Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google backtracks on search results design

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 356 posts

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#41

Post by stevula »

jonny383 wrote: post #7
userbinator wrote: post #4

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22107823 Does this mean they'll also "backtrack" on their destruction of the URL? I was extremely disturbed and horrified when I realised that not only did they replace / with >, but also seemed to arbitrarily remove and rewrite pieces of URLs shown in the results (e.g. all articles from HM would show nothing more than "news.ycombinator.com > item", which was…

I opened Chrome on a friends phone (first time on Chrome mobile in years) and was shocked to see the url bar is no longer editable. It just gave me a weird context menu with a copy icon. I guess they really want to funnel everyone through search...

It’s editable for me on iOS. I would probably stop using it if they removed the ability to manually edit the address bar.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#42

Post by Rebelgecko »

saghm wrote: post #28
dredmorbius wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes: you cannot DIRECTLY edit the URL in the navbar. Nor, for that matter, can you click, ctrl-A (yes, Virginia, I have and use a Bluetooth keyboard). Instead it's click, then Copy Icon. Utterly blinkered. Oddly: Incognito mode is not (yet) crippled in this manner. Don't get me started on pull-to-nuke-whatever-you'd-been-composing-or-losing-your-place-in-infernal-scroll

> yes, Virginia, I have and use a Bluetooth clipboard I'm assuming from context that your mean keyboard, but the idea sounds kind of cool so I have to ask: any chance this is a term for a a bluetooth device solely designed to facilitate copy-pasting between other devices?

Logitech (and probably others) make wireless keyboards that let you copy/paste between different devices

edit: I should mention that I think this requires drivers on the computer end, so probably won't on iOS/Android

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#44

Post by gwittel »

hinkley wrote: post #29
gwittel wrote: post #10

While I’m glad they reverted, the doublespeak is absurd. As if they didn’t know users would hate it. User experience had nothing to do with this. It was all about revenue. The main question after this is what user hostile move will they attempt next? Without major changes all over the company I don’t see how Google will get better.

Don’t they have 100,000 employees that could’ve told them this just as well? You’re right this isn’t about UX. It’s about ego.

Either many employees did tell them it was a bad idea and they ignored them. Or no one told them. Both ways reflect very poorly on Google.

They rolled the dice hoping it would blow over. Government attention was likely the killer.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#45

Post by [deleted] »

svnpenn wrote: post #38
3xblah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This and the other stuff described in these discussions relies on Javascript, CSS or certain HTTP headers. If the results are requested with a simpler HTTP client that does not automatically execute Javascript or CSS, where we can control te HTTP headers, then these manipulations can easily be sidestepped. This is not "blocking". It is using a client that does not process JS or CSS, where we can easily control the he…

Blocking 3rd-party scripts, 1st-party scripts and even inline scripts doesnt do what you say it does. It not as easy as you say it is, theyre using server side scripts to mangle the URLs.

[deleted]

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#46

Post by janesvilleseo »

gwittel wrote: post #40
ehsankia wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it "backtracking" feels strange. They still want to put favicons in there, but as pointed out, the positioning is misleading since it's in the same spot as the "ad" icon. They will most likely just move it to another more unique position.

Favicon display seems rife for abuse. I wonder what happens if you put a favicon that looks like googles’ or that says “ad”. All sorts of fun to encourage clicks onto a malicious site because it looks safe.

Correct. There could be quite a bit of fun. This more than likely could work for sites not in the top spot. If you borrow the credibility of another brand you could get a boost. This click thru boost could then translate into higher rankings over time as you outperform your spot.

I have already seen seen some ascii stars in the URLs of Googles ads. There is always abuse.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#47

Post by dangrossman »

pieterk wrote: post #17

When will we realize that adwords and everything it inspired was a wrong turn for the internet? I’d much rather pay a monthly fee to get the services I want. I understand that Google and Facebook have gone too far down this path, and they will say such a service is not as profitable, but ultimately their business model seems unsustainable. People search for the truth, and while you can sell anybody anything, the trut…

As long as you realize the web without ads is a much smaller and less commercial one. That may be fine with you. But a lot of things hundreds of millions of people use every day would have to go away. Subscriptions can't replace ads, as individuals don't have nearly as much discretionary money to spend as companies have in their advertising budgets. We've already given them that money when we bought our groceries, and gas, and paid our bills for rent, internet, TV, phones, insurance, etc. It's not our bank accounts any more to reallocate to Google Maps or our favorite websites instead.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#48

Post by nostromo »

callinyouin wrote: post #43

For me it was the straw that broke the camel's back. When this change went live I decided to switch to DDG and it's been a great experience. Search results are, in my opinion, more relevant and generally of better quality. I wish I would have switched sooner!

I'm in the exact same boat.

To be honest, for a long time I'd role my eyes at the DDG users in every thread, talking about how it's hey, pretty good now.

Well, now I'm that guy, because I think it's actually better than Google now. It looks crisper, cleaner, has way fewer ads, and does less fuzzing of my actual search terms. I love it -- I'm hooked.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#49

Post by Invictus0 »

pieterk wrote: post #34
t223 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not willing to pay anything. The internet was built on good will, fun, and generally good intent. Now that it’s a mechanism of commerce it’s attracted the worst of the worst who have no ethics. Ethics courses will be taught in response to bad actors, not in anticipation of. I’m aware the cats out of the bag and all of the high paid engineers need to make a living somehow. I just don’t think it’s about the consume…

I’m so sorry to hear you have such a dark outlook. I totally agree, those companies are not about the consumer anymore, but that’s fine. That’s their problem. I see computers and the internet as an extension of ourselves, and so they still allow us to communicate with whoever and whatever we want. I’m so glad this community exists and we can express that. The worst part should already be over, you just joined hn. I’m…

This brand of techno-optimism is so tired. Who today still believes the old facebook line about connecting more people? It didn't work and it enabled automated surveillance on unprecedented scale.
Post reply on HN