Google's Knowledge Graph is one of the company's best UX improvements since Google's founding in 1998. It delivers the answers to users' queries without requiring them to click on a search result, since they can get the basic information they need on a topic right on the results page itself.
But Google wasn't the only search engine looking to improve the experience of its users.
Bing released its Snapshot Pane to counter Google's Knowledge Graph. The idea was similar, but Bing used a proprietary algorithm to determine its own results.
So just how much do the results of Google's Knowledge Graph and Bing's Snapshot Pane have in common? That's what we wanted to know.
Both the Knowledge Graph and Snapshot Pane have had lots of time to mature and improve over the past few years, and we wanted to put them to the test.
To do that, we evaluated the results of 76 searches on both Google and Bing. Most of them triggered Knowledge Graph or Snapshot Pane results, but some of them didn't. And even when they did both trigger results, they weren't always the same in terms of subject or approach.
Below, you'll find screenshots of our searches on Google and Bing, a comparison of the Knowledge Graph vs. Snapshot Pane, and our take on what both search engines are trying to do with their results.
Google's Knowledge Graph will be on the left, and Bing's Snapshot Pane will be on the right.
- 1. 2+2
- 2. 10 Gallons to Quarts
- 3. ADA
- 4. Adirondack
- 5. Africa
- 6. Aliens
- 7. Alphabet
- 8. AMA
- 9. Americans
- 10. Andy Reid
- 11. Apple HQ
- 12. Arsenal
- 13. Australia
- 14. Bark
- 15. Benjamin Franklin
- 16. Bow
- 17. Bush
- 18. Capital of Australia
- 19. CD
- 20. Chicken Pox
- 21. Chips
- 22. Christianity
- 23. Christmas
- 24. Ciervo's
- 25. Darth Vader
- 26. Days of the Week
- 27. Deconstruction
- 28. Eagles Record
- 29. F
- 30. Festivus
- 31. First President
- 32. Flying Buttress
- 33. Generation X
- 34. Google
- 35. Gravity
- 36. Heimlich Maneuver
- 37. How Did Marie Curie Die
- 38. How to Roast a Turkey
- 39. Hurricane Katrina
- 40. Jack Welch
- 41. Japanese Bow
- 42. John Stamos
- 43. Los Angeles Weather
- 44. Martini Recipe
- 45. Mean
- 46. Meme
- 47. Moscow Time
- 48. Mouse
- 49. MSU
- 50. Mt. Rushmore
- 51. NFL Scores
- 52. Obsidian
- 53. Orc
- 54. Ottoman
- 55. Phish
- 56. Polytheism
- 57. Postmodernism
- 58. Progressive Rock
- 59. Psychosis
- 60. Reading
- 61. Rory McIlroy
- 62. Sibelius
- 63. Thaddeus Stevens
- 64. TV Comedy
- 65. Wind
- 66. World War 2
- 67. Wow
- 68. Yeezy
- 69. YHOO
- 70. 42 (Google only)
- 71. Equinox (Google only)
- 72. Reddit (Google only)
- 73. 1990s (Bing only)
- 74. Autumn (Bing only)
- 75. Ska (Bing only)
- 76. The Oatmeal (Bing only)
2+2 is a simple math equation. Or is it a search for a popular publisher?
Google and Bing both had to wrestle with those semantics, which they presented in a similar fashion. They both attempted to answer the mathematical query first, and then they added potential alternatives to the right side of their search results.
Google's results are focused on links, while Bing's results embrace text to more fully answer a user's query in one go. One isn't necessarily better than the other — but it'll be interesting to see if this trend persists in the remaining comparisons.
2. 10 Gallons to Quarts
"10 Gallons to Quarts" is a simple conversion equation that a computer could calculate quickly, but a person may have an issue with it if they're not familiar with units of measurement.
Google answers the question immediately with a simple equation and options to modify it however you'd like.
Bing does the same, but they don't let users modify the parameters of their query after the results are shown.
From this, it seems that Google is interested in giving its users a little more flexibility, while Bing mostly wants to answer queries directly. We'll have to see if this trend continues as well.
Like 2+2, ADA has multiple meanings.
Google is focused on the legislation of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. Bing is looking at organizations that may use that same acronym, plus a programming language.
Both sources heavily pull from Wikipedia for the information that they present, which will be interesting to follow as we continue our comparison.
Adirondack could either be an American mountain range or a type of outdoor chair.
Google went all-in on the chance that someone's researching the mountain range. Bing did the same, but the Images portion of their Snapshot Pane brought up lots of chairs as well, which could potentially show a searcher that Bing understands the difference between the mountains and furniture.
It also bears mentioning that both search engines sourced Wikipedia for their initial information, just like the last example.
Africa is a continent. There can't be that much variation between the Knowledge Graph and Snapshot Pane, right?
Both search engines focus on the continent, but they present the information in a very different way.
Google provides a topographical map with a Google Maps-esque worldwide view of Africa's location on the globe with a selection of its Wikipedia text. And just in case we forgot the glorious music of the 80s, they have a reminder that Africa is the name of a song by Toto.
The band — not the dog.
On the other hand, Bing is exclusively oriented toward Africa as the continent. They provide a Bing Maps-esque worldwide view of Africa on the globe, followed by its Wikipedia entry, points of interest, and a listing of the other continents on Earth (except Australia).
And, again, both sources pull directly from Wikipedia.
Aliens could relate to a number of different things — extraterrestrial life, foreign-borne citizens, or James Cameron's sci-fi classic film.
Both Google and Bing are convinced users would more commonly search for Aliens the film, as opposed to anything else.
Google shows the film's critical rating, excerpts of information, where the film is available, along with the cast and a list of similar films.
Bing follows a very similar pattern, with the biggest differences showing in the critical review sources, availability sources, and header image.
But overall, the content of both search engines is nearly identical.
Alphabet is the name of Google's new parent company. It's also the standard term for any set of symbols that represents the basic speech sounds of a certain language.
But both Google and Bing are more focused on the corporation than the linguistic principle.
Strangely, at the time of publication, Google's Knowledge Graph returns results for Google when searching for "alphabet," probably because Google is the better-known brand. However, they do show the stock information for Alphabet below the text excerpt, probably because Google doesn't technically have a stock price anymore.
Bing, on the other hand, shows the Wikipedia entry for Alphabet, which is updated to reflect that it's the parent company of Google, among other ventures. It also lists related businesses below the text, including Google itself.
In this scenario, both sources pull from Wikipedia, but they pull from different pages. But by this point, we can all wonder the same thing — should we just use Wikipedia for informational searches?
AMA is another acronym that has lots of different meanings. It's the call-sign for a number of different organizations, and it's also a popular Internet-based event on Reddit called "Ask Me Anything."
Google knows that it probably can't guess the most-used form of AMA to show in a Knowledge Graph, so it presents two of the most popular organizations represented by AMA, along with a few tidbits of information.
Bing, on the other hand, takes a leap of faith in guessing what the query means and presents a list of American Music Award winners from the last ceremony. It's a bold move, and depending on when someone's searching for "AMA," there could be a good chance that they're right.
With that in mind, it seems like Bing's Snapshot Pane has a time-sensitive element to it that could alter results from one day to the next. We'll check back on that as this publication ages.
"Americans" is — obviously — the demonym for people living in America. But it's also a popular TV show.
Google's algorithm trusts that most people searching for "Americans" are looking for the show, so they show ratings, information, episodes, and the cast, similar to what they did for the "Aliens" query.
Bing offers both options with less information about each. They first show Americans as the demonym with truncated information, and then information on the show The Americans, also with truncated information.
In this case, Google is more informative, but Bing isn't placing all of its eggs in one basket, similar to our "Adirondack" search.
10. Andy Reid
Andy Reid is a fairly famous NFL coach. He rose to prominence during his work with the Philadelphia Eagles — at least in Pennsylvania — and at the time of publication, he works for the Kansas City Chiefs.
Google presents Andy Reid's bio in a fairly straightforward way with up-to-date photos showing him in Chiefs paraphernalia. It also mentions his past tenure with the Philadelphia Eagles. Most importantly, the actual bio is taken straight from Wikipedia.
Bing shows Reid's bio in a similar fashion with a bio and select information about his personal life, including his net worth. Below that, Bing also includes a timeline and a "See more" option for people who want more information on Reid's life. And, like Google, Bing's bio is taken straight from Wikipedia.
In that sense, Wikipedia appears to be a significant resource for both the Knowledge Graph and Snapshot Pane. It seems likely that both Google and Bing will continue to use Wikipedia to answer many of their queries.
11. Apple HQ
"Apple HQ" is a popular topic right now since Apple announced its new ideas for a colossal business campus.
Google believes its users want to see the projections for that business campus, so they provide a single image of the structure-to-be along with a map of the company's current headquarters.
But Bing takes a much more general approach. Even though we searched for "Apple HQ" specifically, Bing still serves general information about the company, pulled from Wikipedia. They also feature Apple's stock ticker, people involved, and similar searches.
With no "right answer," this boils down to a matter of user preference. Google is betting that a user wants to see Apple's plans for the future right away. Bing is guessing that general information on the company will suffice.
Considering we performed all of these searches in the United States, we didn't expect to see results for Arsenal Football Club immediately when we searched for "Arsenal."
But Google and Bing are both presenting those results.
Google takes a lighter approach to presenting information by showing Arsenal's most recent game and its scores. To the right is general information on the football club from Wikipedia, including its roster and social profiles.
Bing shows a lot of similar information, including their most recent game and their full schedule for the year. Besides that, they also have information from Arsenal's Wikipedia entry, their social profiles, general information, related people, and similar football clubs — but not the team roster.
Again, both engines use Wikipedia for the bulk of their informational data.
Australia is another search that returns largely similar results from both Google and Bing.
They both present different information, though. The Knowledge Graph appears to be more oriented toward contacting or touring Australia. The Snapshot Pane is more focused on general information, including Australian public figures.
"Bark" is a super-general query that could be anything from the noise a dog makes to a part of trees.
And, according to Google, it can also be a local business.
Google's Knowledge Graph doesn't view "Bark" as a general query — it looks at it as a regional search for a business. This result is for Brittle Bark in Mechanicsburg, which is a suburb of Harrisburg (WebFX's home city).
Bing goes the botanical route and shows information for bark as it relates to trees. It pulls its general information from Wikipedia, followed by botanical terms for other parts of a tree.
The differences between these two results are extreme, but they show an interesting part of both engines' algorithms.
Google My Business is hyper-integrated into its search algorithm to the point where it'll return business results for general queries that may have nothing to do with the semantics of your query.
Bing, on the other hand, simply offers information from Wikipedia. In fact, directly going to Wikipedia would've been preferable to Bing in this situation since Bing doesn't bother to add any other media to its Snapshot Pane.
15. Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin was one of the most significant forces in American history. He did a lot, to say the least, so encompassing all of the information someone could want about him is an enormous challenge.
And it shows. Google and Bing are overflowing with information on Benjamin Franklin, and both of them pull from a variety of sources. Google classifies him as "Founding Father of the United States," and Bing calls him a "Former Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives."
Google and Bing show quotes, biographical information, family information, timelines, and more in roughly the same amount of space.
And again, both engines scrape a lot from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is also the first result they both show for the query.
In other words, unless you're looking for something hyper-specific about BF, Wikipedia could've done the job of Google and Bing without a middleman.
So once more, we have to wonder if Wikipedia is the best source of information-only queries. From a user's perspective, if you're just going to get a truncated result from another search engine, you might as well go straight to Wikipedia.
"Bow" is one of those words in the English language that can have tons of meanings depending on the context and pronunciation. And neither of those is available to Google or Bing.
To compensate, Google shows a quick series of definitions from The Free Dictionary with an image of a violin or cello bow.
Bing provides a list of potential definitions that could all relate to someone's query.
And because there's so much that each search engine could say about this word in different contexts, they included a "Read More" button below their listings.
Overall, a fairly similar set of results from both engines.
"Bush" is another general query that could provide any number of results, particularly in America.
"Bush" relates to botany, US history, presidencies, and companies, so it's a challenge to pull the correct contextual information for users.
Google takes a bet that someone searching "Bush" in the United States most wants to hear about Jeb Bush, a candidate for the 2016 presidential nomination by the Republican party. When this screenshot was acquired, Jeb Bush had recently announced the suspension of his presidential campaign, which clearly played a big role in Google's Knowledge Graph determination.
But Bing's Snapshot Pane isn't as influenced by current events. Instead, Bing sticks with standard definitions of the word "bush" with similar searches on the right, including the band Bush and former president George W. Bush.
In this scenario, Google's once again placing all of its eggs in one basket while Bing aims to provide a variety of possible answers to queries.
18. Capital of Australia
Compared to the last query, "Capital of Australia" is hyper-specific. There's only one answer that you could want from this search — but there are an infinite number of ways to present it.
That's clear from the way that Google shows Canberra, with an image of an overhead view of the city. Then, there's a "Read More" button below in case someone doesn't find a URL they like.
But Bing goes for broke by showing an image of the city, listing its name, and filling out a full Snapshot Pane on the right with tons of information. Much of that information comes straight from Wikipedia, and it's combined with points of interest. That makes Bing's results a little more travel-oriented than Google's.
"CD" could relate to any number of different people, businesses, or things. But there's one iteration of "CD" that stands out against the rest — compact disc.
Google decides to go with that iteration in its Knowledge Graph. It provides general information about the compact disc from Wikipedia with a "Read More" button below.
Bing goes for a more general approach. Their first result is for a compact disc, complete with an image, but they also offer a popular alternative to what CD could mean. Both listings include truncated information.
One of the important different details about this query is how each engine presents their information. Google shows a nice, brief paragraph that concludes with a period. Bing shows the first three lines to a set character limit and then truncates the rest of the listing, even if that involves cutting into the middle of a word.
They're two approaches to the same solution — but these small details can make all the difference in user experience.
20. Chicken Pox
Chicken pox is one of the most common ailments for children. It's not serious, but it's still something parents constantly research.
Google's Knowledge Graph uses the query "Chicken Pox" to provide engaging, attractive, and reliable information right away. The cards they present for medical ailments like this are endorsed by the Mayo Clinic or Google's own team of on-staff doctors, and they have a "Read More" button at the bottom for additional information.
By comparison, Bing's results are somewhat lacking. Their information from Wikipedia is reliable, but it's not as specialized or specific as what someone could get from the Mayo Clinic or licensed doctors. Still, Bing recommends similar diseases and search terms that could offer a more holistic understanding of chicken pox.
In this case, Google's results are more attractive, engaging, and reliable than Bing's. Google doesn't even resort to pulling from Wikipedia, which makes Google a more relevant solution than simply going to Wikipedia, like you could do with some of these other searches.
"Chips" is another multi-meaning query that could have results stretching from potato products to Silicon Valley.
But both Google and Bing bet that you're not interested in either of those options — they infer that you want to know about CHiPs, the TV show from 1977.
Google and Bing provide almost identical information about the show with Bing's Snapshot Pane showing more images and character names.
Overall, these are surprising results, considering how many things "Chips" can mean.
Christianity is the largest religion in the world. There are lots of denominations, but there is definitively one "Christianity."
So Google and Bing both know exactly what people want from the query "Christianity." But with 2000 years of world history and something new happening every day, where do they start?
For Google, the answer is to give a brief overview of Christianity as the world's largest religion and doctrine. The information comes straight from Wikipedia again, and they have a "Read More" option below the listing.
Bing goes for a more varied solution by showing websites and publications related to Christianity. So instead of going for a historical and overview perspective, Bing tries to appeal to people who may want to learn more about Christianity today. They point to other sources, much like regular organic listings, to encourage visitors away from Bing itself.
As one of the biggest holidays of the year, Christmas is also a popular search query. Like Christianity, there is only one Christmas every year, but what do you say about it?
Surprisingly, Google and Bing show almost identical information. They include the actual day and general information pulled from Wikipedia. And to round out the Snapshot Pane, Bing shows a few of the most popular Christmas songs, too.
So considering their options, it's almost remarkable that both engines show the same information.
"Cievero's" is a search term that has a lot of different options, but it's also a locally owned Italian restaurant in Harrisburg.
Google picked up on that, which is why they show the restaurant along with reviews and other local pizza places.
But Bing didn't, so they showed a song by Chilean band Astro.
In terms of commonality, you couldn't get much more different than both of these results. But once again, it shows that Google is hyper-conscious about local businesses.
Update: The results for this search in Bing have recently revised to show the restaurant in Harrisburg with reviews pulled from Yelp and similar restaurants in the area.
25. Darth Vader
Darth Vader is one of the most iconic pop culture figures from the 20th Century.
Google presents information on Vader from the perspective of Star Wars, meaning Google assumes that people already know Darth Vader is from Star Wars. Google's Knowledge Graph talks about Vader as if he were a real person, and they follow it up with a complete list of Vader's appearances in the Star Wars franchise and related Star Wars characters.
Most interestingly, Google isn't pulling this information from Wikipedia — they're pulling it from Star Wars Databank. So it appears that Google pays special attention to websites that are a more expert authority on specific topics than Wikipedia, which is more of a general fallback.
Bing, however, does use Wikipedia's information and discusses Darth Vader through the lens of a fictional character. They also include information based on his appearances in films and books, plus five people who played a part in representing Vader at some point. Bing finishes off their Snapshot Pane with a small collection of Star Wars characters similar to the one Google has.
26. Days of the Week
"Days of the Week" is a query that could result in almost any informational format. There could be a list, an explanation of the days' origins, why they're ordered a certain way, etc.
But Google and Bing both decide to show other information.
Google shows data pulled from a website about the names of days according to the ancient Greeks. Bing discusses the days from the perspective of the Romans.
Curiously, neither source actually addresses the English names for days of the week nor how they got their names. Both of those seem like pretty straightforward solutions to the query "Days of the Week."
Update: Google has updated its "Days of the Week" search to instead pull a YouTube video designed to teach the days of the week to children.
Bing has also updated its "Days of the Week" search to include more images and related searches.
Deconstruction is a philosophical and critical ideology that includes picking apart a piece of media and discussing it as you break it down. In literature, it's defined as "reading the text against itself."
Google is eager to define that word since it's a single-word query and a common noun. Google then hides additional information below a clickable button since most people probably just want to know the definition.
Bing takes it a step further and shows the same definition with the Wikipedia entry on deconstruction. They also feature famous people who employed deconstruction philosophically with similar searches.
The differences between Google and Bing here are minimal. Bing just wanted to include a paragraph from Wikipedia.
28. Eagles Record
"Eagles Record" might be one of the most fun queries in this list.
The differences between Google and Bing here are significant. Google interprets the query from the perspective of American football, and Bing interprets it as both American football and the legendary classic rock band.
Google's results are based on the idea that, at the time of research, it was football season. Plus, we're located in Harrisburg, which is about 100 miles away from the Eagles' home city of Philadelphia.
Bing probably saw those factors too, which is why they show standings for the Eagles' division in the NFL. But they also know that "Eagles record" could relate to an album released by the band the Eagles, so they include a much larger section of information on them.
That section is almost entirely pulled from Wikipedia, similar to Google's, and includes members of the band itself.
This search highlights the differences we've already seen between Google and Bing. Namely, Google tends to pick one option from a list of possibilities and go full force with it. Bing likes to look at different options and serve a variety of information.
You can't get much vaguer than a single letter, which is why we chose to run "F" through Google and Bing.
Google returns a small view of the stock ticker for Ford Motor Company. The Knowledge Graph is apparently pulling from any reliable source that shows "F" definitely refers to one specific concept or idea.
Bing takes a different route by giving preferential treatment to Facebook, which is arguably more popular than Ford. They also show Ford's stock ticker below the organic search result for Facebook, but the snapshot pane on the right exclusively deals with Facebook with information pulled from Wikipedia, the company's stock price, and similar companies.
Festivus is a made-up holiday from the sitcom Seinfeld. It's a non-denominational holiday celebrated with a pole, as opposed to a Christmas tree or menorah.
Google has some fun with this search by showing a Festivus pole along the left side of the SERP. The Knowledge Graph pulls a few sentences from Wikipedia and shows a simple photo, which is enough to answer most questions about Festivus — except one.
Bing answers that question by including the date of Festivus in its SERP. It also pulls an excerpt about Festivus from Wikipedia, though it's not the same excerpt that Google shows. Still, Bing answers the biggest question right away — but not much else.
31. First President
"First President" is a straightforward search that only has one result, depending on your location.
Google shows this result with a quick name and an image. There's a "Read More" tab below for quotes and other information about George Washington.
Bing takes a much more aggressive approach with its information. It not only tells you the same thing as Google, but also a huge biography and summary of George Washington's accomplishments. Based on location, Bing figures you probably want to know as much as you can about George Washington even though you didn't search for him by name.
32. Flying Buttress
Flying buttresses were all the rage in gothic architecture. As a result, they're used on many of Europe's oldest churches.
Google answers this architectural query with a few sentences about a flying buttress from Wikipedia with a small image and an opportunity for the user to read more.
Bing does the same, and it even pulls the same Wikipedia text verbatim. Bing includes a lot more images with its results, and it also includes a list of similar searches below.
Again, we have a scenario where both Google and Bing have imitated each other almost exactly. This is one query that would've been better used on Wikipedia instead of a search engine.
33. Generation X
Generation X is a group of people born in a 20 year window that came after the Baby Boomers.
Google offers almost exactly that information in its Knowledge Graph with a paragraph straight from Wikipedia and a "Read More" tab below. This format is identical to the format Google used for "Flying Buttress," which may reflect that Google shows minimal information about queries that aren't specific people or events.
Bing pulls the same text from Wikipedia as Google (again) and includes start and end dates for the generation. They also included similar searches in two sections underneath their initial explanation.
Searching "Google" on Google is fun mostly because it's so meta. But in this scenario, it's also informative.
For the third time in a row, Google and Bing show an identical paragraph of information from Wikipedia. Afterward, they show slightly different information — or at least similar information in a different order. However, Bing doesn't show that Google is associated with Alphabet. Google does.
It's also interesting to note that Bing's Snapshot Pane doesn't include Google's Google+ or YouTube page along with its social profiles. It could just be part of Bing's algorithm — or maybe they're intentionally avoiding Google properties.
"Gravity" is a confusing search for algorithms since it could mean so many things. There are tons of songs called "Gravity," there's a hit film, and there's also the physics theory of gravitational pull.
Google weighs all of those options and bets that you're looking for information on the film. Google shows the typical information for films, like its ratings and cast, along with places you can get it.
Bing takes a different approach by defining the word "gravity" as a common noun before listing the film and theory of gravitation along the side. Bing also uses fewer visuals in favor of more informative text.
36. Heimlich Maneuver
"Heimlich Maneuver" is one of the most famous ways to save someone from choking to death.
Google recognizes this, but they don't provide much information about it. They highlight an alternative name for the maneuver, "abdominal thrusts," and offer information about Henry Heimlich himself and choking in general.
Bing takes a much more proactive approach by offering full information on the method, tips for success, and other important tidbits. There's also supplementary information about Henry Heimlich and related searches on the right, but the focus is on instructions for the process.
37. How Did Marie Curie Die
Marie Curie is the physicist and chemist who's best known for discovering radium and polonium, the radioactive elements that probably led to hear death. As a result, Curie's death is a major part of scientific history because of its importance and its irony.
Google approaches this query with a highly-specific answer lifted from Wikipedia — "aplastic anemia." Then, Google offers information about Curie's life, career, and family in a brief Knowledge Graph on the side.
Bing takes more holistic, but less specific approach. They list Curie's cause of death as "anemia," which is vague since there are multiple kinds. Still, they list information about Curie's life, a timeline about her career, famous quotes, and similar biographical searches.
Google and Bing have largely similar results in this section. But it's strange that they both pull heavily from Wikipedia — sometimes scraping identical information — and they list her cause of death differently.
That seems to indicate that while the Knowledge Graph and Snapshot Pane get information in similar ways, they have key differences that can have major effects on SERPs.
38. How to Roast a Turkey
"How to Roast a Turkey" is probably a common search for both Google and Bing, especially around November.
Google knows this is a popular search, which is why they offer the first four steps of how to roast a turkey right in their Knowledge Graph. But if you want to see the whole process, you still have to click on the attached URL — and who only wants to half-roast a turkey?
Bing takes a more proactive route again by going through the entire process of roasting a turkey right in its SERP. This informative Snapshot Pane is perfect for anyone who wants to roast a turkey and doesn't want to spend time clicking around to different results.
39. Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Katrina was the worst environmental disaster to hit the United States in the 21st Century and one of the five deadliest hurricanes to ever touch US shores.
Google's record of this disaster is pulled from Wikipedia with a brief, two-sentence summary. The first stat it offers is fatalities — a humane and relatable statistic — along with wind speed, barometric pressure, length of time, and affected areas.
Bing takes a similar approach by taking information from Wikipedia, but they present it in a different way. Their first stat is damages in terms of dollars, which is a great way to represent the full scope of the harm that Katrina caused. They also have the dates of action, the highest winds, fatalities, and specific areas that were affected.
With slightly different information pulled from exactly the same source, this is another query for Wikipedia.
40. Jack Welch
Jack Welch is an American businessman most famous for his management of General Electric.
Google presents him foremost as a business person with a large image of him in a typical suit and red power tie. They also include an excerpt from Wikipedia that mentions one of Welch's greatest accomplishments — improving the value of General Electric by 4000%. Then, Google lists biographical information, notable quotes, social media, and similar people.
For the most part, Bing presents Welch's information in the same way. But Bing's first photo of him is much more personable than Google's, and an image that Welch himself used on several of his books. Bing follows that up with information from Wikipedia, social media, general bio information, and a timeline of Welch's accomplishments in General Electric. The Snapshot Pane wraps up with Welch's books.
The differences between Google and Bing here are a little odd. Google starts by presenting Welch as a businessman, but then offers alternative people for whom you can search. Bing starts by presenting Welch as a more relatable person, but then goes into his timeline at General Electric and the books he's written.
Still, either resource is a great way to learn about this executive.
41. Japanese Bow
"Japanese Bow" is a fun search term. It can either relate to the cultural phenomenon of Japanese people bowing to one another as a greeting or one of several Japan-only bow-and-arrow weapons.
For this result, Google doesn't actually have a Knowledge Graph. Instead, they just show a set of images demonstrating a traditional Japanese bow.
But Bing interprets the query in a completely different way. They offer information on the kyüdo, a bow weapon that was created and used in Japan.
Clearly, there's a slight semantic difference between Google and Bing, which we've also seen a few times before.
42. John Stamos
John Stamos is an American actor best known for his work on the sitcom Full House.
Google and Bing both pull information from Wikipedia to start their informational sections, along with links to social profiles and additional resources. They also link some of Stamos's TV shows and people similar to him.
But it's interesting to note how each search engine orders the TV shows. Google appears to order them by a combination of popularity and timeliness, judging from the fact that it starts with Full House, then jumps to a 2015 film, and then onto E.R.
Bing's Snapshot Pane lists Stamos's shows similarly, but they rely more on chronology than popularity.
Both options are good — it's just a matter of whether you want to know about Stamos in general or if you want to see what he's done lately.
43. Los Angeles Weather
"Los Angeles Weather" is a super-specific and direct search query.
Google answers it with up-to-date temperatures and forecasts, and Bing does as well. Bing also throws in a lot of general information about the city on the right-hand side.
Aside from the difference in temperature that they show, it's interesting to note that Google answered the query specifically while Bing attempted to answer it holistically.
Users on Google would know what they wanted, but users on Bing may find something new. This is similar to Google's previous tendency to pick one semantic possibility for a search query while Bing chose to show multiple possibilities to cover their bases.
44. Martini Recipe
"Martini Recipe" is another highly-specific query with lots of possible answers.
Google approaches this semantic issue by providing information on your standard martini, which is pulled from Wikipedia. There are extensive directions on how to make a good martini right down to the glasses you should use.
But Bing takes a different approach by supplying multiple options for martini recipes pulled from around the Internet.
Again, this is another example that shows Google's preference for showing lots of information about one topic in semantic searches while Bing likes to provide a list of possible options.
"Mean" is a vague search query that could have any kind of answer. It could relate to math, how someone treats someone else, and a whole range of songs.
Google bets everything on the hope that you mean (no pun intended) "mean" in the context of arithmetic, meaning the average number of a set of numbers. They also include possible meanings for linguistics and a popular song by Taylor Swift.
Bing offers a big range of definitions without focusing on just one, and most of the options have to do with linguistics. They also offer alternative semantics for the word, including Swift's song and arithmetic.
Another classic case of Google betting the house and Bing playing it safe.
Update: Google has slightly changed their results to pull from Wikipedia instead of Math Is Fun.
"Meme" is a term with two very different definitions. On the one hand, it's a sociological term that reflects the natural spread of ideas within a culture. On the other hand, it's a set of images with text written in the font Impact that follow a certain cadence or set of rules depending on what the image shows.
Google's Knowledge Graph presents options that are related to both pop culture and academia. The definition they offer is the sociological definition, but the image they show is focused on pop culture. Altogether, this makes for a confusing Knowledge Graph if someone wasn't sure about either definition of "meme."
Bing decides to go with one possible semantic option and discuss the academic meaning without an image. They also offer more information so users can get a better idea of "meme" as a sociological term.
47. Moscow Time
"Moscow Time" is a simple query that could basically only have one answer — the current time in Moscow, Russia.
Google shows this with a simple digital readout followed by the date, time zone, and title. Simple, yet effective.
Bing shows the time with a title, face clock, digital clock, date, and potential travel options for the city. Bing's travel-oriented results are most likely derived from the fact that we performed the search from Harrisburg, PA, nearly 5000 miles away. In that way, Bing is showing us what we wanted to know while passively suggesting we research travel options, just in case we want to make the flight.
"Mouse" is an ultra-general query that will probably have one of two results — an animal or a computer accessory.
Google goes all in on the fact that we're talking about the animal. They have a group of images and information pulled from Wikipedia, including the critter's scientific name and species divisions.
Bing is almost entirely convinced that we want a computer mouse, though. With the exception of three image results, the Snapshot Pane is almost entirely dedicated to mice that you would use with a computer.
This again demonstrates the interesting and seemingly random divide that Google and Bing have when determining semantics of a general query.
Update: Bing has changed its results to show results about the animal, relying heavily on the same Wikipedia entry that Google uses.
This is another query based on an acronym that could yield a number of results.
Google wants to bet that we're talking about Michigan State University, probably the closest and most popular incarnation of MSU near WebFX HQ. Google shows the school's sports schedule along with Maps information, notable alumni, and Google reviews.
But Bing isn't so sure they know what we're talking about. For "MSU," they served us with five possible options, all universities that use that acronym. To be fair, they could be right for any of these — and showing all of them just proves how vague this search query really is.
Regardless, we have another case of Google taking an educated guess and Bing offering multiple possible solutions.
50. Mt. Rushmore
"Mt. Rushmore" is guaranteed to return one result — the US national monument in South Dakota.
Google offers information on the landmark with images, Maps locations, and its own information. It actually treats Mt. Rushmore as a business, as you can see from the "Claim this business" link below the information.
Aside from that, Google also shows popular times to visit Mt. Rushmore and Google reviews for the landmark. As strange as it may seem, Google simply considers Mt. Rushmore a business, which still gives users the information they probably want.
Bing takes a similar approach but offers more images, a Bing Maps view, and information lifted from Wikipedia. However, Bing doesn't treat Mt. Rushmore as a business, and they include information on annual visitors as you would expect for a landmark.
The bottom of Bing's Snapshot Pane also includes an option to read reviews from TripAdvisor, implying a user may want to go to Mt. Rushmore instead of simply reading about it.
Surprisingly, Google and Bing treat this topic differently, but end with pretty much the same information. Even while their algorithms have their differences, sometimes it can still get the same results.
51. NFL Scores
"NFL Scores" is a simple and direct query, but it's also one that changes based on the week, day, and even hour.
Google shows a complete interactive piece that lets users click to different weeks to see the final scores from any game of the season. They even have preview videos and recaps that users can click for a more engaging presentation.
Bing shows a very similar screen, but they expand on the query a little more. Instead of just scores, Bing also shows information on the NFL pulled from Wikipedia and two recent videos that are relevant to the query.
The bread and butter of both search results are perfect for anyone who wants to check on their favorite team or get a quick recap of the season so far. Functionally, they're pretty much identical.
Update: Both Google and Bing have changed their results since the end of the 2015 season. Google now has no Knowledge Graph and only serves organic search results. Bing shows scores from the Super Bowl and news stories below the Wikipedia section of its Snapshot Pane.
"Obsidian" is a search term that could be a little hard to nail down for an algorithm. Most searches are probably going to revolve around volcanic glass. But a handful of users may want to know about Obsidian Entertainment, a video game developer.
Google's algorithm realizes this and serves a few quick lines from Wikipedia with an accompanying image. Then, next to that, they have information on Obsidian Entertainment, its CEO, and where it's located.
But Bing doesn't consider the company at all in their Snapshot Pane. Instead, they show lots of images depicting volcanic glass, a long excerpt from Wikipedia, and a list of similar rocks that users may want to research.
This is a strange case because so far, Google is has been the search engine to bet everything on a search result, while Bing plays it safe by showing alternatives. But here, it's just the opposite.
That means Google and Bing may have similar algorithms that aren't necessarily based on individual vs. holistic results. Instead, it must be something else that causes the thematic differences between the Knowledge Graph and Snapshot Pane.
"Orc" was originally an Old English synonym for "monster." But after J.R.R. Tolkien included orcs in his iconic fantasy series The Lord of the Rings, the fantasy genre in general has made "orc" a much more specific term.
Google's Knowledge Graph shows this by pulling a definition from Wikipedia and showing a photo that's similar to what many fantasy enthusiasts would acknowledge as an orc.
Bing's Snapshot Pane takes the same definition from Wikipedia and couples it with similar searches for fantasy creatures. They also offer more specific results for Tolkien's orcs and companies that use "ORC" as an acronym.
This batch of Knowledge Graph and Snapshot Pane results are more consistent with what we've seen from both search engines so far. Google is betting the house, and Bing is playing it safe.
"Ottoman" is another fun semantic term since it could relate to an empire that faded away in the 1900s or decorative furniture.
Google shows Shopping results for "Ottoman" first, and it's no wonder why — Google wants to make money, so why not show things for sale?
Afterward, they have a quick definition of ottoman as furniture, followed by a truncated blurb about the Ottoman Empire.
Bing takes the opposite approach. Their Snapshot Pane shows a truncated blurb for the Ottoman Empire first, followed by search queries for ottoman furniture. So Bing has a more historical attitude toward "Ottoman," but they're offering the same variety in results as Google in a different way.
Phish is one of the best-known jam bands in the world with a cult following that could rival the Grateful Dead.
Google interprets searches for "Phish" as a general query about the band itself. They serve information about the band's origins and membership from Wikipedia, and they also have upcoming tour locations. Below that, Google lists five of Phish's songs for curious potential listeners.
Bing follows a similar pattern by serving the same information from Wikipedia, plus links to the band's social profiles. Bing also shows the band's lead singer, five songs, an opportunity to see a list of albums, and a list of members.
The first interesting point about these results is that Bing doesn't apparently look at current tour schedules for bands. Otherwise, they would probably have the same dates showing as Google.
Another point is that Google and Bing don't show any overlapping songs, and they choose to show different information about them. Google shows the song title, year of release, and album, while Bing shows the song title and song duration.
"Polytheism" is a simple word to define, but a complex subject to research.
Google decides to only show the definition of the word to avoid potentially showing irrelevant information.
Bing shows the definition along with the first few sentences of the Wikipedia entry.
Both are functionally very similar — there's nothing in the definition that the introduction to a Wikipedia article can discuss in greater detail. But their presentation is notably different, especially since Bing has symbols it can use to attract user attention.
Although to be fair, Bing's results are somewhat redundant and the image shows several symbols for monotheistic religions.
Postmodernism is an artistic criticism following the modernist movement that accents a lack of resolution, incompleteness, and general despair.
Google's Knowledge Graph pulls from Wikipedia for this query, and it shows a slide as an image to add more context to the search. The image is most likely supposed to be an actual photo or graphic of something, but it's possible that Google wanted to include an image as a way of adding more text to the result in a smaller space.
Bing's Snapshot Pane tackles the same task with a definition from Oxford Dictionary on the left and a truncated paragraph from Wikipedia on the right. They follow this up with a list of similar search results so users can get a more holistic understanding of postmodernism.
58. Progressive Rock
Progressive rock (or "prog rock") is a musical movement that incorporates lots of complexity into the rock genre, usually pulling from jazz or classical influences.
Google offers the beginning of a Wikipedia article for this search based on prog rock's history. Below that, they also have its genre and derivative forms, which is a nice way to round out the map of how prog rock came to be and what it helped create. And below all of that, Google also shows related topics to prog rock, including famous prog rock bands.
Bing takes a slightly different approach, though they offer the same information from Wikipedia. Bing also offers five short clips of popular prog rock songs so users can sample the genre. The Snapshot Pane ends with five of the genre's best bands.
Altogether, there's not too much different between these results except Bing uses imagery, offers audio clips, and lists more bands. Still, Google's Knowledge Graph would probably improve if they added those qualities to their results.
Psychosis is a classified mental disorder that is both popularized and misrepresented in literature, film, and other media. Its basis for classification is an observable disconnection from reality.
Google's Knowledge Graph for this subject is actually one of their medical cards, similar to our "Chicken Pox" test. In this card, they offer lots of reliable information about psychosis that you would expect from a certified medical source since Google partnered with Mayo Clinic. They also let users download a PDF about psychosis for free.
Bing takes a different approach with an excerpt from Oxford Dictionaries and further information pulled from Wikipedia. They also offer several related searches.
In this case, Google has discovered and used reliable, sourced information for a serious health ailment. Their results stand out against Bing's in terms of visuals, reliability, and the quantity of information.
"Reading" is a heteronym, or a word that's spelled the same and pronounced differently based on context. That means it's a great chance to take a look at Google's and Bing's semantic algorithm.
Google recognizes that most people will probably want to know about reading as a cognitive process, which is why they show an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for "reading." But they also know that WebFX is near Reading, PA (pronounced "Redding"), so they threw in a small bit of information about the city to the right, including the weather.
Bing is also convinced that we're interested in the cognitive process, but they serve a long list of possible alternatives along the right-hand side that include Reading, PA; Reading, Berkshire; Reading, Massachusetts; University of Reading; and Reading and Leeds Festivals. All in all, that's a huge scope of potential alternatives all from one word.
Again, Google is taking an educated guess at what we want based on our location, and Bing is giving us practically every option they have.
61. Rory McIlroy
Rory McIlroy is a famous golfer from Ireland. Since there's practically no other variation in that search (sorry to any other Rory McIlroy in the world), this search boils down to a matter of presentation.
Google and Bing present the same information — with Bing adding another sentence to its introduction — with many of the same social profiles and the same list of similar searches. The only big difference is that Bing provides a timeline that highlights McIlroy's career highs.
This is another case where it would've been easier (and maybe even better) for a user to simply use Wikipedia right away instead of Google.
Jean Sibelius was a Finnish composer best known for his work with late Romantic and early Modern music. He also left behind a significant musical legacy that's represented by Sibelius Software, a company that creates composition programs.
Google is pretty modest with this search, showing shopping results for the software first, followed by information on the software and finally the composer himself.
But Bing is pretty sure that someone looking up "Sibelius" would want the software since it's more recent than, and arguably just as popular as, the composer himself. They even show the number of downloads the program has from CNET and a list of other audio software people could use.
This is another strange case where Google isn't quite sure how to answer a response, but Bing boldly selects one option and runs with it.
63. Thaddeus Stevens
Thaddeus Stevens was a lawyer from Vermont who served Pennsylvania in the US House of Representatives just before the Civil War. He's most remembered as an abolitionist who was either motivated by dreams of racial equality or a deep-seeded hatred of the South (or both).
There's also a 100-year-old technical college named for him in Lancaster, PA, his final resting place and a city close to WebFX HQ.
Google shows us results for the school only, probably because of WebFX's location and a time factor. Their information comes right from Wikipedia and Google My Business with a quick link to the college's Google+ profile below.
Bing chooses the exact opposite strategy and only shows us results for Thaddeus Stevens the politician. There's a nice bio of Stevens from Wikipedia with a timeline of his career and 10 of his photos.
This is an eye-opening search for figuring out how the Google and Bing algorithms factor location, timeliness, and historical significance into searches.
Google clearly favors location and business results over history, possibly because they're more practical than purely-informational knowledge about a long-deceased historical figure that represented rural Pennsylvania.
But Bing goes the exact opposite direction for any number of reasons. It's possible that Stevens' progressive beliefs and proximity to the Civil War made Bing think that the man was more significant than the school. It's also possible that Bing simply doesn't weigh local or business results the same way or their algorithm just prefers showing human results to places.
Any guess is as good as ours, but it's fairly clear that Google prefers locations and businesses while Bing prefers people.
64. TV Comedy
"TV Comedy" is another search term that could bring up any number of possibilities.
Google returns a carousel of some of the most popular recent American comedies. This is probably because Google recognizes that WebFX HQ is in the United States, so we'd probably be interested in American comedies.
On the other hand, Bing serves a small Snapshot Pane with a listing for Comedy.TV — the website — with a list of related searches and a series of image searches for "Family British Comedy," "Family Comedy," and "Anime Comedy."
These results seem less organized than Google's, especially considering that Bing is recommending searches for British and Japanese alternatives when their location software could (and has) pinpointed us in the United States.
However, the overall results are fairly consistent with what we've seen from both engines so far — Google is showing specific results, and Bing is showing a variety.
It's also possible that Bing gives preference to exact match domain names in searches for its Snapshot Pane, as "Comedy.TV" showed up in a search for "TV Comedy."
"Wind" is another heteronym that has multiple meanings, uses, and pronunciations depending on its context.
Google handles this semantic search by presenting weather results for the searcher's area. That's not a bad plan, but it's oddly specific for such a general search, especially when someone could simply look up "Weather" instead.
Bing decides to show lots of potential definitions for "Wind" based on context and usage, all of which come from Oxford Dictionaries.
Again, we have another situation of Google taking a calculated risk and Bing trying to serve all possible differences based on semantics.
66. World War 2
World War 2 was perhaps the defining event of the 20th Century.
Google handles this query by showing the start and end dates of the war as a whole, not just the dates that the United States got involved. However, they still list the United States first — potentially because it sees we're searching from inside the US — followed by the Soviet Union, China, Nazi Germany, and France. Then, there's a series of similar searches, which includes American conflicts.
All of this information is pulled from Wikipedia (except the similar searches), which is interesting since there doesn't seem to be a particular order in which the countries are shown except for the first one. The similar searches make a little more sense since they're all chronologically near World War 2.
Bing shows a set of similar results pulled from Wikipedia, but they show the results in a very different configuration. In addition, Bing only shows the war's end date, as opposed to the beginning of the whole conflict or American involvement.
Bing also lists the war's belligerents in alphabetical order instead of basing them on a user's location. Below that, Bing also serves some of the most influential figures of the war beginning with Hitler and FDR. Below that are similar searches, which are mostly similar to what Google shows.
This search is interesting because it shows that Bing doesn't always aim to provide relevant or holistic information all the time. Otherwise, they would've oriented their results more for an American audience and included the war's start date.
Google's results are a little strange too since the order of their belligerents seems random. It's possible that they're ordered based on the searcher's location and followed by the size of each country's army. And after a little research, it looks like that's how Google ordered them, since the USSR had 12 million in its army, China had 4 million, and Germany had about 3.5 million.
That tells us that Google's algorithm may be so sophisticated that it's designed to seek out hyper-specific information that's not just from one source. In other words, it could use the information and description of Wikipedia with the statistical information of another World War 2 authority to provide a comprehensive answer to a search.
"Wow" may seem like a lackluster search on its surface, but it's another semantic-heavy query. It can be an exclamation or an acronym, and when it's an acronym, it can stand for a lot of different ideas.
Google thinks that searches are searching for the video game World of Warcraft, one of the world's most popular titles. They pull information about the game from Wikipedia with a list of similar searches below and two organizations that share the same initials.
But Bing decides to highlight a company called Wide Open West, highlighting its Wikipedia information and similar searches. World of Warcraft is a footnote in Bing's results, and they choose to emphasize a company instead of individual products.
So unlike previous searches in which Google showed preferences to locations or businesses, this time they're showing preference to an individual product. This is probably based on World of Warcraft's popularity among gamers and how frequently it's discussed throughout the Internet.
Bing's results are probably based on similar relevancy signals, but they're just weighted differently in the Snapshot Pane algorithm.
Yeezy is Kanye West's nickname. It's also a line of clothing he created with Adidas.
Google's preference for products and turning a profit mean that they show Shopping results and the Wikipedia entry for Adidas Yeezy before West's bio. That way, users can see the products themselves and decide whether they want to buy. This is a little strange since West used the name "Yeezy" before his collaboration with Adidas, indicating that Google places a heavier emphasis on products than personal bios.
Bing interprets searches for "Yeezy" as another name for Kanye West, which is why they show his Wikipedia bio with a list of songs, albums, similar people, and articles. For Bing, this search is exclusively a biographical query.
"YHOO" is the stock ticker abbreviation for Yahoo!
Google interprets that query as a direct interest in Yahoo's stock price, which they show immediately. Then, Google adds the Wikipedia information for Yahoo followed by social profiles and similar searches. But it's the stock ticker graph that makes Google's results more useful than a simple search on Wikipedia.
Bing interprets the query similarly, but they show it differently. First, they start with Yahoo's Wikipedia entry and social profiles. Then, Bing highlights the "Trending news" on Yahoo followed by a numerical representation of the company's stock price. All the same information is there from Bing, but it's just shown in a more compact — and arguably less engaging — presentation.
Not every query triggers Knowledge Graph and Snapshot Pane results at the same time. There are a few standouts from Google and Bing that we'll examine now.
70. Google: The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything
This query is so long that there's no way anyone would look it up unless they read Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
In the book (or movie, whichever you like more), it's revealed that the number 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of existence.
It's just a fun Easter egg — one of many that Google enjoys.
71. Google: Equinox
Equinox could relate to astronomical phenomena, cars, companies, and more.
Google figures that you're probably most interested in the astronomy of an equinox, which they show with images pulled from Wikipedia with a text explanation below it.
They also show the most popular company with that name as well just in case you're interested in fitness instead of planets.
72. Google: Reddit
Reddit is one of the most influential social websites in the world, and it's lived up to its name of "The Front Page of the Internet."
Google shows information on Reddit from Wikipedia with social profiles below, just like it would for any other company.
It's strange that Bing doesn't use this to show information on Reddit. One possible reason is that they don't show information on companies — but that theory is shot to pieces if you remember how many searches we've already done for companies.
So, in short, it's not clear why Bing doesn't have a Reddit Snapshot Pane. Maybe they'll add it in the future.
73. Bing: 1990s
The 1990s was a decade characterized by boy bands, brightly-colored track suits, and either the best or worst music in history (depending on who you ask).
Bing has a Snapshot Pane for this decade — as it does for other decades — to provide a breakdown of the 1990s from Wikipedia. Strangely, they also include the start date and end date for the decade, which is kind of funny considering that it's so heavily implied.
Bing also serves a list of other decades with iconic photos and a list of searches related to the 1990s. Again, it's general information that a user could find on Wikipedia, but it's strange that Google doesn't have a matching Knowledge Graph.
74. Bing: Autumn
Autumn is a big deal since it encompasses three months out of every year.
But strangely, only Bing shows information on the season. And the information they show is probably what most people want to know when they look up "Autumn" — when it starts and when it ends.
With such simple information, you'd think that Google would show this in a Knowledge Graph. But, weirdly, only Bing does, which feels like a missed opportunity for Google.
75. Bing: Ska
Ska is a music genre that combines elements of jazz, calypso, and R&B. It helped lead to rocksteady and reggae, and it's characterized by a traditional rock band setup with horn and keyboard accompaniment.
So why does only Bing show information about ska in its Snapshot Pane? The information is fairly strong too, with a write-up lifted straight from the Wikipedia. But the "Related people" section is a little off since most of the people shown aren't ska musicians, and the single song it lists is arguably not ska. Still, Bing rounds out its Snapshot Pane with similar searches to provide more information.
With such an influential musical genre, it's unusual that Google doesn't have a matching Knowledge Graph. And it's even more unusual that Bing's Snapshot Pane isn't entirely correct.
Clearly, there are some underlying issues with both search engines that prevent them from offering reliable information. This is just one example, and compared to our other searches, it's an isolated case. But how many more queries are like this one?
76. Bing: The Oatmeal
"The Oatmeal" is the online pseudonym of Matthew Inman, a comic artist who used to work as a developer for Moz. His comics are often viral hits on the Internet, and you've probably seen his iconic artistic style at least once — even if you didn't realize it at the time.
Bing shows information on this iconic webcomic artist that's straight from Wikipedia with a link to his Facebook page. It's simple and subtle, and it's a safe bet that someone's looking for information on Inman since "The Oatmeal" is a pretty uncommon phrase to use by itself.
Again, this seems like a missed opportunity by Google to highlight a significant search query. It's possible that Google doesn't deal with pseudonyms, but our previous use of the "Yeezy" query proves that they do.
With that in mind, maybe Inman just isn't on Google's radar yet, which seems like an oversight.
Update: Bing's results now include similar searches for XKCD, Cracked, and other Internet comedy outlets.