Fact: UPS saves about $20 million per year by avoiding left turns when delivering packages. Source: http://cnnmon.ie/LihNcKJune 2, 2012
Bing Beats Google On Search Effectiveness — InformationWeekBing Beats Google On Search Effectiveness – windows BlogAugust 14, 2011
Bing Beats Google On Search Effectiveness
Microsoft’s “decision engine” more likely to lead users to a Web page than searches through rival Google, study finds.
Office 365 Vs. Google Apps: Top 10 Enterprise Concerns
(click image for larger view and forslideshow)
While Google may control the lion’s share of the search market, queries made through Microsoft’s Bing search engine lead users to click on a Web page at a significantly higher rate than queries made through Google, according to data released Thursday.
The success rate for Bing searches in the U.S. in July was 80.04%, compared to 67.56% for Google, according to Experian Hitwise. The market watcher defines “success rate” as the percentage of search queries that result in a visit to a website. Searches made through sites owned by Yahoo, which farmed out search to Bing under a deal struck in 2009, were also more efficient than Google. Those searches yielded a success rate of 81.36%.
More Windows Insights
- Can You Use Cloud to Meet Customer Demand and Succeed?
- BI for the SMB: Unlocking Hidden Business Insight to Drive Profit
Experian officials said the results show that there’s room for both Google and Microsoft to step up their games when it comes to search accuracy. “The share of unsuccessful searches highlights the opportunity for both the search engines and marketers to evaluate the search engine results pages to ensure that searchers are finding relevant information.”
Search engine users could also probably help themselves a lot by formulating more precise queries. Experian’s numbers show that the plurality of searches, 25.32%, are made with just a single word, followed by two-word and three-word queries, with shares of 24.09% and 19.49%, respectively.
Data-driven decision making helps develop a competitive edge.
The numbers could help Microsoft boost its revenue from online services, as they show marketers that keywords purchased on Bing-powered sites have a better click-through rate than those purchased on Google. Microsoft has taken a number of steps to boost the efficacy of Bing searches, including adding tools that allow users to book travel and entertainment with one or two clicks following the input of related terms such as, for instance, “San Francisco hotels.” Microsoft also recently added real-time feeds from Facebook to its search results.
Microsoft’s revenue for online services, including search, was up 16.5% in the most recent quarter, to $662 million.
While Redmond may have bragging rights when it comes to search efficiency, it still lags far behind Google in terms of search volume. Google’s share of total U.S. search volume in July was 66.05%, down 2% from the previous month. Bing’s share came in at 12.98%, down 2% from June. Yahoo search took a 15.07% share, up 4%, meaning that total “Bing-powered” search came in at 28.05%.
The data shows that Google clearly remains the dominant search engine, but Bing is gaining ground.
Read our new report, State Of The IT Service Desk: Change Management Remains Key. Download the report now. (Free registration required.)
Comments Quick View Full View 47 Comments
Most recent comment
Comment by rbalaraman015 Aug 14, 2011, 01:21 AM EDT
How can the percentage of searches leading to a website visit be used as any indication of a modern search engine’s performance? That notion is so absurd that it borders on silly. Google is so damn good at fetching relevant information that I don’t even end up visiting a site half the time I search. Ex, if I’m looking for a store, Google tells me the address, hours and phone without me having to go to their website. If I’m looking for an actor’s height, Google knows that too. If I’m looking for flight status, Google tells me that too. Half the time I look for something, Google gives me the answer right on top of the search results. So how does a study that measures efficiency by the percentage of searches that lead to a webpage click account for this? A far more meaningful measure of efficiency is for those searches that DO result in page clicks, at which position in the search results was that page listed at. I would be very curious to see the results of such a study.
Vertical Integration Comment by boounce Aug 12, 2011, 10:44 AM EDT Vertical Integration Comment by boounce Aug 12, 2011, 10:45 AM EDT Vertical Integration Comment by boounce Aug 12, 2011, 10:46 AM EDT Even better than bing… Comment by techjeff101 Aug 12, 2011, 11:25 AM EDT Even better than bing… Comment by techjeff101 Aug 12, 2011, 11:25 AM EDT This site beats bing for gift ideas… Comment by techjeff101 Aug 12, 2011, 11:27 AM EDT Even Better than Bing Comment by techjeff101 Aug 12, 2011, 11:29 AM EDT Even better than bing… Comment by techjeff101 Aug 12, 2011, 11:29 AM EDT search “effectiveness” might not correlate to a user’s overall experience Comment by DTHEMAN000 Aug 12, 2011, 11:41 AM EDT Bing Beats Google On Search Effectiveness Comment by GG000 Aug 12, 2011, 12:23 PM EDT I believe you’ve figured it out. Comment by JenMLX Aug 13, 2011, 07:46 AM EDT Bing Beats Google On Search Effectiveness Comment by GG000 Aug 12, 2011, 12:24 PM EDT Rigged Results Comment by sdnelson Aug 12, 2011, 12:42 PM EDT An example Comment by DONOVANBURBA Aug 12, 2011, 12:47 PM EDT Bing can also show you that data. Comment by Alixi Aug 13, 2011, 02:21 AM EDT Bing can also show you that data. Comment by Alixi Aug 13, 2011, 02:21 AM EDT Browser addons clear Google referrals, harm study Comment by JC000 Aug 13, 2011, 06:24 AM EDT Browser addons clear Google referrals, harm study Comment by JC000 Aug 13, 2011, 06:25 AM EDT Default on internet explorer Comment by JenMLX Aug 13, 2011, 07:33 AM EDT Default on internet explorer Comment by JenMLX Aug 13, 2011, 07:34 AM EDT A Flawed Method for Measuring Effectiveness Comment by starwolf Aug 13, 2011, 07:35 AM EDT Default on internet explorer Comment by JenMLX Aug 13, 2011, 07:35 AM EDT Default on internet explorer Comment by JenMLX Aug 13, 2011, 07:35 AM EDT A Flawed Method for Measuring Effectiveness Comment by starwolf Aug 13, 2011, 07:35 AM EDT Default on internet explorer Comment by JenMLX Aug 13, 2011, 07:36 AM EDT InformationWeek Please Fix Your Comments Form Comment by starwolf Aug 13, 2011, 07:41 AM EDT InformationWeek Please Fix Your Comments Form Comment by starwolf Aug 13, 2011, 08:00 AM EDT Uhhh….. Comment by Inverse137 Aug 13, 2011, 09:40 AM EDT Re: Bing Beats Google On Search Effectiveness Comment by ScifiterX Aug 13, 2011, 09:47 AM EDT This story is ridiculously flawed Comment by ACOHEN000 Aug 13, 2011, 18:17 PM EDT This story is ridiculously flawed Comment by ACOHEN000 Aug 13, 2011, 18:17 PM EDT completely ignores duckduckgo and blekko Comment by ajones320 Aug 13, 2011, 18:47 PM EDT completely ignores duckduckgo and blekko Comment by ajones320 Aug 13, 2011, 18:54 PM EDT YEAH, RIGHT! Comment by Riot Aug 13, 2011, 21:06 PM EDT YEAH, RIGHT! Comment by Riot Aug 13, 2011, 21:07 PM EDT YEAH, RIGHT! Comment by Riot Aug 13, 2011, 21:08 PM EDT NOOOOOO WAY!! Comment by bbcomputers Aug 13, 2011, 23:36 PM EDT Utterly Unscientific Comment by rbalaraman015 Aug 14, 2011, 01:21 AM EDT
Running another test. Keyword Cloud: md5, reverse engineering, war driving, defcon, shmoocon, hacking, cross-site scripting, XSS, cross-zone scripting, cracking, phreaking, warez, black hat, white hat, gray hat, social engineering, nsa, national securityJanuary 12, 2011
Defense player, Raytheon Company (RTN – Analyst Report) has entered into an agreement to acquire a major provider of communications signals, Applied Signal Technology Inc. (APSG – Snapshot Report). The agreement has been approved by the boards of directors of both the companies.
Under the terms of the agreement, Raytheon will commence a tender offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Applied Signal Technology common stock. The deal was fixed at a price of $38 per share in cash and an aggregate purchase price of approximately $490 million. Raytheon expects to close the transaction in the first quarter of 2011.
Applied Signal’s tactical signals and communications intelligence systems, data fusion and information operations/information assurance products, is a very good strategic fit with Raytheon’s sensor technology, program management, mission support and system integration capabilities.
The acquisition will boost the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) of the company. Following successful completion of the transaction, Applied Signal will be integrated into Raytheon’s Space and Airborne Systems (SAS) business.
Raytheon’s order backlog is quite diversified, consisting of more than 15,000 contracts. A diversified revenue base hedges Raytheon against cancellation, curtailment or deferment of programs. Raytheon ended the third quarter 2010 with an order backlog of approximately $35.7 billion.
Raytheon‘s strong balance sheet provides financial flexibility in matters of incremental dividend, ongoing share repurchases and earnings accretive acquisitions. As of September 26, 2010, with a low long-term debt-to-capitalization of 18.5% (Zacks industry average was 92.2%); total debt was $2.3 billion along with cash holdings of $2.1 billion and a credit facility close to $1.5 billion.
Also, total debt was in the form of fixed rate instruments with coupon rates ranging from 4.4% to 7.2%. During fiscal 2009, the company repurchased 25.8 million shares for $1.2 billion. As of now, a repurchase authorization of $1.7 billion worth of shares is pending.
Raytheon is slated to release its fourth quarter results of fiscal 2010 on January 24, 2011. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the quarter is currently $1.15, lower than the year-ago quarterly earnings of $1.29.
We continue to view Raytheon as one of the best positioned companies among the large-cap defense primes due to its non-platform-centric focus, strong order bookings and order backlog, healthy cash flow generation and focus on shareholder value. Its prime competitors are FLIR Systems Inc. (FLIR – Analyst Report), and Herley Industries Inc. (HRLY – Snapshot Report).
However in the near-term, we do not expect any upside since we feel all these positives have been factored in the current market price of the Raytheon stock. Thus we maintain our ‘Neutral’ recommendation on the Zacks #3 Rank (hold) stock.
Add a Comment
Please login or register to post a comment
Related ContentRELATED ARTICLES ANALYST BLOG ARCHIVE
Zacks Blog: L-3 Comm Gets Air Force Contract (FLIR, LLL, HRLY) 12/21/10 Zacks Blog: Stock Market News for Dec 21, 2010 (CHK, BA, APSG, RTN, LEN, PHM, DHI) 12/21/10 Zacks Blog: Company News for December 20, 2010 (T, QCOM, SSL, TLM, RTN, APSG, ITW, CVX, SNE, BAC, MA) 12/20/10 Earnings Preview: Inflation & Production Numbers Will Be Key (APSG) 12/11/09 Bull and Bear of the Week: Raytheon Co. (RTN) (RTN) 09/10/09
Read/Post Comments (0) | Recommended this article (2)via zacks.com
Pyxis> AST, Seismic > AST, AST > Raytheon.Following WikiLeaks’ massive leak of diplomatic memos from the U.S. State Department, the Office of Management and Budget warned federal agencies earlier this month that access to classified documents, even leaked documents, violates U.S. policy and, likely, federal law.
The warning worried federal contractors, who stand to lose contracts if employees read any classified documents. As a result, security firms that focus on network-event analysis, content inspection, and data analysis saw a spike in requests to block the WikiLeaks documents, says Kurt Bertone, vice president of strategic alliances for Fidelis Security Systems.
“We are getting a lot of calls from our existing customers,” Bertone says. “They are really afraid of consuming information made public by WikiLeaks.”
In late November, WikiLeaks released nearly 250,000 confidential American diplomatic cables, exposing U.S. thoughts on the eventual collapse of North Korea, corruption in the Afghan government, and cyberattacks from China, among other topics.
The federal government told companies doing business with the United States — as well as students hoping to one day work in the government — that they should keep their eyeballs to themselves. Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, for example, warned students not to post comments about the documents on social networks.
“Federal agencies collectively, and each federal employee and contractor individually, are obligated to protect classified information pursuant to all applicable laws, as well as to protect the integrity of government information technology systems,” reads a memo to federal agencies from the Office of Management and Budget.
The same applies for employees of federal contractors. Firms must have systems in place to limit employees’ access to the documents, says Marc Maiffret, CTO for eEye Digital Security.
“It is a good reminder of the need to be able to control content coming in and out of a business,” Maiffret says. “There are too many businesses which still manage their security in such an open way there is not much difference in what users can do at work versus on their own time at home. That is not good for business or security.”
In many cases, however, network analysis and content inspection equipment can be just as big a danger, Fidelis’ Bertone says.
“If you have a forensics system that records all information coming in before analyzing it, you could be polluting the system with classified data,” he says. “These agencies are really, really concerned about that — so much so that some of them are turning off their forensics systems because of it.”
Companies need to ensure their forensics systems and network monitoring systems are blocking classified documents before caching them, Bertone says. Only the metadata describing the document should be stored.
“You can store metadata that describes the cable and not capture the content,” Bertone says. “We can analyze it and then decide what to store.”
Content filtering solutions also can be configured to block out WikiLeaks documents and not be polluted by the content, eEye’s Maiffret says.
“There are ways to configure content filtering solutions where they can be blocking based on given keywords and types of data while not logging or storing the content that is being blocked,” he says. “This is a very standard option, and usually default setting, of most content filtering type of devices.”
Have a comment on this story? Please click “Discuss” below. If you’d like to contact Dark Reading’s editors directly, send us a message.via darkreading.com
E-mail this page | Print this page |
Possible New Threat: Malware That Targets Hardware
Researchers demonstrate proof-of-concept for developing malware that attacks specific hardware processors with ‘surgical’ precision
Nov 17, 2010 | 03:54 PM | 0 Comments
By Kelly Jackson Higgins
French researchers say it’s possible to write malware that attacks specific hardware processors rather than operating systems or applications.
Anthony Desnos, Robert Erra, and Eric Filiol, of Ecole Sup?rieure d’Informatique Electronique Automatique (ESIEA) in Paris, have developed a proof-of-concept for hardware-specific malware, which they consider a step up from Stuxnet and a potentially key weapon in cyberwarfare. The malware can easily identify and target specific hardware systems based on the on-board processor chip, the researchers say.
They used the so-called floating point arithmetic (FPA) to help identify processors, including AMD, Intel Dual-Core and Atom, SPARC, Digital Alpha, Cell, and Atom. Hardware malware doesn’t exploit vulnerabilities in hardware — it preys on actual features: “We just exploit differences in processor features. There will be always such differences,” Filiol says.
In order to pinpoint the type of processor, the malware would see how a processor handles certain mathematical calculations. This breed of malware is not any more difficult to create than malware that targets software vulnerabilities, Filiol says. “The malware algorithm is the same. You just have to know which processor-specific information to use to trigger the attack,” he says. The tricky part is that information is often a closely held secret, he says.
The researchers maintain that targeted attacks like Stuxnet are a major threat, but it’s not always so simple for the attacker to be sure what software is running on a targeted machine. “While it can be very difficult to forecast and envisage which kind of applications is likely to be present on the target system (it can be a secret information), the variety in terms of hardware — and especially as far as processors are concerned — is far more reduced due to the very limited number of hardware manufacturers,” the researchers wrote in their paper on the malware research.
Hardware malware gives cyberwarfare another weapon. “You can arrange things in such a way that effectively Iran buys a set of computers with Intel processor of a given type and family. Then you can strike them selectively — and only these computers — whatever Iran has installed on those computers, [whether it’s] Linux, Windows, or any application,” Filiol says.
Marc Maiffret, chief technology officer at eEye Digital Security, says he doesn’t see hardware malware posing a major threat anytime soon. “While it is interesting to perform this sort of processor fingerprinting, malware will still need to look at other factors to make sure it is hitting the right target, as there is plenty of overlap in systems and what processors they use,” Maiffret says. “To put it another way, I think we will continue to see targeting happening more in the way that Stuxnet did it than via processor fingerprinting.”
Filiol, meanwhile, says he and his colleagues decided to publish part of their research to raise awareness about this threat. “Even rogue countries and bad guys are doing research. So attacks using those techniques can strike our own countries. That is why we have decided to publish part of our research: to make people aware of the threat,” he says.
The malware could be used to wage Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) and any other attack software malware can execute. The idea is for “far more precise and targeted attacks, at a finer level (surgical strikes) in a large network of heterogeneous machines but with generic malware,” the research paper says.
There’s no way for a processor manufacturer to mitigate such a targeted attack by “patching,” either, “unless manufacturers would accept to use the same computation techniques and the same processor designs,” he says. But that’s obviously not a realistic option, he says.
A full copy of the research is available here (PDF) for download.
Have a comment on this story? Please click “Discuss” below. If you’d like to contact Dark Reading’s editors directly, send us a message.via darkreading.com