|
Here is Bing's next strategy.[^]
I want Bing to win the search engine wars - or at least put in a respectable showing. However, they seem to be taking this thing in the wrong direction. When I look at the proposed new Bing what I see a complex mess. Hey, I'm just looking for a piece of example SQL code - I don't want to be presented with a really busy screen full of tons of interactive features.
I don't know why Microsoft insists on doing this when so many other companies make huge profits off keeping things as absolutely simple as possible. Compare the DrudgeReport with CNN.com - the reason I use the DrudgeReport is because I don't want my browser locking up because of crap flying around all over the screen.
Is the art of the simple, functional, informative web page dead?
I really think the best way for Bing to make in-roads is to become simpler than Google and then remain that way for a couple of decades.
I hear people complaining about this sort of thing in the trenches all of the time. They are getting tired of things flying around the screen, stuff crammed into every little corner, the lag, the learning curve, the busy menus - just stop already.
|
|
|
|
|
I refer the learned gentleman to my recent comment[^] on this kind of thing.
It looks nice and flashy on a tablet, but is actually completely bleeding useless to most users.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I read that comment yesterday.
I would have up-voted it but you made a distinction I cannot appreciate, that being between 'sell' and 'steal'.
However, I'll not be so particular and up-vote it now.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: you made a distinction I cannot appreciate, that being between 'sell' and 'steal'
There was a clear distinction in my reasoning at the time: I was thinking "sales site" and "identity/information thief", rather than "apple".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I'd say you have your 'A' game on today.
|
|
|
|
|
Or "!A", as the case may be.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Dam! it
I really liked your comment but completely misconstrued what you meant by steal.
I thought that you were expanding on the sales sites, in a more political way.
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
AIRI, there were three items in the list, and only one co-ordinating conjunction, meaning that the three items were independent.
[jumps in the Tardis]
Here it is:
"It's only people who want to advertise, sell, or steal who want the more complicated stuff."
The punctuation alone makes the meaning purdy damned clear.
Compare:
-- people who want to advertise, or sell or steal
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
well, that punctuation isn't valid in my language so, before your explanation, the two phrases had the same meaning for me =p
I'm brazilian and english (well, human languages in general) aren't my best skill, so, sorry by my english. (if you want we can speak in C# or VB.Net =p)
"Given the chance I'd rather work smart than work hard." - PHS241
"'Sophisticated platform' typically means 'I have no idea how it works.'"
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: "It's only people who want to advertise, sell, or steal who want the more complicated stuff."
Dang, can't remember the comedy pair who started "Who's on first!". but I thought of it because I wanted to leave out the first word on "Dr Who said that?" (It's either him, a sidekick, or a thief that would jump in a Tardis.) Well, I guess you can leave out the last because on that series, thieves never say anything sensible.
I agree that the statement reads like 3 separate things, but I'd also include the computer's "or" definition to make it possible the same person wants to do all three.
|
|
|
|
|
Abbot and Costello[^].
Slooowly he turned, step by step...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Ever heard the expression "Design by committee"
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
A Camel is a horse designed by a committee.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
|
|
|
|
|
And this[^] was described by Clarkson as "designed by a committee that never met"
YouTube[^]
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
|
|
|
|
|
MY EYES!!!!! Ahhhh... I take back every negative thing I've ever said about the Scion Cube[^]
It was broke, so I fixed it.
|
|
|
|
|
Man that is one fugly vehicle, I refuse to call it a car!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Dalek Dave wrote: A Camel is a horse designed by a committee.
Careful the religious right might take exception to that. (IE. only one creator allowed.)
If you look at it, the Camel is exceptionally well designed for its habitat. ("Well designed" is not something usually associated with committee designs)
It can easily live in environments that would kill a horse. (And most other mammals.)
Quite efficiently expresses it's contempt for humans.(A very sensible attitude for a human from a non-human's perspective.) Well... we did have a horse at one time that matched the camel in that area.
Can spit huge distances, usually at a human.
There's more, but I forgot it. (I'm only human)
|
|
|
|
|
In all the parks, in all the cities of the world, there is no Statue of a Committee.*
*Apart from Calais.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's a statue of some troops not a committee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sure?[^]
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Pompey wrote: In all the parks
That is definitely a Town Centre.
(Good find though)
|
|
|
|
|
It's a town centre park[^]; I've been there enough times.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
I'll give it to you then. Modified accordingly.
Nagy Vilmos wrote: I've been there enough times.
Cottaging?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
