Join 3,553 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Tags:

Not being evil! Yes!
May 19, 2005 3:55 PM   Subscribe

Google Labs announces a radical departure from the traditionally sparse Google home page - Personalize Your Google Homepage! Why? It includes: latest Gmail messages, headlines from Google News and other top news sources, weather forecasts, stock quotes, and movie showtimes, Quote of the Day and Word of the Day, driving directions from Google Maps.

Awesome.
posted by nervestaple (75 comments total)

 
awesome! yahoo, here we come!
posted by jimmy at 3:56 PM on May 19, 2005


Yep. Yahoo! and Excite at least have been offering this kind of clutter for years. What's new about this?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:58 PM on May 19, 2005


Google finally enters the portal wars.
posted by grouse at 4:02 PM on May 19, 2005


Yep. Yahoo! and Excite at least have been offering this kind of clutter for years. What's new about this?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:58 PM PST on May 19 [!]


Nobody said anything was new about this. Not the point of the post...
posted by jikel_morten at 4:16 PM on May 19, 2005


I just set my homepage to the /ig view, with weather top right, movies below, the center column with google news and NYT, and maps in the far right. I've been using it for a couple hours in this way and it's great to hit the home button or open a new browser window and get a flash of information before I shuffle off to search for what I was looking for.

So for me, it's great, and doesn't carry all the baggage that My Yahoo does, which feels like a cluttered newspaper and customizing it feels like work instead of fun like Google's simple version.

Hopefully Google doesn't have plans to clutter it up to My Yahoo levels.
posted by mathowie at 4:20 PM on May 19, 2005


What I'd like is _real_ personalization. I.e. let me put stuff on that page that _I_ choose, not stuff that's been chosen by Google. This is pseudo-personalization or semi-personalization.

Let me put the RSS feeds of my friends on that page, etc.
posted by gen at 4:25 PM on May 19, 2005


All your attentions are belong to Google!

On Preview, gen, you mean like My Yahoo allows you to do? I've got MeFi and some other personal feeds on My Yahoo home page now.
posted by fenriq at 4:28 PM on May 19, 2005


I cant help but feel this is a clear example of how users will accept anything as long as you only change things gradually.

I first started using Google early on because I just wanted search, useful search and nothing else. Their simple, clean page was refreshing. If their page had looked like google.com/ig then I never would have started using them in the first place

But...once they developed a loyal userbase (who also had inexplicably bought into the fact that this particular purely profit-driven company was "good" not "evil) they can start getting back to the models that Yahoo, Excite etc all wanted us to buy into in the first place. It can't help but feel to me like an enormous bait-and-switch.
posted by vacapinta at 4:29 PM on May 19, 2005


Nobody said anything was new about this. Not the point of the post...

Okay. So then what is noteworthy about this? That it's Google doing it?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 4:30 PM on May 19, 2005


This also confirms my idea that people will accept novelty as a substitute for innovation. They are not the same thing. Novelty can just go in circles (like fashion sometimes does) without actually moving forward.
posted by vacapinta at 4:32 PM on May 19, 2005


No mefi feed?
posted by NewBornHippy at 4:33 PM on May 19, 2005


I just wanted search, useful search and nothing else.

Which you can still get by telling the customisation things to go away, no?
posted by docgonzo at 4:34 PM on May 19, 2005


Insert obligatory comment about never seeing the main Google page here.
posted by udeups at 4:35 PM on May 19, 2005


um, how is giving additional free choices a bait-and-switch? ya don't like it, don't use it - main homepage works jess fine...
posted by twsf at 4:35 PM on May 19, 2005


It's interesting to see that they launched with, what, 4 news sources- NYT, BBC, Wired and Slashdot.

Two of these are obvious. The other two play to their core userbase.

Nothing earth-shattering, just interesting.
posted by gen at 4:38 PM on May 19, 2005


fenriq: On Preview, gen, you mean like My Yahoo allows you to do?

Yeah. I don't use My Yahoo, so I didnt know that they had that, but yeah.
posted by gen at 4:39 PM on May 19, 2005


Which you can still get by telling the customisation things to go away, no?

For now...yes. :) The classic problem is that it's hard to argue against gradual change because the counterargument is always "Don't be silly! It's still pretty much the same as it was yesterday except for this tiny little bit here!"

When/if this becomes the default view then the argument will be "Don't be silly! They've had this ig-view for a year. All they did is make it the default so its a bit more convenient!" ad infinitum...
posted by vacapinta at 4:39 PM on May 19, 2005


Okay, that drag-and-drop customization is freakin' sweet.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:44 PM on May 19, 2005


vacapinta:

That's just stupid. The Google page has been (and will always be) sparse. The customization thing is just an option for people who like to see more stuff.
posted by aerify at 4:46 PM on May 19, 2005


"When/if this becomes the default view"

..then someone else will make a simple clean search engine, and I will switch.
posted by lenny70 at 4:49 PM on May 19, 2005


Personally, this is the only feature the Google page needs added to it:

pure-google
posted by signal at 4:50 PM on May 19, 2005


The problem with all of these portals are that they are not site-agnostic and truely oriented towards what interests you.

Why go to google.com to create a portal and limit yourself to just their internet tools and just the things they want to push on you? Why not use an independent application or a browser feature/plugin that helps you set up your own customized portal page instead, adding google search, yahoo mail, your favorite rss feeds, or whatever flavor of the internet you'd like?

The portal and the browser should be one.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:53 PM on May 19, 2005


kick these nay-sayers off the boat... good post, i didn't know about this, and.... good for google...

I'm thinking that some folks are gonna bash google no matter what.... old bitter people..need puppies or something :)
posted by HuronBob at 4:53 PM on May 19, 2005


FAQ:

6. Why did you mess up the clean, crisp Google homepage?

We didn't. If you want to keep using the original Google homepage, you can. In fact, we expect that many users will. The personalized homepage is for those users who want to see more of the information that matters to them in the same place. You can always switch back and forth between your personalized homepage and the original Google homepage by clicking "Classic Home" or "Personalized Home."
posted by danb at 5:01 PM on May 19, 2005


I think it's neat, even if I don't see the Google home page often (thanks to my second favorite feature in Firefox).

I think the customized Google home page is the In-N-Out Burger of these customizable search engine/portals: you get a few good options instead of a dizzying array of possibilities to choose from.
posted by DakotaPaul at 5:02 PM on May 19, 2005


What took them so long?

On preview: DakotaPaul: Now, if only Google had a secret menu like In-n-Out, that would be something worth talking about.
posted by sellout at 5:03 PM on May 19, 2005


I think it'll be really good, and cluttered, once they allow independant feeds.
posted by jsavimbi at 5:16 PM on May 19, 2005


I've used My.Yahoo for a few years now and the feeds usually are outdated when I load the page or they crap out all together. Not unlike MiFi's speel cheeck......whatever.
posted by johnj at 5:22 PM on May 19, 2005


I do not use a homepage. Perhaps because of that, I laughed scornfully when I first read about this.

Awesome.

Your bar for 'awe' is a little low, I think. I'd call it lame, retrograde, and embarrassingly unnecessary. Homer designs his own car. Still, it fits the trend.

I'm hating the google more and these days. Hatin' the google. Of course, I still use it perhaps 50 to 100 times each day. Ah well.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:40 PM on May 19, 2005


I don't get all the hating: The custom page offers live drag and drop of bare-bones content blocks. It's clean and simple, and the /ig means that the Google home page itself remains relatively uncluttered as it's always been. This is good for users and stockholders alike.

One question: Why "ig?"
posted by brownpau at 6:04 PM on May 19, 2005


brownpau writes "One question: Why 'ig?'"
iGoogle?
posted by karmaville at 6:07 PM on May 19, 2005


Why is Google even known for having a spartan, "crisp" search interface? AltaVista in 1997had exactly the same interface before Google even came into being. It's nice of them to resist clutter, but I don't see why they get the credit for innovation.

And look, on 1997 AltaVista -- a personal search tool for your desktop. The ability to search USENET and the web. A link to a text-only interface. Babelfish.

This was over 7 years ago . Why do people think Google is innovative? Seriously.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 6:10 PM on May 19, 2005


Stavros, feel the love man! Google's done some good things and some bad things, but as long as they keep a useful search engine prefaced with a simple default low-clutter page, I'm gonna use it as a homepage. C'mon man, the Google logo changes to remind you of semi-obscure holidays like Dali's birthday!
posted by Saydur at 6:16 PM on May 19, 2005


Google is popular, and people love to hate the popular, because it makes them "better" than the people they look down upon.
posted by smackfu at 6:52 PM on May 19, 2005


Google gives 100% of their campaign donations to the dems.
Yahoo does not.
Google wins.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:52 PM on May 19, 2005


Personally, this is the only feature the Google page needs added to it:

pure-google


What the hell? If all you want is the image and a text box, then just make your own HTML page and set that as your home page, rather then http://www.google.com. What's the point of the greasemonkey script?

Also, firefox already has a google search box in the upper corner, so why bother with using google as your homepage at all?
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM on May 19, 2005


Anyway, yeh. This is just another portal. I doubt too many people will use it or even know about it unless google sets it to be the default.

So untill then, it's a non-issue. And hardly a big deal.
posted by delmoi at 6:56 PM on May 19, 2005


TAPAS: Altavista's search tools didn't fucking work. Google's do.
posted by Tlogmer at 7:15 PM on May 19, 2005


RSS support is coming
posted by Mick at 7:18 PM on May 19, 2005


I think I'll stick with the Google Suggest as my start page until this marvelous function get merged with MyGoogle although this is a neat move.
posted by denpo at 7:35 PM on May 19, 2005


Google is popular, and people love to hate the popular, because it makes them "better" than the people they look down upon.

Yeah, you've homed right in on my shameful secret there, smackfu. I am deeply chagrined, and will refrain from my unseemly and insecure hating on anything popular, or even joking about it, henceforward. My thanks!

Actually, I was joking about the hating (thus the hatin' thing and my mention that I use google scores of times a day), but the transformation of google over the years from a massively useful search technology to a vehicle for advertising revenues disturbs and annoys me, as do recent inexplicably clueless (but transparently motivated) moves like the toolbar rewrite of links and the 'accelerator'.

The search is still good and immensely useful (although I never actually use anything but a third-party toolbar to use it) and gmail is superb, as are a few other of the things they've released or betaed, but they are flexing their web-dominating muscles lately, and that makes me nervous.

It has fuck-all to do with 'popularity'. What is this, high school?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:50 PM on May 19, 2005


Tlogmer: were you on the Internet in 1997? I didn't think so.

AltaVista's search was the best on the net until its sale to CMGI in 1998. Ask anyone who was online in 1997, and they'll tell you Altavista was a miracle, with a large index, relevant results, and advanced search functions Google still doesn't have.
It's strange to think about, but for years, Google couldn't do simple wildcard searches. It couldn't do + or - searches until just a year or so ago. Google *still* doesn't have case sensitive searches, and it doesn't allow you to search for phrases or keywords specifically near other phrases or keywords. AltaVista's search did all of those things, was fast, and worked extremely well.

Take a look at this ZDLabs report comparing the search engines to get an idea of how primitive Google was until recently.

But AltaVista got bought by CMGI in 1998 and the annoying adverts came in full force. By 1999, CMGI started to leave AltaVista for dead. At that point, people were defecting to Google because AltaVista's was being abused and neglected by its new owners, not because Google was inherently better than AltaVista had been.

But it's not because the tools hadn't worked. They worked great. (Those cool advanced search functions described above are now gone, the AltaVista site now just being a sad front-end for Overture -- AltaVista today isn't the old AltaVista.)
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 8:08 PM on May 19, 2005


Take a look at this ZDLabs report comparing the search engines to get an idea of how primitive Google was until recently.

While google may have lacked the features you listed, the search war was won on results, pure and simple - not commandline argument style functionality. When google produced acurate results within the first handful of hits while surfers of the other search engines were still clicking on the 'next page' link in the vain hopes of finding something that was often wedged between paid results and banners - the game was already over.
posted by jikel_morten at 8:35 PM on May 19, 2005


I like it. Another option from Google, and as others have noted, it maintains a Googly-clean look. I've tried using the My Yahoo and My Excite thingies several times, and no matter how you tweak them, they always looks "cluttered." The Google/ig looks simple, clean, and functional. Not my home page, but whenever I go to Google to do a search (dozen or two times each day) it will be nifty to see just a hint of e-mail and a quick snippet of the forecast.

Feel the love. Or at the very least, the strong like.
posted by davidmsc at 8:37 PM on May 19, 2005


Oh my God, my Google home page is so much cooler than yours.
posted by shmegegge at 9:01 PM on May 19, 2005


I still don't like the idea of logging in to a search engine. Same reason I don't use Gmail.
posted by airguitar at 10:34 PM on May 19, 2005


What happens when Google is all anyone uses, and Google gets to tell you what to look at/think about about any given subject.
Personalised for your preferences/marketing catagory?

What if you hear just what you want?

Things will be EPIC.

(Found here)
posted by Balisong at 11:47 PM on May 19, 2005


I tend to think this is a clear sign of the beginning of the end for Google.

Yahoo was great, then it spread its talent thin and began to suck. Now it's just a suit-filled, mindless corporation.

Altavista was great, then it spread its talent thin and began to suck. Now it's just a suit-filled, mindless corporation.

I can see myself in a couple of years, reading Google's new EULA and deciding that I don't want to be someone's poolboy.
posted by krisjohn at 12:43 AM on May 20, 2005


This is cool only for so long as they keep out AdSense ads.

Okay, that drag-and-drop customization is freakin' sweet.

You took the words right out of my mouth.
posted by Marquis at 1:29 AM on May 20, 2005


Just to keep being the consistent cranky contrarian, I am unimpressed by the drag and drop. That sorta thing's been around for yonks.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:37 AM on May 20, 2005


Just think of it. If you use the Google /ig page, GMail and their WebAccelerator (with RSS on the way), I guess that means one's whole internet experience is being routed, cached, collated and checked for ad relevancy by Google.

I get the *feeling* this is all about accumulating larger datasets.
posted by gsb at 2:20 AM on May 20, 2005


gsb writes "I get the *feeling* this is all about accumulating larger datasets."
So they can replace ISP's and we will end up surfing the google cache.

I like google. They've given me a fuckload of free shit. Some I use, some I don't. The textads don't annoy me and I actually sometimes use them.

stavrosthewonderchicken: drag and drop. That sorta thing's been around for yonks.

Have they said they invented drag'n'drop or a personal portal page?? Well then, why hate them for emulation or p'raps even copying. More free stuff to use or not.

I don't see why people want to construe things as ominous or as crap. Free choice and all that. Vacapinta, you have some real paranoia happening. Hate when it's warranted. I still see google as being one of the best companies I've ever come across in my lifetime. I don't work there. I don't own shares. I just like that they not only *try* to do **good**, but they actually ummm.... pretty well succeed a lot of the time IMHO.

It's not that they're controlling so much of our lives -- they're just providing tools that make life in 'here' that much more easy, fun, navigable & more worthwhile hanging around for. I may go on at length but it's just that the quality of my online life (which I think is pretty freakin' good) has been underwritten by google.
They are my favoured epublic transport system.
posted by peacay at 3:25 AM on May 20, 2005


Never mind how nice they are, I don't want Google to control the internet's content.
posted by tommyc at 3:43 AM on May 20, 2005


why?
posted by peacay at 3:44 AM on May 20, 2005


Just to keep being the consistent cranky contrarian, I am unimpressed by the drag and drop. That sorta thing's been around for yonks.

As peacay said, does it matter that they didn't invent the code? Despite stavrostheconsistentcrankycontrarian's objections, Google has managed to find a way for users to organize their preferred content that's useful, fast, easy and perfectly intuitive. I can't imagine a better system.

Never mind how nice they are, I don't want Google to control the internet's content.

If somebody has to control it, I'd rather it be Google than Microsoft, BMG or the White House.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:02 AM on May 20, 2005


Have they said they invented drag'n'drop or a personal portal page??

My comment that you quote to take the opportunity to put words into my mouth was a direct response to friend Marquis', directly above. What the fuck are you talking about?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:16 AM on May 20, 2005


>Never mind how nice they are, I don't want Google to control the internet's content.

>>why?

Because they're a corporation, floated, beholden to shareholders; their mission in life *should be* profit. Sometimes, and there are many examples of this in history, "do no evil" conflicts with "profit." I suppose it comes down to existential goalposts.

Or to put it bluntly, I feel icky, oh so icky. I feel icky and sticky and blue...
posted by gsb at 4:17 AM on May 20, 2005


If somebody has to control it, I'd rather it be Google than Microsoft, BMG or the White House.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:02 AM EST on May 20 [!]


Why does someone have to control it?
posted by trey at 4:20 AM on May 20, 2005


While google may have lacked the features you listed, the search war was won on results, pure and simple - not commandline argument style functionality. When google produced acurate results within the first handful of hits while surfers of the other search engines were still clicking on the 'next page' link in the vain hopes of finding something that was often wedged between paid results and banners - the game was already over.

jikel_morten: you clearly didn't read the report I linked to. In 2000, AltaVista, Yahoo and Fast all scored higher than Google in terms of relevance of results in addition to features. Look at Page 8. Google may have scored higher in one category -- simple one-word phrases, which is admittedly what pagerank has been good for -- but AltaVista whupped it on multi-word and complex searches. Which most searches, after you're done searching for "sex" and "linux," are.

Really. Google used to be an inferior search engine to AltaVista and Yahoo for its first several years outside of Stanford. Objectively. Google won the search engine wars not because of technical superiority or innovation -- which people seem to see as a given -- but because people got fed up with the changes at the other sites.
posted by I EAT TAPAS at 4:32 AM on May 20, 2005


stavros - Thanks for that link. I'm really surprised at how easy it is to code such smoothly movable boxes! I'm also really surprised that I hadn't seen any site (before Google) use it. The stupid cyclists at the bottom of that page are extremely fun to play with.
posted by Marquis at 4:33 AM on May 20, 2005


I feel icky, oh so icky. I feel icky and sticky and blue...

On my wiki, I will bitch about some folks like you!
(Tra la la la la, la la la, la la!)

Why does someone have to control it?

In an ideal world, of course, nobody would control it, but various competing factions are trying to. Google is the only one (assuming that control is even their goal, a theory iof which I'm not convinced) who seems to respect what the Internet is actually for, and isn't trying to warp it into a tool to prop up an existing hegemony.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:33 AM on May 20, 2005


stavrosthewonderchicken writes "My comment that you quote to take the opportunity to put words into my mouth was a direct response to friend Marquis', directly above. What the fuck are you talking about?"

Umm...I don't see how I misquoted you and there's no words been put in your mouth. If your direct response to Marquis means that you were being sarcastic then ok.
If not then it reads like you are having a dig at google in the context of this thread. I chucked that perceived attitude in with whoever had mentioned 'not another portal' as both being a bit harsh in terms of criticism because this portal page and its widgets are free and voluntary. *shrug* That's what the fuck I was talking about.
posted by peacay at 5:02 AM on May 20, 2005


I EAT TAPES.....have you seen any other search comparisons since 2000?
======
And: what Faint of Butt said about googlenet.
posted by peacay at 5:12 AM on May 20, 2005


Normally, I go by a person's actions and not their sentiments or Public Relations. In that sense, I agree the jury is still out on Google.

In the wild wild west of the Internet, I look upon Google as that "can do" spirit with all sorts of great intentions -- looking for freedom, a fresh start, a new way of doing things. But in the end Google's power is, or will be, pretty amazing.

I've never trusted concentrated power, of any kind. Never have, never will. That's me, and I guess it's my prejudice, and in this case I think it's warranted. Just because Google does all these "free" "cool" things does not mean they can turn around and fuck us up/down/left/right and center.

I don't think it's a good idea to place one's high-flow internet lifting, like email, browsing and RSS, with one operator. It's insanity to do so, without some caveats. And a TOS doesn't mean shit; they can change it at any time. Like I said, existential goal posts. I'm sure somebody would find the changes reasonable.

I don't think Google wants to control the Internet, I think they just want to create a *compelling* funnel so everything goes through their spigot. Some people love that stuff, I'm a little wary. Just a little.
posted by gsb at 5:34 AM on May 20, 2005


Sensibly put gsb. I think most people are cautiously hopeful when looking at google. They may cache a large slice but it seems unlikely that they'll have a monopoly without willing participants (which would include govt). And if we sense something amiss then we will walk en masse. For the moment I don't see anything to worry about. But I think we all keep a close eye on the unfolding events anyway (and the other eye gladly receives their goodies).
posted by peacay at 5:43 AM on May 20, 2005


gsb writes "I guess that means one's whole internet experience is being routed, cached, collated and checked for ad relevancy by Google.
"I get the *feeling* this is all about accumulating larger datasets."


So what? If I'm going to be forced to look at ads while browsing the internet, I'd rather they be targeted to me rather than something completely irrelevant to my habits. And if you don't like ads, I'm sure there's an extension that you can use to block them out. People on Mefi rave about them all of the time. Google can't do all of what they do for free. Ads are their business model. If you don't want to Google, don't do it. But they are the most effective option right now, in my opinion.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:07 AM on May 20, 2005


Ok, I EAT TAPAS, your report (funded by altavista) shows what you claim, but I remember it going down like this (and maybe I'm dead wrong); from the early 90s onward search sucked. Altavista was decent in the late 90s. As I recall, after discovering google in 99, I never went back. This wasn't due to any sort of allegience or any dislike of altavista - I just wanted solid, speedy results - just like the whole websrfing world did. I, like most people, never left google once finding them. Google provided me, personally and granted, anecdotally, solid results sans paid listings or banner ads or bullshit. Now, if you're report is accurate and altavista truly provided better results since inception, then their downfall would have to be attributed to UI. If you archive.org it, you'll see the clutter on their site before they got it right and streamlined a la google.

Really. Google used to be an inferior search engine to AltaVista and Yahoo for its first several years outside of Stanford. Objectively.

Well, I'll have to concede the point, if only because you have a report and all I have is my own experience, but I'd like to know what others opinions on the matter are, regarding the hows and whys on the exodus and shift to google. I just remember google being better...and that's all I cared about.
posted by jikel_morten at 7:49 AM on May 20, 2005


I have to agree with I EAT TAPAS about AltaVista vs. Google, I started using Google more often than AltaVista around late 2001.

Even when the main page on AV got cluttered AltaVista still had a text only search page for a while (you had to put something in the address bar params). The ability to use the NEAR and the AND NOT keywords along with wildcards, and nested boolean statements tended to give me much better relevance than Google right up to the point where AltaVista pretty much gave up on keeping their indexing up to date. I think they lost not because of the clutter, but because they didn't provide a way for people who don't think Boolean logic is simpler than English to get relevant search results, and because there were poor assumptions made about their revenue stream when they were bought out.

Where AV was especially helpful was queries where you had to search for a narrow domain buried in noise (i.e. sexuality research buried in porn).
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:52 AM on May 20, 2005


Love the new ig page. Added Gmail and weather and nothing else. It'd be neat to see if there was a way to set up several personalized google pages with different subsets of information.

Just one question, who the hell wants driving directions on their portal page? Pizza delivery guys?
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:56 AM on May 20, 2005


really people, you expect Google to offer great service but balk at them earning profit? How else do you expect that company to continue to be aggressive and competitive? Good will? Love?

Having been to Google's offices, everyone of the employees therein are dedicated to offering the best service out there. I've never seen so many nice, hardworking, brilliant people. No one wants to "control" the internet...the concept of that is idiotic...don't you know how the internet works!?

If google continues to offer good service and good search, i dont care how beholden they are to shareholders. they have to pay salaries, rent, overhead, etc etc. this whole concept of profit=bad is so lame it saddens me.

Where does your money come from?
posted by Dantien at 8:21 AM on May 20, 2005


By the way, google announced google adsense for RSS feeds just a couple of days ago. Interesting timing.
posted by peacay at 9:41 AM on May 20, 2005


Argh! Google everywhere! Google in Palinode's head! Ergo Google bad! Palinode SMASH Google!

Ow! Palinode smash monitor and cut hand! Warranty void! Cannot drag and drop content on personalized home page! Cannot hurt Google's attempt at market share! Palinode resigned to dominance of Google now.
posted by palinode at 11:38 AM on May 20, 2005


Metafilter: I feel icky, sticky and blue
posted by grateful at 1:10 PM on May 20, 2005


I've used the google tool bar for so long now that it just seems like part of IE. I forgot why I hadn't seen the google front page for ages.
Why would anyone have a front page set in IE anyway. I routinely have half a dozen windows open and it would drive me nuts to see the same front page every time I opened a new one. I guess everyone just has their own way to surf teh internets.
posted by Merlin at 4:03 PM on May 20, 2005


I've used the google tool bar for so long now that it just seems like part of IE. I forgot why I hadn't seen the google front page for ages.
Why would anyone have a front page set in IE anyway. I routinely have half a dozen windows open and it would drive me nuts to see the same front page every time I opened a new one. I guess everyone just has their own way to surf teh internets.
posted by Merlin at 4:03 PM PST on May 20 [!]


Dude, do yourself a favour and get firefox or opera. Seriously, if you like to have multiple windows open, and who doesn't, really, then you need a tabbed interface.
posted by jikel_morten at 5:49 PM on May 20, 2005


« Older As Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip were honourin...  |  Custom stem cells.... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments