October 1, 2001
9:26 PM Subscribe
Whoa! Google adds graphics to their interface, and not only that, but they're a tabbed interface. I hope they've done extensive testing before choosing such a limiting method of navigation.
Screenshot, in case this is a beta thing or test case.
Now the question is, what if they add a new feature? Another tab? Shrink the existing tabs? Tab mountain anyone? Will the rest of their site become tabbed?
posted by mathowie at 9:30 PM on October 1, 2001
Now the question is, what if they add a new feature? Another tab? Shrink the existing tabs? Tab mountain anyone? Will the rest of their site become tabbed?
posted by mathowie at 9:30 PM on October 1, 2001
No graphics, just some splendid HTML to create the tabbed effect. Phew..
posted by winterdrm at 9:32 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by winterdrm at 9:32 PM on October 1, 2001
jmd82, just for your information, if you're using Yahoo and Dogpile, you're using Google.
I didn't know there were any MeFi users who didn't search with Google first.
posted by anildash at 9:34 PM on October 1, 2001
I didn't know there were any MeFi users who didn't search with Google first.
posted by anildash at 9:34 PM on October 1, 2001
Strange—those graphics are already pretty slim, and could have been acheived in CSS.
Still, the interface is clean, and not much of an impediment to getting to where you want to go. Amazon it still ain't.
posted by Down10 at 9:34 PM on October 1, 2001
Still, the interface is clean, and not much of an impediment to getting to where you want to go. Amazon it still ain't.
posted by Down10 at 9:34 PM on October 1, 2001
Can I just be the first to say I preferred it as it was before?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:35 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:35 PM on October 1, 2001
Well yeah, it's CSS, which is cool. It seems to unify the site's search properties much more than they were doing previously, but it still seems somewhat limiting to choose this method over the others.
Also, I just noticed the search and image search colors are both shades of blue. Couldn't they have used red/yellow/purple to differentiate that more?
posted by mathowie at 9:36 PM on October 1, 2001
Also, I just noticed the search and image search colors are both shades of blue. Couldn't they have used red/yellow/purple to differentiate that more?
posted by mathowie at 9:36 PM on October 1, 2001
I know tabbed interfaces are the handiwork of Satan, and it is short-sighted, but I'm groovin' on the ability to take your search from the regular search engine, to Usenet, to dmoz in a couple of clicks. Then again, I can be a bit of a research wonk.
posted by jess at 9:37 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by jess at 9:37 PM on October 1, 2001
You have to admit that having the USENET group search use a baby-poop yellow as its color theme is hilariously appropriate.
posted by kindall at 9:38 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by kindall at 9:38 PM on October 1, 2001
Wow, that's confusing. All of the tabbed pages have a Google Search on them. Do they all search the same thing? Does a search on the Images page search only images? If you didn't know what Usenet is, the Groups page doesn't offer much help. It really needs a link to a history of Usenet and a help overview.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:41 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by kirkaracha at 9:41 PM on October 1, 2001
i also liked the old way, but if you go to
GOOGLE IE it is a slimmed down version of google with no silly tabs or graphics.
posted by lord_poopington at 9:44 PM on October 1, 2001
GOOGLE IE it is a slimmed down version of google with no silly tabs or graphics.
posted by lord_poopington at 9:44 PM on October 1, 2001
I'll be the second to say I preferred the old Google, Miguel. The best thing was how Google used to be just a text field to search with, and nothing else (like crap to get in the way).
posted by lnicole at 9:44 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by lnicole at 9:44 PM on October 1, 2001
Say what you want about tabs, these work for me. If anyone wants to propose an idea for a better interface in this thread, I'd love to hear it.
I still think their results page links (
) should be repeated at the top of the page, as well as the bottom. It's never been very intuitive, and having to scroll down and locate it just makes it worse.
posted by waxpancake at 9:46 PM on October 1, 2001
I still think their results page links (
) should be repeated at the top of the page, as well as the bottom. It's never been very intuitive, and having to scroll down and locate it just makes it worse.posted by waxpancake at 9:46 PM on October 1, 2001
I like the tabs. Sure, they clutter up the page (which sucks), but they're useful. I was just wishing for something like this the other day.
posted by gd779 at 9:48 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by gd779 at 9:48 PM on October 1, 2001
anildash- *insert foot into mouth (me)*
also, What do you mean i already use Google if i use yahoo or dogpile?
posted by jmd82 at 9:51 PM on October 1, 2001
also, What do you mean i already use Google if i use yahoo or dogpile?
posted by jmd82 at 9:51 PM on October 1, 2001
Okay. I see no tabs. I must be a loser in the Beta game (or winner, depending on your POV).
posted by kokogiak at 9:53 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by kokogiak at 9:53 PM on October 1, 2001
Kokogiak: They're still there for me. Try searching for something. Maybe you're getting a cached copy.
jmd82: Yahoo and Dogpile's search engine functionality is provided entirely by Google.
posted by waxpancake at 10:00 PM on October 1, 2001
jmd82: Yahoo and Dogpile's search engine functionality is provided entirely by Google.
posted by waxpancake at 10:00 PM on October 1, 2001
Google has gone back to being 'Old Google'. I guess it was a beta test of some sort. Looking at Matt's screen shots, I'd say they are CSS/Text buttons and not images.
I like the new approach. Not everyone is uber-search-meister. Many millions who are new to the web might not know how to access the news groups from the groups.google.com server, or go directly to image searches from images.google.com, even though the text links are right there under the search field. They have also added a language tools link on the new interface. The language tools were available from the preferences and advanced search options. I am sure Google's internal tests have mirrored many other focus group surveys that people respond much better to buttons than to text links. They are just trying to make it easier for people to find their services.
And for the color of the buttons, I think the active pane would be of the darker shade of blue and the inactive panes would be of the lighter shade of powder-blue just to indicate the 'active state.' Matt, a different color of the buttons would also require a sort of indicator of the same color to indicate to the user of the 'active state' or which pane he is looking at.
Re-reading what I just wrote, it seems that Google is trying to idiot-proof their site. A whole lot their site is just so intuitive and minimalist, anything more is just an attempt to capture the 'idiot market.' Then again, there are millions of idiots on the web, and a whole lot of them would never really figure out Google.
posted by tamim at 10:06 PM on October 1, 2001
I like the new approach. Not everyone is uber-search-meister. Many millions who are new to the web might not know how to access the news groups from the groups.google.com server, or go directly to image searches from images.google.com, even though the text links are right there under the search field. They have also added a language tools link on the new interface. The language tools were available from the preferences and advanced search options. I am sure Google's internal tests have mirrored many other focus group surveys that people respond much better to buttons than to text links. They are just trying to make it easier for people to find their services.
And for the color of the buttons, I think the active pane would be of the darker shade of blue and the inactive panes would be of the lighter shade of powder-blue just to indicate the 'active state.' Matt, a different color of the buttons would also require a sort of indicator of the same color to indicate to the user of the 'active state' or which pane he is looking at.
Re-reading what I just wrote, it seems that Google is trying to idiot-proof their site. A whole lot their site is just so intuitive and minimalist, anything more is just an attempt to capture the 'idiot market.' Then again, there are millions of idiots on the web, and a whole lot of them would never really figure out Google.
posted by tamim at 10:06 PM on October 1, 2001
I just visited, and the tabs are visible in their all their glory. Are the tabs platform dependant, or is this an intermittant thing?
posted by aladfar at 10:11 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by aladfar at 10:11 PM on October 1, 2001
If anyone wants to propose an idea for a better interface in this thread, I'd love to hear it.
Um yeah... the first one was the best (as I previously stated). Google doesn't need to try not to be a plain old search engine. We don't need that other stuff. All the other great search engines (*sigh* Infoseek) crapped out by trying to provide everything BUT better searching capabilities. Who needs Deja or an image search?
posted by lnicole at 10:14 PM on October 1, 2001
Um yeah... the first one was the best (as I previously stated). Google doesn't need to try not to be a plain old search engine. We don't need that other stuff. All the other great search engines (*sigh* Infoseek) crapped out by trying to provide everything BUT better searching capabilities. Who needs Deja or an image search?
posted by lnicole at 10:14 PM on October 1, 2001
Hard for me to bag on google for going with tabs since our major redesign project just released today (Blatant Self Plug) went with a tabbed search interface largely at my bidding.
But, I too prefer google classic.
posted by willnot at 10:14 PM on October 1, 2001
But, I too prefer google classic.
posted by willnot at 10:14 PM on October 1, 2001
dont complain, if you dont like tabs, use the IE version of GOOGLE (no tabs, smaller graphics) blah blah blah
posted by lord_poopington at 10:15 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by lord_poopington at 10:15 PM on October 1, 2001
Whats the alternative to tabs? vertically stacked links?
Lets be honest here, tabs aren't so bad really (until they reach Amazon status). They are a common feature of the windows interface, which means lots of people are familar with them (does this make them a good design feature then?).
posted by howa2396 at 10:21 PM on October 1, 2001
Lets be honest here, tabs aren't so bad really (until they reach Amazon status). They are a common feature of the windows interface, which means lots of people are familar with them (does this make them a good design feature then?).
posted by howa2396 at 10:21 PM on October 1, 2001
I reckon tabs are fine when you have a small amount of them. There's only 4.
Also, the usability for the search features hasn't changed at all. I didn't even notice the new stuff till Matt pointed it out.
posted by Foaf at 10:25 PM on October 1, 2001
Also, the usability for the search features hasn't changed at all. I didn't even notice the new stuff till Matt pointed it out.
posted by Foaf at 10:25 PM on October 1, 2001
Amazing how many comments a little post about Google gets.
I love Google. I've been using it since it was at Stanford's website and Steve Jackson Games' proto-blog linked it. Scroll down to September 5th, 1998 to read the entry.
SJ and I recently put it to the test with a little vanity surfing - we searched for "Steve Jackson" (who is pretty widely mentioned on the web). Google's results? The SJ Games homepage was returned as the FIRST result, and SJ's own personal homepage in the top 10. We were impressed.
Strange how now I'd consider any search engine that didn't return results like these a complete and total failure... just another example of how influential Google has been. I haven't used another search engine in three years.
And yes, I like this new interface. The image search is just COOL.
posted by tweebiscuit at 10:37 PM on October 1, 2001
I love Google. I've been using it since it was at Stanford's website and Steve Jackson Games' proto-blog linked it. Scroll down to September 5th, 1998 to read the entry.
SJ and I recently put it to the test with a little vanity surfing - we searched for "Steve Jackson" (who is pretty widely mentioned on the web). Google's results? The SJ Games homepage was returned as the FIRST result, and SJ's own personal homepage in the top 10. We were impressed.
Strange how now I'd consider any search engine that didn't return results like these a complete and total failure... just another example of how influential Google has been. I haven't used another search engine in three years.
And yes, I like this new interface. The image search is just COOL.
posted by tweebiscuit at 10:37 PM on October 1, 2001
Google just keeps getting better..I use the image and newsgroup search regularly. I can understand complaining when something really cool gets changed to crap, but it's pretty much the same google, it starts right where the old google did.
posted by tetsuo at 10:41 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by tetsuo at 10:41 PM on October 1, 2001
I still see the tabs. I think it's OK. For instance, the image search is a lot more handy this way than going into the advanced search screen and then going down to "search images" (or typing in images.google.) The same with the Deja usenet stuff. OK call me lazy. Speaking as someone who searches the web for a living, I find it an improvement. Anyone see the "Searching 1,610,476,000 web pages" thing at the bottom? Is the page count new or just something I never noticed before?
Who needs Deja or an image search?
I do a lot of work on patents and such, both these features (especially the newsgroups) can be a very valuable source of information unavailable elsewhere.
Ideally, sites would offer customization. You could choose the old version, or only the new features you liked, etc.
posted by sixdifferentways at 10:41 PM on October 1, 2001
Who needs Deja or an image search?
I do a lot of work on patents and such, both these features (especially the newsgroups) can be a very valuable source of information unavailable elsewhere.
Ideally, sites would offer customization. You could choose the old version, or only the new features you liked, etc.
posted by sixdifferentways at 10:41 PM on October 1, 2001
well, the page still looks clean, but not as nice. This kind of thing always makes me wonder if Joe User understands it, though. I mean, I happen to know that Google has an image search and a directory and the Usenet archive, as does most everyone here, but I doubt the majority of Google's users do -- I wonder what they think those tabs are. ("Dude. Is that where Van Halen's website is?" (Heavens forfend if they've studied abstract algebra.))
It's also weird the way they have searches and browsing methods (directories) mixed together like they're the same thing.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:42 PM on October 1, 2001
It's also weird the way they have searches and browsing methods (directories) mixed together like they're the same thing.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:42 PM on October 1, 2001
Whats the alternative to tabs?
Menu bars, hierarchical listboxes, all the other things people use instead of tabs in applications. Of course, since the web originated as published documents and not published applications...
I'm a pretty anti-tab person, but aside those 4 links Google's *barely* changed. Is there a reason to make such a big deal out of it? Especially if it's a CSS only effect?
posted by teradome at 10:46 PM on October 1, 2001
Menu bars, hierarchical listboxes, all the other things people use instead of tabs in applications. Of course, since the web originated as published documents and not published applications...
I'm a pretty anti-tab person, but aside those 4 links Google's *barely* changed. Is there a reason to make such a big deal out of it? Especially if it's a CSS only effect?
posted by teradome at 10:46 PM on October 1, 2001
Google is undoubtably the best, as evidenced by how much positive attention it gets on these pages. Personally, I get enough empty fields on Lexis and Westlaw. Google is not a big secret folks. I think what matters for me is that they stay on top of the game in terms of indexed information.
posted by anathema at 10:57 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by anathema at 10:57 PM on October 1, 2001
jmd82
Yahoo and Dogpile use Google technology when you do a search on their respective search engines. It would be a lot faster if you just went to Google and did your searches there.
I liked the old interface better as well.
posted by jay at 11:00 PM on October 1, 2001
Yahoo and Dogpile use Google technology when you do a search on their respective search engines. It would be a lot faster if you just went to Google and did your searches there.
I liked the old interface better as well.
posted by jay at 11:00 PM on October 1, 2001
i dunno. I like the quick access to the other search engines. Plus, you can't blame them for self-promotion, they *are* a company you know. I still use the google toolbar though, and my background it the old Google front, with a few modifications to center it on the screen. I guess I just like Google ;-]
posted by timdorr at 11:03 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by timdorr at 11:03 PM on October 1, 2001
oh, and yes, i actually do like the new googly-moogly.
spiffy.
posted by po at 11:06 PM on October 1, 2001
spiffy.
posted by po at 11:06 PM on October 1, 2001
I think the point can also be made that there's no reason to dumb things down to the "average" user. The average surfer is becoming more sophisticated (slowly.) Why not encourage people to learn how to make the most out of tools? Yeah I know, I'm a librarian geek.
posted by sixdifferentways at 11:07 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by sixdifferentways at 11:07 PM on October 1, 2001
You want slimmed down? Make a bookmark out of this link.
(It just gives you a super-handy pop-up dialog asking what you want Google to search for. Works like a charm.)
Put it in your IE toolbar for real handiness.
posted by Fofer at 11:27 PM on October 1, 2001
(It just gives you a super-handy pop-up dialog asking what you want Google to search for. Works like a charm.)
Put it in your IE toolbar for real handiness.
posted by Fofer at 11:27 PM on October 1, 2001
I stopped using Google in favor of Wisenut about a month ago. It's a search engine that is Google-like simple in it's interface, but has more accurate returns. Also very, cool: the [Sneak-a-Peek] feature that flips down the actual page.
It's the first search engine I've seen that scores a 10 out of 10 on a " Vanity Search." I count to see how many of the returns from the search of my name are actually about me. It's stupid, I know, but it seems like a simple litmus test. The results:
Wisenut.com 10/10
Google.com 8/10
Altavista.com 8/10*
Teoma.com 4/10*
* a lot of duplicates, too
Founded by Yeogirl Yun, co-founder and former CTO of mySimon, the online comparative shopping service that was purchased by CNET for $700M.
posted by stevis at 11:31 PM on October 1, 2001
It's the first search engine I've seen that scores a 10 out of 10 on a " Vanity Search." I count to see how many of the returns from the search of my name are actually about me. It's stupid, I know, but it seems like a simple litmus test. The results:
Wisenut.com 10/10
Google.com 8/10
Altavista.com 8/10*
Teoma.com 4/10*
* a lot of duplicates, too
Founded by Yeogirl Yun, co-founder and former CTO of mySimon, the online comparative shopping service that was purchased by CNET for $700M.
posted by stevis at 11:31 PM on October 1, 2001
By the way, google also seems to have added a preference to open links in a new window. At least it's new since months ago when I actually went into their preferences page. This is a big improvement as now I no longer need to hit the page with this spiffy bookmarklet.
posted by willnot at 11:33 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by willnot at 11:33 PM on October 1, 2001
Dammit, I've spent the last 10 minutes trying to find a suitably "11111" themed link for the next post on the front page- which would be thread 11111. Best I can come up with is that on June 11, 1963, JFK signed Executive Order 11111 authorizing the National Guard to usher those two kids into a school in Alabama.
posted by hincandenza at 11:36 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by hincandenza at 11:36 PM on October 1, 2001
Who needs Deja or an image search?
Um, well, I sure am glad they exist.
posted by kindall at 11:40 PM on October 1, 2001
Um, well, I sure am glad they exist.
posted by kindall at 11:40 PM on October 1, 2001
how about a preference to turn the tabs off? or at least get the colored boxes and bars out of the way and leave only words? I dunno, the second this starts looking like what altavista turned into, I'm gonna go into the woods and become a bark-eating hermit.
posted by kevspace at 11:41 PM on October 1, 2001
posted by kevspace at 11:41 PM on October 1, 2001
Dammit hincandenza - I'm trying to come up with a binary-themed post too - since today is still technically 10.01.01, the next thread will be 11000, my birthday this year was 01.10.01, there are only 5 binary days left (for another 9 years), etc. etc. ;)
Of course, Ican't find anything worthwhile to post, so I'll just commiserate with you and wish it was so.
posted by kokogiak at 11:55 PM on October 1, 2001
Of course, Ican't find anything worthwhile to post, so I'll just commiserate with you and wish it was so.
posted by kokogiak at 11:55 PM on October 1, 2001
Sorry to disappoint you, hincandenza, but the next thread is only going to be 11000. You'll have to wait another hundred-and-eleven.
As for Google: I was wishing for this exact feature ("try this search on Google Image Search") just this weekend. Damn those search engine programmers and their mind-reading rays!
Tabs are fine when applied intelligently and sparingly. Unfortunately, very few sites have figured this out. I would count Google among them.
posted by jjg at 11:57 PM on October 1, 2001
As for Google: I was wishing for this exact feature ("try this search on Google Image Search") just this weekend. Damn those search engine programmers and their mind-reading rays!
Tabs are fine when applied intelligently and sparingly. Unfortunately, very few sites have figured this out. I would count Google among them.
posted by jjg at 11:57 PM on October 1, 2001
Who needs Deja or an image search?
Personally I use the image search on almost a daily basis but the new format did nothing to speed up my use of it - I *still* have to go to another page to enter my search and execute. If I could enter my search on the main page and set a radio button to denote an image search (or any other type of search) it would kick butt! As it stands I have to either click the tab or have a separate bookmark which means no improvement over the way Google already was navigated...
posted by RevGreg at 12:00 AM on October 2, 2001
Personally I use the image search on almost a daily basis but the new format did nothing to speed up my use of it - I *still* have to go to another page to enter my search and execute. If I could enter my search on the main page and set a radio button to denote an image search (or any other type of search) it would kick butt! As it stands I have to either click the tab or have a separate bookmark which means no improvement over the way Google already was navigated...
posted by RevGreg at 12:00 AM on October 2, 2001
has anybody followed the link to Wisenut? That's Charlie Brown in their logo!
posted by signal at 12:06 AM on October 2, 2001
posted by signal at 12:06 AM on October 2, 2001
Anyone else annoyed at the new format for UseNet archives at Google? You find a post within a thread you want to read, you click on it, and it divides your screen into (2) part. No matter how I configure or resize things, the edge of the message I wanna read is invariably cut off by the edge of the screen, forcing me to scroll horizontally after each line I read. Leave well enough alone, google!
posted by RavinDave at 12:45 AM on October 2, 2001
posted by RavinDave at 12:45 AM on October 2, 2001
Searching 1,610,476,000 web pages?
That's been there quite a while, only it went from 1,4xx,xxx,xxx to 1,6xx,xxx,xxx on the day that Wisenut came out from beta to full version a couple of months ago. See the page count at the top of Wisenut's page. It was a higher total than Google's until Google quickly pumped a new index out in response.
I expect that New Jersey's Teoma search engine's purchase by "Ask Jeeve's" (see the press release on Teoma's front page), and Wisenut's release from beta are pushing Google to make the groups and image searches a little more prominent, since those engines don't include those capabilities. (Got to love those search engine wars.)
Dogpile does not use Google search results, but Yahoo does. They augment their directory with Google results the same way that Google uses Open Directory results in it's directory pages. There's a lot of inbreeding going on with some of the major players in the directory/search engine world.
While Steve Krug sings the praises of tabs in his excellent usability book Don't Make me Think (link leads to Amazon.com, which Krug features prominently in his description of the use of tabs), Google's implementation of tabs violates one of the rules of usability that Krug calls for in his book. The tab should change slightly in appearance in something other than just color - for the benefit of people who are color blind.
As long as one of the perks of working for Google is a free gourmet lunch, I know that they are still the kings of the search engine universe. But I do find myself using Vivisimo to find things on the web as aften as I use Google.
posted by bragadocchio at 12:46 AM on October 2, 2001
That's been there quite a while, only it went from 1,4xx,xxx,xxx to 1,6xx,xxx,xxx on the day that Wisenut came out from beta to full version a couple of months ago. See the page count at the top of Wisenut's page. It was a higher total than Google's until Google quickly pumped a new index out in response.
I expect that New Jersey's Teoma search engine's purchase by "Ask Jeeve's" (see the press release on Teoma's front page), and Wisenut's release from beta are pushing Google to make the groups and image searches a little more prominent, since those engines don't include those capabilities. (Got to love those search engine wars.)
Dogpile does not use Google search results, but Yahoo does. They augment their directory with Google results the same way that Google uses Open Directory results in it's directory pages. There's a lot of inbreeding going on with some of the major players in the directory/search engine world.
While Steve Krug sings the praises of tabs in his excellent usability book Don't Make me Think (link leads to Amazon.com, which Krug features prominently in his description of the use of tabs), Google's implementation of tabs violates one of the rules of usability that Krug calls for in his book. The tab should change slightly in appearance in something other than just color - for the benefit of people who are color blind.
As long as one of the perks of working for Google is a free gourmet lunch, I know that they are still the kings of the search engine universe. But I do find myself using Vivisimo to find things on the web as aften as I use Google.
posted by bragadocchio at 12:46 AM on October 2, 2001
if you are a windows user (and statistics will suggest you are), you're probably using internet explorer 5.0 or 5.5.
if this is the case please just download the google toolbar and be done with it. it will be a pleasant experience; i promise.
and regardless of your OS, you should be using the google search engine at the beginning of all your investigative endeavors, for a plethora of reasons. i must agree with anildash, i find it quite surprising that there are mefi-ers who don't.
i definitely liked the simple interface much more, but we all knew that would eventually disappear. (c'mon, didn't you?). so if you aren't using the toolbar, use the google ie link. that's what i'll be doing, excepting those rare moments that i use mozilla. [which is really just a desperate attempt to pretend like netscape will make a browser that lives up to it's own standard of quality from years past.]
the image search beta, the acquisition of deja, and the toolbar happened many months ago. i was excited to see the introduction of the toolbar, even though it's most glaring omission is it's inability to search for images. and a lot of white remains on google's homepage. that space could become something very different.
here's hoping they don't trick it out too much. we don't need another yahoo. especially since yahoo is using google too.
hey mac/*nix users, any candor regarding why we haven't seen other OS versions of the toolbar?
posted by basmati at 12:47 AM on October 2, 2001
if this is the case please just download the google toolbar and be done with it. it will be a pleasant experience; i promise.
and regardless of your OS, you should be using the google search engine at the beginning of all your investigative endeavors, for a plethora of reasons. i must agree with anildash, i find it quite surprising that there are mefi-ers who don't.
i definitely liked the simple interface much more, but we all knew that would eventually disappear. (c'mon, didn't you?). so if you aren't using the toolbar, use the google ie link. that's what i'll be doing, excepting those rare moments that i use mozilla. [which is really just a desperate attempt to pretend like netscape will make a browser that lives up to it's own standard of quality from years past.]
the image search beta, the acquisition of deja, and the toolbar happened many months ago. i was excited to see the introduction of the toolbar, even though it's most glaring omission is it's inability to search for images. and a lot of white remains on google's homepage. that space could become something very different.
here's hoping they don't trick it out too much. we don't need another yahoo. especially since yahoo is using google too.
hey mac/*nix users, any candor regarding why we haven't seen other OS versions of the toolbar?
posted by basmati at 12:47 AM on October 2, 2001
not only do they have gourmet lunches, they've been looking for a google physician for quite some time now.
posted by basmati at 12:59 AM on October 2, 2001
posted by basmati at 12:59 AM on October 2, 2001
Sorry to disappoint you, hincandenza, but the next thread is only going to be 11000
Wow, I am such a drunk. Who can't count. On the plus side, with 111 threads to go, that should give me... oh, about two days. Yay!
posted by hincandenza at 1:25 AM on October 2, 2001
they've been looking for a google physician for quite some time now.
Excellent news. A healthy search engine staff means a healthy search engine. The only thing that worries me a little about that is they list topmost amongst the doctor's requirements an "Entrepreneurial spirit." What's that about?
posted by bragadocchio at 1:35 AM on October 2, 2001
Excellent news. A healthy search engine staff means a healthy search engine. The only thing that worries me a little about that is they list topmost amongst the doctor's requirements an "Entrepreneurial spirit." What's that about?
posted by bragadocchio at 1:35 AM on October 2, 2001
i rarely see google's front page (searching with opera requires typing "g" and then the search request in the address bar.), but it does look... just strange. perhaps i'm just used to how it used to be. the tabs don't look too bad on the results pages. and the tabs can't be too bad, can they? it's not like they're fashioning their site to be the next amazon, and soon they'll have a hojillion tabs, of which you'll use maybe 3.
i can't wait to be able to say, "i like google's older stuff better. you know.. before they sold out."
posted by lotsofno at 4:51 AM on October 2, 2001
i can't wait to be able to say, "i like google's older stuff better. you know.. before they sold out."
posted by lotsofno at 4:51 AM on October 2, 2001
marathon bars, opal fruits, Google, will the insanity ever end.... (comment of limited domestic UK appeal)
Personally it seems the most practical solution to implementing the image search which has been in beta testing forever. its looks clunky and ugly but hey its quick loading and a really practical adaptation. All I know is that its a god send for finding non-stock images.
posted by ilikepaperandpens at 5:07 AM on October 2, 2001
Personally it seems the most practical solution to implementing the image search which has been in beta testing forever. its looks clunky and ugly but hey its quick loading and a really practical adaptation. All I know is that its a god send for finding non-stock images.
posted by ilikepaperandpens at 5:07 AM on October 2, 2001
And, if you haven't been to yahoo yet today, it has a new look too. It's Pink!
posted by bragadocchio at 5:17 AM on October 2, 2001
posted by bragadocchio at 5:17 AM on October 2, 2001
Wisenut fails when compared to Google in several crucial ways.
First, it does not recognize the metatags which would normally indicate that a page is updated daily, nor does it seem to figure it out on its own. That Google daily updates a huge number of sites which change daily is hard to match. The material cached by Wisenut for my site, which changes almost daily, is from July 15 and July 25. That's unforgiveable.
Second, there is no option for translation of foreign texts when foreign text results are returned.
Third, there is no readable cache. The Sneak Peak function is merely an embedded frame that shows the current web site, not the archived content. So when you couple this with infrequent updates, you can get unvailable search results.
Fourth, PDF files are not indexed.
Fifth, dynamic databases are not indexed. This is a *huge* failing for any search engine.
These factors, and others, keep Google as my main search engine.
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:56 AM on October 2, 2001
First, it does not recognize the metatags which would normally indicate that a page is updated daily, nor does it seem to figure it out on its own. That Google daily updates a huge number of sites which change daily is hard to match. The material cached by Wisenut for my site, which changes almost daily, is from July 15 and July 25. That's unforgiveable.
Second, there is no option for translation of foreign texts when foreign text results are returned.
Third, there is no readable cache. The Sneak Peak function is merely an embedded frame that shows the current web site, not the archived content. So when you couple this with infrequent updates, you can get unvailable search results.
Fourth, PDF files are not indexed.
Fifth, dynamic databases are not indexed. This is a *huge* failing for any search engine.
These factors, and others, keep Google as my main search engine.
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:56 AM on October 2, 2001
Google toolbar, pshaw! then you have to have IE open. I *heart* Dave's Quick Search Taskbar Toolbar Deskbar!
posted by Mick at 6:15 AM on October 2, 2001
posted by Mick at 6:15 AM on October 2, 2001
I like the new interface. While it clutters up the front page a bit, and maybe the links could be elsewhere on that page, the tab interface on the results page is genius! Search for something on the default page. When the results come up, click the "images" tab and get image results on that query. Click the "groups" tab and get USENET results. It's fantastic, and a perfect application of a tabbed interface.
posted by daveadams at 6:37 AM on October 2, 2001
posted by daveadams at 6:37 AM on October 2, 2001
Agreed on the IE toolbar. I love it. It stays open on my browser all day.
posted by adampsyche at 6:41 AM on October 2, 2001
posted by adampsyche at 6:41 AM on October 2, 2001
The tab should change slightly in appearance in something other than just color - for the benefit of people who are color blind.That is true only if you are using confusable colours, meaning some combination of green with red or blue. Even then there are a great many factors at play, and it is not categorically true that a colour change alone is inaccessible to protans, deuterans, or tritans. It is, however, a bad idea because it is too subtle.
posted by joeclark at 6:47 AM on October 2, 2001
Oh my god. Tabs? Graphics? Jakob Nielsen is spinning in his grave right now......
This Google site is just soooo confusing now. What do I click on? Damn.....
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:49 AM on October 2, 2001
This Google site is just soooo confusing now. What do I click on? Damn.....
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:49 AM on October 2, 2001
There's no graphics here. For overreacting developer nerds some of you sure don't seem to know how to spot CSS tricks.
The interface is fine. It works great.
posted by glenwood at 6:58 AM on October 2, 2001
The interface is fine. It works great.
posted by glenwood at 6:58 AM on October 2, 2001
basmati: keep in mind that mac users (and unix users too, i'd imagine) can still use the javascript pop-up search tools for google (as someone did mention earlier). When I set mine up they didn't have any for images or newsgroups but it's a pretty simple task to alter it to search whatever you'd like. Heck, I even made one to search VersionTracker, my shareware site of choice. I'd rather have a quick link than a space hogging toolbar, anyway; and while Everybody Loves Google right now (mostly), who knows when that Toolbar will become an Evil Surf Tracking Tool That Can't Be Uninstalled? (insert maniacal cackling here).
posted by bcwinters at 7:00 AM on October 2, 2001
posted by bcwinters at 7:00 AM on October 2, 2001
I agree completely with Daveadams' comment. Too many people automatically bash tab interfaces without realizing that there are proper uses for tabs, i.e. "rapid switching between alternative views of the same data."
The tabs on the results page, at least, are an appropriate use.
posted by ratbastard at 7:23 AM on October 2, 2001
The tabs on the results page, at least, are an appropriate use.
posted by ratbastard at 7:23 AM on October 2, 2001
Yeah, I put together my own little version of the javascript popup to search for images. Here is the link. It automatically turns the Mature Content Filter© off and returns 52 results in English, but you can change all that in the text of the link.
By the way I think that the tabs are inconsequential. They work fine I guess but I find the site to be no better or worse for me for having them.
posted by donkeymon at 7:31 AM on October 2, 2001
By the way I think that the tabs are inconsequential. They work fine I guess but I find the site to be no better or worse for me for having them.
posted by donkeymon at 7:31 AM on October 2, 2001
You web-geeks are just cute as the dickens. Especially when I don't know what you're really jabbering about. Who knew "tab interfaces" were such hot-button issues? I'd hate to hear your heated discussions about standard vs. automatic transmissions.
Certainly not those of us who wandered over to Google and thought, "Hey! Cool! Google has more shit for us to play with!"
posted by Skot at 7:59 AM on October 2, 2001
Certainly not those of us who wandered over to Google and thought, "Hey! Cool! Google has more shit for us to play with!"
posted by Skot at 7:59 AM on October 2, 2001
i just use google's advanced search page - it's all there and yet still fairly lightweight.
stevis: wisenut's results for me were pretty much the opposite of yours. i'll have to try a few more searches.
skot: perhaps it's because it's like going out to your car one morning expecting to see your familiar automatic transmission, but instead it's been replaced with a clutch and a five speed on the floor. or maybe not.
posted by modge at 8:44 AM on October 2, 2001
stevis: wisenut's results for me were pretty much the opposite of yours. i'll have to try a few more searches.
skot: perhaps it's because it's like going out to your car one morning expecting to see your familiar automatic transmission, but instead it's been replaced with a clutch and a five speed on the floor. or maybe not.
posted by modge at 8:44 AM on October 2, 2001
Most of the time I access Google via the QuickSearch tool which is part of IE 5's free Web accessories pack.
I've set it up so that all I do is open the address box, type in g then the search term, hit enter and voila - a google results page.
If I wanted to make it even quicker I could keep the address box open on my task bar and get instant access from there. Who needs a download from Dave? :)
posted by Duug at 8:56 AM on October 2, 2001
I've set it up so that all I do is open the address box, type in g then the search term, hit enter and voila - a google results page.
If I wanted to make it even quicker I could keep the address box open on my task bar and get instant access from there. Who needs a download from Dave? :)
posted by Duug at 8:56 AM on October 2, 2001
Web Accessories thing, very cool but you go to the link and the image it displays has the options translate, what does this mean and web search but when you actually download it I only get websearch, what happened to the translate and the dictionary ??
Any ideas ?
posted by zeoslap at 9:49 AM on October 2, 2001
Any ideas ?
posted by zeoslap at 9:49 AM on October 2, 2001
If you're looking for a quick way to search Google and a bunch of other stuff, you might try nicwolff's Lookups page. Or you might also try a modified version of his page here (self-link).
To speed it further, I keep a local copy of Lookups 2 and use a program called Quickeys to open it whenever I hit F1. It's a lot faster having access to 18 or 20 sites that you can search from just one page. Try it you'll like it!
posted by the biscuit man at 10:25 AM on October 2, 2001
To speed it further, I keep a local copy of Lookups 2 and use a program called Quickeys to open it whenever I hit F1. It's a lot faster having access to 18 or 20 sites that you can search from just one page. Try it you'll like it!
posted by the biscuit man at 10:25 AM on October 2, 2001
Well, that was a fun read.
Geeks are fun.
What are you guys going to do if or when Google starts putting ads up?
Woooooo......it's gonna get ugly.....
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:36 AM on October 2, 2001
Geeks are fun.
What are you guys going to do if or when Google starts putting ads up?
Woooooo......it's gonna get ugly.....
posted by BarneyFifesBullet at 10:36 AM on October 2, 2001
Google is still Old Skool in Welsh. Learn a dying language, get left behind by "progress".
posted by ceiriog at 10:59 AM on October 2, 2001
posted by ceiriog at 10:59 AM on October 2, 2001
Yeah it's a little more cluttered now, but it still has nothing on sohu.com.
posted by Chairman_MaoXian at 12:27 PM on October 2, 2001
posted by Chairman_MaoXian at 12:27 PM on October 2, 2001
What are you guys going to do if or when Google starts putting ads up?
Google already displays ads. They're on the results page, so probably not any conflict.
posted by jeffhoward at 1:45 PM on October 2, 2001
Google already displays ads. They're on the results page, so probably not any conflict.
posted by jeffhoward at 1:45 PM on October 2, 2001
I like that Google updates daily but it should separate the daily udpates from the regular crawls. If I'm searching for info on the Sep 28th Swiss massacre I would still use Daypop since it only crawls news sites and blogs not the whole web.
posted by euphorb at 2:23 PM on October 2, 2001
posted by euphorb at 2:23 PM on October 2, 2001
Google is still Old Skool in Welsh.
That's...that's just wrong.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:55 PM on October 2, 2001
That's...that's just wrong.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:55 PM on October 2, 2001
Just make a drop down list of your fav search engines and put in on your start page, easiest thang imho.
Google as default, naturally.
I tried Google's search bar for months but ended up only using Google's main search anyway. The "search for like pages" which I thought might be most useful, didn't yield many results.
Aesthetically, the new Google design doesn't do it for me, but gee, it's really difficult to change a classic. Site seems to load more slowly (was the first thing I noticed) am I imagining that?
posted by lucien at 10:14 PM on October 2, 2001
Google as default, naturally.
I tried Google's search bar for months but ended up only using Google's main search anyway. The "search for like pages" which I thought might be most useful, didn't yield many results.
Aesthetically, the new Google design doesn't do it for me, but gee, it's really difficult to change a classic. Site seems to load more slowly (was the first thing I noticed) am I imagining that?
posted by lucien at 10:14 PM on October 2, 2001
That's...that's just wrong.
Not for me it's not. I get the Welsh version because Google is the only search engine which recognizes my browser's language settings and gives me an interface in my own language without me having to ask for it.
All other things being equal, that's a good enough reason to choose Google, for me.
</joeclark>
posted by ceiriog at 2:30 AM on October 3, 2001
Not for me it's not. I get the Welsh version because Google is the only search engine which recognizes my browser's language settings and gives me an interface in my own language without me having to ask for it.
All other things being equal, that's a good enough reason to choose Google, for me.
</joeclark>
posted by ceiriog at 2:30 AM on October 3, 2001
« Older Susan Sontag's | Polls say Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jmd82 at 9:29 PM on October 1, 2001