Now ignore it, or read it with an open mind.
MSN Search has the most powerful and promising searching technology. It is based on Neural Networks and NOT on an Algorithm (like Yahoo and Google).

Difference between Algorithm, AI Algorithm, and Artificial Neural Networks:
1) Algorithm is a flow controlled logic, that works "Perfectly" IF implemented "Perfectly". It cannot adapt, and rests on the human brain to develop logic.
2) AI Algorithm is the one, that can perform intelligent actions, based on situation and conditions. The overall flow controlled logic is always the same. It uses task completion algorithms like the "Hill Climbing" etc to accomplish a task.
3) It is based on the Architecture of human brains, implementing Neurons. Neural Networks do not use algorithms, but generate results on the basis of inputs fed to the network. The network is interconnected neurons with weighted links.

A Artificial neural network is a series of computers which are supposed to learn based on input provided.



This post has been edited by CaptainRon: Dec 4 2006, 10:32 AM

Interesting. I hope that msn will do better with page rankings than google. But anyway, with specific keywords my homepage is first choice on google and msn - but with some otheres, more generic, it's not even in top 500...

That was a fascinating, very well-written study, CaptainRon ...

The concept of Neural Networks has been a truly interesting concept in the world of logic and computer programming for quite some time now. Unfortunately, I never had the time to delve deeply into it, but the little basic information I knew about it made seem like a very promising approach to things.

I think Microsoft had this move in mind for a while now. Those of us who saw the movie The Island, will perhaps remember a scene where the hero of the movie goes into a cabin in the street with the visible label of MSN on it to do a very dynamic, very thorough search. Personally, I thought it was a magnificently powerful, yet subtle advertisement for MSN. And now, in retrospect, I suppose it was also a hint for what Microsoft had in mind for its Search Engine.

I suppose many Search Engine, especially Google, are actively researching the Neural Networks approach. Perhaps they're trying to catch up with Microsoft's research but can't, and perhaps they're actually equal or even superior to Microsoft's and are very good at keeping it under wraps... either way, we're going to have to wait and see where all this goes.

But all in all, I'd have to say that this will most certainly be a gigantic step along the way of enhancing the Internet as a whole, and the Searching industry in particular.

Thank you very much for such a wonderful post, CaptainRon .

Yes, thats the only thing that can challenge MSN Search, Google implementing Neural Networks too.

But don't you think its simply an overwhelming thought of converting the whole of Google's present page rank database and web pages to adapt to a Neural Network system? Or probably they could give options to the searcher, "Traditional Search" or "Smart Search"... Plus consider the time taken to train the Neural Network.

Either way, I say MSN should first get a top level domain name for its search engine.

Oh yes, it most certainly is overwhelming. But let's face it, if Microsoft is taking the initiative to advance the searching industry by using such an effecient and effective technology, Google has to take action if it's to have any chance of keeping up its place in the game.

Plus, I suppose even Microsoft is not yet ready for a total integration of this technology. So Google probably has time to manage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not with one company against the other. I'm simply speaking business.



... yeah, I suppose that's a valid point.

Seems really interesting, in theory, but we'll have to wait and see how well they implement it. Not to imply that microsoft has ever had a net service be less then optimal due to underestimating the strain that would be put on it *coughhotmailcough* but it could happen. But yes, it'll be something to keep an eye out for

Hey guys!!!
Now here is something even more interesting... I dont know why it has NEVER been discussed here!

Google uses PigeonRank Technology to find results so quickly. Can you believe it? It uses real Pigeons, and flashes thousands of pages in front of them, until they peck on one.
Some one though mentioned this technology during the Google OS discussion, i never paid attention.
I will create a new topic in Google Section. Check it there.

Good post CaptainRon. I think Google will adapt to this new threat, but this new search doesn't have much founding right now. Microsoft has a history of embarking on projects that are too big for them. There are sure to be flaws. Plus, Microsoft probably isn't implementing this technology true to the Neural idea. I am guessing they just make a database of most accessed sited per a search criteria, and then apply an algorithm to that. This "learning" is just expansion of a database. All of this database access takes time, and money. I am not sure that users will be willing to take a couple of seconds for a simple search for something like "buy xbox". With all of this technology, there are sure to be hacks, where automated programs continually search for the same topic and mess with the rankings. No system of search is perfect, but for now, I think Google has the best method. This new system must take a while to get all of the information it needs to get relevant content, and Google is doing that without having to have all of this. If this truly IS the way of the future (and if the general public accepts it as such), then Google will roll out a similar, and probably better, version of this. It all depends on how Microsoft goes about advertising this.

I think this is a little old news...
I read about this in 2005 in MSN Search Weblog (known as Live Search blog ).Here is the link to the post : blogs.msdn.com/livesearch/archive/2005/06/21/431288.aspx

Coming back to the post IMO what MSN has to do now is to market thier products for the average joes about how superior is thier technology is than thier rival services.

A simple [ selection + right-click + Search Google For "..." ] on Firefox gave me the following result regarding you post:
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/?p=2273

Since obviously you didn't write most of this article, it's necessary that you put the copied text between [ quote ] tags, adding the link to the source and if possible, the author's name.
Currently you're earning credit (and hosting credits) for content you did not develop. As I can see for the above posts, most were fooled into thinking you did write the whole article, which you did not.

Understand me that I'm not picking on you or anything, it's just that as as an artist I take very seriously copyrighting into account, and I wouldn't like to see a modified work of mine exposed as if it was originally done by another person. Also it's reasonably unfair to other people in the forum, due the fact on how are hosting credits earned.

So please edit you post as necessary to fix the confusion caused by the current situation.

-------
Now, about the article:

I don't think Google is the most used search engine because of it's algorithm, seriously. I'll try to number some of the features that in my personal opinion made Google the giant it is nowadays. Please note that I'm taking into consideration how Google gained the market and fame it has today, therefore I'm considering the *old* MSN Search engine into comparison, not the new Live! one, which is in my opinion pretty good, and follows very well the principles I'll try to number below. So, let's start:

1. It's damn fast: It simply takes fractions of second to load and show up the results. And quickness of things being done these days is something you can't deny it's very important. This leads to...

2. It's simple to use and nice to look at: You don't have lots of flash ads about products and services. You don't have a bloated user-interface with tons of images that make page loading slow and hard to find simple features. Still it isn't ugly and not user-friendly.

3. It's always updated with new and most important, *useful and well-done* stuff: They try to have always the best of any feature they implement, being it original or not. When they came up with Gmail, they aimed on creating the best, biggest, and fastest one. When this happened, Microsoft still had a 2Mb, slow, confusing and cheap webmail. There were many

4. They actually listen to their customers and employees: Many of the features we have currently at our disposal were first though by people like us, or any of their employees, no matter their occupation at the office.

5. Good Algorithm and *huge* updated database: It probably doesn't have the best searching algorithm all over the internet, but they make up for this in having a *huge* and decently updated database. When I need to find "buy XBOX", it doesn't matter much which search engine I'd use, since any of them will give me satisfactory . But if I need to find a rare and unusual thing, Google is the way to go.

That's why I don't believe in MSN search taking over the search market any soon, or even later on. Though their new search site is a hundred times better than the old one (it's even visually attractive to non-3-year-old kids), even with a new and better way to organize results they'll have to be 100% dedicated to us, users, before asking anything back, if ever. Microsoft usually commits the mistake of charging too much before actually giving away something of quality to their customers. It would be no surprise to see they launching the "ultimate search engine" that'll find anything you want in the 1st search page, as a paid service, and leaving normal users with the same old one. They did this with their Hotmail (250Mb versus 2Mb of the free account), which turned being ridiculous when Gmail first launched with the 1Gb capacity, realiability and speed.

It's just suppositions of mine, of course, but based on my relatively good experience on this subject.