Skip to main content

Bing vs. Google

By
Bing GoogleEven with an early release, Microsoft's new search engine, Bing, has been surprisingly bug-free (save those hovering mouse concerns and itchy IE 6 trigger) and is receiving rave reviews. Apple's Steve Wozniak is a fan. CNET's Rafe Needleman said, "the new engine won me over." And the Motley Fool folks have even gone on to declare Bing, "the first serious threat to Google's long-dominant search franchise."

While I think it's a bit early to assess Bing's impact on Google, I can say that, as a user, I've been impressed by site's functionality. I am less than satisfied, however, with their nuclear-related search results. (Solipsism alert!) A Google search for "nuclear energy" has NEI in the first position - ahead of Wikipedia - on the search engine results page (SERP). On Bing? NEI is #2. And a search for "nuclear power" results in even more significant position changes: NEI is second on Google and in eighth place on Bing.

At least NEI still tops that other NEI on both Bing and Google. So...there's that.
Labels:

Comments

gunter said…
Funny you should mention...

Bing is the unmentioned search engine that is subject this morning's CNN story and a recent letter to Department of Homeland Security re: websites that are giving too much detail to their high resolution photos of nuclear power stations now publicly available free on the internet.

CNN 06/05/2009 > http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/05/critics-online-imagery-of-nuclear-plants-too-explicit/#more-3194 <

The interviewed analyst from Rand Corp agrees that this is way too much detail available for virtual reconnaissance in Wi-Fi cafes practically anywhere in the world.

You can surveil site security, pace off distances between target sets and set up 3D table top exercises for practice from remote and anonymous locations perhaps thousands of miles away.

Like the virtual images of the US Capitol, these "bird's eye" views need to be blurred out.

NSIR is supposedly relooking at it now. But we won't be surprised if NRC agrees with the guy interviewed from AmerGen's TMI.
June 5, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more