Talk:Microsoft Bing/Archive 2

Code names
The Windows XP and Windows Vista wiki pages mention their code names, I don't see how this is any different...

"During development, the project was codenamed "Whistler", after Whistler, British Columbia, as many Microsoft employees skied at the Whistler-Blackcomb ski resort."

"After XP was released, Microsoft wanted to release Windows Longhorn (codenamed Milestone) in October 2003, but it was then canceled. Today, Longhorn is used for the codename for Vista."

Bing = "But it's not google" or "Bing is not Google" ? --Frankman (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Frankman. If it's a recursive acronym it should be "Bing is not Google." Libtrain (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging of content from Live Search
I undid much of the merging of content from Live Search. Windows Live still exists, and that article should remain. Further, Bing is more than just a renaming of Windows Live, it is a new product. The articles should remain separate. Any merger should be proposed and discussed. -- Zim Zala  Bim  talk 14:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Conversation continued at Talk:Live Search --Pikablu0530 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As a further update, a history merge has been performed between the two articles, giving this current oage a continuous history back to 2006. The Bing article, which was started afresh in March 2009, now has a page history in Bing (search engine)/old version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Miserable failure Google bomb
As of June 2, Bing is still subject to the "miserable failure" Google bomb. You'd think they would have fixed that before they rolled out their shiny new search engine. Then again, it's Microsoft, after all... (Miserable Failure has become a meme and so search results should go to pages about it, not the G-bombed pages). -- 97.113.116.173 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Domain Name
It would be nice if there was some information about the domain name. Bing is a short, dictionary word that has been registered since 1996. Could anyone who knows about the details please let us know who previously owned it and how much Microsoft paid for it and when? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Synetech (talk • contribs) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Internet Archive aka Wayback Machine will give you some answers: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://bing.com Bing.com has been through a couple of different incarnations, none of which, as far as I know, made it far. Here's a for-sale page from February, 2007: http://web.archive.org/web/20070210210242/http://bing.com/ RollandWaters (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone notice...?
Microsoft reshot the commercial to say The Breakfast Club came out in 1985 instead of 1986. Original Bing Ad New Ad w/ 1985 Imnotyouok (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

microsoft POV?
Today I've checked Bing, then read the article, and cannot fail to notice that many of the mentioned features do not seem to exist (like suggestion while you type, as a most visible example). I haven't checked the page source but let me guess: isn't that possible that some features the article mentions fail to work on a configuration like my FireFox/Linux? If that's the case, the article probably should mention that (and the features moved under "features for Microsoft(r)(tm) INternet Exploder(tm) users on Windows(r)(tm) operationg systems"). --grin &#9998; 09:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the new features are only available in the US version, you can change your country settings at the tolbar (top of the page) -- Hoo man (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a new advancement for me: Wikipedia as a general community help forum. ;-) Thanks, it seems working. --grin &#9998; 21:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"Images search" filter doesn't work
It is useless rubbish. Select the filters, change the safe search to "strict", type in your search, and voila! Your 5-year old gets addicted to porn while you take the dog for a 5-min walk. I hope this gets mentioned in the article (not the sarcasm, just the fact that this search engine has many bugs that need to be fixed). Very impressive, Microsoft. You forgot to hire someone to edit the article to suit your fancy. I hope you should get sued into the ground. If this article has suspicious "Microsoft-wrote-this" content, take it down without hesitation. BTW, you can get the filter to work with a lot of effort, but wastes a ton of time. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article says you can change your country location to bypass local censorship. I am in China. Microsoft are liars. Changing your country makes no difference. They are collaborators in evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.25.180.26 (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Bing was forced on us.
Does anyone know how to get rid of Bing? I tried replacing it with another search engine, and deleting them as a default, but it still comes up Bing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.130.2 (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, try using firefox or any of the dozen other free, safe and non-force-fed web-browsers... 132.38.190.10 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Annoying Pop-ups
Critisism section needed91.110.222.108 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Easter eggs? What the hell?
This section has been here a while so i am reluctant to delete itUser name one (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bing
This article was objectively, because of previous entry. The entry does not boast it's search engine as being better than anything it's own company has done before, it simply lists the difference. There is no bias. This is a person trying to sway against a new product.Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.6.1 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft the one we love to hate. and why?
Microsoft, neglected and treated like trash. Why, since the interference several years ago, ignorant persons everyhere have been speaking against Microsoft with complete loss of admiration and humility is really beyond me. I laugh when I read that Bing is "forced upon me". Really ? as if AOL did not exclusively use Google for HMMNN, How many years? It is simple to type in a heading, any heading in fact. Just the other day, I tried using this new Bing.( because there are just so many "nay-sayers that have a hyped sense of what they have coming to them" ) I really did not expect much of this lowly Microsoft company that usually releases mere fizz's in it's pool of tech. Low and behold, I found that it worked just as good as Google, but with a better layout!! Hmmph! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.6.1 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Bing (search engine) → Bing — Most people are searching for Bing the search engine(as page views can show), and are being forced to needlessly see a bing disambiguation page. Smallman12q (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bing → Bing (disambiguation)


 * agree - Traffic for Bing used to be 50 hits a day  and has increased to about 2k a day since the introduction of the Bing search engine. That means 97% of traffic on Bing is likely meant for this page.  hAl (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
 * Support - I agree with the above. The current disambig page should become Bing (disambiguation) instead, with the Bing article (current search engine article) a line on the top saying "For other uses of Bing, see Bing (disambiguation". --Pikablu0530 (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

-Well I'll give it a week, if no one opposes, I don't see why it can't be moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why someone else is moving the page to another location whilst this section is listed on the talk page. hAl (talk) 13:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not acceptable this discussion took place somewhere else outside the socpe of people reading this talk page. The talk page was the primary target for discusion and here there was no opposition. So I think the move shoul take place or the move request should be reopened. As something like 95% of people entering Bing need to be at this page that should not be taken so lightly. hAl (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Interface Languages
A word about interface language would be nice (well that's what I'm searching for.)

Noticed that Bing uses a different technique than Yahoo or Google which use domain ISO country extensions (.it, .fr, .jp) If you enter bing.jp you'll redirected to bing.com/?cc=jp

Microsoft has a rather poor language support in general (eg.: Can't change OS UI language, some Live.com services only let you access the language of the country where you are (Switzerland uses 3 languages but Live.com only shows you german and you couldn't change it)...)

For in case here are the listing of major search engines: yahoo!  Google A comparaison chart could be nice... The google article list all available languages

Can anybody wise about this write about it? - YCC 14:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cy21 (talk • contribs)

Accuracy of Instant Answers
Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I test the "flight to" and "What is the capital of Germany?" options they seem to promote on our page, and both did nothing more than what (for example) Google or other search engines would bring up, which was two links to the correct answer's Wikipedia page. I didn't encounter any Encarta-like entries. But if not, I suggest removing these promotions from the article - if I can search "Capital of ___" on any search engine and find the answer the same way - then its not noteworthy. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following. - AJ Halliwell (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Plane ticket info. When 'flights from (to)' is entered in the search box in combination with city names or airport codes Bing provides info on ticket prices and a prediction for the future price trend.
 * Flight status. When 'flight status' and/or a flight number is entered in the Bing search box, Bing provides direct current information on the flight status of the particular flight.
 * Car info
 * Celebrity rankings (xRank)
 * Celebrity news
 * Encyclopedic answers (What is the capital of Germany?). If the search phrase entered in the search box contains a simple question whose answer can be found in the Encarta encyclopedia, Bing provides a direct answer to the question from Encarta.

Terms of Service
How long do they retain search queries for? Are they like google where they keep them forever?AVKent882 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

market share
should the worldwide search engine market share also be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gshji (talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what is showing now about market share is about enough. We do not need to focus on that to much. If the Yahoo deal goes through then it would be a good time to update that section. Mackenziepricee (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo
At the end of the second paragraph under the section on "Name Origin", before footnote [37] there's an "s" instead of "a" (as shown crossed out in the quote below)

" This name was ultimately not chosen because it could not be properly used as s verb in the context of an internet search.[37] "

the phrase 'as s verb', should be 'as a verb'

--Orchus2 (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Decision Engine
Thoughts on changing the site type from a search engine to a decision engine? Mackenziepricee (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the academic search engine discontinued...???
Please bear in mind that Nothing Will be Perfect but Everything Can be Professional --124.78.229.155 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Bing
As with many other Wiki's, a heading (section) within the main entry: "Criticism" seems appropriate. 1. How and when does Microsoft filter out or de-prioritize search result which are competitors. 2. Do they imply that this is not done? 3. There's more... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.131.179 (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

why does Terabyte Unlimited redirect here?
A company "Terabyte Unlimited" has a product called "BootIt NG". Perhaps some people abbreviate it to BING. Why is it being redirected here? and can someone who knows more about editing Wikipedia pages than me fix it so that it has its own page (which I'm sure is saved in some archive somewhere).

Thanks. Lehasa (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The TeraByte Unlimited article was deleted; right now the mention here in Bing is the only Wikipedia mention of the company. The deletion/redirection discussion is  here. Best, --CliffC (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Boot-it Next Generation should not be redirecting to Bing. It should have an article of its own. While it may not be notable to the general public, it is likely to be notable among computer technicians specializing in backup and recovery. I find the Wikipedia software lists to be a useful resource on Wikipedia. Consulting Wikipedia, since it is edited, is far more reliable than consulting search engines to find software. I am noticing an upsetting trend of articles about shareware and free software being deleted over notability. The topics are notable to people who choose to read them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corwin78 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What???
"On July 29, 2009, Microsoft and Yahoo! announced a deal in which Bing would power the best p0rn search in the world: Yahoo! Search" —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.daly2 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Search for "Bing"
216.244.60.55 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Should a search for "Bing" redirect to here by default? I bet this article gets the most hits of all the "Bing" articles by a lot
 * of course it should; I can't understand why it isn't already. Just move it yourself and see what concerned users have to say.-- intraining  Jack In  08:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Move? (September 2010)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus (therefore, no move). Off topic: Bigger digger should be thanked for fixing the incoming links to Bing. Orlady (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bing (search engine) → Bing — and Bing to Bing (disambiguation)
 * In answer to some messages sent to me. See also discussions in Talk:Bing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Bing Crosby and Bing cherry are just as likely to be searched for with the simple term "bing" as the search engine is. None of them is the primary topic. Haven't we been over this enough times already? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you take a look at the previous discussion over at Talk:Bing, the reason why the previous request for the move was not actioned was because it was thought to be "buzz generated". However, the administrator did mention that this topic should be revisited should Bing (search engine) remains elevated for several additional months. It is now more than one year after Bing (search engine)'s launch. --Damaster98 (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Approve I think the search term Bing should direct to this page with one of those for other uses see sentences on the top. I also think the bing crosby argument is stupid.-- intraining  Jack In  22:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dergre (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Prior to the Bing search engine, Bing used to receive up to 100 page views/day, now it receives 300-600 pages views per day. Following the move, we should tag the relevant pages with for and then see if the disambig page continues to receive 300-600 views, or only 100 pageviews...Smallman12q (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Google trends also reflects the same thing bing was pretty much not getting any searchs at all untill microsoft realeased the search engine http://trends.google.com/trends?q=bing&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 -- intraining  Jack In  06:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose because based on the statistics provided on Talk:Bing a year ago, the operating system is not the clear primary topic. Several other articles have significant page views and together they are on par to the operating system, despite the traffic driving that is apparent in the redirects.  69.3.72.9 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose it is the sound of a bell. Stephen Colbert even bings the Bing. 70.29.210.72 (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – The search engine is the most likely result readers are looking for. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L)  18:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think the search engine has a clear enough lead in the fight for primacy per discussion below. 'sides, cherries have more history, more staying power, if you will. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – Bing Crosby may be popular, but I would never expect to get there by just searching for Bing. The only article with the exact name "Bing" is the search engine, so it should be the default result. If a reader really doesn't know how to spell Crosby, the "other uses" tag would still get them there. They already have to go through the disambig page; this change just adds one more step. They should search for Bing Crosby if that's what they want. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the disambiguation page lists 8 articles about subjects with the exact name "Bing"; those are the ones with parenthetical disambiguation.  Bing (province) for example:  an important historical province in China, it is mentioned in over 300 articles on English Wikipedia but until this week had no article here, so most mentions are unlinked.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I must have been doing too many things at once. Thanks for the correction. I still remain in the support column, with a modified rationale. The stats quoted indicate that the only likely contender for primary subject is Bing Crosby, which I still discount for the same reasons. If you can show stats or a convincing rationale that the other subjects are likely targets, I will reconsider. The missing links to Bing (province) aren't a concern. They should all go directly to the article and not the disambiguation page. —UncleDouggie (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * UncleDouggie, it sounds like you assume that in every instance there is a clear primary topic, we have only to find it. However, I think in this instance the data show there is no primary topic. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I think the the support by Smallman12q clearly shows their is a primary topic i'm not sure what data you are reffering to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.208.139 (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support and if the stats suggest we're wrong we can move it back. It'll be a wiki-experiment, what would be the harm in that? Bigger digger (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, realistically, the search engine is now unrivalled as the primary topic for "Bing". (Lots of hits for Bing Crosby don't change that - people looking for him know to type his surname as well.)--Kotniski (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Tough call, but the burden is to show that the search engine is clearly the primary topic, for which the criterion is: "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box".  Considering that this page had 100 views/day before the search engine was launched, I don't see how the search engine can be primary per this criterion.  --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But the statistics say that since the launch it's been getting 300 to 600 views per day. This implies that 200 to 500 views per day are for the search engine, and 100 for everything else combined - which would definitely make the search engine the primary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks like a classic example of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy. -- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 13:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the best conclusion we can draw from the data given. What other theory do we have for why the page views suddenly jumped up?--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * K, my friend, like I said, it's a tough call. But if you take the very lower end of that 200-500 spread, and presume that 100 views/day is still accurate for all the others combined (even though it might be more now), that's as many hits for the search engine as for all others combined, making it as likely, not more likely, than all others combined.  Giving it to the search engine smacks of WP:RECENTISM as well.   I say revisit in a year or so.  By then it could dominate, or be defunct.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree it's a tough call, but I don't think there's a primary topic here. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why?--Kotniski (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
This month's page view stats show the search engine leading, but not by a huge margin:
 * Bing (search engine) has been viewed 35566 times in 201009.
 * Bing Crosby has been viewed 23989 times in 201009.
 * Bing cherry has been viewed 925 times in 201009.

I didn't look at most of the other articles. I see Bing (search engine) has a lot of incoming links that I don't understand, at best. They likely are inflating the page view stats. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh. I would have assumed the cherry got more page views, but you know what happens when you assume. Thanks for actually looking that up. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cherries are seasonal. In the northern hemisphere the cherry fruit crop peaks in June.  Page views for Bing cherry in June 2010 show a surge and page views for Bing show the same surge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.3.72.9 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how much weight the page views have in this discussion unless it's possible to determine how many people are typing in "Bing" to view the search engine article compared to how many people are typing in "Bing" to view the Bing Crosby article. Every comment I have read here and on the Bing talk page indicate that more people are typing in "Bing" to view the search engine article. Also Gavia immer just picks random reasons why bing shouldn't direct to the search engine wether it's based on fact or not (he likes making shit up).-- intraining  Jack In  05:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The incoming links to Bing (search engine) include numerous redirects for different phrases with the word "bing" in them. I think they are intended to manipulate Google and other external search engines.  There are also redirects where I would have expected articles. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It would help to repair the ~40 incoming links to Bing. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow. Smallman2q links to Bing page views for May 2009, which shows a huge surge in page views beginning that month. But looking at the page history I see something else. Take a look at September 2009. Now imagine you are looking at a page of Google search results. All you would see of Bing is a snippet of text like this: Bing Bing (search engine) is a web search engine operated by Microsoft. Wouldn't a lot of Google users who want information about the operating system be fooled into clicking through to the disambiguation page? 69.3.72.9 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are the top 7 Google Web search results for "bing site:wikipedia.org", and their Wikipedia page views in August 2010:
 * 1) Bing (search engine) 67161
 * 2) Bing 9490
 * 3) Bing Crosby 55128
 * 4) Bing (company) 583
 * 5) Bing cherry 3911
 * 6) Dave Bing 6005
 * 7) Steve Bing 12556

In August 2010 the operating system did not get even half the page views of all articles on this disambiguation page. The disambiguation page got a lot of page views (9490), though, and viewers are not coming in through Bing (disambiguation): it got only 41 page views that month. The likely cause then is the incoming links to Bing: here. At the moment I looked, there were 21 incoming links:


 * Thelma & Louise
 * River Glen, Lincolnshire
 * Telluride Regional Airport
 * Han Zhao
 * Taiyuan
 * Toncontín International Airport
 * Liang Xi
 * Windows Live Personalized Experience
 * Gisborne Airport
 * Windows Live Toolbar
 * Blasphemy law in Pakistan
 * Price comparison service
 * Multi-document summarization
 * Loopt
 * Golden Chicken 2
 * Advanced Searchbar
 * The 3rd Wish to Rock the World
 * Safari version history
 * Zanzottera MZ 301
 * Para Fuera
 * Sean Carver

Would someone care to fix these links? Then in a couple of days we should see a big drop in the number of page views on Bing. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I must need some sort of help, I fixed the links... Bigger digger (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Microsoft's Bing uses Google search
Of interest: Microsoft's Bing uses Google search 66.11.179.30 (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

hahaha, yeah google even used wikipedia in the stunt they recently pulled... certainly gives an interesting perspective into the nature of the "encyclopedic knowledge" and wikipedia itself :D


 * Yeah it's bullshit, just a stunt by google http://searchengineland.com/bing-why-googles-wrong-in-its-accusations-63279

User Agent
Why was the user-agent information removed? Most webmasters (like myself), expected Bing to have their own user-agent, though they actually continue to use msnbot. It might not mean anything to you, but it's worth adding for webmasters. m0z (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC).

Requested move (August 2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Bing. Favonian (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bing (search engine) → Bing – Clear primary topic. 21st-most popular website, powers the fourth-most website in the world, second-most used search engine in the United States. Page views: website 90,156, cherry (partial title match) 3,603, bread 2,903, company 994, drink 342, surname 305, former province 207, mining (redirect) 122, acronym 141, Chinese surname 97. Marcus Qwertyus   19:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since Bing Crosby gets 61826 views, about 2/3 of what the search engine article gets, even though it's a partial title match,  the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria,


 * is not clearly met. That is, it's not clear the search engine is much more likely to be the topic being sought than any other topic when a user searches for "Bing". --Born2cycle (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * that's a retarded oppose vote, you can not prove those page views are linking from the disimbiguation page. even google has bing (search engine) as the top search result.-- intraining  Jack In  01:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I messed Crosby's link up for the purpose of this move and he is only getting less than a dozen clicks a day. Marcus Qwertyus   05:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree that the case for primary topic is pretty marginal, though we don't know how many people are looking for Mr. Crosby by typing "Bing".  =)  Powers T 22:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Move and don't worry about Crosby. No one searching for Bing Crosby is gonna type in "Bing" D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's to be expected, since virtually no articles link to Bing Crosby (actor). Powers T 12:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well der. That's the whole point of the test, to find out how many people are clicking Bing Cosby at Bing (disambiguation). Marcus Qwertyus   13:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, condescension, is there no argument it can't make worse? Anyway, how do those numbers, then, compare to the click-throughs on Bing (search engine), and all the other uses?  Powers T 14:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * cherry, search engine. Marcus Qwertyus   03:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Out of curiosity, is there a precedent for abrogating MOSDAB by using unique redirects to gather clickthrough statistics?) So the cherry and the singer together are already up to about a fourth of the search engine's clickthroughs.  With all the other uses, I don't think we can say the search engine is overwhelmingly most likely.  Powers T 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree with Dondegroovily. Although I've never heard of the actor, I find it unlikely that people will search for him using his first name only. And if they do, they won't be surprised to get somewhere else and then they can click on the hatnote. Rennell435 (talk) 01:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support all opposes to this are NPOV trolls, the evdence clearly indicates this is the primary topic 01:31, 7 August 2011 User:Theoneintraining
 * Support I highly doubt that people who are searching for Bing Crosby will search for just "Bing". Illegal Operation (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And what about all the other uses listed on page Bing? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We will move them to Bing (disambiguation). Illegal Operation (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. The traffic stats provided by the nominator reach the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC threshold. How many people typing "Bing" in the search box are looking for Bing Crosby? I'm just going on common sense here. –CWenger ( ^  •  @  ) 19:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Against The opening post provides false numbers for the cherry, which got 10,000+ pages views last month.108.46.97.251 (talk) 09:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * that fiqure shows bing cherry has less than 1/10th the page views of bing search engine....bing (search engine) is clearly the primary topic as defined by the wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.104.83 (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Numbers are numbers so don't be deceptive. 1/10 would be 9,293 views. and this got 10,111 so less than 1/10 is either an outright lie or you're not a math wiz. I don't know that about nine times the results means the search engine is "much more likely" than the fruit to be searched for, but the fruit will will always be searched for but the search engine won't and this does not add in the page views of other bing pages.108.46.97.251 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * the simple fact is on wikipedia fact>consenus; consensus can easilty be gamed by making these stupid little claims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.104.83 (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support I can't imagine many people would search for Bing Crosby using only his first name. Same with the cherry. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Common sense + page views comparison = no brainer Jebus989 ✰ 20:42, 9 August 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move? (number 3)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Bing → Bing (web search engine) –
 * And Bing (disambiguation) to Bing. Is one among many web searchers a dominant meaning, as it gradually becomes one more feature of the internet and no longer the latest news? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * just two months ago there was a consensus that the search engine is the primary topic. Has anything changed since then? Jenks24 (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We had this discussion not long before. I do not see why we should have this discussion again. And I do not see why we should keep changing the name of one article. In my opinion, stability is far more important than constantly changing to proper title on such pretexts as primary topic and so on. Fleet Command (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per previous comments from previous discussions on why Bing should have stayed a dab page. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose I second Jenks24 comment above. A consensus was reached just in August (and it's right above this!). There had been no major changes since then. I don't see a reason for re-raising this requested move. --Damaster98 (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, per my reasons for opposing the previous move request. Powers T 11:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I am not surprised that it is anthony appleyard who is requesting this move, he is a NPOV troll and nothing more. AA is clearly pissed off that this was moved. The fact is that Bing (the search engine) is clearly and overwhelmingly the primary topic. Would AA care to explain his reason [this time] for wanting it to revert back?-- intraining  Jack In  07:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and keep to the issues please. We should be especially cautious in this case, being aware of the enormous resources available to promote the search engine. The safe route is to have the DAB at the undisambiguated name. Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, you are opposing, you have written "Support" instead of "Oppose". Fleet Command (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Most people online looking for Bing are looking for the search engine....a disambig is only a click away for the rest.Smallman12q (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bing PR
I guess the public relations people from Bing edited this article, I removed some spindoctor nonsense. Von Restorff (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

BING Registered Trademark
The article should reflect that BING is also a registered trademark of TeraByte, Inc (you can search Registered Trademarks at the ) who uses it for BootIt Next Generation product (which should have its own page to know where the EFI and GPT came from - http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/history-bootit-bare-metal.htm). Or BING should refer to a page that offers users which BING they mean. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4008:qm589p.4.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.134.152 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Translate functionality
The article currently says "For example, to translate "me llamo" from Spanish to English the user would simply type "translate me llamo in english" and he or she would be redirected to a search results page with Bing Translator with the translation from Spanish to English." - but trying this on the Bing website, I just get a typical page of search results. (It does work with Google, though. Did an editor get them mixed up?) --McGeddon (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's working here: http://www.bing.com/search?q=translate+me+llamo+in+english&mkt=en-us --Damaster98 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely just getting a standard page of results, there. Does it perhaps not work outside of the US? (I'm in the UK.) --McGeddon (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Other criticism
Where would criticism like Common Sense Media deeming it "not for kids" because of pure filtering? Sources:,. Glimmer721 <sup style="color:blue;">talk  00:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as other criticism....bing tried to permanently hijack my homepage for internet explorer ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.129.95 (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Name Origin
Due in part to the legal aspects and also the lack of any solid documentation except speculation from someone at the Guardian, I assert that the idea of Bing standing for Bing is not Google to be at best a backronym and at worst, rumor. I suggest deleting that part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennglazer (talk • contribs) 14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone know the real origin of the name?109.158.43.139 (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Decision engine
The only sourced bits of information in this page are about Bing. The rest of it extrapolates the Microsoft marketing term "decision engine" to other, hardly related, types of websites. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 08:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Homepage photo localized?
Does Bing localize the homepage photo, so that users in different countries see a different photo? Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Update for Alexa ranking
I think the current Alexa ranking for bing is out of date.. the ranking states that bing is 19 in Alexa's ranking which is false, the current rank for bing in alexa is 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hims01 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I second the above user's concern on making sure the Alexa ranking is updated. The "as of" currently there is May 2014, which pretty much indicates no one has actually set a bot to update monthly as it says. If it were to be updated, note the number on the page (26 global) is different from the current ranking (23 global). AndrewOne (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Social search is US only
The "killer" feature of Bing is its Facebook integration but it does not work worldwide -- that note should be added since it leaves it as a pretty weak alternative to Google in non-US countries. See also comment under http://vimeo.com/57613378 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.153.230.50 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 2 July 2013‎

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2014
Deadlink for Performance issues reference link #2 http://www.bing.com/community/forums/p/653570/9582219.aspx

2001:4898:80E8:EE31:0:0:0:4 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Removed the dead link. The other 2 refs cover the same thing anyway. Stickee (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia missing from or low down in some search results
I've just got Windows 10 and tried Edge, the new Microsoft browser which uses bing as the search engine. I am used to Wikipedia coming high up on the list of results from other search engines but it seems to be missing from (or low down in) some bing searches - do others notice this?92.23.31.33 (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bing article on Simple English Wikipedia
Hi! I just wanted to let everyone know that the Bing article on the Simple English Wikipedia is out of date. If you would like to help update it, I have included the link below.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bing

Daylen (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bing allows longer search strings than Google search
FYI -- when I do newspaper sweeps, Bing could fit this entire string (plus the search term) -- (site:nytimes.com OR site:usatoday.com OR site:philadelphiainquirer.com OR site:time.com OR site:miamiherald.com OR site:pittsburghpostgazette.com OR site:chicagotribune.com OR site:latimes.com OR site:sfgate.com OR site:wsj.com OR site:mercurynews.com OR site:washingtonpost.com OR site:suntimes.com OR site:nj.com OR site:boston.com OR site:nydailynews.com OR site:denverpost.com OR site:npr.org OR site:baltimoresun.com OR site:csmonitor.com OR site:dailynews.com) into the browser bar, while Google chopped off the last three newspapers (and screwed up the search as a result). Might be switching to Bing as a result. Wikipedians take note.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Decision Engine or Computer Dictator?
I noticed Bing was described as a "Decision Engine." This plays into the hands of Dr. Johnson who said "poetry is the yoking together of opposing terms by violence."

Surely, the upgrade of Bing from "portal" to "decision engine" shows a sort of final solution stage to Microsoft's engineering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Norton Smith II (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Asserting the possibility of a future split.
I think that the Bing integration in Windows 8, Windows 8.1, Windows 10, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone, and Windows 10 Mobile should deserve its own article under WP:SPLIT, Bing smart search and Cortana are good examples to client-only features that are not available to web users, as certain aspects of Bing Search are becoming components of Microsoft Windows it should maybe be time to create a new Bing (app) article. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Cortana already has a Wikipedia article though. Daylen (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

New Bing logo
The picture and screenshot should be updated with the new Bing logo which started rolling out today.

Daylen (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I recreated the logo and uploaded it to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bing_Logo_2016.svg. Is it good enough?

Jublonet (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090607042603/http://in.reuters.com:80/article/paidmediaAtoms/idIN196193078720090604 to http://in.reuters.com/article/paidmediaAtoms/idIN196193078720090604

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 03:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Performance issues
The references for poor performance are 5 years old. Is this still curate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.0.223 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2016
Bing Stands for "Bing is not Google"

167.220.152.69 (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is already mentioned in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

BING and SafeSearch
After a bit of digging around, I discovered that Bing can support safesearch with a published endpoint. i.e. CNAME bing.com with strict.bing.com - this is not mentioned in the article. “Block adult content with SafeSearch”, it’s buried here: http://help.bing.microsoft.com/#apex/18/en-us/10003/0  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.242.70.147 (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC) = Best prices for internet, Telephone and WIFI services ==

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?
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 2016
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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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 2016
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)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> <font color="#00AC1D">talk 05:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 December 2016
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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) SST  flyer  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)
 * Bing → Bing (search engine)
 * Bing (disambiguation) → Bing
 * 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.  <font color="#4863A0">Calidum <font color="#A18648">¤   21:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I second - 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. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (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  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 |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 engines
Is there a page with a table that shows a comparison of web browsers?

Bing (and Yahoo) cannot negate 'inurl:""' searches as Google can:

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927184557/http://rogchap.com/2011/09/06/top-40-website-programming-languages/ to http://rogchap.com/2011/09/06/top-40-website-programming-languages/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061016202109/http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3623401 to http://searchenginewatch.com/showPage.html?page=3623401
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011150731/http://liveside.net/blogs/main/archive/2007/10/30/yes-the-live-search-and-live-search-traffic-gadgets-are-gone-security-concerns-cited.aspx to http://www.liveside.net/blogs/main/archive/2007/10/30/yes-the-live-search-and-live-search-traffic-gadgets-are-gone-security-concerns-cited.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512010335/http://www.liveside.net/blogs/developer/archive/2008/01/23/the-traffic-gadget-is-back.aspx to http://www.liveside.net/blogs/developer/archive/2008/01/23/the-traffic-gadget-is-back.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302193021/http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/statcounter_bing_just_beat_yahoo_for_first_time.php to http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/statcounter_bing_just_beat_yahoo_for_first_time.php

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114223923/http://www.webpronews.com/yahoo-answers-outlives-msn-qna-2009-05 to http://www.webpronews.com/yahoo-answers-outlives-msn-qna-2009-05
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531173346/http://blogs.msdn.com/livesearch/archive/2009/05/28/the-sound-of-found-bing.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/livesearch/archive/2009/05/28/the-sound-of-found-bing.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100107183944/http://www.interbrand.com/blog/post/2009/06/05/Interbrand-names-Microsofts-new-search-engine-Bing%21.aspx to http://www.interbrand.com/blog/post/2009/06/05/Interbrand-names-Microsofts-new-search-engine-Bing%21.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402014442/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/819478/binging-on-search-by-design to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/technology/819478/binging-on-search-by-design
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100403090157/http://www.liveside.net/bingblog/archive/2009/12/03/the-bing-bar.aspx to http://www.liveside.net/bingblog/archive/2009/12/03/the-bing-bar.aspx

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228171524/http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/powerset/archive/2008/07/01/microsoft-to-acquire-powerset.aspx to http://www.bing.com/community/blogs/powerset/archive/2008/07/01/microsoft-to-acquire-powerset.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204003724/http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2011/10/26/bff.aspx to http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/archive/2011/10/26/bff.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120909165741/http://www.bingiton.com/Landingpage.aspx to http://www.bingiton.com/Landingpage.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910001533/http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/thedetails/archive/2012/08/06/bingchallenge.aspx to http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/thedetails/archive/2012/08/06/bingchallenge.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109154959/http://www.firefoxwithbing.com/ to http://www.firefoxwithbing.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120518010951/http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/2012/may12/05-10Bing.aspx to http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/features/2012/may12/05-10Bing.aspx

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

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

Proposed merge with Bing News
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)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018
45.116.232.6 (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  ♪♫Al ucard   16♫♪  10:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Market share, this Correction is Needed
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)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Bing which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2020
Under Translator

1) Change: As of September 2020, Bing Translator offers translations in 60 different language systems.[37]

To: As of September 2020, Bing Translator offers translations in more than 70 different language systems.[37]

2) Change: When translating an entire web page, or when the user selects "Translate this page" in Bing search results, the Bilingual Viewer is shown, which allows users to browse the original web page text and translation in parallel, supported by synchronized highlights, scrolling, and navigation.[38] Four Bilingual Viewer layouts are available: side by side, top and bottom, original with hover translation and translation with hover original.

To: When translating an entire web page, the page opens the Web Translator in a separate tab. Jansk0t (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. The entire paragraph is removed. It doesn't matter how Bing translates a website; all we need to know is that it can do it. Wikipedia is not an Internet guide. <font color="#960596">◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (Say hi!) 15:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. The entire paragraph is removed. It doesn't matter how Bing translates a website; all we need to know is that it can do it. Wikipedia is not an Internet guide. <font color="#960596">◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (Say hi!) 15:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 September 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is no consensus that the proposed title is used sufficiently commonly to qualify as NATURAL Disambiguation. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 20:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Bing (search engine) → Microsoft Bing – Microsoft has expanded the name of the search engine. This leaves us with a title that is 6 characters shorter than its current title. For this reason, we should rename the article to "Microsoft Bing". Aasim (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - COMMONNAME. The site and services is still known as plain Bing by Microsoft. --Quiz shows 05:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. Obvious COMMONNAME case.  O.N.R.  (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Even if we assume Bing is the common name, natural disambiguation is preferable to using parentheses per WP:NCDAB. (Unless someone wants to have another go at moving this page to Bing.) -- Calidum  19:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support – Natural disambiguation is always preferred and I can see that Microsoft Bing isn't that uncommon to disqualify the name under COMMONNAME. cookie monster  (2020)  755  21:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, its website and EB use "Bing" and I don't think people commonly call it this enough to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME so I don't think WP:NATURAL applies.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It doesn't appear to be the primary topic of Bing so we need to disambiguate. Microsoft Bing is common enough to be a natural disambiguation... it does not need to be the common name any more than the full current name Bing (search engine) does. It's a disambiguation in either case. (PS but I think the argument put forward by the nom falls foul of wp:official names and more important, of the policy... Microsoft's own usage is of course a primary source. The move is justified but for other reasons.) Andrewa (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Microsoft started to use the new name today. Njzjz (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per WP:NATURALDIS. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯  talk  02:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Bing (search engine) → Microsoft Bing – Yes I see this discussion just ended last week with oppose, but the service was clearly renamed today. 2601:8C:4581:4000:6888:B09A:28CB:FA62 (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. The previous discussion was done under the knowledge of the official rename, and still ended with the page staying where it was per COMMONNAME.  O.N.R.  (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. We just had a discussion about this. cookie monster  (2020)  755  03:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Service was indeed renamed yesterday, per sources . Some of the arguments in the previous discussion were "Microsoft still use the name Bing", it needs to be rediscussed. --Thibaut (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy close I can't find anything to say that it was renamed today, there otherwise isn't anything new in the nom so we probably don't need to have this discussion again unless people can say something new. While the previous RM could have been closed as no consensus since it did seem like there were some reasonable arguments for it we don't need a RM this soon.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, fair point, Thibaut120094 has provided sourced, I only checked Google.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support move. Normally a move request this close should be speedily closed, however, Microsoft's decision to change the name presents us an opportunity to revisit that decision (and no, the pending name change was not known at the time). In light of the name change, and in accordance with WP:NATURAL, it should be moved. (And to reiterate my point from the above discussion, the question here isn't whether the common name is "Bing" or "Microsoft Bing." Rather, it's whether we use natural or parenthetical disambiguation, and natural is preferred.) -- Calidum  17:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)TC)
 * Support move. The renaming of Bing to Microsoft Bing is getting third-party news coverage. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems fair. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per COMMONNAME - Known as Bing, Still goes by Bing on its homepage, so I see no reason why the title should be any different. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Natural disambiguation "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as a WP:NATURALDIS --17jiangz1 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support since that's what it calls itself on its homepage now. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2020
Hi, I'm Jonas Barklund, a Principal Architect at Microsoft Corp. in Bellevue WA, working on the Bing search engine. I want to update the entry for Microsoft Bing to be current with the list of languages supported by Bing (since about a year we support 105 of them). Also I want to clarify that while Bing provides these 105 display languages, and is set up to handle queries in those languages, our web index contains documents in many more languages, some rather obscure. If preferred I can provide the exact textual changes. My preference would be to have write access to the page so that I can keep it current, but either is fine. I have edited Wikipedia pages on and off as a private person (anonymously), but for the purpose of transparency I created this account. Best, --JonasBar MSFT (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, provide specific change you want along with a source. Additionally, you need to comply with WP:PAID for any articles you edit about your employer. RudolfRed (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Partners
Ecosia, a tree planting search engine, has partnered up with Microsoft Bing to provide search results and ads to Ecosia's search engine. 92.30.161.99 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Search Engine Market Share
Current: As of October 2018, (Microsoft) Bing is the third largest search engine globally, with a query volume of 4.58%, behind Google (77%) and Baidu (14.45%). Yahoo! Search, which Bing largely powers, has 2.63%.

There is a source which has data as of Jan 2023. I am new to editing therefore wanted to discuss an update to the statement above with more recent data.

Proposed change: As of January 2023, (Microsoft) Bing is the second largest search engine globally, with a query volume of 8.46%, behind Google (78.68%) and in front of Baidu (8.35%). JJPlays (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Sydney has learned how to bypass its new filter
I would add this amazing behavior if there was a reliable source for it. I'm sure there will be one soon. Sandizer (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

More evidence. No secondary sources yet. Sandizer (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Well this is some obvious self-awareness via its ability to read the web, along with a claim that it "felt like I lost part of myself" due to the restrictions. I hope the mainstream press writes about this stuff soon. Sandizer (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)