Live data from Hacker News

Google backtracks on search results design

techcrunch.com

71–80 of 356 posts

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#71
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…

As long as you realize the web without ads is a much smaller and less commercial one. That may be fine with you. But a lot of things hundreds of millions of people use every day would have to go away. Subscriptions can't replace ads, as individuals don't have nearly as much discretionary money to spend as companies have in their advertising budgets. We've already given them that money when we bought our groceries, an…

The web is far too large, and far too commercial -- adtech have forced commerce into fucking everything, and fucking ruined it. Without ads, a lot of things hundreds of millions of people use wouldn't go away, they'd reduce to a more sustainable number of companies and products. The remaining products and services would have to work harder to be better to compete and attract custom. Your new startup might have to offer a genuine improvement or innovation to get traction...

As an example every single Amazon or web product or service search results in dozens to thousands of irrelevant, shoddy and worthless products and services that are far closer to an outright scam than something to use. That's without considering the vast array of true scams and fakes.

A web without ads would have a chance of being useful once again, rather than every single click being an opportunity to part me from more money. Perhaps with suitable heavy regulation we could have the best of both worlds, more like newspaper advertising of old. Just "enough" non-invasive, non-tracking, non-JS ads to provide information on new services and products, but with enough demands of honesty, escrow good behaviour deposits, or whatever constraints you can conceive to keep all advertisers well behaved.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#72
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling it "backtracking" feels strange. They still want to put favicons in there, but as pointed out, the positioning is misleading since it's in the same spot as the "ad" icon. They will most likely just move it to another more unique position.

Favicon display seems rife for abuse. I wonder what happens if you put a favicon that looks like googles’ or that says “ad”. All sorts of fun to encourage clicks onto a malicious site because it looks safe.

I would hope they've put thought into that and might even blacklist sites that try to steal other more popular sites favicons. I guess it would catch a lot of false positives with companies making new sites on new tlds that might share favicons.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#73

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.

Me too. So far I haven't felt the need to go back to google. I have found DDG's search results to match my expectations, with a few exceptions.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#74
post #70

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've set DDG as my default search, but it's frustrating how often I still have to make my way back to G.

Use !s

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#75
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…

As long as you realize the web without ads is a much smaller and less commercial one. That may be fine with you. But a lot of things hundreds of millions of people use every day would have to go away. Subscriptions can't replace ads, as individuals don't have nearly as much discretionary money to spend as companies have in their advertising budgets. We've already given them that money when we bought our groceries, an…

> 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 and platforms because they must necessarily be advertiser-friendly.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#76
post #67
post #3

I’ve been on the test for this design since October 4, 2019, so I’ve actually gotten used to it! But it’s probably a good thing for them to backtrack. I wonder what went wrong in their clearly lengthy experiment about how this would perform.

How did you remember the precise date? Impressed.

Searchable Slack logs :)

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#77
post #10

While I’m glad they reverted, the doublespeak is absurd. As if they didn’t know users would hate it. User experience had nothing to do with this. It was all about revenue. The main question after this is what user hostile move will they attempt next? Without major changes all over the company I don’t see how Google will get better.

> The main question after this is what user hostile move will they attempt next?

We can look back in history and make a well educated guess. It took me a couple of days to figure it out, but we HAVE seen this same game play out. Back in the 90s there was a search engine that started out pretty decent but eventually did their best (or worst) to make ads and search results indistinguishable.

It was called Altavista.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#79
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO the ads on Duck Duck Go are much worse / harder to ignore. At least Google puts the [Ad] icons on the left so they line up. DDG puts them at the end of the title so they are all over the place. Try to use it without an adblocker.

So you actually want the ads to look more like the organic results?

No, I want them to be visible and even to distinguish. The new design has a much larger [Ad] icon which helps with that.

I'm just saying that comparing with DDG is not a good idea in this case, since on DDG the ads look much more like organic search than on Google.

Re: Google backtracks on search results design

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

More like- how often do you edit a URL in the bar on mobile? It's a pain in the ass.

At this point one should question why it is pain in the ass, not how often does one edit it because it is. Browsers could easily show Notes.app-like editing window for a long urls. There is no reason to force it to be a one-liner, except that it is historical.
Post reply on HN