I wrote is true about the Bing shopping link you posted because that’s what I was critiquing. Okay? Copypasta fail on my part. I’m not an expert on copypasta, next time I’ll ask Kristofer or Smith for help.

Google delivers the better product/service for consumers, and this shopping thing is no exception. It’s plain as day, I don’t see much room here for disagreement.

Regarding name calling, Van you break my balls frequently firstly, secondly I do it to just about everyone here except Marti because she’s a lady and Old Man Jimski because he eventually indicated he didn’t appreciate it, and I think he’s a prized asset here and when I go on other Microsoft sites like microsoft-news and see him commenting there it makes me nervous that I could drive him away with another old age joke.

And regarding my getting flired up when someone talks trash about Google, I’m basically surrounded by Microsoft enthusiasts. So sort of like how you proud Microsoft mobile patrons are extraordinarily outnumbered by everyone else, that you’re still “other” in the charts, you people likewise get fired up too.

For example: Molly Wood’s Windows Phone Induces Facepalm’s [sic] across the Tech World by Murani.

By the way Murani, though your instinct was in the right place to put a preposition in lowercase, across gets capitalized as it is of five or more letters. As for the apostrophe in facepalms, leave it in there, sort of adds an ironic touch.

Nancy-boys.

Image credits: Google Images