Yahoo! and Bing announced their intentions to merge in mid-2009 and that transition is starting to come to fruition. As of June, comScore reported that 64% of searches occur on Google, 18% on Yahoo! and 12% on Bing. Assuming no one migrates from Yahoo! to Google after the transition, Bing will be powering 30% of all search results in the U.S. Yahoo! confirmed last week that they are starting to conduct systems integration testing with Bing, though if recent ranking results from Yahoo! are any indication, there has been algorithm testing taking place for the past couple of months. Systems integration testing is expected to take place in June and July with the actual transition to Bing results taking place in August and September (the PPC transition is operating on a slightly different timeline). If there are any problems, Yahoo! will pause integration during November and December as those are critical months for online retailers who could see a impact on their bottom line if there were major changes in organic search results driving traffic to their sites. While Yahoo! search results will be powered by Bing, it should be noted that the Yahoo! user interface will not be changing and will not show the same related search results, quick tabs, and categories that Bing does.

The web crawler that fuels Bing’s search results will also be changing. As of October 1, MSNbot 2.0 will be replaced by “Bingbot”, which is currently being tested. For websites that have a crawl exclusion set up in their robots.txt file, Bing has said that the Bingbot will follow exclusions set up for the previous MSNbot – no change is required to the robots.txt file by webmasters though eventually you will want to have this updated. If you have directives in your robots.txt for both MSNbot and Bingbot, the new Bingbot will ignore directives for MSNbot and only follow directives for Bingbot, so make sure you don’t have conflicting information for the two different bots as different directives won’t both be followed.

The basics of SEO optimization are the same for Google and Bing: original content with targeted keywords, quality links, and well designed, cleanly coded sites. There are some differences in the Google and Bing user interfaces – Google’s blended results versus Bing’s related search results, quick tabs and categories – which means there are some different tactics for optimizing for some of the ‘finer details’ of SEO. If you don’t already have your website set up in Bing Webmaster Tools, you should make sure your site is set up and there are no crawl errors occurring that would prevent your site from being indexed or ranking well. I’ve noticed that Bing’s geotargeting can sometimes be off for foreign sites, so make sure Bing correctly recognizes the country and language your site is targeted to. If you are wondering how well you will do on the new Yahoo! search results page, check your current Bing rankings as these will be similar once the transition is complete.

Okay, I admit it. Bing is starting to show some glimmering signs of promise. But I still have concerns. Big concerns.

I had the chance to chat with Stefan Weitz recently about where Microsoft wanted to take Bing and it’s hard not to get swept up in Stefan’s evangelism. Microsoft is trying to do some very impressive things with search: parse the ambiguity out of our language, stitch together disparate fragments of content into a whole that’s useful to the user and present all this in a results format that informs and assists without requiring extensive tweaking on the part of the user.

We all love to hate the evil empire, but let’s be fair – Microsoft has humbled themselves dramatically and they’re sincerely trying to do a good job with Bing. The team at Redmond is getting used to their unexpected position as the underdog and, based on my conversation with Stefan, they’re beginning to relish the challenge that comes from playing David to Google’s Goliath.

My quibble, however, and it’s not an insignificant one, is that Bing needs to step up their differentiation. Stefan said in the interview that Bing first wanted to at least match Google at their own game, that being algorithmic search. I understand the logic, but there are some other things to consider here.

To Break a Habit You have to Break the Pattern

For Bing to gain market share against Google they have to break a habit. And to break a habit, you have to force someone out of his or her rut. There are two ways to do that. One, you change the route they have to take so they have to consciously steer back into the rut. Secondly, you give them an alternative that’s so much better than the rut, they’re willing to do the heavy mental lifting required to consciously shut down their “autopilot” driven rut seeking routines when they start to play out. Make no mistake; habits are notoriously tough things to break. Our brain has a box-load of nasty little tricks it will employ to keep habits in place, because habits require less work from the brain than actually thinking our way through things. Our brains are inherently lazy (or, if you prefer, efficient). There’s no such thing as breaking a habit a “little bit” or breaking a habit “now and then.” You either break a habit or you don’t.

So, what does this mean for Bing? The Bing philosophy, right now, is that for the vast majority of searches they deliver what is basically a Bing-ized version of Google. And then, for some select searches, they deliver a more differentiated search result. For example, search for “Bristol England” on Bing and Google. On Bing, you’ll get what’s called a Task Page, tailored to be more useful for those trying to accomplish things related to Bristol: the current weather, favorite attractions and the official tourism site. This is Bing’s flavor of a decision-based guide. This, theoretically, is what makes Bing a “decision engine” rather than a “search engine”.

But now go to the Google results page. They may be hidden in a more traditional presentation of results, but most of the same information is there. I’d give Bing the edge from a usefulness perspective, but it’s not a knock out. It’s more of a 12 round split decision.

Lets try another example: the much-cited Farecast search. True, the latest airfares from Farecast are useful, but real interactivity is still one click away at Bing Travel. Bing is dipping a rather tentative toe in the waters of usefulness. Right now, Google isn’t matching the Farecast functionality, but even with its standard search results, the perceivable difference to the user is not all that great. I feel Bing is still trying to match Google rather than draw away from it. And to break a habit, you have to put a lot of distance between yourself and the habitual choice. You don’t abandon one rut for a similar rut headed to the same basic destination. What’s the point of that?

Search One-Up-Manship

There is some good news in all this. From the user perspective, I’ve seen more useful features unveiled on both Google and Bing then I’ve seen in a long long time. As Bing starts to experiment with more useful features, Google has been consistently matching them. And this brings up another fatal flaw in Bing’s strategy. It’s pretty easy for Google to keep a watchful eye on Bing for useful innovations. As long as those innovations are incremental in nature, Google can quickly match them. Bing will never build up the degree of differentiation needed to break a habit. But the by-product is pretty compelling for the user, no matter whether you’re using Google or Bing – a pace of innovation that’s picked up dramatically.

In the Bing-Google battle, the user seems to be the big winner so far.

Originally published in Mediapost’s Search Insider January 28th 2010

Enquiro’s CEO, Gord Hotchkiss, was recently interviewed about the evolution of Search by Byron Gordon of SEO-PR. The video interview had very convenient timing as it was released just days before the official announcement of the Yahoo/Microsoft search deal.

A regular speaker at industry events and contributor to Media Post, Search Engine Land, and AskEnquiro, Gord has not shied away from voicing his opinions on the need for another dominant search engine. He challenges the engines to rely less on static technological advances to gain market share, and points out how neurology, psychology, and usability affects habits related to choosing a search engine.

“We need an arms race in search,” Gord states. “Search habits only change if there is a huge reason to do so.”
Gord goes on to discuss Microsoft’s attempt to acquire more of the search engine market share with the release of Bing. “The bar must be raised to a point where someone would never think of going back to Google [when performing a search] because the experience was so much better.” He questions Microsoft’s current advertising campaign as promising something that has not quite been attained, “If you use Bing you’ll have a good search experience, but you won’t have an amazing search experience that will make you go ‘Wow, I’m never going to use Google again’ and that’s what it’s going to take to change the game of search.”

Not so many columns ago, I urged Microsoft to do something amazing in search. Last week, they did. But it wasn’t in a good way. I was on the road last week, and I saw three different things land in my in box about Microsoft and their search efforts. With each email, my frustration mounted. Finally, Friday as I was sitting in Seattle airport I couldn’t contain myself any more. I sent an email to the most senior person I knew at Microsoft Search. The gist of the email was “don’t do it”. Yesterday, I got an email back thanking me for my “honest” feedback. Yet somehow, I don’t think it will make a difference.

Now that there seems to be some sort of union in Yahoo’s future, blessed or otherwise, I felt the urge to pass along some advice to whoever the happy couple might be. For, in all this talk about the impending nuptials , the clear objective is to survive and compete in the business of attracting the attention of prospects online.

I should have known as soon as I saw the speaker roster. Matt Cutts, Tim Mayer, Danny Sullivan, Michael Gray and myself on the same panel. Guess who got the lion's share of attention in the Q&A and after session scrum? Michael and I might as well have checked out early and hit the Google Dance before the crowds.The title of the panel at the inaugural SMX in Seattle was Search Personalization: Fear or Fear Not. As Danny often does, he set the panel up to generate a little debate: Michael Gray vs Google, Yahoo vs Google. I was like Switzerland, in neutral territory. Danny did get his conflict, with Michael taking a few shots at Google and Tim Mayer throwing down the gauntlet about the lack of transparency on Google's personalized search results.

Guess What? SEO's are not your Average Search User!

To be honest, I was a little taken aback that the audience didn't jump all over how personalization was going to change SEO. Most of the questions from the crowd centered on how you opt out of personalized search and why personalization wasn't good for them. I have some issues with that, which of course I'll share in this column:

- First, this crowd was trying to argue from a user's point of view. Okay, they're SEO's (this was the organic track) and most of them have been using search since Lycos was a little baby spider. Just how typical do you think these users are?

- Secondly, I question their motives. Do they hate personalization as a user, or as an organic optimizer? My guess is the later, but it just doesn't seem to be very noble to joust with Google because they're making your job harder. Far better to cry foul as a user than as a PO'd organic optimizer. Like somebody said to me after, do you really think Marissa Mayer is losing sleep because the Google user experience for SEO's isn't all they want it to be?

- This was a perfect opportunity to start planning for the new world of SEO, post personalization. There's a ton of value we can add, as smart, pro-active practitioners, but I didn't see anyone take the opportunity to delve into this. Perhaps the really smart ones were keeping their mouths shut, content to let their competitors bitch about the inevitable while they plotted their take over.

- I found everyone fixated on the current threshold of personalization on the page, taking comfort in the fact that it's only impacting a small number of searches. I reminded them that this threshold is a totally arbitrary one set by Google, and could (and will) change at any time.

- Everyone taking a siloed view of personalization, looking at the organic results in isolation. It's almost like they're assessing the amount of damage control required. I'm not sure they realize the import of personalization. This is a rule changer, a paradigm shifter. This is the new generation of search functionality. It changes the game dramatically. Whatever happens on the organic side will roll over to the sponsored side. It will drive universal search. It will drive everything.

- Finally, this is not just happening on Google. Microsoft's recent comments made it very clear they're thinking long and hard about personalization. Tim Mayer cautioned me not to make the mistaken assumption that just because Google was first out with personalization, they're the only ones working on it. In fact, Matt was quite delighted when he found an article in the Times Online where Yahoo VP Tapan Bhat confessed at the Next Web conference in Amsterdam that Personalization was the future of the Web, including search. You can define personalization in a number of different ways, but however you do it, it dramatically changes our online experience.

So, I leave you with this. I went into the SMX session with four fundamental changes I see emerging from personalization that SEO's and SEM's have to think about, right now. No one asked me for the slide deck after the session. There was not one question about strategies for leveraging personalization. Everyone was more interested in grilling Matt on why the opt-out link disappeared from the results page. Although I'm tempted to join the smart and silent search marketers, I think I'll make one last attempt to share this with the SEM/SEO community. Perhaps in a white paper, perhaps a future column. But I'm only going to do it if you're serious about pushing the envelope into this new opportunity. Drop me an email (gord@enquiro.com) and let me know. Otherwise, I'll just shut up and nod my head while you bitch about the fact that it's too hard to opt out of personalized search. You'll excuse me if I don't answer; you see, my mind is on something else.