Talk:Bing: Difference between revisions
Smallman12q (talk | contribs) →Discussion: response |
|||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
*'''Oppose''' recentism at work [[Special:Contributions/70.19.117.122|70.19.117.122]] ([[User talk:70.19.117.122|talk]]) 07:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' recentism at work [[Special:Contributions/70.19.117.122|70.19.117.122]] ([[User talk:70.19.117.122|talk]]) 07:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
**Recentism? Care to elaborate?[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 13:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
**Recentism? Care to elaborate?[[User:Smallman12q|Smallman12q]] ([[User talk:Smallman12q|talk]]) 13:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
||
***I had heard that Microsoft had given up on bing and was going to bling instead, I mean Yahoo, but this story[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ibm2I2UL72dmF7D0jL8E_pyXe2kgD99OGG1O2] indicates that with the deal with Yahoo, Microsoft will make Yahoo use their search engine. The story is hosted by google and ends with the comment that bing results are not as comprehensive as Yahoo's and that Yahooer's will switch to Google when they notice that. I think that Bing has been around long enough to warrant the switch to primary topic. All of the rise in bing traffic[http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/bing] has been due to the search engine. I would recommend leaving the article at [[Bing (search engine)]], though, and using {{noredirect|Bing}} as a redirect, and moving the dis to [[Bing (disambiguation)]], and placing at the top of the search engine article, Bing redirects here, for other uses see [[Bing (disambiguation)]]. [[Special:Contributions/199.125.109.126|199.125.109.126]] ([[User talk:199.125.109.126|talk]]) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:39, 30 July 2009
Disambiguation | ||||
|
Redirect or disambiguation
It seems pretty obvious to me that the dab belongs here rather than at Bing (disambiguation). I'd move this myself, but I'm not getting involved in the current petty edit war. So consider this proposed. The search engine is brand new and there's no evidence that it's the primary use for the name at this point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- You've posted this on the talk page of Bing (disambiguation) - I assume what you mean is that the dabpage should be at Bing, the search engine should be at Bing (search engine), and Bing (disambiguation) should redirect to Bing. If so, I support this. It's not established yet that the search engine will be the primary usage. As a more general, point, though, I absolutely support having some page of content at Bing, whether it's the search engine or the dabpage. The current practice - repeatedly redirecting from Bing to whatever because that's the easiest way to edit war - wastes an oppurtunity to have content at the simplest title. Hopefully this discussion can fix at least that much. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. There should always be either an article or a dab page at the root location - not doing so is nonsensical. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hope this wasn't perceived as an edit war, but rather as BRD. I believe that Bing_(search_engine) should be moved to Bing. You are correct in that it was my mistake to make Bing a redirect when it could hold content.
I would like to propose that:
- Bing_(search_engine) be moved to Bing (Bing_(search_engine) would then be a redirect to Bing) and that a disambig link be placed on Bing afterwards pointing to Bing (disambiguation).
Here is the cause for my concern for leaving Bing in the state of a disambiguation page as it is now...
- 200906 Bing Page Views-60166 so far
- Bing (search engine) Page Views-51608 so far
While some may view it as a miscalculation, most viewers seeing the Bing disambig page are headed for Bing (search engine), and from what I can see 15% don't make it there. In addition, we are forcing tens of thousands of viewers to see a needless disambig page. I can tell that most people seeing Bing are off to see the search engine because prior to Microsoft's Bing search engine Bing recieved less than 300 page views a day.
Please consider this and let me know if my logic/rationale is flawed in any way.Smallman12q (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds like a reasonable proposal, but I'd like to see what the intended target of most inbound wikilinks is first. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- There aren't many from article space - four from spelling or titling variants of "Bing", four for the search engine, three for the historical Chinese province of Bing (which we don't have an article on), two for the toy company, and four to various others. If we had an article on the province, it would a competitor for the primary usage; since we don't, those links are already dead-ends at the moment. On the other hand, three of the four spelling or titling variants clearly anticipate a dabpage being here (the fourth is from Bing (disambiguation)). I don't see that the links establish a clear primary usage. However, Smallman12q's other statistics are fairly informative. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
99% of Bing visitors seems to be here because of the Bing search engine. (before the search engine only 50 people a day). Lets just move this listing article to a disambiguity page and redirect Bing to the search engine article. hAl (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Bing → Bing (disambiguation) — This page is currently getting tens of thousands of views that are meant for Microsoft's Bing (search engine). In addition, it appears as though many people don't "turnover" to the Bing article and simply leave because they see this isn't the "Bing" they were looking for. See the discussion below. Smallman12q (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
- Support. The search engine gets over 100k page views per month,[1] which is over 20 times more than the second most popular page titled "Bing". Moving the search engine to Bing is a helpful move for the readers. Jafeluv (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've taken the liberty of adding the move from Bing (search engine) to Bing to this move request. Jafeluv (talk) 07:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose recentism at work 70.19.117.122 (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Recentism? Care to elaborate?Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- I had heard that Microsoft had given up on bing and was going to bling instead, I mean Yahoo, but this story[2] indicates that with the deal with Yahoo, Microsoft will make Yahoo use their search engine. The story is hosted by google and ends with the comment that bing results are not as comprehensive as Yahoo's and that Yahooer's will switch to Google when they notice that. I think that Bing has been around long enough to warrant the switch to primary topic. All of the rise in bing traffic[3] has been due to the search engine. I would recommend leaving the article at Bing (search engine), though, and using Bing as a redirect, and moving the dis to Bing (disambiguation), and placing at the top of the search engine article, Bing redirects here, for other uses see Bing (disambiguation). 199.125.109.126 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Recentism? Care to elaborate?Smallman12q (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)