The TC hype machine's two-step pass is operating at full efficiency:

1) Make a dramatic generalization from obviously-inadequate data. 2) Write a followup when better data proves it wrong.

what if the down-trend is as short lived as that initial spike was? nothing has been proven wrong yet (based on your own argument, in fact.) the data isn't "better" yet.

Uhm... where better data is the exact same source as they used before?

Better data is over a longer span of time.

I'm not sure what you're saying. StatsCounter (the source of the data) reported that Bing was briefly a more popular referral than Yahoo, but that the trend has now reversed. If you don't trust the June 4th data, I can't see how you can then accept the June 6th/7th data. The time span over each day is exactly the same.

The point is that the one day they were above yahoo is also the one day they launched, and got everyone trying it for the first time and tons of launch-day media coverage. The number could be 100% accurate, it still doesn't mean much.

TC is drawing conclusions based on one data point. I dispute how they are using the data, not whether that data is accurate.

I wonder if their CPM will go down as a result of all this hype-cycling.

My apologies, when you said "write a followup when better data proves it wrong," I thought you were suggesting that it was now good data.

Would you prefer that they not report on available data? Everyone knows that it's pop journalism, not a government commission report.

Arrington is closer to the tech Zeitgeist than he gets credit for on this site.

Really, was this unexpected?

This can be summarized as "New search engine gets spike as people try it out of curiosity" -- I'd be surprised if there wasn't a temporary jump in users around launch time.

Type "linux" into Google and you get good sensible answers. Type "linux" into Bing and you get something obviously tainted by the marketing department.

Microsoft can't hope to win with this attitude. Nobody is going to use a search engine which can't be trusted.

I'm not sure that's the case. Using the "blind comparison" site (linked earlier) I can't immediately distinguish "something obviously tainted by the marketing department"

http://blindsearch.fejus.com/?q=linux

The results for the search 'linux' are nearly identical for the first page. In fact, the first result is exactly the same.

I think he means the auto completion suggestions, not the search results.

While that used to be the case with MSN Search / Live Search, it hasn't been true for a while (at least in the US index).

Is it just me or does Google seem rather quiet about Bing?

It seems that they don't see it as a threat at all.

What would you expect them to say? Anything they say simply draws attention to a competitor.

Given how much MS will be spending on advertising, everyone will probably know about it anyway.

An obvious thing for Google to say (if true): Google researchers have evaluated Bing results and have found them to be inferior.

Well look at the opposite side of the coin, what if Google researchers do evaluate Bing results and don't find them to be inferior. Google internal documents have been leaked before...

... I think it's better to just leave that Pandora's Box unopened and let your search results and positive image speak for itself.