Google's new toys

Google labs just released for your pleasure, some new toys to play with. The first is Google's Viewer, just type a few words to see a fully working preview of the web site. Another new idea: Google's Webquotes, View search results with quotes about them from other sites, and the last one is Google's Froogle, which aims to be the world's largest catalog.

Comments

that's pretty neat..

[doubleyewdee]

It seems like google is never content to rest on its laurels. Unlike some of the goneby search engines of the past it seems to be interested in doing more than pimping out its popularity to commercial interests at the cost of its quality. Hopefully they'll continue on this track for a long time to come. None of this stuff is revolutionary, but it does seem to be at least nifty. And that's all google needs at this point.

Re:that's pretty neat..

[juhaz]

Useful extra functionality sure as hells is everything but detrimental. If you don't like 'em, don't use em. But don't whine, they are not even linked on the main page. You wouldn't even KNOW about them if you don't specifically look for them in the beta pages, or see them in slashdot.

Nobody is adding bells and whistles to your basic hammer, but the company that manufactures hammers, also does some other tools. You can buy them if you like, if you don't, well, no harm done. Stop whining.

Google may well be one of the things best kept simple. Point is, Google, the search engine is as simple as it has always been.

Re:that's pretty neat..

[technix4beos]

Three reasons why what you suggest are not quite appropriate.

1.) Not everyone uses cookies.
2.) Not everyone uses the same computer to use Google. Home, work, cafe, friends.
3.) Convenience. A simple checkbox next to the main display could be hit, and used at whim.

Now, I realize that the preferences are a Good Thing, and using the various methods in the browser to link a second window is good too, but not everyone likes to do it that way.

The interface that google uses is quite simple (deceptively so, cudos.) but adding this wouldn't harm it, if done properly.

I realize that perhaps this might be the start of feature creep syndrome, but that's a decision that Google will have to think on. We can merely suggest ideas. Perhaps they are listening? (I know they read /.)

Re:that's pretty neat..

[egreB]

Well, since we're on to knitpicking..

The physics involved in the action of hammering a nail into something (e.g. wood), is quite complex. But you've got a nice and fairly easy interface to it with your hammer, thus you don't need to know much physics.

Re:that's pretty neat..

[Steveftoth]

You are the reason that computers are so hard to use.

Google's interface is so easy that it HURTS. Yes it hurts. and that's the way that it should stay.

Once you go down the dark dark path of adding 'a button here' 'a button there' you will never return from that. Google has boiled down all the complexity all the redundant controls down to a simple text box and 2 buttons. There are advanced controls for those people who use it enough to want to do that. It only takes a couple of seconds to change your prefs, and if you are on a public computer, why can't you hold down the shift key (or right click).

Google is coogle

[capitalsucks]

I think google is the only site that I hit at least 10x per day that doesnt have banner ads or popups. They have those things on the right of the page, but not only are those well priced for the advertiser (lik 1 penny per click) but they are also effective because they come up in a search. If the entire internet STILL had to have ads in my utopia, this is how I would prefer them.

just don't leave the window open

[Zorgoth]

I played with the google viewer a bit, I thought it was pretty cool. Except that when I did not close the window and got back to work, I noticed that it was sucking up bandwidth downloading the next pages to display. All right on my office machine, but at home through a digital straw, it would not be much fun.

Re:Froogle is great

[doubleyewdee]

Yeah, I just gave it a shot looking for a very particular piece of jewelry and I found it within about three minutes. I was really impressed. Even better, Froogle is in beta! If it already works this will as a beta product I can only imagine how great it will be when it has been rolled out.

I wonder if, given that Froogle could become quite popular, this will make it easier for small independent web-vendors to compete against giants like Amazon. One of the things I do like about Amazon is that it's pretty easy to find what I'm looking for, and they have lots of stuff (shady business/patent practices aside). However, if Froogle makes it this easy for me to find stuff from multiple small vendors then I might just stick with that.

Re:What about the other ones?

[platypus]

I could imagine "beta" testing means beta testing attractiveness to customers. I.e. if one of the "beta" sides gets a lot of hits, google decide to put it out of beta.

Google will remain my favourite search-engine but they in my opinion they could be a bit faster in offering new services.

You are joking, right? If not, who is better in that game than google? Two or three years ago, nearly each of the ideas which google has already implemented in their "labs" could have gained a shitload of venture capital in order to implement it.
Google not fast? I think not.

Re:Froogle is great

[Anonymous Coward]

Expect Google to get raped by lawsuits from Amazon et al for, well, who the fuck knows? I guess something along the lines of 'making it easier for everyone to compete with us' sounds about right.

Re:What about the other ones?

[PurpleFloyd]

Other beta-stuff like Google Glossary and Google Sets looked very nice but both are still in beta.

This is much more likely to be rolled out, as it is a goldmine for advertising. While the Glossary and Sets programs are nice, there's no real way to sell adwords on them. Froogle adwords, on the other hand, could likely command a premium price and thus it would make good business sense to roll out Froogle as soon as possible.

Good, Better, Best!

[coloth]

The Viewer I'd rate "good", because it shows a path to potential interface improvements in the future, but not something I'd use today.

The WebQuotes is "better" because it leverages the architecture that Google is based on, and lets you see some of the reasons why that link is near the top.

But the Froogle service is clearly the "best". It has the potential to centralize the Internet's consumer marketplaces, enhancing competition and value. My only concern is that the big retailers will put up walls to Froogle's spiders. However, if Froogle becomes popular, they may be forced to join the party, or lose access to a growing meta-internet market.

Ladies and gentlemen, Google is reminding us that we live in exciting times.

Re:Good, Better, Best!

[Alien Being]

Pricewatch still has an advantage over Froogle in that it shows products sorted by (price + S&H).

I hope Google leapfrogs pricewatch by adding not only "shipped price", but also "ETA". I want it cheap, but I also want it ASAP.

The viewer doesn't work perfectly with CSS

[pointwood]

Just look at at site that uses CSS instead of tables. The site is perfectly readable, but the design is gone.

Froogle outside of the states

[dew-genen-ny]

The Viewer seems really slick, I'll definately be using that.

However I'd really like to see them push the boat out and give people the option of using froogle outside of the states. Froogle really does look like a great service, which makes it all the more frustrating.

Now that there is a common currency for most of Europe, surely it can't be too hard to extend this.

Froogle comments

[Plutor]

My very first impression of Froogle is this: I'd like to see the groupings sorted a lot more finely. For example, I'm looking for a nice coffee thermos or mug or something. The closest I can get is the "Food & Gourmet > Beverages > Coffee" group. I'd really like "beans", "mugs and carrying things", "brewing machinery", etc. sub-groups. Granted, I could search for it, but I've always liked thorough directories when I'm searching for a class of things instead of an actual name of a product.

Google not a portal? Yeah, right.

[BornInASmallTown]

When Google News came out, I realized something: Google is trying to be a portal without being a portal, and by doing this, they are going to own the web.

Google has long said that they have no desire to enter the portal market to compete with the likes of Yahoo!. ("No, our customers are portals like Yahoo! and AOL. We're not a portal...we are just trying to be the best search engine.") While it is true that they are the best search engine, they are using characteristics of search to become a stealth portal.

Consider the following tools available from google and their counterparts on Yahoo!:

• Search engine (cf. google.yahoo.com)
  
• Directory (cf. www.yahoo.com)
  
• People search (cf. people.yahoo.com)
  
• Address search (cf. maps.yahoo.com)
  
• Froogle directory (cf. shopping.yahoo.com)
  
• News (cf. news.yahoo.com)
  
• Stock quotes (cf. quote.yahoo.com)
  

There are more analogs between the two sites. But here's the thing: Google offers a value proposition over sites like Yahoo: Much more content and much lower overhead. Why? Because Google, as a "search engine" is simply here to Help People Find What They're Looking For. They will point us to other sites after we see our search results---it's just that our search results happen to look like tradiitonal portal pages. (In other words, news.google.com is a drop in replacement for CNN.com, only google's site is better because it contains fewer ads, less clutter, and much, much, more news.)

I think it is an interesting concept. One other poster said they thought Froogle could put Amazon out of business. In the near term--no. Longer term--yes. And this is because Google's value proposition to the user is better: I would bet money that when Froogle becomes a "release" and not just a "beta", that it has the ability to classify similar products from multiple vendors and search for the one that's the cheapest. If I can find the same books and electronics on Google that I can on Amazon, why would I go to Amazon?

Google is going to preach the "non portal" doctrine forever, however over the next 3-5 years, we will see the Google "portal" owning the web, at the expense of the Yahoo's, Amazon's, Ebay's, and CNN's of the world. This means that ad revenue on other sites will become ad revenue for Google.

Maybe this is a conspiracy theory, but I have to say that I like the way Google works, I like their site, and I'd like to see them succeed in this...they've certainly made my web searching more useful, and I'd like to see them do the same for the other tools I use in traditional portals.

If froogle were out sooner

[phorm]

It's really too bad that nobody saw this beta until now. It would have been a very nice and useful tool for Christmas shopping. Somewhat like ebay, but a way like finding what you want from retailers.

Online shopping is kicking up. This will be a great tool for shoppers and retailers, so long as it doesn't get hacked or biased towards certain retailers.

Reputation over popularity

[kindofblue]

I think you are being over-optimistic. Google or any other search engine is NOT going to replace most of the sites you mentioned. It seems to me that you are relying on at least 2 major assumptions:

(1) Cheaper will always win.
(2) More info is always better.

But in both shopping and in information, for me at least, trust and reputation matters a lot. For shopping, I'll spend a few bucks more by getting something from Amazon, or Dell, or Apple, or Toyota, because I've been screwed by getting cheaper alternatives. My time and lack of aggravation matter a lot more to me. I'm very wary of trying new brands, especially for anything online.

As for information, reputation and editors matter a lot. Google and any other sort of collaborative filtering depend primarily on mass voting or popularity; but credibility is a nuanced thing. Many national online newspapers might be highly ranked according to Google, but when I see a news headline, I want to know what the point-of-view of the news source is, and not just that it is popular. After all, if popularity mattered above all, Britney Spears would be winning all the Grammys, and Jerry Springer would be winning the Emmys.

I use Google news all the time, but I find that it gives a lot of very obscure news sites. Even Slashdot appears in the headlines, and Slashdot is very highly biased opinion and discussion, NOT news. Basically I use Google news to find and scan for headlines, but invariably I only spend my time on a few trusted news sources. For any other unknown site, I always have to check out the site to determine their bias and credibility. I don't have the spare cognitive cycles to waste on sites that are spinning an unknown agenda.

Basically my point is that news site quality and merchant reputation matter a great deal, and portals like Yahoo or pseudo-portals Google still rely on the human-directed quality control. They are an important part of an information eco-system, as aggregators or popularity filters, but they are not the gatekeepers or the final word.