Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 2nd Oct 2009 17:41 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 387450
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
BTW, there's a typo in the summary that was copy/pasted from the linked article. The phrase "while Yahoo's dove 1.1% to 9.4%" makes no sense. It seems to originate from the original article, which states "Yahoo! which also declined, to 9.40% from 10.50%".
Umm..those 2 phrases say the exact same thing, with no misplaced decimal points. "dove 1.1% to 9.4%" in standard English would mean that it went from 10.5% to 9.4%, which is exactly what the article states, and is meant by the phrase "Yahoo! which also declined, to 9.40% from 10.50%". Unless you know another form of English? Maybe the phrases mean different things in British versus American English? That of course is quite possible. I am going off of American English.
RE[2]: Comment by izomiac
by Bobthearch on Sat 3rd Oct 2009 16:05
in reply to "RE: Comment by izomiac"




Member since:
2006-07-26
While I still strongly prefer Google, Bing does seem to give pretty good (sometimes better) results, which is surprising since Google has my search history to go off of. OTOH, Microsoft is having to penetrate a market where the competitor's product name is basically synonymous with the action. It's quite similar to what Firefox and Macintosh dealt with, and Linux is currently dealing with. Microsoft will likely either need to sink tons of money into marketing or tons into development since I doubt they'll make much headway unless the common computer user perceives Bing to be significantly better than Google.
BTW, there's a typo in the summary that was copy/pasted from the linked article. The phrase "while Yahoo's dove 1.1% to 9.4%" makes no sense. It seems to originate from the original article, which states "Yahoo! which also declined, to 9.40% from 10.50%". The author of the linked article apparently moved the decimal place, then rounded. Not realizing his/her mistake the author then forgot the meaning of the word "from" and described the reduction as a "dive" when it's really more of a "decimation" if a 10% reduction needs emphasis. I'm not sure why the author didn't notice the misplaced decimal, a mass exodus (90%) of Yahoo!'s user base would be a far more significant story if it were true.