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

Google timer

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 157 posts

Re: Google timer

#121

Post by mintplant »

Pxtl wrote: post #112
Lewton wrote: post #43

Yet again I am reminded that my google is not necessarily the same as 'your' google Just like how "define: something" doesn't show a dictionary definiton for me anymore, a functionality i used all the time. And now can't be sure whether was actually removed, or just removed for me!

They've been playing with the "define" feature for a while. It was gone for a bit, but it works for me now. The colon is now optional, which is weird.

The colon has been optional for a long time now, as I've been using this feature for years without it.

Re: Google timer

#122

Post by chubot »

marcamillion wrote: post #75

This totally freaked me out. I clicked the link to be opened in a new tab - and continued what I was doing. I heard that beeping sound, and was completely baffled where it was coming from (didn't sound like it was coming from the speakers). You should have seen me picking up papers on my desk listening to them. I listened to every potential port on my phone to see if it was giving off this sound. I felt like I was go…

Just happened to me TWICE :) Finally figured it out.

Re: Google timer

#123

Post by san86 »

netcan wrote: post #63
Lewton wrote: post #43

Yet again I am reminded that my google is not necessarily the same as 'your' google Just like how "define: something" doesn't show a dictionary definiton for me anymore, a functionality i used all the time. And now can't be sure whether was actually removed, or just removed for me!

Didn't come up for me on .com, only on .ie. I'm not sure why exactly, but I really hate this. I hate it that sometimes results have a news link and sometimes they don't. I hate that youtube suggestions are tailored to me. There are rational reasons. I want the thing I use to be there when I try to find it. But, I dislike it beyond the inconvenience. It just feels wrong, like I'm being probed.

I think the "tailoring to me" problem can be solved by logging out of google and doing the search (or search in incognito mode if you are a chrome user). However, I wish there was a way to turn off personalized search. That way, Google can remember what I searched (when I am signed in) for but not give me tailored results..

Re: Google timer

#124

Post by san86 »

numair wrote: post #6

If you want to break it, search for "timer for 23 hours 59 minutes 60 seconds" ... For some reason the code seems to be configured to max out at 24 hours. I am too busy dealing with my own broken JavaScript code to take a look, but maybe someone here can view source and figure out why they made that decision?

it's times like these where I wish they still had the "Beta" in their logo.. turns out "timer for 23 hours 99 minutes" breaks it too :P

more testing google.. more testing

Re: Google timer

#125

Post by thrownaway2424 »

marcamillion wrote: post #75

This totally freaked me out. I clicked the link to be opened in a new tab - and continued what I was doing. I heard that beeping sound, and was completely baffled where it was coming from (didn't sound like it was coming from the speakers). You should have seen me picking up papers on my desk listening to them. I listened to every potential port on my phone to see if it was giving off this sound. I felt like I was go…

Same. I just marched all over the office looking for the annoying beeping sound.

Re: Google timer

#126

Post by deong »

thomasd wrote: post #23
martin-adams wrote: post #8

Interesting side effect. There's this web site: http://www.online-stopwatch.com/timer/1hour/ which comes up top of the google search results for "timer for 1 hour" for me. Now there is absolutely no way they can compete with Google's own offering from an SEO perspective. While this example is trivial to some extent, does it set a precedent that while you can advertise and compete with Google, they can always have the…

I believe they have Facebook envy and now wants to keep every visitors they get on the site for as long as possible, just like Facebook. This is a departure away from their original philosophy in which their goal was to send users to the most relevant site for the user query as fast as possible. I hope they haven't forgotten that the reason Yahoo lose out to Google was precisely because of this. Yahoo switched their…

Yahoo! didn't switch their vision from a search engine. Yahoo! was a portal long before it was a search engine. In ye olden times, Yahoo! maintained a curated list of hierarchically organized links. That was their core product.

I would argue that Yahoo! lost to Google because Yahoo!'s business was in approximating a solution to a problem that users had, and Google came along and figured out a way to much more directly address that problem. Curated lists were better than nothing, and for a long time, it was the best thing available. Google simply built a new type of thing that made the old way immediately obsolete.

Re: Google timer

#127

Post by runarb »

Zoepfli wrote: post #55
Lewton wrote: post #43

Yet again I am reminded that my google is not necessarily the same as 'your' google Just like how "define: something" doesn't show a dictionary definiton for me anymore, a functionality i used all the time. And now can't be sure whether was actually removed, or just removed for me!

Doesn't work for me neither. Might be because I'm in Europe. The given URL redirects to www.google.de

Works for me when I am not logged in (Chrome incognito mode).

Re: Google timer

#129

Post by hnriot »

Amadou wrote: post #104
rfergie wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you blocked javascript? All that kind of stuff disappeared for me when I installed noscript

Have you blocked javascript? I believe you have identified the cause. Switching javascript off and on between queries makes the define: operator stop working and then return to working. I block cookies and don't log into google in both cases. Silly, lazy, javascript-loving google, it used to work just fine without javascript and I don't see anything particularly special about how it works now that should require java…

you need javascript to use the modern web. If you turn it off, stop whining that you've lost functionality. You didn't lose anything, you turned it off.

Re: Google timer

#130

Post by dragonwriter »

martin-adams wrote: post #66
ok_craig wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lesson: don't put to much stock into a product that can be replaced by a few lines of code on a search result page.

That's exactly my point. What if it wasn't a few lines of code, but something with a hefty investment in, then Google comes in with their own and just puts them top of the list because they can. Users don't get the choice because Google prioritise their own.

> That's exactly my point. What if it wasn't a few lines of code, but something with a hefty investment in, then Google comes in with their own and just puts them top of the list because they can. Users don't get the choice because Google prioritise their own.

Even with the google thing that does the function at the top, users have the choice. If it was a "I'm Feeling Lucky" style redirect (but always to a Google service with no search results page) whenever the query fit a format that keyed a Google-provided service, then the user wouldn't have the choice, but giving you a thing that provides what you think you want as well as links to other pages that might either do what you want or have the information you want doesn't deny you the choice of using those other pages instead of Google's tool.

Post reply on HN