Ask HN: Has Google search switched to infinite scrolling for you too now?

"Everyone in the organisation has metrics to meet, and those KPIs affect promotions and pay. If your KPIs are entirely driven by revenue/profit it ..."

That is how a publicly traded corporation works, whether you or I like it or not. When you get a listing on stock exchanges you are asking for investment from Tom, Dick and Harry. In return you sell your soul errr provide a return on that investment, in return for more investment.

I remember when I dumped Altavista from my browser and started using the cool new Google "Do no evil". I still have a pretty early gmail address, when it was invite only and 1GB looked like close to infinity or at least pretty bloody huge. I don't put anything useful into a Google thingie because I value my stuff. I'll be changing my search engine quite soon too.

It is all rather soulless and that is what saddens me. The whole raison d'etre for Google in the early days was to do good stuff, innovative engineering and so on. Then the profit motive or bust took over. It doesn't _have_ to but it did. Sadly the two cool kids with wonderful ideas were infected with the lust for world dominance or avarice or both.

I don't know what Google would look like if it had stayed private and stuck to what appear to be its initial values. I do suspect that Brin and his mate would still have been rich beyond my wildest dreams, along with a lot of other people. MS would have probably bought them or tried to.

Sounds like Google will crank up ads right up until the point it starts affecting their business. Then they'll back it off some.

Personally I hate it, but seems like the optimal way to run an advertising company.

Weirdly, the "downgraded" Google search experience I get in Firefox is more functional than the "full" one I can get through Chrome or the Google search bar on my phone. An infobox or two followed by a paginated list of relevant links, compared with all the noisy bells and whistles and sometimes multiple screen-fulls of sponsored content they throw into their modern SRPs.

What boggles my mind is that for many many people this is their lived experience. They experience an internet inundated by ads. It's in equal parts incredible, sad and depressing.

Shakes fist at sky.

Saying that as someone who has always used ad blockers but is also paying for the youtube premium family plan.

Quite.

I'm a Brit, so we have a reasonably good Public Service Broadcaster - BBC. We do pay for it, via the TV License fee, which is basically a tax but at least we have a PSB that is tied to the values of the country (the mandate is defined by the govt) and at point of delivery is "free" (cf NHS). Yes, there are a lot of caveats that I won't dwell on here.

If you watch BBC channels or iPlayer (streaming) then you will not see any adverts, at all. A film will run from the start to the end and then you will be told what is on next plus a few "ads" on what other content is available or you have to dig out the clicker from under the dog to find something else to watch on iPlayer. The BBC currently runs four main TV channels plus radio and a lot of streaming stuff and more.

We also have ITV (Independent TeleVision), C4 (Channel 4) and C5. These are all from the analogue days and they have transitioned to digital to be joined by quite a collection.

Oh, sorry - ads ... ITV, C4, C5 and others can show ads. Because they compete with the BBC which has no ads, ad breaks are rather short.

I remember when I first saw Sky (sat. broadcaster, now all media options). They owned the lot and could do what they liked, or so they thought, and were probably right. Ad breaks were horrendously long and more frequent (probably approaching US normal)

I think I'll pass on the Sky type options and get a grip! When you find yourself whining on a SM platform about something like this, I probably ought to get out more.