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

151–160 of 356 posts

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#151

Post by spiderfarmer »

capableweb wrote: post #135
harshitaneja wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was sued by Getty and had to make the change. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after...

The only thing they would have to change to make Getty happy is that when you click on the image, it takes you to the place where the image was used, instead of the direct url of the image. All the rest of the design choices was Google's, and we rightly blame them for purposefully degrading the experience of using Google Image search.

As website owner I vote for this solution. Right now many people don’t even know you can visit the source website.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#152

Post by spiderfarmer »

Animats wrote: post #100

This may be a major event in Google's history - the point where they overdid ads and started to be perceived as a inferior service. This is sometimes called "pulling a Myspace". Myspace was once the top social network. They looked unchallengeable. Then they got greedy. Myspace kept upping their ad content until usage dropped. Instead of backing off the ads, they upped the ad content even more to maintain revenue. Usa…

As an Adsense publisher, I noticed they enabled ‘Auto ads’ on every website, automatically. What this does is it plasters 15 ads in a long web page, it adds interstitials to mobile page and it just fucking ruins your websites UX. It’s enabled on millions of websites now. It’s like Google is desperate to make more money.

I can disable it, for now. I won’t be surprised if at some point in the future, they make it the standard and only behavior.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#153

Post by dreamer7 »

For a company that had the least distracting ads for a very long time, this is definitely a questionable move.

But, all the hullabaloo in the article about Ad links making money for Google v/s the others that don't seems misplaced. After all, the point of a search engine is to find stuff. And if an ad shows an alternative, that is possibly better, you can click on it.

These ad links are definitely not going to download malicious malware onto your devices.

I am more worried about ads on social media platforms with infinite scroll because those ads are more unpredictable in placement.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#154

Post by anonytrary »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #141
anonytrary wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't notice that. I never used exact dimension searches because more often than not, they eliminate all of the interesting results which I would have been able to crop/resize to my desired dimensions manually. It's better to have some results you can transform than to have no results.

They also had very useful "larger than 4MP", "larger than 8MP", ... options. It was easy to find very high resolution images.

Ah, yes, now I do remember those more useful options. I definitely recall using them once or twice. I can't say I missed it though (seeing as I clearly forgot about it). I guess someone who needs to do it on a daily basis would miss it more.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#155

Post by bostik »

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…

I believe you are conflating two things. AdWords and keyword-based contextual advertising was not problematic by itself. (And I say this as a person who absolutely hates ads.)

The problem is all the associated crapware, bloat, intrusion, bandwidth hogging, end-user hostility to point of abuse, dark patterns, intentional misdirection, A/B-test-optimised serendipitous confusion, SEO game-theory shenanigans, and ABOVE ALL the industrial scale stalking.

I've linked this piece a couple of times in the past three months: https://bostik.iki.fi/aivoituksia/random/no-stalking.html

Hell, I remember back in 2005 when I held a university course on basics of information security. The class laughed when I noted that observing everything a person does is called stalking when done by an individual, but as soon as its done by a large corporation indiscriminately and at scale, it's data-mining.

In the eyes of the law, only one of them is criminal.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#156

Post by bobcostas55 »

anonytrary wrote: post #137
harshitaneja wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google was sued by Getty and had to make the change. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/internet-rages-after...

I remember that, and I am a still a tiny bit salty about how it impacted me as a user. Ever since, it has been so unnecessarily tedious get the raw image link from Google. Half the time, I end up with a data url, sometimes I get taken to the backing website, who usually don't know anything about accessibility, sometimes I get the image. It's all just so much worse now. That said, it is absolutely theft for Google to…

There are browser extensions that add a link to the original image.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#158

Post by capableweb »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #151
capableweb wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing they would have to change to make Getty happy is that when you click on the image, it takes you to the place where the image was used, instead of the direct url of the image. All the rest of the design choices was Google's, and we rightly blame them for purposefully degrading the experience of using Google Image search.

As website owner I vote for this solution. Right now many people don’t even know you can visit the source website.

I agree, feels more fair towards site owners than hotlinking the image, which been frowned upon on the internet since... At least I started using the internet.

What is not fine, is to use that as a reason to completely screw up the rest of the design, when a small change could have been enough.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#159

Post by Ygg2 »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #151
capableweb wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing they would have to change to make Getty happy is that when you click on the image, it takes you to the place where the image was used, instead of the direct url of the image. All the rest of the design choices was Google's, and we rightly blame them for purposefully degrading the experience of using Google Image search.

As website owner I vote for this solution. Right now many people don’t even know you can visit the source website.

As an image search user. The number of times I went to the site only to find it either doesn't have the picture or requires a login would just make me mad.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#160

Post by vic-traill »

drno123 wrote: post #119
product50 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing like this is going to happen. Google Search is leaps and bounds ahead beyond anything else. And Google Assistant on top of this makes it even more effective. This was a mistake by Google and they heard the feedback and corrected it. MySpace analogy doesn't make sense since there is no Facebook, which was a competent social network, here. Search is a massive investment and you don't just have random companies…

I disagree about search result quality. I switched to DDG over a year ago and only need to use !g bangs when I search either for some specific local stuff or when I search for news that have happened in the last day or two. Actually, in some cases DDG gives more relevant search results than Google, especially for programming stuff.

I concur. I only occasionally use !g w/ DDG now, whereas two years ago it was more frequent (although I can't quantify). I stuck w/ it as I wanted some distance between myself and Google.

Whether I've achieved any distance is an open question and I suspect that it is less than it feels like when I use DDG.

The results are comparable in my current experience. Compage searches for 'bluetooth speakers' on Google [0] and DDG [1]. In my location (Canada) DDG returns national results which are preferred and relevant.

I like that on the DDG results page the ad is clearly separated from organic results and I get the results w/out a mapping insert. That's just my preference, though.

Even the results URLs speak volumes. I have no idea what data - if any - I'm exposing about myself w/ the Google result.

[0] https://www.google.ca/search?source=hp&ei=KyUsXtPGIIGL5wKRx7...

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bluetooth+speakers&ia=shopping

Post reply on HN