I remember reading a thread about this move a while ago
Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
171–180 of 337 posts
Re: Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
#172I think it's a little too early to come to a full conclusion here. Google is constantly testing layout changes in SERPs and it seems like OP ended up in a test. The thread is 4 weeks old and I haven't seen or read anything on these changes anywhere but on this thread. I still think Google's general direction is clear with more webmaster incentives for structured data, amp and also Google just straight up answering qu…
I started seeing that version about 2 days ago
Re: Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
#173This is a purely anti-user move. No user gains anything by it, this actually helps phishing sites. Oh, and it happens to help Google's AMP effort, which can now pretend to be the original site even more effectively. Time to get everyone to use Duck Duck Go, and to get rid of those Google CAPTCHAs which are an even bigger data harvesting operation than search.
Do we have any recourse against this monopoly, other than voicing our concerns repeatedly while they ignore us? Can we launch a class action lawsuit against Google if they harm people by limiting consumer choice, and force us to be tracked everywhere using reCAPTCHA v3 and various other methods? Keep in mind that not sending your data to Google is not a real option, there are several government services, health care…
"Do we have any recourse against this monopoly, other than voicing our concerns repeatedly while they ignore us?"
There are a lot of Google employees (and potential Google employees) on HN.
So if "we" includes them, then yes, "we" could do a lot... like not work for Google.
Re: Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this is relevant. Even if it was an ab test, we know that Google is looking to remove url structures from search results.
It doesn't tell you that. For example, it could be an experiment to learn how much weight users put on the URL in choosing between results. (Disclosure: I work at Google, but I don't work in Search and don't know anything specific here)
It could be. But I would put my money on this being what it actually looks like: a way to test the waters on what kind of effect dropping visible URLs in results would have.
And if you work at Google, wouldn't you want to know? Maybe ask the search team and report back what you find, I'm really curious.
Re: Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
#175This is a purely anti-user move. No user gains anything by it, this actually helps phishing sites. Oh, and it happens to help Google's AMP effort, which can now pretend to be the original site even more effectively. Time to get everyone to use Duck Duck Go, and to get rid of those Google CAPTCHAs which are an even bigger data harvesting operation than search.
Would love to switch to DDG, but it consistently gives me search results that do not contain s search term at all, even when I wrap it in double quotes. So they give me thousands of non relevant search results.
When you run across broken searches like that, you can report them to DDG and they'll fix them.
Re: Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
#176This is a purely anti-user move. No user gains anything by it, this actually helps phishing sites. Oh, and it happens to help Google's AMP effort, which can now pretend to be the original site even more effectively. Time to get everyone to use Duck Duck Go, and to get rid of those Google CAPTCHAs which are an even bigger data harvesting operation than search.
Side note: For those who tried DDG in the past and were unimpressed I suggest giving it a whirl again. I kind of wrote it off a few years ago and then tried it recently and its pretty good. You may have to modify some search habits. If you enable location tracking they do anonymous localized results (can read about it here: https://help.duckduckgo.com/privacy/anonymous-localized-resu... ) Usually good if you're used…
Same here, switched my default search engine to DDG a few months and it took only a few days to get used to it. So much that I was very surprised to discover that I know dislike Google results UI (something I never imagined could happen). I still fallback to Google for advanced search (usually technical subjects) with !g but in the majority of common searches the DDG default results are what I expect.
Seriously to all people thinking there is no alternative give it a try, I switched my family and they don’t see a difference.
Re: Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
#177Whether this claim is true nor not, Google is able to pull such a move due to its monopoly. Most of us are against monopolies but don’t care about Google’s central position on our precious Internet. We should act up though. One day, it could be too late. I’ve been using DDG for around a year now after numerous failed attempts in the past. I, too, had been frustrated with some search results, but I don’t miss Google a…
Startpage seems to have been bought by an ad company.
Re: Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
#178I observed this with amused, scornful yet despondent cynicism when it rolled out for me a couple of months ago. (I'm in AU.)
It doesn't work. At all. (TL;DR click the links at the bottom, or keep reading and be prepared to reattach your jaw.)
In an age of technical illiteracy from both young people and old, Google has made phishing campaigns a million times easier.
I have no contacts inside Google, but I would (still) put decent money on the chances being 1000% that a very large security stink was raised about this internally... to apparently no avail. So I'm fascinated to see where this goes, security debacle, bathwater and all.
YouTube universally shows "https://www.youtube.com › watch".
This site consists entirely of the One True Path™ "https://news.ycombinator.com › item".
Google Books, similarly, stocks hundreds of millions of one particular title, "https://books.google.com › books".
GitHub often shows up as "https://github.com › ..." or "https://github.com › projectname" (yes, I'm not kidding, the repo author is elided from the URL). Looking forward to seeing how spammers take advantage of this.
Best of all was the one time I clicked something that _downloaded a file_ (it had Content-Disposition: attachment set). Oh, because it was an .mbox file; that makes sense... except the filename and extension were completely elided from the URL, so the random download was quite the violation of the principle of least surprise.
Shortly after the file download event, I decided to get in touch with Google to politely sort of go "what gives" in case anything interesting or insightful came of the resulting conversation. The Product Forums is basically "cat /dev/pitchforks > /dev/null" so I didn't want to get stampeded to death in there, and the various feedback options on the site feel like a surreal merging of /dev/urandom and /dev/zero so I was distinctly uncertain about pursuing those options either. So I decided to try https://issuetracker.google.com/.
Well, I can report that this little-known corner of Google, mostly used to track Android issues, is very topically focused and simply doesn't have the forwarding infrastructure (ahem, or policy) to handle anything else. At least the human at the other end was nice about it.
I took a screenshot of the thread I created (which only I can view), and put it up at https://imgur.com/a/K443Tkp.
While writing this post, I also decided to properly memorialize this insanity and added screenshots of all the examples in the bugreport to the above album. (Besides the small screenshot of LWN, all were taken today.)
Since PNGs aren't very clipboard-friendly, here's a copy-paste (expires: never) of my submission: https://pastebin.com/ksBEEG91
NB. Don't thrash against the New Way. It ensures your job security as a security consultant. And earmarks you as Elite, And To Be Watched Out For, or something. I don't know.
(Oh, and I took all the screenshots using super-sized Xvnc. Chrome's devtools' full-page screenshot function doesn't work at all with the issue tracker UI.)
(And I don't live anywhere near Hurstville. May GeoIP forever remain hand-wavily inaccurate!)
Re: Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do we have any recourse against this monopoly...? Once upon a time, Congress used to write and pass laws to protect Americans from egregious abuses of power like this. Of course, that time is long gone.
> egregious abuses of power like this Do you honestly think removing URLs from search results is an "egregious abuse of power?" This is the company that buys credit card transactions from Visa et al. and associates them with your maps and and history for the benefit of advertisers, and you're complaining about them removing a design element 95% of people probably don't care about?
Re: the phishing example, it's roughly analogous to a business refusing to put up caution signs around dangerous areas like slippery floors or where there's construction. It's such a small thing that could help prevent enormous losses from clients and yet they won't do it for shady business reasons.
Re: Google are removing URLs entirely from search results?
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
> egregious abuses of power like this Do you honestly think removing URLs from search results is an "egregious abuse of power?" This is the company that buys credit card transactions from Visa et al. and associates them with your maps and and history for the benefit of advertisers, and you're complaining about them removing a design element 95% of people probably don't care about?
I meant Google in general. It’s yet another tiny step in a terrible direction. At this point I would love to legislate most of Google out of existence, personally.
I don't really buy using legislation. Alternatives exist and people don't seem to care to use them. That's the market at work.