Open main menu


Best prices for internet, Telephone and WIFI servicesEdit

Arturo Santiago newjibaro158@yahoo.com 407-932-1963

I am interested in changing my cable provider's services. I reqiure to optain the best Internet, Telephone and WIFI services. Can you please help me to obtaine a new service provider.

I thank you for your attention on this matter. 50.88.115.189 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)150.88.115.189 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Censored or missing?Edit

Just discovered I get no hits on the search

Kim Komando 10 reasons NOT to switch to Windows 10

in Bing. Google has no trouble finding this article, dated 10 May 2016

http://www.komando.com/happening-now/357949/10-reasons-not-to-switch-to-windows-10

—DIV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.145.215 (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2016Edit


Please add important section to this page as follows:

Bing's Unique Algorithm Highly Ranks Auto Generated Content

While Bing's competitor Google has a policy of not listing auto-generated content in search results, Bing lists it and ranks it highly. This allows users to submit pages to the Bing URL submission page that link to auto-generated content that does not have any relevance to the search term except for repeating it at the top of the page. This results in Bing's crawler identifying the search term whenever it visits that page because the web server for sites that auto-generate content are programmed to return a page that lists the search term in the page header - to create a page with the search term at the top no matter what it is and then the desired, unrelated content beneath it. The page doesn't actually exist except in response to a a user pinging that particular URL/page But due to the algorithm not being designed to check for auto-generated content, once it's in the index, the crawler simply requests that page to make sure it is still there and the web server for a site like that returns whatever page the crawler requested by fabricating it. So the crawler thinks it is still there.

To experiment with this, a user can type www.ripoffreport.com/reports/search/[search term 1]%20[search term 2]20%[search term 3, etc.] Whatever the user types as the search terms, ripoffreport.com will return a page with that term. This is unremarkable because that's what auto-generating content sites do. What is fascinating is that if the user types this same formula into the Bing URL submission page, within a few days that page will rank very highly on Bing search results, usually page one. This is true even if the page does not have any content relevant to the search except for the regurgitated search term at the top of the page.

Try it by typing this address into a browser: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/search/frazenship%20bosthenia%20bing

But you can replace the terms frazenship, bosthenia and bing with whatever you like. I chose those odd words because two aren't real words and the combination of both of them with the word bing appearing on a webpage is impossible.

You can completely bypass the site that auto-generates content because the site will return a page for whatever the user types after search/. So you can just go to http://www.bing.com/toolbox/submit-site-url and start making up URLs that don't exist and Bing will dutifully start ranking them highly in its search results and then the Bing algorithm will periodically "check" to make sure the nonexistent page is still there when the crawler requests it periodically to see if it should remain in Bing's index. When the crawler requests it, the site's web server returns the page because it will return any page with the terms in the subfolder repeated at the top of the auto-generated page. Bing technical staff confirmed that Bing purposely includes auto-generated content in its results and ranks it highly. Bing technical staff said they are aware of this outcome and do not intend to change it.

Try it by visiting the Bing URL submission site here: http://www.bing.com/toolbox/submit-site-url

Type in www.ripoffreport.com/reports/search/[search term 1]%20[search term 2]20%[search term 3] (or how many search terms you want separated by the HTML space tag %20) and press submit. Within a few days, Bing will return that nonexistent webpage as a highly ranked result for those search terms (unless, of course, it's a search term with an enormous number of search results like "Brad Pitt" or "War in Syria"). The interesting part of this decision for how to rank results is that a user can submit sites to the Bing URL submit tool by just making up the subfolders/pages because sites that auto-generate will always produce a page displaying the search terms no matter what the terms.

Because Yahoo uses Bing search results, these results show up for Yahoo too.


HippoCampus (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  Not done: You need to provide reliable sources that support the content you want to add in the article. See also: Wikipedia's content policy. Anup [Talk] 21:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016Edit

Update citation 1 to https://news.microsoft.com/2009/05/28/microsofts-new-search-at-bing-com-helps-people-make-better-decisions/. This should be updated because the press release link does not work anymore. Rehtlog (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done -- Dane2007 talk 05:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2016Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 11:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)



– The long-term significance of this page as the primary topic is highly questionable, considering it has only had its current name for the last seven years, with the design being preceded by products such as Live Search and MSN Search, which first appeared in 1998, and the fact that those are redirects into this page also suggest this current name is not as prevalent as it seems. Given the history of the Microsoft search engine, it may just be a matter of time before it takes on a new name. Bing has somewhat overtaken Yahoo's share of the search engine market, there is at least a remote likelihood Microsoft may merge its services under the Yahoo brand entirely. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTNEWS, so there's no reason to promote a particular product that has just become popular in the last few years, this is likely WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS and WP:RECENTISM. The search engine might be getting more page views at the moment, but if page view information were available from all of Wikipedia's existence, the search engine would not be as clearly the primary topic as it seems, not the least related to the fact that the Bing search engine name has only been around since 2007. Also, the sum of all of the other Bings also clearly outweigh the product as far as cultural significance. You would think someone like Bing Crosby, with a rather distinct nickname is associated with just "Bing", especially so because of his legacy as "the best-selling recording artist of the 20th century". Also the page views of Bing (bread) are probably lower than they should be, considering that WP is officially blocked in Mainland China (not the English edition, however), and most of those views are diverted to Baidu or the Chinese edition accessed through VPN. Finally, the Bing cherry cultivar is decidedly "the most produced variety of sweet cherry in the United States Prisencolin (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support too many other topics on dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. You can say something isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but that doesn't make it so. Bing Crosby is irrelevant because people searching for him would look up Bing Crosby. If the search engine were named Bing Crosby, you might have a point. Calidum ¤ 21:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I second Calidum - How many people would think B.C. comes to mind the first thing when they hear just "Bing"? Similar principle to why we don't redirect Crosby to Sidney Crosby (or even Crosby (surname)) despite what Google searches bring up. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with your first point, so that's why I'm proposing that "Bing" turns into a DAB page, as opposed to Bing Crosby getting the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If any at all how about the fact that the best-selling recording artist of the 20th century, pioneered the recording industry, and is responsible for much of the Christmas music that's being played ad nauseum right now. Also, by your own words who in the world would first think of the search engine that's been around for even less than a decade. Not even Bill Gates probably.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • People call celebrities by their first names all the time, especially people with notable nicknames. Bing is no exception, for instance, the 1962 song "Doin' the Bing". Also consider all the other the other bings, not just the singer.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I would say Mr Crosby was much closer to being the primary topic, even without his surname being included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. I was all set to Oppose per Calidum then I checked page view counts. 52k in November for the search engine, 173k for Bing Crosby. There is an argument here to redirect Bing to Bing Crosby, but at a minimum it should be a dab page. --В²C 19:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per above, and primary could easily be Crosby per Elvis. Randy Kryn 05:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I do want to disclose that Bing Crosby page views get an exponential increase in the month of December, which would explain the momentary uptick in page views. Yet again, since this is something that would happen every year that's probably a sign that he has more lasting significance than Microsoft Bing.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move per all above.  ONR  (talk)  12:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Compared to other search enginesEdit

Is there a page with a table that shows a comparison of web browsers?

Bing (and Yahoo) cannot negate 'inurl:""' searches as Google can:[1][2][3][4]

--NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bing (search engine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bing (search engine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bing (search engine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bing NewsEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge

Benica11 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The present page reads too promotional. Once the promotional content is removed, though, what remains would be best integrated into a sub-section of the article concerning the search engine directly. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Support The news is basically just a sub-section of the bing search WelpThatWorked (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I see no need for a separate article on something like this. VibeScepter (talk) (contributions) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018Edit

45.116.232.6 (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Market share, this Correction is NeededEdit

The Market Share statistics in the Introduction are wrong and need be corrected.

These correct stats belong in the introduction:

Within the USA, as of July 2018, Microsoft Sites handled 24.2 percent of all search queries in the United States. During the same period of time, Oath (formerly known as Yahoo) had a search market share of 11.5 percent. Market leader Google generated 63.2 percent of all core search queries in the United States. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/267161/market-share-of-search-engines-in-the-united-states/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.201.190.68 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Bing (search engine)" page.