Google backtracks on search results design • Hacker News Board

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#101

Post by falcor84 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:19 AM UTC

t223 wrote: post #22

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’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…

>The internet was built on good will, fun, and generally good intent.

The main catalyst for the internet was the fear of nuclear war, as exemplified in this influential RAND paper from 1960 [0], which led to the investment in ARPANET. I'm not disputing good will and good intent, but I don't think fun had much to do with it.

[0] http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P1995....

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#102

Post by gundmc » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:32 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #13

Arainach wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right next to that copy icon is a pencil - the edit icon.

In other words, an obfuscation of functionality that clearly shows their attempts at behavioural conditioning.

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

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#103

Post by jophde » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:34 AM UTC

monadic2 wrote: post #39

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 would definitely pay, but not through a middleman like google. We need to return to a decentralized, peer to peer internet where media companies are not beholden to advertisers (a very old problem). Technology presents the first real chance to implement this. A non-trivial part of the media’s (eg newspapers, news sites, cable news) is due to advertising, including “cancel culture” itself (the name dates back to pre…

I listen to a podcast called the No Agenda Show that has sustained itself for about 10 years on a value for value model. Listeners donate what they want and there are never any ads. I think the model is applicable elsewhere. Granted it won’t make someone rich but someone can make a living.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#104

Post by input_sh » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:36 AM UTC

guerrilla wrote: post #15

jonny383 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 really scary. And it's a shame Firefox is so slow on mobile...

A complete re-do of Firefox on Android hit Nightly. It'll replace current version of Firefox (stable) in the first half of 2020.

Judging by the current state, it'll arrive with no add-on support, which I honestly hope doesn't happen.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#105

Post by olalonde » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:36 AM UTC

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…

I'd say the customizable CSS was worse than the ads (search for "ugly myspace pages" in Google Images).

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#106

Post by jophde » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:40 AM UTC

The original version of Ad Words always seemed ethical to me. Its simply showing users ads for something they were looking at the present moment. Mixing results and ads is bad. We know for a fact the first couple hits are clicked at a much higher rate.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#107

Post by gdm85 » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:45 AM UTC

I think that a constant pressure to optimize this specific aspect (layout) has caused this. However, optimization is not innovation.

What are novel ways that search results can be presented to (and consumed by) the user? Where is search going in the future?

I am a bit surprised to not see them on top of this game, but at the same time it would be a ripe chance for someone else to give it a spin (assuming that they have a sizable number of users to begin with).

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#108

Post by toastal » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:49 AM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #105

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…

I'd say the customizable CSS was worse than the ads (search for "ugly myspace pages" in Google Images).

That was actually the most interesting part of MySpace. Sure, you could get bad designs, but there was an ability to express one's self that you can't do beyond the header image--much like the amateur GeoCities aesthetic we admire. MySpace and GeoCities were why and where I started to learn CSS.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#109

Post by IshKebab » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:51 AM UTC

olalonde wrote: post #105

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…

I'd say the customizable CSS was worse than the ads (search for "ugly myspace pages" in Google Images).

Definitely. MySpace was killed because Facebook was superior. And Facebook was superior because it didn't look like shit, people used real names and real photos of themselves, and they did that because it was only available to university students so it was quite a bit more private than MySpace. It didn't really have anything to do with ads.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#110

Post by toyg » Sat, Jan 25, 2020, 8:56 AM UTC

Klonoar wrote: post #99

bit_logic wrote: post #51

It's too late, lasting damage has been done. This redesign made me seriously look at DDG and I'm impressed with what I found.

I suspect you greatly underestimate how much the average person didn't really care here. In the moment, yeah, this matters - but Google still beats DDG for certain classes of results and people go where the easiest experience is. I say this as a user of DDG. ;P

People don’t really compare that hard. If DDG’s experience is intuitively easier than Google’s in the first minutes (because there are no ads and results are good enough), people will switch.

The real problem is the “embedness” level of Google is much higher than any search engine achieved before: a switcher must make a pretty serious effort to change browser settings, change tools etc, and you can bet top dollars that Google will pull all monopolistic tricks in the book as soon as they feel their position is truly challenged. This is a scenario akin to Microsoft vs office open standards back in the ‘00s.