I tested Windows 11's overhauled search experience, and I think Microsoft has finally fixed it: Windows Search is now more accurate and easier to use 64%

By Zac Bowden58%

7/15/2026, 5:08:58 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Optimism Bias, and Overconfidence Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 63% saturation with 650 hits. Analysis detected 2,716 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,032 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.6% and a BS Rank of 64% (7,919 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.80% of the article peer group.

This week, Microsoft unveiled a major overhaul coming soon to Windows 11's search experience that's designed to fix its biggest flaws and criticisms. 
For a long time, many have agreed that search on Windows is pretty much broken, but the new changes that are now in testing may finally be fixing that problem. 
I've been testing the new Windows Search out over the last two days, and I'm very impressed with the new experience. 
Right off the bat, the search pane is no longer a noisy mess of Bing ads and sponsored content. 
It's a clean list of recent searches, exactly what you'd expect from a search pane. 
Search items that appear in this list are categorized so that you know whether an item is an app, document, setting, or web search. 
Hovering over items in this menu will display options depending on the type of item it is, such as apps which present the option to pin it to the Taskbar or run as an administrator. 
Quick options appear when you hover over recent search items. 
(Image credit: Zac Bowden / Windows Central) You can also right-click on any of the items in the search pane for more info, which displays additional options such as uninstall or app settings, open file location, as well as the ability to remove the item from the recents list. 
Getting onto the actual searching experience, it's a major step up. 
The UI is nice and clean, and web results now pretty much never show up at the top unless you are actively searching for a website or query that makes sense for a search engine. 
In the old Window Search, searing for "windows central" would always bring the Bing result to the top, but now it prioritizes my local files and folders. 
When a web result does appear at the top, you'll no longer see any ads or sponsored content in that result. 
The Bing results are now ad-free, showing only results that relate to your search query, which is amazing. 
You no longer have to worry about accidentally clicking on a link or app that has paid to be there. 
Web results are now more deliberate and ad-free. 
Zac Bowden / Windows Central Previously, searching "windows central" would show a web result. 
Now, it shows my local files that relate to that term. 
Zac Bowden / Windows Central I also find that search results are now more accurate based on how you use your system. 
For example, on a PC where I have both the Photos and Photoshop app installed, typing "photos" actually surfaces Photoshop, which is what I want. 
I believe this is happening because I've never opened the Photos app on my PC before, and so Windows assumes that I'd want to use the app I use more often or most recently. 
To test this theory, I ran Photos a few times and then typed "photos" again, and sure enough the Photos app was now appearing above Photoshop. 
To triple confirm, I started opening Photoshop a few times, and Photoshop became the top result for "photos" after. 
This is great for those who have a system set in place where all the apps they ever use are already in full circulation on their PC. 
Windows knows which apps you use most, and will now do its best to position them as a best match when it thinks you're searching for it, listing follow up results below it that you can manually select if that's what you need instead. 
Windows will surface a best match based on how you use your PC. 
As I frequently use Photoshop, searching for "photos" places it at the top. 
(Image credit: Zac Bowden / Windows Central) I also find that search is now a little smarter and more dynamic. 
If you don't know the name of an app, you can search for a category and Windows will do its best to surface an app that it thinks can do that job. 
For example, if I type "video editor" into the search box, Windows surfaces Clipchamp as a result, as that's the only video editor I have installed. 
Windows Search now also does a much better job at surfacing settings that you might want to configure. 
If I type "temp" it'll show delete temporary files, or if i type "wifi" the wi-fi settings page is at the top. 
Even things like "insider" now correctly surface the Insider settings page. 
You can now pretty much search for any Windows Setting and have it accurately appear in the search pane, without needing to open Settings first. 
Some settings even have configurable options within the search pane. 
For example, typing restart PC will show a setting to do so right from search, which then lets you select whether you want to restart or shut down. 
It's pretty neat, though most people will probably find it faster to just do that from Start. 
Settings are now better represtedn in search (Image credit: Zac Bowden / Windows Central) Overall, these new search improvements are a real strong step in the right direction. 
In my brief testing, I've not really been able to fault it, and understand why the best match results are what they are. 
Being able to turn off things like Microsoft Store and web results are also a great addition, letting you craft your experience into whatever you need it to be. 
If you only ever want local search results, you can make it so. 
It's clear that even in its default state now, local results are the number one priority. 
Unless your search query is clearly one intended for a search engine, Windows will more than likely place a local result as a best match, which is going to address the biggest complaint most people have with Windows Search. 
These improvements are rolling out now in preview for Windows Insiders, with general availability expected later this year. 
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.8%Zac Bowden: 6.0%Windows Central: 4.2%Confirmation Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.3%Windows Central: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Zac Bowden: 4.3%Windows Central: 4.6%Availability Heuristic12.0%This article: 3.1%Zac Bowden: 0.9%Windows Central: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.7%Windows Central: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Zac Bowden: 3.7%Windows Central: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias16.8%This article: 4.1%Zac Bowden: 6.4%Windows Central: 5.0%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 4.7%Zac Bowden: 0.5%Windows Central: 1.3%Loss Aversion4.7%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.2%Windows Central: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.3%Windows Central: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.8%Zac Bowden: 14.7%Windows Central: 8.0%Optimism Bias18.8%This article: 1.6%Zac Bowden: 1.5%Windows Central: 3.0%Pessimism Bias1.6%This article: 1.8%Zac Bowden: 5.8%Windows Central: 8.6%Negativity Bias1.8%This article: 6.1%Zac Bowden: 0.8%Windows Central: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 7.6%Zac Bowden: 1.2%Windows Central: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error7.6%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Zac Bowden: 0.7%Windows Central: 1.2%In-Group Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Zac Bowden: 3.9%Windows Central: 4.1%Halo Effect16.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Zac Bowden: 3.0%Windows Central: 2.2%Recency Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.2%Windows Central: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.3%Zac Bowden: 3.3%Windows Central: 3.7%Appeal to Authority4.3%This article: 3.8%Zac Bowden: 0.6%Windows Central: 1.7%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.1%Windows Central: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.1%Windows Central: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.1%Zac Bowden: 10.2%Windows Central: 8.5%Hasty Generalization23.1%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.7%Zac Bowden: 1.9%Windows Central: 1.1%Bandwagon6.7%This article: 4.5%Zac Bowden: 2.0%Windows Central: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion4.5%This article: 10.2%Zac Bowden: 1.1%Windows Central: 0.9%Begging the Question10.2%This article: 8.3%Zac Bowden: 5.3%Windows Central: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.3%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.4%Windows Central: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.5%Windows Central: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 63.0%Zac Bowden: 7.1%Windows Central: 4.0%Anecdotal63.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.1%Zac Bowden: 3.9%Windows Central: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 2.9%Windows Central: 3.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.3%Windows Central: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.0%Zac Bowden: 12.4%Windows Central: 13.9%Biased Writer Voice10.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 1.1%Windows Central: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zac Bowden: 0.0%Windows Central: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Zac Bowden: 5.1%Windows Central: 6.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.8%

1032 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers17%attributed speech858writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageMicrosoft • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageZac Bowden • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageZac Bowden • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageZac Bowden • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageZac Bowden • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageZac Bowden • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWindows Central • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Microsoft

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words13% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +96.6 ptsWriter: 3.4%Microsoft: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Microsoft: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.