Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wired Reports on 'Googlemania'

Posted by simoniker on from the like-beatlemania-with-better-haircuts dept.

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."

69 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft versus Google by erick99 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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. If Google really was offered $10 billion by Microsoft and turned it down, then they were stupid.

    Happy Trails!

    Erick

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:Microsoft versus Google by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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."
    2. Re:Microsoft versus Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If Google was bought out by Microsoft, and you prefer not to use Windows, would you have to install Windows just to use a decent search engine?

      I, for one, hope that Google stays the way it is. Simple, fast, powerful, and reasonably free.

    3. Re:Microsoft versus Google by wed128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    4. Re:Microsoft versus Google by maliabu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    5. Re:Microsoft versus Google by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      " 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."
    6. Re:Microsoft versus Google by Thanatopsis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry but Microsoft has already done this - currently searches in IE, bad domains, and failed DNS lookups go to Microsoft Search. The problem is the search experience is SO POOR that users still prefer Google. As far being stupid for a 10 Billion dollar offer, Google knows the public markets hold much more money for them. Bill was undoubtedly offering a stock swap deal, not a cash buyout. Investors will see much more money in an IPO. Keep this in mind, Google's revenue is well over 1 Billion annually. (According to my sources 1.2 or so.) The margin on search is quite high so they undoubtedly highly profitable. They have no need to go public other than to pay off their initial VC. As the article points out, going public has it's own pains. A Google IPO where they float 20% of the company is probably a 20 Billion dollar event. You do the math, still think they were stupid to turn down Gates. Nope.

      --

      Thalasar
    7. Re:Microsoft versus Google by ixplodestuff8 · · Score: 3, Funny

      reasonably free? as opposed to unreasonably free?

      "That search engine was unreasonably free, I mean It was over 100x more free than other free search engines"

    8. Re:Microsoft versus Google by evilquaker · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Microsoft didn't win because IE was preinstalled, it won because it was a better browser.

      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
    9. Re:Microsoft versus Google by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why on Earth would Microsoft spend half of their money on a search engine?

      Economics says that $10 billion is what Google's worth (in Microsoft's perception) or, more likely, since Google rejected the offer, $10 billion is less than what they believe Google's value to be. That's why.

      It doesn't matter if it's half their money or all of their money, if Microsoft assesses a certain value to a company, they'll be willing to make the corresponding offer. (They've done so before).

    10. Re:Microsoft versus Google by lawpoop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    11. Re:Microsoft versus Google by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Interesting

      " 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."

      Wrong. IE 4+ didn't crash when you looked at it the wrong way. They couldn't even get Netscape to be stable while running in Linux, can't blame Windows for that.

      There's a reason the term "Nutscrape" became quite prevalent in the net culture.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    12. Re:Microsoft versus Google by evilquaker · · Score: 5, Funny
      Wrong. IE 4+ didn't crash when you looked at it the wrong way.

      You're right... IE 4 didn't just crash, it exploded spectacularly, and took down your whole desktop to boot.

      --
      To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
    13. Re:Microsoft versus Google by Ciderx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's rubbish. Having designed desktop systems at a University and made sure that both Netscape and IE were fully installed, had equal capabilities with regards to plugins etc on several thousand student access machines, I can tell you, the pre-installed argument is rubbish. Netscape 4.x and beyond were just nowhere near the standard of IE 5.x and above.

    14. Re:Microsoft versus Google by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right, and those risks are incorporated into the fair market value (deceptive, though, because Google is still private). Microsoft is a huge corporation with a huge pool of self-interested investors run by people who only seek to increase shareholder value (viva capitalistas!). You make a good point about the risk of $10 billion, but the fact that Microsoft made the offer (regardless of what fraction of cash reserves this offer represents) means that Microsoft assessed the risk (I'm sure they did) and either deemed it not too risky, or a risky investment with potential payoffs that made it worthwhile.

      Additionally, there don't even necessarily need to be any assurances about the payoffs. All that matters is the NPV (including factors such as volatility, discount rates, etc.) is positive. It doesn't matter if they pay $10 billion now and the $20 billion payoff comes 10 years down the road, if the present value of that $20 billion 10 years from now is $10 billion and one penny then (technically) it's a good investment.

      The fact that the payoff is 10 years from now does not matter at all to the investor because he/she can always sell it for what it's worth today in the free market (though it is almost always -- excluding deflation -- true that a $20 bn payoff tomorrow will be worth more than a $20 bn payoff in 10 years).

    15. Re:Microsoft versus Google by MindNet · · Score: 5, Informative

      What kind of crack are you smoking? IE gained popularity because of two things:

      1) They pre-installed the browser with the OS.
      2) They fucked around with browser implementation standards.

      IE wasn't better. Microsoft included their own tags and "VB script" that would make it's browser do things that Netscape couldn't.

      When web site developers foolishly started using these proprietary tags, web site viewers realized that half the sites they were going to didn't work "properly" in Netscape, and Netscape lost marketshare.

      Netscape didn't get the nickname "Nutscrape" from users who know what they were talking about, it got the name from people who preferred the glitz and galmour of all the cool, new, RFC breaking features that IE provided.

      --
      "You do not associate with us because we are different. We do not associate with you because you are stupid."
    16. Re:Microsoft versus Google by aftk2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Netscape didn't get the nickname "Nutscrape" from users who know what they were talking about, it got the name from people who preferred the glitz and galmour of all the cool, new, RFC breaking features that IE provided.

      Bwahaha. Does 'document.layers' mean anything to you? Netscape was a standards nightmare, and tried just as fervently as Internet Explorer to shove its proprietary tags and JavaScript down your throat. IE at version 4 was decent, and IE at version 5 (released in early 1999, I believe) was so much better than Netscape.

      Initially, Netscape was great. Indeed, it was pretty much the only useable option for awhile in the mid-90s. But they got complacent, and then they just got terrible. There was a reason the Mozilla folks decided to completely rewrite the core of the browser for Netscape 6. Yes, IE's dominance of the browser market was accelerated by the fact that the browser shipped as the operating system's default, but it was so much better that it's victory was inevitable.

      History repeats itself. No sooner than IE is declared the victor in this latest browser war, its development grows stagnant. The trouble this time is that Netscape never had an operating system Monopoly against which to leverage itself.

      --
      concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
    17. Re:Microsoft versus Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. It's a search engine, not a museum. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The beauty of the present Google interface is that it contains absolutely nothing unneeded, and the search box is the main focus of the page.

    All four of the artists that came up with proposals for Google redisigns totally missed that concept. One wants Google to provide needless information nobody asked for, one wants to remind people of conspiracy theories on every visit, one's trying to bring color onto a page that you don't usually spend time admiring, and one's suggesting brand extentions that'd end up cheapening the original Google brand.

    Google's power is in its function. Needless art on the homepage just distracts from that... There's a reason why artists are only allowed to work with the Google Doodle on rare occasions and they're not welcome to mess with the rest of the home page.

    1. Re:It's a search engine, not a museum. by MisanthropicProggram · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, exactly. I would use the current Google interface as a marketing model to all PHBs.
      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 service as is ... is perfect for the marketplace. Leave it alone!
      The Cell phone people need to hear this ... that's another post ....

      --

      There is no spoon or sig.

    2. Re:It's a search engine, not a museum. by td · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably Wired asked a dozen designers to improve google, eight said "What? It's perfect already!" and the other four made it into the article.

      --
      -Tom Duff
    3. Re:It's a search engine, not a museum. by jkleid · · Score: 3

      "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."

      Well that's exactly what you get when you install googlebar: An input box, and nothing else.

    4. Re:It's a search engine, not a museum. by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. Googlemania by jargoone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Googlemania by thedillybar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Agreed, but once they fix this, googlers will come up with another way to crawl up on the list (no pun intended). At least the domains-with-all-the-words can easily be found and ignored.

      Google seems to have a strict policy on altering results provided by the algorithm, which I think is a wonderful policy and shouldn't be changed without much consideration.

  4. Interesting Redesigns by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Ah, yes, google-bombs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    See also:

    weapons of mass destruction
    french military victories

  6. Googlemania: The Class by ctrl-alt-elite · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They forgot the class currently being taught at the University of Washington (which I am taking at the moment). It looks at Google from a wide variety of standpoints-- including looking at Google as a 'Ravager of Worlds'-- and is definitely a nice departure from the traditional "learn how to Google stuff" class.

  7. I, for one... by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our ...reigning... Google overlords.

    --
    True story.
  8. What? by savagedome · · Score: 5, Funny

    Google has improved my sex life, tightened my abs, and brought me closer to God.
    - Lloyd Grove

    Any other Google out there that I am not aware of?

    --


    Free XBox, PS2
  9. All I have to say by gblues · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google needs an interface redesign like fish need a bicycle.

    Nathan

  10. All four proposed redesigns are lame! by Eric+Smith · · Score: 4, Interesting
    They don't provide anything of value, but they make it look more cluttered. The genius of the current interface is its simplicity.

    The geographic location stuff might be of marginal utility occasionally, but I'd just want an extra link to click on near the result if I wanted that info.

    1. Re:All four proposed redesigns are lame! by LesPaul75 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Agreed.

      And I love the way that "Jenny Holzer" would redesign the page... I'm sure Google would be excited about expressing her personal political views right on the front page. How did that mess even make it into the Wired article?

      I think that the main page should have a Flash game where you get to hit republicans on the head with a big hammer. I think that users would really like that.
      -- Jenny Holzer, "Artist"

      Ha.

    2. Re:All four proposed redesigns are lame! by sfjoe · · Score: 3, Funny

      And I love the way that "Jenny Holzer" would redesign the page... I'm sure Google would be excited about expressing her personal political views right on the front page

      It's actually a very good idea for the post-IPO Google. Alternate Jenny's idea with its opposite number: Republicans get a Flash game where they get to beat up homosexuals, liberals and non-Christians. The resulting controversy gets mentioned in every news story for several days. Traffic spikes and investors bid up the stock price. Of course, it has nothing to do with search results but that's business.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    3. Re:All four proposed redesigns are lame! by awtbfb · · Score: 3, Informative


      Jenny Holzer, "Artist"

      Actually, Jenny Holzer is an excellent artist, regardless of your/her political leaning. Most people don't get the full effect of her work since her installations typically don't photograph well. Speaking from experience, her work is really quite powerful in person.

      Of course, the most famous phrase she has used in her work is appropriate to mention here: "Protect Me from What I Want" (for bonus points, note the location of the sign).

  11. Are we seeing a pattern here? by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Are we going to see Google balloon up to what Altavista used to look like, then to fight a competitor slim back down to what Google (and Altavista) is like now? Then have it balloon back up as new stuff comes along?

    Just curious. It reminds me of a management cycle that Scott Adams wrote about once. "We need to decentralize to be more efficient!" Then, a few months later "We need to centralize in order to focus on our coure strengths". Then, repeat. heh.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  12. im not impressed by highwaytohell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    with the redesigns. All that needless clutter. Reminds me too much of yahoo. Its why i stopped using yahoo. Googles brilliance is in the simplicity of its interface. Everyone knows that when you go to google you get a search interface. You go there to search for things, not be bombarded with needless advertising that has no relevance to what you initially went there for. I think why it has become such a phenomenon, because it is effective, fast, and is straight to the point. Usually the simplest solutions are the most effective ones...

  13. Please read this... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google management: Please read this, and don't change your page designs.

  14. Google vs. Gates by loomis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A profound quote from the Google vs. Gates article examining why Microsoft is so obsessed with Google as Longhorn draws nearer:

    "Microsoft looks at Google and sees its own past, full of promise."

    --
    "The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
  15. They were artists, not search engine designers. by Geancanach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Dissapointing by Zevets · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This article was tipicle (sp?) Wired. "YAY, for google, WOOHOOO!", is all the article said. It did not explain how it was going to repell the Microsoft Juggernaut of dotcom doom, and it did not provide any insights into the future of Google, other than that original employees are going to be filthy rich.

    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.

    1. Re:Dissapointing by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree completely with your post. I can dig Wired for some "light reading" but I find it far too often panders to the casual techie who is more into what new gadgets they can buy to store phone numbers than what actually goes on inside them. Wired is technology not for the sake of technology (or knowledge, or whatever), but technology to be edgy and cool. Wired glorifies google because they are hip and hot, and vilifies Microsoft (not that I disagree, per se) because Microsoft is stodgy and megalomaniacal. Google is private and still independent, while Microsoft is public and capitalistic.

      It will be interesting to see how Google and Microsoft handle the impending collision of egos as Microsoft will inevitably try to capture or dislodge Google.

      I use google, but I'm more than a little cautious about their privacy policies. The fact search that you mention would be an amazing enhancement to google, so that I wouldn't have to scour through some dozens of online stores before I can get to some actual information. I hope it comes soon.

      As far as my projected future of google, they're going to go public someday (because they will become very very rich), and then they'll turn into every other corporation in America, losing their edge for conservatism and becoming too big for anybody's good (or are they already too big?)

  17. Superusers? by TheSpoom · · Score: 5, Funny

    How does one get to be a Google superuser? Does one get special privileges like banning enemies from Google and altering search returns for certain users? Hmm, maybe I just need to get my search count up...

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Superusers? by squidfood · · Score: 5, Funny
      How does one get to be a Google superuser?

      1. Go to the Google home page.
      2. Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right...

  18. Blog spammers for Elron by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lately a few people on alt.religion.scientology have been tracking an increase in cookie-cutter mass-produced pro-$cientology blogs. Could it be that $cientology found that blog comment spamming no longer worked, and are now creating actual throw-away blogs to see if they can gimick the results again?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  19. Can Google ever IPO? by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  20. You Fail It by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  21. Thank god artists don't design our web interfaces by s88 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look at the crap these guys put together.

    First off, the first guy's "idea" is nothing but a rip-off of this contest winning idea.

    The others are nothing but blatant political posturing.

    Scott

  22. I like Google gfx by curious.corn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    because it's simple. The logo looks like some incredibly gifted code geek tried to liven up his/her backend logic with some photoshopping but... failed; it looks cheapish but it gives that "we're not in marketing" feeling. Also, it's very blank, like Structure, where Morpheus lectures Neo before running the training programs... cool. Loading google produces s a feeling of loss, a blank page, one measly textarea and a button (no 'submit' caption!)... the web staring blankly at you, wondering what the hell you want...
    The linked stuff is just gfx artists masturbation; looks cool, but they're just exacerbating the business they're trained in.

    --
    Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
  23. It's kind of funny... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:It's kind of funny... by swedub · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I totally agree. As a web designer myself, I am surprised how none of the "redo's" had any care for optimization. The main reason I prefer Google is it's extreme simplicity, quickness and ease of use, especially when viewing their site through my Treo 300. One seemed filled with way too much information for one page, one seemed to have nothing to do with what people are using Google for, one seemed t would be a huge download with all the graphics and one, of course, wasn't a site redesign at all. I prefer the current approach, K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid).

  24. Google is more than just Google by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  25. IPO not necessarily delayed by bmarklein · · Score: 3, Informative

    The IPO is not necessarily delayed. The CEO's statements that were taken to mean there was a delay were actually consistent with his previous statements. Google has never publicly stated that they would be doing an IPO.

  26. New Google trick!!! by BTWR · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Search for "Google Backwards" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" - very cool (sorry if this is "so last week," but I just found it myself yesterday...)

  27. *my* google interface by embedded_C · · Score: 4, Informative

    My google interface is on my locally stored homepage, and is displayed as a simple white text box with the word Google beside it. The form itself then links to http://www.google.com/search, so I don't even have any idea what Google's homepage looks like. Plus I have quick links to all my regular webpages/portals/groups etc...

    So if you want a new google interface, design one and access it on your local drive.

  28. How to screw up a great, usable interface by dmiller · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just give it to a graphic designer.

    The ones listed in the story were appalling.

  29. Web standards and structural markup. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On the matter of choosing a UI design for Google, it is of course just downright stupid to build any appearance into a website. The markup should be standards compliant and structural. Websites should obviously provide a default set of stylesheets and images, but the user should be able to apply any stylesheet they want. In the world envisioned by the W3C, there's nothing stopping you from applying any appearance you want to the web, rather than the other way around.

    --
    Join Tor today!
  30. Artist or "artist" ? by JonTurner · · Score: 3, Interesting

    -- Jenny Holzer, "Artist"

    I can't remember, so help me out here, people: is "artist" (with quote marks) what you get to call yourself when you waste four years at college on an Art History degree and end up thoroughly unemployed (see also "artsy-fartsy") or is "artist" just an all-purpose label for unattractive whiners who spoil every opportunity to do something meaningful by calling lame political commentary "art" (with quotes) thereby ensuring that the product of one's life is measured in the number of coffee refills served while working at the doughnut shop rather than creating something of beauty or meaning?

    I can never remember which is which, but then again it's a fine distinction.

  31. Quickly, Avert Your Eyes! by qortra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wrong. IE 4+ didn't crash when you looked at it the wrong way.

    Wrong. Many variants of IE 4 and 5 were AMAZINGLY unstable. I remember being brought to tears by the mind-numbingly frequent crashes of IE on my otherwise-stable computer. It really wasn't until a few service packs into 5 that they started to get their act together.

  32. Just a remark about infinity... by rmdyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One of those artists said...

    "The number Google is finite, but it's so large that it is infinite for all practical purposes."

    Even a Googleplex is as far away from infinity as is the number 1. Few people really get infinity...even artists. Practical purposes maybe, but close to infinity? Infinity isn't a number at all. It is a symbol for continuousness.

    +1

  33. Big mistake by symbolic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Big mistake by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      Agreed. I think this is a case of everything looking like nails when the only tool (or mindset) you have is a hammer. Graphic designers are used to controlling EVERYTHING about presentation - hence their fatalistic fascination with flash, which allows them to rob the end user of any control over presentation (ie, font size, colors, page width, etc.) Problem is, HTML is by design, meant to be interpreted by the browser - whether it be lynx, a PDA browser, explorer, mozilla, webtv, etc.

      The other issue is that HTML is meant as a text markup language. This isn't fixed text, but living, flowing text, that can be wrapped at unpredictable places, set in any font style and size, viewed at 512 x 384 or 1600 x 1200, and the leaner the underlying code is, the faster it transmits and loads.

  34. user experience design is supposed to be practical by SideshowBob · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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".

    Actually, good user experience design is supposed to place practicality above bells and whistles. The problem is that so many UE experts are really designer/artists and not really UE experts.

    Having said that, engineers aren't usually the best UE designers either, because what is practical to an engineer is often inscrutable to a normal user. Imagine a color chooser box that took hex values for R G and B color components. Very handy for a developer but awful for a user. You see bad design all the time from engineers *and* (graphic) designers.

  35. Google's minimalism by justinstreufert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  36. the power of Unix by CAIMLAS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:the power of Unix by The+Z+Master · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not so sure. I've thought about this before, and really, what would be a situation where you'd use a regex to search for a document? Most searches are assembled by combining the right words (with boolean AND implied), not letter sequences.

      Regex searches could also be slow. Think of how many documents Google has to sift through to look for keywords. Now think about backtracking in word matching. In addition, unless Google implemented some kind of safeguards, someone could use up massive processing time on Google servers.

  37. The sudden interest because of the IPO .. by gangz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The sudden interest in Google because of the IPO might not work for the good of the company.Google is a great search engine.I cannot do without it. It embodies both the spirit of classy entrepreunership and technical excellence. To be able to continue the same the Google management needs to remain more techno-market savy rather than turn to being just market-savy. As the article points out, more often than not the companies that went public bore the brunt of the public intereference. Agreed that lots of revenues need to be raised for a good growth, but then it should be acknowledged that with great money comes great expectations and if Google cannot continue the same it would face the red line too.

    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

  38. Re:Shepard Fairey by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  39. I'm not all that impressed with his work by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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