Discrepancy in the search result returned by api vs bing.com

Question

Hi,

I am not sure whether this is a repeat question, but I tried looking for one and could not locate.

I am using Bing web api for a project and I find the results returned to be quite different from the ones I find in Bing.com 

For instance the query "stake xbox" - https://api.datamarket.azure.com/Data.ashx/Bing/Search/v1/Composite?Sources=%27web%27&Query=%27stake%20xbox%27&$top=50

&$format=Atom&WebSearchOptions=%27DisableQueryAlterations%27

yields different results from bing.com.

Instead of composite I even tried Search but still no change.

Can someone please advice?

Thanks!

Answer 1

Hi,

I think it is not caused by the Windows Azure service. It is about Bing api itself. It is by design I think. The search result is the key point, see if they are correct and helpful. You don't have to be too care about the result order. Something like: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/bingmaps/thread/bbb25a9a-0a99-4e86-a5cf-b9a997917698

Thanks,

---

QinDian Tang
MSDN Community Support | Feedback to us
Develop and promote your apps in Windows Store
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help.

Answer 2

The reason is that you are using DisableQueryAlterations option.

If you use the API without DisableQueryAlterations, the results look pretty much the same.

Thanks,

Max

Answer 3

Hi Max,

Thanks for the reply. But if I do not use DisableQueryAlterations option, the query is rewritten. For instance the above example "stake xbox" is rewritten to "skate xbox". This is similar to what we get from bing.com where the query is modified and we get.

Including results for skate xbox.

Do you want results only for stake xbox?

Hence I had to use DisableQueryAlterations and with that the results are quite different. 

And yes, if I do not use DisableQueryAlterations the results that are returned are somewhat similar. I know sometimes search engine may insert sponsored results so we cannot expect exact duplication but some results rankings are inverted for example for query in page 1 of bing.com I get EA Skate : EA Games followed by Amazon.com: Skate: Video Games whereas I get Amazon.com: Skate: Video Games followed by EA Skate : EA Games in the results returned by api. In page 2 again Stake: Fortune Fighters (Xbox) - Xbox Games List (All) and Skate(video game) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  are inverted and also the mismatch between the api result and web search increased in page 2.

Hence I am confused as to whether this is the expected behaviour of the api or is there any mistake from my side in setting the flags and formulating the query. 

Please advice. 

Thanks,

Vishrawas

Answer 4

Hi Vishrawas,

This is an expected behavior. The reason is that Web page takes additional factors into account (e.g. user context), which API doesn't have. So, we cannot promise exact results order match.

Thanks,

Max

Answer 5

Hi Max,

Thanks for the reply. As I said, I understand there are many factors that bing web search engine might take into consideration, the reason that I gave the example of flipping in the ranking was to help in troubleshooting (may be I am missing some flags or something of that sort). I completely understand that part; however I am particularly affected by the results for queries like "stake xbox"  for which I have to ensure the api does not modify the query as there are chances that the query terms might be replaced with more "popular" searched token and with DisableQueryAlterations I am getting search results which are very different from bing.com even after taking into consideration the additional factors. 

Thanks,

Vishrawas

Answer 6

Hi Vishrawas,

You are right in using the DisableQueryAlterations flag for your purposes. I tried to explain that when you get into such options, you shouldn't expect your results to be directly comparable with bing.com as you are already getting into more deliberate ways of querying the API.

Are there any specific results that you see inadequate with your current usage?

Thanks,

Max