How old is the website? In some cases it might take longer for google to incorporate a new site into its search results. There are a lot of possible explanations, and it could be too soon to start worrying or reaching any definite conclusions, so maybe the best course would be to keep working on the site and trying to improve it in every way you can.

Yahoo use Bing so they should be the same although Bing local results are rubbish.

Do you mean that you are not indexed at all or that you are ranking too low to see for your main search terms?

I don't know how long G takes to index a site these days but in the good old bad old days it could be anything from hours to weeks depending on phases of moon and which direction the wind was blowing.

NB again I haven't looked into this recently but the position in the SERPS certainly used to bounce around for a week or two for a variety of reasons.

Chances are the problem is backlink related. Google is much more sensitive to low quality backlinks than Bing or Yahoo are.

The OP posted this "advice" about a month ago in one of our Blogging forum threads (and I won't dignify that thread by linking to it)...

...Dude try to build some links as well via blog commenting.

This kind of thinking is probably the root of the problem. Forum profile spamming is also a bad way to build backlinks.

See more thorough discussion here...

Poor ranking in Google but fantastic on Bing
Nov 2013
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4624483.htm [webmasterworld.com]

I won't speculate on the veracity of the OP's claims, I'm going to leave that up to you. My post below has nothing to do with the OP's claim and is just my opinion on the differences between Google and Bing in general.

I believe that Bing is less sensitive to links altogether, especially the bad links. Hear me out, please read my explanation.

Google SEO is popular because everyone thinks the recipe is simple. Anchor text, links, title tag, link out to some dot .edu's and you have first place ranking. Of course, that's ludicrous but the point is that everyone has a recipe for Google. Nobody has a recipe for Bing. Bing is a black box for most SEOs. Why is it?

One part of the explanation is that Bing is not married to links and PageRank the way Larry Page and Google are. Bing had more freedom to explore other methods for discovering quality and non-quality apart from links, which is focusing on content. And content is really what the big picture is all about, not links. Links are still important but not in the way that it's important for Google. The content and what it means, what niche bucket it fits into, what commercial/non-commercial bucket it fits into, that I believe matter more for Bing. Yes, links are still a measure of authority and importance but I believe not so much for the meaning of a page, at least not in the manner deployed by Google.

You didn't explain how you built and ranked your site.

Did you buy links?

Did you install Google WMT's to see if they had any messages for your site?

Nothing quite like a mod jumping with both feet on a post to make you feel like never coming back.

...Dude try to build some links as well via blog commenting.

Looking at that comment in context, it really isn't a proposal to spam everything that's ever been published. There are different ways to rank with search engines, making the OP sound like a spammer isn't really helpful to anyone.

Google doesn't respond well to some type of links. It is one of the few things that actually generates a reaction. Most other things will take 6 months before they will effect your ranking by which time you will have no idea which change was responsible. Google is a reflection of how sites performed in 2013 not 2014. I would guess tho that other types of links are still very important and might help you in 2015 once they get round to updating all their various outdated data.