Search Engine Wars: Bing Gets More 'Eye Time' than Google

For those interested in the search engine wars, particularly Bing vs. Google (GOOG), then you might be interested in a recent usability study done by Catalyst in New York. While they used a statistically insignificant sample size of only 12 people (all who had been Google users beforehand), they did come out with some interesting anecdotal data.

First of all, 4 out of 12 actually said they preferred Bing, with the remaining 8 preferring Google, but apparently because Google was the search engine they were familiar with. Second of all, Bing was actually preferred on most metrics, with Google winning out simply because of familiarity. In terms of search relevance the two engines appear to have tied. Catalyst also studied which parts of the page caught users' attention and found that Bing appeared to get much more eye-time right where one would presumably want it, over the top search results.

Where does that leave us? Well it was a small study. If the results actually play out on a larger scale, whereby 4 out of every 12 people end up preferring Bing over Google, then Bing could have a bright future and gain some decent market share (though nowhere near the point of exceeding Google).

Even if Bing's appeal is a little less dramatic than this, the study above is a positive argument for Bing's ability to snatch at least some market share, which it has already done right out of the gate. If it takes a little from Google, then takes a lot from Yahoo (YHOO), Bing could be doing pretty well. Microsoft (MSFT) would also have one large argument for why they no longer need to acquire Yahoo.

Comments

[Jonathan Swift:]

Is this a joke?
Let's see:
Who funded this study, Microsoft or some ghost company?
How were the 12 people selected in detail? Families of MSFT?
Who designed the questionnaire? Who monitored the test?
The error range for a sample of 12 is over 3.4!
Laughable.

No direct connection with either company, but I actually do own more MSFT than GOOG.

Jun 28 04:05 PM

[apppro:]

Bing is quick and easy. Love the pop-ups mini views of the website.

as far as any of these search engines go - as John Arbucle said, "You get what you pay for!"
I'm still waiting for a search engine to actually give me what I want and not a bunch of ads paid by the highest bidder.

For now however, I'm switching to Bing. Google has WAY TOO much of people's personnal info in their servers already.

Jun 28 04:37 PM

[Vincent Fer...:]

In response to the small sample size, note I highlighted this in the second sentence of the piece. We know this data is not statistically significant, but it is interesting nonetheless, especially in regards to the eye tracking data.

Jun 28 06:03 PM

[Vito Positano:]

Ha ha ha. Eye time could or could not mean that the eye has to search more in the unfamiliar Bing start page because it's Baroque in design while the Google start page is narrowly focused; The visitor is clearly guided to the input field. But, really, as you say, the 12 participants is statistically zero in significance. Oh my.

Jun 28 06:44 PM

[FreeRange:]

Absolutely worthless "study" and article - a sample of 12 has no meaning whatsoever.

Jun 29 04:40 AM

[Vincent Fer...:]

I believe there is some value to the study. Again note I highlighted from the get-go that it wasn't statistically significant... but there is such a thing as anecdotal data. Especially when it comes to usability testing. That's all it is. This isn't a drug trial. If you build a new type of couch and ask 12 friends to sit in it and tell you what they think, it isn't completely worthless data. This was a usability study, done by a pretty established firm, and we didn't claim it was anything more than anecdotal. But fair enough, perhaps I took a usability study and portrayed it as an opinion poll, which was a bit wrong. But again.. i just thought the anecdotal data was interesting and posted it on my personal site (/www.researchreloaded.com).

Jun 29 11:53 AM

[Vito Positano:]

Vincent,
Yes, it's indeed interesting. I do not root for the success of Bing because its progenitor is Microsoft, a proven predatory monopoly, which is different from non-predatory monopolies which are legal, Apple being an example of a legal, non-predatory monopoly.

My interpretation is that Bing's start page has too many distractions, reflecting the many-faceted services that MS offers, i.e., it's unfocused. Visitors are looking around, wondering what to do with al that stuff, hence spending more time on it. So no wonder that things are looking up for non-Bing search engines.

Jun 29 01:14 PM