Bing Status Search

This new feature of real-time status updates on the Bing search engine is a bit much. People already have to be cautious about what they put out on social networking site today pertaining to current or potential employers and this is just another reason to delete your profile. Not to mention most statuses are random and not really worth putting them on a search engine. Then some people may get the wrong impression from a status (you can't hear voice or tone in text).

If you take a look at status updates our your friends on these sites do you think these people would want this information tagged to them for the whole world to see? These websites such as Twitter and Facebook are supposed to be a way to communicate, have fun and act silly with your friends. Now that employers, colleges and other notable institutions do "background checks" on these sites it really makes you question who is watching you.

Bing vs. Google: Search Engine wars continued

Given that “real-time” search has been on Microsoft’s and Google’s agendas for a while, the recent announcement about Bing’s partnership with Facebook and Tweeter that promises to integrate real-time status updates and tweets into search results is not surprising. In fact, Twitter was in independent discussions with both companies earlier and Larry Page, Google’s co-founder, talked about the importance of real-time search not long ago:

“I have always thought we needed to index the web every second to allow real time search. At first, my team laughed and did not believe me. Now they know they have to do it. Not everybody needs sub-second indexing but people are getting pretty excited about realtime.”

Real time data could enhance a search engine by identifying current hot topics, improving search results and delivering more targeted advertising. While Twitter and Facebook both have talked to Google about similar arrangements, Microsoft was first to announce the deal. Microsoft finally had something Google did not have. However, that did not last long. Just a few hours later Google was back in the game. The company announced a nonexclusive deal with Twitter to include updates on its search engine (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/rt-google-tweets-and-updates-and-search.html ).

Microsoft might get an advantage since its Tweeter search feature in beta has already gone live while Google's Vice President of Search Products and User Experience Marissa Mayer said: “we look forward to having a product that showcases how tweets can make search better in the coming months”. I think that even if Bing will gain an advantage, it will be short-term. Rather sooner than later Google will launch a search service that would index content from Twitter and I believe it will do it better than Bing does now. In a long run, Microsoft's deal will not have any significant impact on Google's market share.

Twitter and Facebook will certainly get some benefits from the deal. First of all, potentially Bing or Google can do a much better job at searching tweets and Facebook status updates than the sites’ own engines. Twitter’s search engine, for example, is slow and search results are hard to navigate. In addition, the two sites will gain even more attention and popularity. Finally, the companies get an undisclosed amount of money in exchange for their data.

As a website manager I would follow the trends and if possible incorporate real-time data into my websites. I would also add "Follow Us on Twitter" and Facebook links.

The Evolution of Web Design

Web designers must always be mindful of the fact (and your feelings, they may lead to to a path of darkness!) that many people using all different technologies will be accessing their designs . Like Jeff said, a web page is a set of instructions and there are a number of browsers--Firefox, Internet Explorer (don't even get me started on IE 6...ohhhh the nightmares!), Safari and even Google Chrome-- that render these instructions differently, hence why you will always need to test your code in various browsers before you launch it.

Yet browsers are not the only technological variance in web surfing; monitor size and resolution as well as connection speeds have also had quite an impact on a user's experience with a Web site. 

Connection speeds were mostly a concern back in the stone age, when most users connected to the internet with that fun baaaaadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa sound. Now, bandwidth concerns are almost nonexistent, unless a user lives in a country where the government has been restricting bandwidth (think Iran).

Monitors have also improved and have increased in size with a "bigger is always better" mentality. This is evident in the growth of the size of the standard Web site. The first standard set for the size of a Web site was 800px wide by 600px high. Almost all Web sites were designed this way. 

But ahh monitors; how they have grown! Nowadays, a typical Web site is about 1024 px wide and no one really cares about the height because you can always scroll down and dial up connections are almost non-existent so you can have as much flashy stuff on the website as is tasteful (or not, think Ling's Cars *shudders*). 

Will this last? This week I would like you all to seriously think about the size of Web sites. Will they grow, shrink or remain the same as new technologies that can access the Internet are introduced into the market place? Does it matter? How should you, as a designer/developer/manager of a Web site, modify your thought process and resulting designs as technology advances?