Google backtracks on search results design • Hacker News Board

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#281

Post by zepto » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

bostik wrote: post #155

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 A…

I don’t think there is any conflation. AdWords is the incentive structure that creates all of the hazards you listed - it is the cause.

In the same way we could say the cholera virus is not by itself a problem - it is the associated symptoms that are the problem.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#282

Post by karinakarina » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

uoylj wrote: post #52

sgc wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After many tries at ddg, I am using startpage.com since it uses anonymized google results. Still far from perfect, but the best I have found for now.

startpage was purchased by an ad company last year.

Is that your main concern about Startpage? As a Startpage person, maybe I can shed some light on this. Last year, Startpage announced an investment in Startpage by System1 through Privacy One Group, a wholly-owned subsidiary of System1. With this investment, the plan is to further expand privacy features & reach new users. The Startpage founders have control over the privacy components of Startpage. More info - https://support.startpage.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Artic...

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#283

Post by shadowgovt » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

AJ007 wrote: post #178

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…

The URL seems way more important to me than the favicon / ad issue. Its an issue, but the users who can't see the difference didn't know they've been clicking on ads for the past 10 years. #1 What does Google want the web to look like? Look at Google News. #2 Google gets to hijack 20%~ of the screen space to get users to install their own apps, and go back to Google, not onward to the publisher's own website. #3 Remo…

> where no one but the most technical users can go where they want

In what sense?

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#284

Post by shadowgovt » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #27

dragonwriter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It just gave me a weird context menu with a copy icon. Share, copy, and edit icons. While I'm not a big fan of it, it probably fits the frequency and relative friction of interactions on mobile better than the previous UI.

There is no other reason, than their desire to "herd" uesrs, why they could not have the additional options to share/copy and have it behave like any other edit control, i.e. you can tap the other icons to copy or share, and more importantly still start editing it without going an extra step.

Did their usage numbers show most people wanted to hand-edit the bar or just copy it?

If the latter, the default behavior gets in the way of the critical path.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#285

Post by shadowgovt » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

jonny383 wrote: post #204

wffurr wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you are saying is the most common actions, copy and share, were behind a confusing an easy to mess up long press gesture. A whole lot of people in this thread have never watched a normal person use a smartphone in a UX study.

I'm saying it operates as mobile users have learnt to use over the past decade (and how the rest of the OS UI works).

There are enough new active daily users on mobile devices for the UX that users have learned over the past decade to be less relevant than whether an average user is confused.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#286

Post by shadowgovt » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 9:29 PM UTC

californical wrote: post #134

gundmc wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has gone off the deep end in reading conspiratorial motivations behind every UI change and tweak.

I don't think it's a conspiracy -- If you can't go to expedia.com as easily as you can Google search Expedia, you'll probably do the later. And if you Google search Expedia, the first result is usually an ad for Expedia. Now Google makes money on you in a way they hadn't before. The more people expect Google to deal with all of the silly "web domain stuff" for them, the more money Google makes. It's all about the inc…

At least an Android, any URL you can navigate to you can pin to the home screen. This seems a week way to force behavior people go to the same place commonly.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#287

Post by shadowgovt » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

californical wrote: post #134

gundmc wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has gone off the deep end in reading conspiratorial motivations behind every UI change and tweak.

I don't think it's a conspiracy -- If you can't go to expedia.com as easily as you can Google search Expedia, you'll probably do the later. And if you Google search Expedia, the first result is usually an ad for Expedia. Now Google makes money on you in a way they hadn't before. The more people expect Google to deal with all of the silly "web domain stuff" for them, the more money Google makes. It's all about the inc…

> There are likely no ethics meetings on the implications on society

with respect, I don't think there would be an ethics meeting scenario about whether the default interaction for tapping the URL bar is copy or edit that would find any ethical concerns, besides "nerds will be annoyed we moved their cheese."

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#288

Post by scarface74 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

clarry wrote: post #228

matheusmoreira wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as you realize the web without ads is a much smaller and less commercial one. This is fine. People should make web pages because they have something to say, not because they want to make money. Since the advertisers can stop supporting a site, they effectively become the arbiters of right and wrong on the internet. Anything paid for by ads is inherently worse and less trustworthy than independent creations…

I fully agree, and furthermore, I think that if ad-supported sites were wiped out, the people who genuinely cared about the content would come out and make a replacement with just the useful content. People who have a need find a way. Right now I can't think of any ad-supported site that I critically need. It could all go away and my web experience would probably be better for it.

You realize the entire purpose of HN is to advertise jobs for YC companies?

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#289

Post by userbinator » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 9:54 PM UTC

jonny383 wrote: post #94

dragonwriter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Okay I didnt see that. But why is this necessary? Probably because URL copy or share (the two icons besides edit than the new UI provides) are more common interactions than URL editing, and are (without a keyboard and with a traditional text edit control for the URL bar) higher friction; this streamlines the common usecases at the cost of adding an extra tap for URL editing.

The old version opened with the text fully selected. You could either type a query and overwrite the text, edit the url, or tap and hold to get... Low and behold, copy and share. The only thing they have added is confusion and behavorial conditioning. I see no benefits of the "new" way.

If they wanted to make copy/share/whatever else easier, they could've just made those buttons appear with the first tap, but also not change the immediate editability of the selected text like it was before. That's why all those other comments here about how they made copy and share easier are beside the point --- it's definitely possible to do that without making editing harder. Sadly it seems the skill of adding new functionality and making things easier without breaking existing functionality and making things harder is not common these days... but that's really what I think people making changes should focus on and deeply consider.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#290

Post by pieterk » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 10:30 PM UTC

Invictus0 wrote: post #269

rapnie wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are still many wonderful niches on the web, and by going there - while avoiding the bad stuff - we strengthen them so they don't disappear as well. As techies we have an opportunity here to bring them more to the front, by the technology choices we make and the projects we contribute to, the awareness we raise.

You're missing the factory for the dandelions growing in the parking lot. Weird niche personal pages and projects are just distractions from the massive power struggle that is being fought by corporations and governments for the minds and personal data of every human on earth.

There’s a massive power struggle indeed, but if you look who’s really behind those organizations, you’ll see people just like you and me, imperfect minds in funky bodies that came from the same place we all once did.

World leaders and CEOs go to bed every night just like us, they speak, poop, and reproduce at the same rate as everyone else. Corporations and governments are nothing more than contracts to benefit those very same people, us. Even though there’s not an equal benefit to everyone involved.

If those contracts fail, and our freedom and liberty is at risk like you say, we ought to renegotiate. It seems, if you listen carefully, that’s what the world is currently choosing to do.