Slashdot Mirror
Wired Reports on 'Googlemania'
Decaffeinated Jedi writes "As a tie-in with its March 2004 cover story on the search phenomenon that is Google, Wired has posted its Complete Guide to Googlemania. Written before Google delayed its IPO earlier this month, the feature nevertheless offers a series of interesting articles focused on the search engine giant. Particularly interesting sections include Googlemaniacs (in which 'superusers' like Matt Groening and Garry Trudeau discuss how they use Google on a daily basis), a look at how blog comment spammers have taken advantage of Google's PageRank system, and a gallery of hypothetical interface redesigns by a group of artists and graphic designers."
First things first, google: Change your technology to get rid of all those fucking domains-with-all-the-words-youre-looking-for-or-il l-find-another-search-engine.
I'm not impressed by the interface redesigns. Part of the reason why I like google is that it isn't cluttered with useless information. There's an input field and the ability to submit my query. That's all I need from google. The artists who offered their ideas for a redesign seem to have made cluttered screens that, may be nice to look at, would introduce longer waiting times - and really, when I use google, I'm not going to google.com in order to see google, I'm going to see the pages that are of interest to me from my search query.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
"Microsoft will eventually integrate a search engine into Windows just as they are going to integrate an anti-virus product and have already integrated MediaPlayer. It's just a matter of when."
....
So? That doesn't mean they'll kill Google. What will kill Google is if MS's search engine is better. I don't see that happening for a couple of iterations.
"If Google really was offered $10 billion by Microsoft and turned it down, then they were stupid."
10 billion? With a b, billion? Why on Earth would Microsoft spend half of their money on a search engine?
Guess that's another one to submit to Snopes.com.
"Derp de derp."
I have to agree. It's a real shame that I do too, because Joshua Davis is one hell of an interface expert. He's done some real cutting edge interfaces of at praystation.com in the past. But I suppose even a genius can't improve on something that is virtualy perfect to begin with.
The only way I could possibly think of making google any better would be to get rid of that stupid googlebar advertisment they've been sticking on the front page. Just an input box and search results, thank you so much.
"The Wright brothers were the first to fly with a heavier-than-air machine, but boy did they have a lousy plane"
Google needs an interface redesign like fish need a bicycle.
Nathan
I think if it was good, integrating an antivirus product into Windows would be damn responsible...
hell, the antivirus industry is almost completely their fault anyway...
MICROSOFT GIVETH, MICROSOFT TAKETH AWAY...
Google management: Please read this, and don't change your page designs.
Yes, exactly. I would use the current Google interface as a marketing model to all PHBs. ...the service as is ... is perfect for the marketplace. Leave it alone! ... that's another post ....
Here's a service that offers what customers want. period. There's no need to add bullshit or anything else that would increase costs and subsequently prices. You don't need a Google cam, email, calendar, masterbation tracker, or whatever
The Cell phone people need to hear this
There is no spoon or sig.
What else were they going to do? Of course artists and graphic designers are going to try to make the site pretty. They all missed the point of Google, but so did the people who asked for their opinions.
Google Mail is an interesting subject, and it did not say anything on how it was going to attract users. MailRank algorithm anyone? If there are 99% accuracy spam filters, ala the recent slashsdot article, Google better have them. They built a better search engine and they came. If they build a better spam filter, even more will come.
Microsoft is providing a fact search thingy in Longhorn. I hope Google has one soon, or else they will not survive. (As a student, I think the fact search thing will be invaluable, and is practically worth buying Longhorn.)
I hope Google can survive, but Microsoft is here, and Bill has not lost. Yet.
Mod Wisely.
I fear that the Google IPO, if the ever get around to it, will mean the end of Google as we know it.
Right now, the owners of Google seem content with the profit that their company is making, and are not efforting to squeeze every possible penny out of their site. The Google homepage has to be the most seen single page on the Internet, yet they have refrained from putting a banner ad on it.
A public company doesn't have that luxury. It has a fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as posible for the sake of its minority shareholders. They'll feel pressure to put ads where there were no ads before, and to curtail research projects that aren't going anywhere profitable in the near future.
In short, could the IPO kill Google-as-we-know-it?
Part of graphic design is designing for your audience. I don't know a single person who looked at Google and said "this needs more gaudy shit." These guys totally failed.
I suppose it's inevitable. It's hard to justify your design competence to the average joe or PHB with less rather than more. I'm sure a lot of people if questioned would look at Google right now and think "anybody could design that."
So? That doesn't mean they'll kill Google. What will kill Google is if MS's search engine is better.
sometimes being better doesn't mean anything. Was IE better than Netscape during the browser war? or was it just because MS preinstalled IE in all Windows, and Windows happens to be one of the most used OS?
and nowadays, Opera, Mozilla etc must be better than IE? but are they taking over IE's market share?
None of the page redesigners proposed this:
Google
_________________________________
Google Search / I'm Feeling Lucky
I mean, we could lighten the interface from graphics so that it loads quickly...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
" Was IE better than Netscape during the browser war? or was it just because MS preinstalled IE in all Windows, and Windows happens to be one of the most used OS?"
Yes, IE was better than Netscape. It wasn't at first. It was lacking in many ways, and as a result, people flocked towards Netscape. When version 4 came out of both apps, Microsoft had gotten their act together, and suddenly Netscape wasn't such an interesting browser anymore. They just weren't doing enough to make their app better.
Microsoft didn't win because IE was preinstalled, it won because it was a better browser. If what you were saying was true, then Netscape would never have had half the marketshare.
"Derp de derp."
The most interesting thing about a good search engine is that for most folks, it's their front end to the Internet. Like your browser or your computer monitor, it's the window through which you see the digital world. For that reason, people tend to give it credit for all the content on the net that they wouldn't have known about otherwise. I think this is particularly true for Google because it's so comprehensive, so fast, so flexible, so easy to use.
So in some sense, Google in many people's minds is more than just the search engine. People think of Google almost the way they think of the Internet itself. People don't say "...you can search the net for that...", they say "...you can Google for that...".
Google is where AOL, Yahoo!, Microsoft, and many others want to be. And it's (so far) conducting itself with grace, intelligence, integrity, and style. I wish it well.
Mozilla? No thanks, I'll stick with firefox
Wrong (and right). IE won because it was a better browser. But the only reason it was better was that it was preinstalled. Featurewise, both browsers were about equal... but IE was already there, and it was good enough, so there was no reason to download Netscape.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
This is different. Google has won the search engine wars. It's not up for grabs anymore. This means that people will seek out google on their fresh-from-the-showroom pc, no matter what Microsoft has plopped in front of them. The only way MS can get them to switch now is to provide something better than google. Unlikely, IMHO.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
These designers should be fired for failing to clue in to how Google got so big in the first place: it indexes a lot of pages, and it's search page comes up FAST. None of the proposed redesigns would make Google easier to use...they'd just make it take longer to download the search page.
Much of the reason for my using Google is that its home page is simple, it loads quickly, and it is just so easy to *search*, which is what a search engine should be. Yahoo failed when it became a "portal" and tried to do too much by itself. If they could somehow reduce the size of Yahoo's page down to that of Google (that would mean getting rid of those ads, guys) then maybe I'd consider trying it.
I agree, mostly, but I'm an engineer as you (probably?) are. We see the practicality and functionality of google for what it is, and don't need the bells and whistles and all those other things that might make it "cool". But we (as engineers) might prefer a Unix command prompt over a flashier Windows GUI, but then Windows happens to be the present dominant OS out there.
Obviously google has become a huge success and that success is most likely due to it's performance (results and speed, fraud-busting, etc.), but I'm not sure how the "general populace" would feel about any visual enhancements or additional features. Perhaps the average user might be intimidated by all sorts of other bizarre features, or maybe they would appreciate them because (as the author Michael Chabon said) they'd get the opportunity to catch new links to potentially interesting information (or maybe the map might save them a trip to mapquest, or something).
I think google is fine and I use it and everything, but I did think the map feature was interesting (of course, not for a standard search, but perhaps as a special search). I'm sure that there are some other features that would be popular with the computer users who aren't all business either.
I mean, there's a reason why so many people go to huge portals like cruel.com or joke sites like the Spark, because they're looking for a distraction, and some of these "enhancements" would provide just that.
hypothetical interface redesigns by a group of artists and graphic designers.
All one has to do is look at all the relatively useless flash-driven drivel on the web, and realize that artists and graphic designers are not all acquainted with the notion of usability. The one thing I truly like about google is its VERY functional simplicity.
A lot of people have pointed out how stupid it would be to replace Google's trademark minimalist look with cluttered, busy, or even over-designed pages. I agree, but I want to add something.
I personally use Google for all different kinds of research; work, play, random boredom. If I had to classify my searches I'd probably come up with 100 distinct categories of information I look for weekly. And I'm just one of millions of users from all different backgrounds, all searching in different fields and for different reasons.
In my opinion, one of the reason Google is such an amazing tool for searching all these fields of data is beacuse it is so minimalist. It is unadorned, free of styling and starkly generic. Almost like a page whose CSS style sheet failed to load. Why is this a good thing? It imparts no bias to the research task at hand. You could be looking for monitor parts, anti-malarial drugs or advice on your tax deductions, and your mind is free to focus into the data at hand.
Combined with its DWIM features and fantastic algorithm, I think that the "blank page" look makes Google almost invisible. It's totally transparent, leaving just you and the data. Pretty cool.
OK, I don't think I've ever written a more flaky-sounding paradigmy comment in my life. Forgive me.
Justin
"Why would God give us a waist if we wasn't supposed to rest our pants on it?" - Rev. Roy McDaniels
Google is damned cool. It's definately the best thing out there right now. However, it could be better.
What is missing is a simple regex interpreter: it would drastically increase the efficiency of searches. Boolean stuff is cool, but it is by no means powerful: we've had boolean searches since, what, 1995, 1996? It's incredibly limited to AND OR NOT logic.
If MS's search engine attempts were to have such regex features, it would likely replace google for many of my features, provided it wasn't overly intrusive (which I doubt as even a remote possibility, actually). Google really needs to get with the times, so to speak.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Another thing to note in the excellence would be the lack of proper competition. If Teoma or Inktomi can deliver good results I am sure people would use that. This field is not a field of muscle but brains, and the smarter ones always win
Has anyone actually looked at this designs?
As a designer myself, I wonder if any of those people thought about their design actually being in use. This is art...and not functional art; modern, useless art.
I'm just thankful none of those designs stand a chance of taking over the simple serenity of the current Google design. Half of why I use Google of Yahoo! is because Yahoo! is crowded, teeming with irrelevent junk... and the current Yahoo! design has a tiny fraction of the artsy design funk of those options.
I think this is another case of artists abandoning reason for publicity :-)
-----
"Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."
The reality is, netscape was once a product FOR SALE. And netscape had a huge IPO and future ahead of it.
Of course Microsoft would eventually kill them off--all they had to do was sell windows and bundle the competing application to do it.
This is exactly what MS will continue doing until sanity is restored in the market--by force of law if necessary. They will simply scan the horizon for emerging technologies, clone them, claim to be "an innovator, enhancing the user's experience" and that will be that.
It's not so much that consumers suffer--MS has to make a product reasonably comparable to that of the company they are attempting to kill off--the real horror is that it makes people and companies not want to invest in young, up and coming companies.
This is a devastating thing, when there is simply no use trying to do something new, because you know in your heart and mind that the laws of your country are not being enforced, and the media is being manipulated.
You should take the time to read about the railroad industries, general motors, IBM, and yes, Microsoft--and MS' issues with borland, novell, stac, netscape and ibm. Once you have done that reading, you're opinion will mean a lot more. Clearly you don't know much about the history of the internet if you don't realize that netscape once sold their browser.
The very best thing for the consumer is a variety of vendors competing for their money! That means interoperable computers, running different software, and different hardware. The only reason ActiveX exists is because MS can get away with it.
Freedom of choice is American, it's the way things should work...and the law agrees. Personally I use Linux and keep my wallet close. Fuck MS.
This idea intrigues me. In Japan I've seen a handheld scanner + OCR + dictionary in one device. If the device had wireless internet access, then a Google search button would become a reality (although an actual dedicated button would probably not happen because real estate is expensive on handhelds). We already have cellphones with cameras - all we need is OCR and a nice software interface for web searching.
I can't understand what the point of having gradients is, aside from making the page render more slowly and download more slowly.
May we never see th
Why be "cool"?
Google doesn't need to try to play off of visual novelty, because they've taken an approach of trying to produce the best product possible.
You know what *is* cool -- the features that they add constantly. They don't make any fuss about them, don't add a new little badge to indicate that you can do reverse phone lookups on the main page, or anything. They just let it work, and let you be pleased and surprised when you try searching and things Just Work.
I hope that whoever is responsible for the rabidly spartan design at Google never retires or otherwise leaves. He's done an incredible amount to help the company.
Besides...your worry is a distinct visual look? I know many web sites loaded down with Flash, tons of faux-3d bitmaps, and rollover menus with more fake 3d stuff. I can't think of any other major site that looks like Google. Simplicity is Google's trademark.
May we never see th
Yes, but how long does the appeal last?
Google is intended to be something that you look at day in and day out. Novelty just doesn't last long in such an environment.
The problem is that the graphic design industry has a long tradition of working on product design. Product design has one purpose -- sell the product. Get a potential customer seeing a product in a store or in use by someone else to be overwhelmed and make an impulse buy. Novelty is *everything* in such a situation. Making someone say "cool" is vital.
Websites don't work like that at all. With a website, one has to keep convincing people to use the website, every hour, every day. Novelty has little value. Eliminating irritations has much *more* value -- that page that takes just a titch too long to download and render, or that extra click that has to be made are irritations that build up over time.
Now, I'm quite sure that there are competent graphic designers working on web sites. However, the attempt to just drop a bunch of graphic designers on a website and assume that talent in traditional graphic design translates to immediate talent in website design is just silly.
May we never see th
I'm sure a lot of people if questioned would look at Google right now and think "anybody could design that."
And yet, how few websites have caught on to the simplicity motif and designed their site around it?
May we never see th
Please feel free to give an example of a practical day-to-day use where you would use "a googol" and need to mean the precise numerical value.
I personally think that the artist understood what he was saying pretty well. Two two are different, but the common use of the term infinity means "a lot", just like the common (if rare) use of "a googol".
May we never see th
I just went to praystation.com and took a look.
First, Mr. Davis' design wastes a good chunk of my web browser's viewable area -- the whole thing is letterboxed.
Next, I have to wait for this little animation to go by when I start looking at the page.
I have my browser font sizes jacked up to be easily readable when sitting back from my monitor, as I am now. Works in all the sites I use -- but Mr. Davis' site has near-unreadable narrow-piped fonts with similar, dark colors all antialiased and stuck in a static small size.
One of his panes has a scrollbar. I figured it out because I use xterm, and have seen arrowless scrollbars before. Except Mr. Davis didn't even outline his scrollbar, or do anything to indicate that the thing *was* a scrollbar. There's just this big rectangle of gray that you can grab and drag.
Mr. Davis uses rollover highlighting. I think my opinion of rollover highlighting can be nicely summed up by analysis of an HCI person a ways back -- you use rollover highlighting when your interface is so unintutive that users aren't sure what to click on, and must wave the mouse over the interface to be enlightened. Rollovers became popular shortly after imagemaps did, when people had artsy but highly unusable designs containing a big image where it was unclear what was a link.
I cannot select and copy and paste text on Mr. Davis' site.
Mr. Davis chooses to force me to use visual transitions. When I click on anything on his site, I frequently have to wade for a fade transition to complete before I can read the next page. Fade transitions are no longer novel or interesting to users, and slow down anyone trying to navigate the site.
I see few things on praystation.com that could not have been done much better with a more conventional webpage.
Now, I will admit that many of the flaws in praystation.com are endemic among Flash designers, and indulged in by many others. However, that doesn't change the fact that I really don't like interacting with the praystation.com site, and I really *do* like using Google.
May we never see th
Never let a graphic artist.... anywhere near the google interface! Blink Blink... Flash!
--D