<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Bing me up Scotty</title>
	<atom:link href="http://archshrk.com/2009/07/bing-me-up-scotty/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://archshrk.com/2009/07/bing-me-up-scotty#utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=bing-me-up-scotty</link>
	<description>The Earth is mine to devastate&#8230; and I already promised the moon to GIR</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:34:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Acneboy</title>
		<link>http://archshrk.com/2009/07/bing-me-up-scotty/comment-page-1#comment-106325</link>
		<dc:creator>Acneboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archshrk.com/?p=2837#comment-106325</guid>
		<description>Bing search engine gives almost the same search results as Google. Looks like Google will now have a tough competition when it comes to search engine technology.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bing search engine gives almost the same search results as Google. Looks like Google will now have a tough competition when it comes to search engine technology.</p>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://archshrk.com/wp-content/plugins/tippy/dom_tooltip.css" media="screen" /><script type="text/javascript" src="http://archshrk.com/wp-content/plugins/tippy/dom_tooltip.js"></script>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priceless Paintings from W7 &#187; The Search Engine Mystery</title>
		<link>http://archshrk.com/2009/07/bing-me-up-scotty/comment-page-1#comment-104482</link>
		<dc:creator>Priceless Paintings from W7 &#187; The Search Engine Mystery</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 05:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archshrk.com/?p=2837#comment-104482</guid>
		<description>[...] Bing me up Scotty (archshrk.com) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Bing me up Scotty (archshrk.com) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: w7</title>
		<link>http://archshrk.com/2009/07/bing-me-up-scotty/comment-page-1#comment-104367</link>
		<dc:creator>w7</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:43:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archshrk.com/?p=2837#comment-104367</guid>
		<description>I recommend you take a look at http://www.exalead.com/search. 

Exalead&#039;s web search is emerging but already fairly good, and their desktop search tool is good already. They don&#039;t beat Google with search results, but they are the best at present, in my opinion, with regards to narrowing down the search results. 
They present statistics, cloud tags and similar tools in the right column of the search results page, and you can narrow down the results with a few clicks there. A pretty neat idea IMO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recommend you take a look at <a href="http://www.exalead.com/search" rel="nofollow">http://www.exalead.com/search</a>. </p>
<p>Exalead&#8217;s web search is emerging but already fairly good, and their desktop search tool is good already. They don&#8217;t beat Google with search results, but they are the best at present, in my opinion, with regards to narrowing down the search results.<br />
They present statistics, cloud tags and similar tools in the right column of the search results page, and you can narrow down the results with a few clicks there. A pretty neat idea IMO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Priceless Paintings from W7 &#187; Google? Who&#8217;s Google?</title>
		<link>http://archshrk.com/2009/07/bing-me-up-scotty/comment-page-1#comment-104153</link>
		<dc:creator>Priceless Paintings from W7 &#187; Google? Who&#8217;s Google?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:53:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archshrk.com/?p=2837#comment-104153</guid>
		<description>[...] Bing me up Scotty (archshrk.com) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Bing me up Scotty (archshrk.com) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adonis</title>
		<link>http://archshrk.com/2009/07/bing-me-up-scotty/comment-page-1#comment-104106</link>
		<dc:creator>Adonis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://archshrk.com/?p=2837#comment-104106</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Overall, it doesnâ€™t seem all that different from Google&lt;/blockquote&gt;

That&#039;s my impression.  Near identical results.  The &quot;RELATED SEARCHES&quot; is pretty similar to Google&#039;s &quot;Wonder Wheel&quot; (under the  that are usually hidden)


The biggest difference is the Image Search - or rather, how it displays.  Bing does a &#039;forever scrolling&#039; page that loads as you move up and down.  It loads a bit more than you can see, but not that much.  Which means it amounts to about the same thing.  

I&#039;ve played with it a bit.  To show usable information (like size in pixels) you&#039;re limited to one size thumbnail on Bing.  Their filters also consider 250x500 as a &quot;Large&quot; image.  Uh... no.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Overall, it doesnâ€™t seem all that different from Google</p></blockquote>
<p>That&#8217;s my impression.  Near identical results.  The &#8220;RELATED SEARCHES&#8221; is pretty similar to Google&#8217;s &#8220;Wonder Wheel&#8221; (under the  that are usually hidden)</p>
<p>The biggest difference is the Image Search &#8211; or rather, how it displays.  Bing does a &#8216;forever scrolling&#8217; page that loads as you move up and down.  It loads a bit more than you can see, but not that much.  Which means it amounts to about the same thing.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;ve played with it a bit.  To show usable information (like size in pixels) you&#8217;re limited to one size thumbnail on Bing.  Their filters also consider 250&#215;500 as a &#8220;Large&#8221; image.  Uh&#8230; no.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
