Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Trials A9 Style Image Search

Posted by samzenpus on from the be-careful-what-you-search-for dept.

Grugnog writes "Google has started including images from it's image search on the main search page. This is similar to Amazon's A9 search engine. With Google kicking off Google Print (A9's other specialty) could A9 become redundant?"

157 of 221 comments (clear)

  1. dumb question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    google's finally copying someone else, and you wonder if A9 is redundant? Talk about google-fanboy!

    We should be happy that there's actually innovation happening. competition is good.

    1. Re:dumb question by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Innovation on Amazon's part to cause other search companies who are considered better to add features.

    2. Re:dumb question by l3v1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You mean Google doing web search, A9 using Google's web and image search results to enhance (their word) the results, now Google doing search which you/they/whatever say it's a copy of A9's. Now, stop that, I'm spinning. From the beginning A9 was a results ripoff with it's own interface. If they have something really worth using, that should do us (users) just good and fine, a little competitiveness can never hurt (if you leave MS out of it, that is :P ).

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    3. Re:dumb question by acebone · · Score: 1

      Yeah - ACs are like karma-eunuchs

      --
      Check out my PHP Url Validator
    4. Re:dumb question by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      Right right, but my point was more generally that it was a useless post.

    5. Re:dumb question by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      "companies who are considered better" - rediculous, stupid statement. And the innovation the parent was refering to was in G's copying A.

  2. No... by osobear · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Become redundant? No. Competition is always good and is always needed. Does a Toyota Camry make a Ford Taurus redundant?

    1. Re:No... by filmmaker · · Score: 1

      Right, but that analogy only flies if you owned both cars and always had a choice of what to drive. Then, after a very short time, one of the two (the inferior one I would hope) would become essentially redundant to you.

      --
      I Want To Believe
    2. Re:No... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      Yes. But people can and do buy either model.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    3. Re:No... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      and always had a choice of what to drive.
      Are you suggesting that people do not have choice in what search engine to use? If that were the case, I don't see how Google could have ever become number #1 wrt the search market.
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    4. Re:No... by filmmaker · · Score: 1

      No. Quite the contrary. My point is precisely that one has a choice, at any given moment, of what search engine to use.

      A car, on the other hand, is a long term commitement (relatively anyway), and most folks can choose only one car at a time and they're stuck with it for a while.

      --
      I Want To Believe
    5. Re:No... by 4cop2c · · Score: 1

      but google and A9 can continue to improve themselves to avoid being redundant to you

    6. Re:No... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Well, the Taurus appearently makes the Contour redundant... :)

    7. Re:No... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      A car, on the other hand, is a long term commitement (relatively anyway), and most folks can choose only one car at a time and they're stuck with it for a while.
      Huh? Have you ever heard of a rental or a 2 year lease? How do "most" people only choose one car at a time? Everyone I know own at least two cars. I own three and can drive anyone I want to work on any given day. So how are "most folks" stuck with one car for a while?

      Do you live in the USA? If so, are you out of school? Maybe in other contries, or for students the average car per household is one. However, in the USA or for wokring Americans, most households have two cars or more. At least every working family I know in my age group, 25 - 35, have at least 2 cars.

      Maybe next time base your argument on real fact that are not bound by your current situation.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    8. Re:No... by filmmaker · · Score: 1

      Wha?? Pay attention. I didn't say per household.

      I doubt you have 3 cars for yourself. One for your spouse, one for your teen perhaps, and maybe, if you have more money than most people I know, you have a summer and a winter car for yourself.

      And as far as renting or a 2 year lease, wtf? That's moot. Suppose I rent 1000 cars before picking one. At some point, I've chosen 1 to purchase or lease. Even if it's for 1 year, that's a HUGE commitment by comparison (or analogy) to anything on the web.

      The car analogy just isn't apt.

      --
      I Want To Believe
    9. Re:No... by morbiuswilters · · Score: 1

      IIRC, A9 uses Google's results for web and image search. Too tired to check, but just a heads up..

      --
      I have come here to chew memory and kick ass... and malloc() is returning a null pointer.
    10. Re:No... by metricmusic · · Score: 1

      he said:

      "Become redundant? No. Competition is always good and is always needed. Does a Toyota Camry make a Ford Taurus redundant? "

      His Moderation:

      No... (Score:1, Redundant)
      by osobear (761394) Neutral on Thursday January 20, @01:38PM (#11415719)
      ( http://www.osobear.net/ )

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
    11. Re:No... by LocoMan · · Score: 1

      Probably for some but I think not for all... at least I know that not too long ago I was doing an image search using both and A9 was giving me some images that google didn't have and viceversa.

  3. A9 Seems Redundant Already by filmmaker · · Score: 3, Funny

    With Google kicking off Google Print (A9's other specialty) could A9 become redundant?"

    Wasn't it always? I spent some time on A9 one day -- liked the inline images -- but overall wasn't impressed. I'm sure there are dozens of handy, idiosyncratic features I missed that I'll be informed of momentarily, but my first impression was "blah."

    I'd like to see more mixing of results onto a single page though. Seeing the first few images and the first few Froogle results would be a nice addition.

    --
    I Want To Believe
    1. Re:A9 Seems Redundant Already by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Something I liked with A9 was an easily accessible site info page with a site review and even rating, along with other misc. info like page ranking (from Amazon.com? Alexa?) The link was right next to the search result, like "show cached" is in Google.

      What would be nice is if Google had something like this that wasn't tied into Amazon.com like that, and gave graphs for PageRank history instead of whatever ranking technology they had used.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  4. Ummm... by keeleysam · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&q=tr aktor&btnG=Google+Search
    ummm... i'm not getting pictures....

    --
    Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
    1. Re:Ummm... by big+daddy+kane · · Score: 1

      you're using google suggest, that might be it

    2. Re:Ummm... by game+kid · · Score: 5, Informative
      ummm... i'm not getting pictures....

      me neither. I, and certainly keeleysam, feel duped and disappointed.

      The posted link is not Google though it seems genuine; its much larger home page is, in fact, a blog.

      Makes me glad to have a status bar on my browser.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    3. Re:Ummm... by shird · · Score: 1

      Do you have the magic cookie? Are you in the correct subnet? Did you read the previous google story?

      They quite often test new stuff on particular IP ranges. I think it was exodus or something that got "tested" on more often than others.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    4. Re:Ummm... by keeleysam · · Score: 2, Informative

      the link in the story showed a image of a googe suggest search.

      --
      Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
    5. Re:Ummm... by garbletext · · Score: 1

      i'm happy that you have a status bar. however, the posted link did not claim to be google, it's a link to a screenshot of someone getting those results. likely it is being tested, or only rolled out on some regional varieties of google.

    6. Re:Ummm... by natrius · · Score: 1

      Try rainbow as your query.

    7. Re:Ummm... by KutuluWare · · Score: 1

      The screen shot to Google's "Suggest" beta service certainly looks authentic enough. In the past, Google has limited it's rollout of new features (like the "new look" Google) based on the presence of a cookie; presumably sent out at pre-set intervals to arbitrary users. I wouldn't be surprised if they were phasing this in slowly to determine the impact of showing all those photos in every web search.

      Personally, it will just annoy me, so I hope they provide a way to turn it off. If I want pictures, I click on the link that searched for pictures.

      --Kutulu

    8. Re:Ummm... by dingfelder · · Score: 1

      i dont get it.

      that just shows a stupid search about rainbows.

      what was the point?

    9. Re:Ummm... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Funny

      I... feel duped

      No, no, no... that comes later. Possibly as early as tomorrow.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    10. Re:Ummm... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      pain free also doesn't work. Whee, this could go on all day! Or maybe you confused "www" with "images". ;)

    11. Re:Ummm... by game+kid · · Score: 2, Funny
      i'm happy that you have a status bar.

      Funniest phrase I've ever heard. Shall be sig'd any second now.

      however, the posted link did not claim to be google, it's a link to a screenshot of someone getting those results. likely it is being tested, or only rolled out on some regional varieties of google.

      Understood. I just don't want to be phished or something like that. I hope we all see this in Google soon.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    12. Re:Ummm... by game+kid · · Score: 1
      No, no, no... that comes later. Possibly as early as tomorrow.

      Maybe.

      I guess we can search on grugnog--er, Google--for ways to cope if things go worse.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    13. Re:Ummm... by milkman_matt · · Score: 1

      So you use firefox and mispelled pain free the first time? Muhahahha... erm.. *ahem*

      Hahah, I spotted the spell=1 too and thought "pain free? spell=1? whaaaaat?" hehe.

    14. Re:Ummm... by natrius · · Score: 1

      Hmm... it worked when I posted it. Weird.

    15. Re:Ummm... by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      I missed the space, actually. :)

  5. Patents by tajmorton · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does Amazon have a patent on any of this? After all, they do have the "one-click" patent...

    --
    Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
  6. Kinda.. by krin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    throws the whole feel of Google off. The less images the better.

    --
    There is no spork.
  7. What? by someonewhois · · Score: 1

    Where did you actually see it? Screenshots aren't that great without a URL, and even with it's kind of iffy.

    1. Re:What? by sH4RD · · Score: 1

      Google Suggest, take a look at the logo, although it won't display for me any longer.

      --
      WASTE - The Secure P2P
    2. Re:What? by LocoSpitz · · Score: 1

      No gurantee you can see it. Google sometimes tests out new features on a specific subnet, as noted in a Slashdot post just days ago, so if you're not in that subnet you're just not going to be able to see the images.

      Multiple posters in this thread have verified the post. I believe it.

  8. NSFW by kdark1701 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So what if pornographic images pop up? Say I search for my friend's name, and then there's porn thumbnails across the screen. Not good for those of us who use google in public.

    1. Re:NSFW by bigberk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Reminds me when I was in junior high (and the Internet was young), we all started trying www.dot-com's of each others' names. The girls' names usually led to porn sites. Come to think of it, that must be have been kind of hurtful when the girls see how they are just seen as sex objects

    2. Re:NSFW by mtrisk · · Score: 1

      Google has SafeSearch enabled by default for images, so you would have to explicitly turn it off in order to see adult images.

      --

      Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
    3. Re:NSFW by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      Probably a fake story, since directly accessing google suggest does not bring up any such images. Leads one to suspect that these images are being inserted by grugnog.com itself using some script to fetch images from google image search. While a neat idea, such a feature would be actually a major concern. For example, a sociologist at work place, searching for "sex inquality" might have images being displayed based on just the first keyword. Not to mention, images somehow are more offending in nature at times, then just text. I would definitely want the ability to turn off the feature, even if I am not using safe search.

    4. Re:NSFW by jesser · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You assume that SafeSearch successfully blocks all porn.

      --
      The shareholder is always right.
    5. Re:NSFW by mopslik · · Score: 1

      Google has SafeSearch enabled by default for images, so you would have to explicitly turn it off in order to see adult images.

      Not always. Searching for my wife's name with SafeSearch on, I get a NSFW image in the 3rd row. A scary one at that, too.

      Obviously, that link may or may not be NSFW...

    6. Re:NSFW by MonoNexo · · Score: 1

      I did a search early last week and had image results returned to me in the main search. I've only had it happen once, and I thought it was neat, but didn't think much more of it.

    7. Re:NSFW by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      I'm pretty sure safesearch just doesn't return images from sites that contain dirty words. A regular (non-adult) site that happened to contain a picture of a man streching his anus would still show, as apears to happen with 'hello'.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    8. Re:NSFW by trs9000 · · Score: 1

      Say I search for my friend's name, and then there's porn thumbnails across the screen.

      What kind of friends do you have?! .... And when can I meet them?!!

    9. Re:NSFW by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Funny

      The girls' names usually led to porn sites. Come to think of it, that must be have been kind of hurtful when the girls see how they are just seen as sex objects

      Give it up, berk. There are no girls here on slashdot, so that fake sensitivity crap will get you nowhere.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    10. Re:NSFW by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 2, Funny


      Err what's NSFW by the way? New Stuff For Wanking?

    11. Re:NSFW by fishmasta · · Score: 1

      Your friends are in porn? Link plz.

    12. Re:NSFW by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Not safe for work.

    13. Re:NSFW by permaculture · · Score: 1

      You should stop hanging out with those DVDA boys.

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    14. Re:NSFW by pediddle · · Score: 1

      Not Safe For Work.

    15. Re:NSFW by northcat · · Score: 1

      Use safe search. Works most of the time. And if they are going to start something like this, they'll certainly give you an option to disable images in ordinary searches. Stop complaining.

    16. Re:NSFW by moodboom · · Score: 1
      They already go through the trouble of filtering those kinds of images - see the SafeSearch option on the Advanced Image Search page:

      No filtering

      Use moderate filtering

      Use strict filtering

      And in my experience, this means pron. :P

    17. Re:NSFW by Kastigador · · Score: 1

      Google has a porn filtering engine built in. It has always come off to me as being very effective.

  9. A9 IS google image search... by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure that A9/Amazon is using google's image search in it's engine. The bottom of A9 says:

    Search results enhanced by Google. Results also provided by a9.com and Alexa.

    Also, from the faq

    Who provides web search results? A9.com's Web Search Results are enhanced by Google. Data provided by A9.com and Alexa Internet is also used for search history and Site Info.

    since it doesn't mention the images as from Alexa, and since I'm guessing the A9 stuff is Amazon's inside the book, it seems logical that the image search is from google.

    --
    I have blog like everyone else
  10. Well... by sH4RD · · Score: 1

    Well Google Print may trump A9, but how does a dinky little 3 images at the top do much of anything? I mean I could have clicked the "Images" link before and gotten the same thing. In my opinion, nothing has changed in the image department. Google Print does look nice though, although it is at a different angle than A9's system, so I don't think it's completely redundant.

    --
    WASTE - The Secure P2P
  11. Huh? by tommertron · · Score: 1

    Searched for "traktor" on Google and Google Suggest (like in the example) and got nothing. Anyone got a live link as an example?

    --
    Random rants about technology: http://technorants.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Huh? by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      After researching this a bit, it appears slashdot was duped. The screenshot is a fake and the site that was linked to just made up a mock google web site and stuck the images in the top. Check the source of the html, the images and things are linked off of Google but the html appears to be from a different source. Either that or I'm seriously mis reading things and confused as hell.
      Regards,
      Steve

    2. Re:Huh? by LocoSpitz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Duped? Not necessarily.

      The HTML is from a different source because the guy just mirrored the Google page on his own site.

      Why? Because oftentimes Google offers new features only to certain subnets. As that may indeed be the case here, which would explain why some but not all Slashdot users appear able to use this new feature, it only makes sense to offer a mirror or screenshot; otherwise, most people could not see this new feature.

      And if the guy was trying to trick people into thinking his page was actually Google, he wouldn't have shuffled things over to Mirrordot.

  12. Re:My favorite Google image search by Vombatus · · Score: 1
    with counterintuitive results has always been "Hello"

    The second image which turns up after a google search on 'hello' is reminiscent of the goatse man.

    --
    This sig is intentionally blank
  13. "could A9 become redundant?" by binkzz · · Score: 1
    It's only been in existence for a short while! Plus it was mainly a front-end for all the google services with some extra functionality.

    In other news, redundant questions at the end of Slashdot articles have already grown mildly since 2004.

    --
    'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
  14. elaborate scam? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    *****************
    domain: GRUGNOG.COM
    owner-address: Owen Barton
    owner-address: 14 Parc Derwen
    owner-address: Glan Conwy
    owner-address: LL28 5BZ
    owner-address: Colwyn Bay
    owner-address: United Kingdom
    *****************

    when you use normal google there's no pics. then there's no explanation wtf is this grugnog.com

    and there's no pics on normal google... which is good. pics suck most of the time when you're looking for information in TEXT.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:elaborate scam? by filmmaker · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Pics do suck if you're looking for text. Especially if bandwidth is an issue. But, a preferences setting that allowed images or other types of results (like Froogle) to come inline with Google's web results would very cool - and I think a lot of people would use it.

      --
      I Want To Believe
    2. Re:elaborate scam? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Interesting

      flamebait? wtf? how is it flamebait pointing out that the SITE IS NOT GOOGLES? it's all public information anyways.

      the site might have worked for 10 secs, that i could admit. but it sure as hell has nothing to do with official google. such a search frontend, like a9, that included images as well would be pretty easy to implement with googleapi.

      so at best some guy coded his 'own' crappy version of a9, at worst he just hand made the html for whatever reason, maybe he's trying to score on the googleads there. ....but one thing is 99.99% sure: THE FUCKING NEWS POST IS FRAUDALENT.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:elaborate scam? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      Notice that the PNG header states that it's created by Adobe ImageReady.

      I don't know about you, but I tend to use Paintbrush if all I want is a screen capture....

    4. Re:elaborate scam? by LocoSpitz · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or maybe, just maybe, it's REAL and he's mirroring the results page, because Google doesn't always unveil new features like this to everyone all at once. Oftentimes new features are released only to certain subnets before they are put into wide release.

      Calm down, man.

    5. Re:elaborate scam? by wdr1 · · Score: 1

      "elaborate" is giving the Slashdot editor a _little_ too much credit.

      What, did timothy change his name to samzenpus?

      --
      SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
    6. Re:elaborate scam? by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 1
      Froogle results are already in the main search area on Google. For example, a search for "AMD Motherboard" returns 3 Froogle results above the main search results. They're marked with a little shopping-bag icon. You can get similar results for news items ("Bush inauguration," with a little newspaper icon) or stock quotes ("rhat," Red Hat's ticker symbol, with a little chart icon).

      Personally, I don't think the mini-results above the main search area bother me at all - they can help me find what I want faster, without any real interruption to my search. Images do have issues, as you mentioned - bandwidth and relevance. However, Google has thus far managed to almost seamlessly integrate many different types of results into a simple, well-designed page; I doubt that they would simply plug images into search results without considering ways to mitigate any issues that may occur.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
    7. Re:elaborate scam? by dcavens · · Score: 2, Informative

      As mentioned in a previous slashdot story, Google often tries new features on a subset of users. Depending on how they work and feedback from users, they may or may not include them in the standard interface.

      For those too lazy to click through to the original article referenced by the above story, the relevant line is:

      Google makes changes small-and-often. They will sometimes trial a particular feature with a set of users from a given network subnet; for example Excite@Home users often get to see new features. They aren't told of this, just presented with the new UI and observed how they use it.

    8. Re:elaborate scam? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you know, then he should have told us so that we would have known - and even then the story would have been unverifiable, he could have just as well said that google creates a mindmap out of every search.

      as now it only looks like he took some html and edited in pictures - with no explanations whatsoever.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  15. send in the lawyers! by MrLint · · Score: 1

    How long before one sues the other for stealing their 'patented' business plan?

  16. i hate titling posts by Knights+who+say+'INT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But A9's results are provided by Google, so if Google manages to provide the same services A9 does, then A9 _is_ redundant.

  17. Being taken for a ride? by PornMaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    Grugnog.com is some guy's page, and submitting anything in that search box just gives a 404. Is this the musing of a guy who posts stuff to slashdot that he doesn't even mention in his blog (on the root of the domain)?

    --
    500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
    1. Re:Being taken for a ride? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      maybe it's just a showing of how crap of a random job the editors take while combing through the potential news items.

      you can get anything on slashdot.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Being taken for a ride? by shird · · Score: 1

      So what? Did you look at the submitter? He probably submits a story every day about random crap. Who says he has to blog that he submitted a story to slashdot? His blog entries are probably automatically generated from other news feeds or something anyway. Its clearly a site in development, and hes just used his site to host the image.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    3. Re:Being taken for a ride? by LocoSpitz · · Score: 1

      From what I've read in other comments in this Slashpost, it's legit. The guy just posted a mirror of the results page on his website.

      As was noted in a FPP earlier this week, Google often releases new features only to certain subnets before offering them in wide release. This may be one of those cases, which would explain why not everyone can view the images.

  18. Nuthin' by liangzai · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tried searching "pussy", got no pics. Lame joke. Mod parent down to hell.

  19. damn it by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    Damn it Slashdot, you ruined it! Half the fun of google is finding the new stuff hidden away

    --
    I like muppets.
  20. But will it be updated? by BigDawgES · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember when . . .

    There was a slashdot story about how you couldn't find any of the Abu Ghraib abuse photos on google image search, and people cried censorship only to realize that google simply hadn't updated its image database?

    Anyone have an idea about the current update schedule of google image search?

  21. WTF? by derEikopf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is stupid. It's not on Google's site, all other searches yield a 404, and if you click on "Images" then on "Web" again at the top, the images disappear. Editors, what were you thinking?

    1. Re:WTF? by LocoSpitz · · Score: 1

      Of COURSE it's not on Google's site. Of COURSE the images disappear. Of COURSE other searches yield a 404.

      I don't doubt that the editors were well aware that this is not, in fact, google.com; I am sure that samzenpus has a status bar.

      This is a mirror of a Google results page. You may have noticed when it was returned by Mirrordot.

      Why mirror a Google results page? Because as noted in a Slashdot post just days ago, new Google features are often tested out on specific subnets. If you're not in the subnet, you don't get the feature. So providing a link would be completely worthless for the vast majority of Slashdotters; besides, any link would simply be to a standard Google results page. A screenshot is really the only appropriate route in this case, and if you read through the posts on this story you'll see that multiple users have confirmed the post.

    2. Re:WTF? by jdog1016 · · Score: 1

      First of all, the editors made at least one mistake: That isn't Google's main search page--it's Google Suggest.

      They may have made other mistakes. I, for one, was unable to produce any of the mirrored results by searching myself. However, as pointed out recently by a representative from Google, new features are generally rolled out to select ISP's and not others, explaining why the poster was able to see pictures and I cannot.

      Or maybe samzempus just fucked up. In any case, the story is not entirely true, at all.

  22. No images, but... by onesadcookie · · Score: 1

    Well, I get no pictures either, but the link at the top of grugnog.com or whatever it was called goes here:

    http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&complete=1

    that provides a combo-box style dropdown suggesting things you might like to search for, as you type. Seems kinda neat, though I'm not sure how helpful it'd be...

    Is this news, or has it been around for a while?

    1. Re:No images, but... by thej1nx · · Score: 1
      The suggestion feature has been around for a while though still being tested in Google Labs. It is called Google suggest.

      The grugnog story is a trick, with the person running the site is doctoring the html.

    2. Re:No images, but... by TheGuano · · Score: 1

      That's not certain. His method of linking to a "live" page is questionable, but he could have saved the page in his browser and linked to it directly, rather than do what most of us would have and taken a screencap and viewsource.

    3. Re:No images, but... by The+Red+Pleather+Sea · · Score: 1

      It's google suggest. Been around for a while. What cave?

  23. More info by grugnog · · Score: 5, Interesting
    For what it's worth, the magic word is trials. Google doesn't release a new feature to everyone at once - specific subnets will see the feature first. Even I only see this with a search for 'traktor' - other searches just look the same.

    Maybe others in the /. herd can verify if they get this?

    ...I am redirecting to mirrordot to avoid server meltdown :)

    --
    Grugnog
    1. Re:More info by filmmaker · · Score: 1

      Yep. The Google article on here a couple days ago pointed out how Google specifically does testing on subnets before going wide with a new feature.

      --
      I Want To Believe
    2. Re:More info by toetagger1 · · Score: 1

      To point something out:

      http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&q=tr aktor&btnG=Google+Search gives no pictures for me.
      http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&q='t raktor'&btnG=Google+Search does.
      It's all in the tractor vs. 'tractor' search.
      --
      who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
    3. Re:More info by grugnog · · Score: 1
      Interesting it's the other way around for me: traktor gets images - 'traktor' doesn't. No idea why?


      Finally it looks like the people who actually know how google tests new ideas are around to explain why this isn't some random scam (what's in it for me exactly?!).


      ** Moderators: This isn't a scam!! Google trials new features on certain subnets only!! **

      --
      Grugnog
    4. Re:More info by tooth · · Score: 1

      And using the seach in mirror dot redirects here.

    5. Re:More info by tek_hed · · Score: 1

      It's gotta do with your Google cookie.

      I saw this behavior in late december. When I copied my Google cookies to another browser on a different subnet, I got the same results with images popping up.

      So I think that they just "bless" certain cookies.

      -Michal

  24. This is bogus by Xoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not to repeat what everyone else is saying, but this is definately bogus.

    Grugnog used the following URL to access the page in the first pic of his search for "traktor":

    http://www.google.com/search?complete=1&hl=en&lr=& safe=off&c2coff=1&q=traktor&btnG=Search

    As you can see it shows the typical google search results page with the TEXT ads at top. After subsequent refreshes of my browser, I got the same thing.

    I browsed around Google Suggest, even the Advanced Options, and got zilch. So please, include a working demo URL next time... and lastly, why would this make a FPP if it's not even verifiable?! Lol, :-)

    --
    Karma police, arrest this man, he talks in maths....
    1. Re:This is bogus by binkzz · · Score: 1
      New features, when in testing, are only available to a small group of Google users (picked by Google, usually unbeknownst to the users themselves). This guy is probably one of those users.

      Read This Slashdot article and its link for more information.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    2. Re:This is bogus by Vacindak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, no this is not bogus, mod parent down. A couple of days ago, before this story hit, I happened to notice this feature when I did a google search for "loneliness" since I couldn't remember how to spell it. Got three images up at the top of the page, exactly like what the article showed. Subsequent attempts to get those results met with failure. So this is just a case of Google rolling things out to specific subnets. Not a hoax guys.

    3. Re:This is bogus by Vacindak · · Score: 1

      Happened again to me this morning, took a screenshot. Not gonna post it because I like not having my website collapse. But if someone REALLY still has doubts, I suppose I could e-mail it to em or something. Not that anyone cares anymore.

  25. Re:It's not a scam by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i did not get pics on google.com when typing traktor there, not even on the google suggest beta site.

    local differences or whatever(but google suggest seems to use the same server anywhere..).. but the poster should have had the courtesy to link to GOOGLE, and not his own site pretending it's official google.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  26. Strange... by bergeron76 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I changed "Traktor" to read "Upskirt" and I got a 404 page.

    I hope google doesn't make this new behaviour permanent.

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    1. Re:Strange... by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1

      Bah! You lie!

      I don't know which is worse: The fact that I knew you were lying, or the fact that I had to prove it.

  27. Re:It's not a scam by keeleysam · · Score: 1

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=traktor&btnG= Google+Search no, you dont, you get froogle results

    --
    Nothing for you to see here, Please move along.
  28. Goog Vs. A9: It's About the Interface by New10k · · Score: 1

    When I need to search up a factoid quickly, I use Google. Google on the Desktop, Google on the TaskBar, Google in my Firefox Toolbar. But when I want to really dig into something, I go to A9. The interface may pop up a bit slower if you have skinny bandwidth, but A9 compensates by offering a richer user experience, more in keeping with the deeper nature of the the search paradigm A9 offers.

    --
    Optimist says glass is half-full; Pessimist says glass is half-empty; Dynamist takes a drink.
  29. Looking for job... by jm91509 · · Score: 1

    Something tells me new boy samzenpus will be looking for new job.

    Hopefully on google and not grugnog...

  30. A9 Amazon Discount by RKBA · · Score: 1

    True, but you can get a small discount at Amazon if you use their A9 browser before making a purchase.

    --
    9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
    1. Re:A9 Amazon Discount by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

      You mean their ?/2% discount?
      All you really have to do is just login to the site using your Amazon account and you'll save a couple of bucks for quite some-time on your Amazon purchases.

    2. Re:A9 Amazon Discount by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1

      Are you sure the A9 discount is still on? I thought it was a limited time, introductory thing to get Amazon customers to try it out. I used it once, but it's disappeared since then.

  31. It's like Linux Distro's by digitalgimpus · · Score: 1

    Every time there's a new Linux Distro, someone brings up an argument that it will kill all the others, and be the only one in existance... each one is deemed perfect, and makes the others look bad.

    Ends up each one has it's own strong points, weaknesses... each has a niche audience of it's own... who find it perfect.

    IMHO that's the direction search is going. A9 will specialize a bit more in print service (since Amazon excels in that). I wouldn't be suprised if Amazon gets into eCommerce...

    allow other companies to signup and use their one-click ecommerce technology via... amazon takes a small commission.

    A9 becomes a search technology for print and merchandise.... one click shopping... literally. search and buy.

    Will google still exist? Oh yea, there's a lot more that google can do. But google doesn't have a foot in the door of ecommerce. Froogle isn't that great.

    Amazon has proven to be good at ecommerce.... zshops

    IMHO it's already falling into place.

  32. How about previews of the web pages? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

    What I'd like to see Google add is previews of the web pages like IceRocket does. When you do a search on there you see a thumbnail of the web page next to the entry for that web page. You can also click on the quick view link next to each result and it'll expand a frame below the entry to show you the page itself. It's a quick way to see if a site is what you wanted without having to leave the search page.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    1. Re:How about previews of the web pages? by Roguelazer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try the GooglePreview extension for Firefox.

      --
      My Systems
    2. Re:How about previews of the web pages? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

      Nice, but two problems. I use Mozilla not Firefox. Also it doesn't provide the most useful feature which is the quick view link I was talking about. But it'll search as a starting point for me to fix those issues. Thanks.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    3. Re:How about previews of the web pages? by anaradad · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Google Preview, like most similar services, depends on Alexa. For most sites, Alexa thumbnails only show you the home page of the site, not a snapshot of the particular page in which you are interested.

  33. Um... by kaedemichi255 · · Score: 1

    But A9 will have a much bigger database of print to search through, thanks to Amazon's "Search Inside the Book" technology. I don't think it'll be redundant at all! It just offers more alternatives. Plus, you never know when Google will go down again.

  34. Re:It's not a scam by grugnog · · Score: 1
    It's not only me then :)
    Incidentally - the same search in regular Google also brings up pictures.

    If you can't see it there is not much I can do. Well I could proxy my ISP connection...maybe not ;)

    --
    Grugnog
  35. Shh! A9 isn't Redunant! by Jutral · · Score: 1

    What are you talking about? A9 isn't redundant! A9 is the best "search engine" ever! (Okay, so now that's over with... Don't forget that 'frequent' A9 users get a pi/2 (1.57079632%) discount on all purchases on Amazon.com... So... Like... Can I keep my discount? I said A9 was good!)

  36. Elaborate scam? Nope. by Matt+Moyer · · Score: 1

    "Google makes changes small-and-often. They will sometimes trial a particular feature with a set of users from a given network subnet; for example Excite@Home users often get to see new features. They aren't told of this, just presented with the new UI and observed how they use it."

    ...from this page , which was posted on /. earlier this week.

  37. Did you mean... by DrKyle · · Score: 1

    tractor? Because as far as I know traktor isn't actually a word, way to go Google, pander to the illiterates out there!

    1. Re:Did you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hello ignorant smartass! traktor is the correct spelling of 'tractor' in many languages in addition to being a brand name of several different products.

  38. It is possible by Quixote · · Score: 1, Informative
    It is possible, if this feature is in trial, that few people will see it.

    From the earlier /. story titled "Google Tidbits" which mentioned this blog entry about "an evening with Google's Marissa Mayer", we find that:
    Google makes changes small-and-often. They will sometimes trial a particular feature with a set of users from a given network subnet; for example.

    So, it is possible that only people in this guy's subnet are seeing these pictures of "Traktor"...

  39. will google buy out amazon or vice-versa? by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 1

    check out this flash animation which has an interesting idea about the future of google http://www.letitblog.com/epic ----
    Get a free ipod! My friend got his, it's real. all you need is an email for spam. sign up and get 5 people to do the same.

  40. Re:FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! by LocoSpitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Not necessarily fake. Here's why you wouldn't link to it: As noted by numerous posters in this thread, and also on a Slashdot FPP just days ago, Google oftentimes rolls out features only to specific subnets. If you're not in that subnet, you don't get to see the feature.

    Since the majority of people are unable to see this new feature, it only makes sense to offer a screenshot.

    Everyone who thinks this is an elaborate hoax, or that the mirror was intended to be seen as an actual Google.com page, is reading waaaay too much into this.

  41. A9 has cool stuff in the works.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    a friend works there... cool stuff to come, that google doesn't offer (i dont think anyone does, yet)

    should be up in a month or two?

  42. Re:It's not a scam by United544 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Have you stopped to think that possibly the reason it wasn't linked to Google is because it doesn't show up for everybody who does a search? As others have already noted, Google phases in new features over a period of time. So the poster took a screenshot and posted those instead, I can't speak for others, but I for one would call that a courteous gesture...

  43. Redundant? I don't think so by wmspringer · · Score: 1

    With Google kicking off Google Print (A9's other specialty) could A9 become redundant?"

    Isn't the point of A9 to get the Amazon.com pi/2 discount? I don't see Google giving us that!

    --
    Twenties Retirement
  44. Fun with double entendres by poetofnumbers · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wonder if they'll ever have pictures for a search for tits?

  45. Re:FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! by game+kid · · Score: 1
    As noted by numerous posters in this thread, and also on a Slashdot FPP just days ago, Google oftentimes rolls out features only to specific subnets. If you're not in that subnet, you don't get to see the feature.

    You're probably right. I actually posted on this.

    Now I just might get jealous of grugnog.com too.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  46. Re:FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! by shlashdot · · Score: 1

    this was apparently seen a week ago, and nobody took much notice. Guess he/she should have posted a screenshot.

    http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum3/27458.htm

    --
    Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
  47. A9 is pretty small ... by sgarg · · Score: 1

    Just 37mm by 52mm http://www.sizes.com/materls/paperISOA.htm

  48. It'll give goatse search a kick in the rear by Linuxathome · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure I'm not the first person to bet that goatse.cx will increasingly be ruining young minds when google image results is truly implemented in the main search page.

    --
    Linux at home
  49. Solution to this problem by Linuxathome · · Score: 1

    No image here on my end. Perhaps /. needs to get into the business of setting up NX servers in subnets all over the world so they could verify the story before posting it -- and have a select few be able to do the same. This setup would be useful for QA of any type of digital content that is restricted to certain regions.

    --
    Linux at home
  50. A friend saw this by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was on IRC back on January 6, and a friend of mine got some images at the top of a particular Google search. Nobody else on the channel could reproduce it, and it wasn't appearing for him on any other search.

    His screenshot was identically formatted to these.

    --
    But then again, I could be wrong.
  51. a9.com, what is it? by adeydas · · Score: 1

    And I thought people only used Google for their search purposes.

  52. Re:FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! by pcmanjon · · Score: 1

    "" Not necessarily fake. Here's why you wouldn't link to it: As noted by numerous posters in this thread, and also on a Slashdot FPP just days ago, Google oftentimes rolls out features only to specific subnets.""

    Why? Google suggest is a beta anyways... how would only certain subnets get any real feedback on the usefulness of a new feature?

    What advantages does releasing to a certain subnet have?

  53. Ever heard of A B testing? by graiz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Google like many other web companies probably does some amount of A B testing. This is a way to get feedback and gauge response from a feature by releasing it to a small subset of the total population. The results of one group A are then compared to the total population B.

    As an example Amazon uses A B testing all the time with many A B tests happening every day. They track to see if small changes that they make have any impact in the percentage of their users who purchase products.

    It's very likely that Google does similar tests to see what minor changes can be made to improve accuracy of results and possibly increase click-through in advertisements. This particular test could explore if showing images increases the average number of searches or increases awareness of the google image tool.

  54. Re:It's not a scam by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    yes, afterwards.

    but you see. IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE BLURB, and it's such a thing that any sensible person would have mentioned "here is what it looks like" - now it was just LINKS to grugnog AS IF it was google.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  55. Haha a hahaha ahaha HAAA!! by sulli · · Score: 1
    I love it. Now grugnog randomly redirects to comments in this thread and mirrordot. Obviously slashdot has been trolled big time.

    Hey Samzenpus: YHL. HAND.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Haha a hahaha ahaha HAAA!! by GrImMo · · Score: 1

      hey what you mean?

  56. Fake or not, I hope Google by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    does not rollout this feature.

    More complexity is not what's needed on the Google home page. There is an images button for image searching. How many people really need the visual context.

    Now, page thumbnails... I might go for that actually, but including images for the hell of it does not add any real value that I can see.

    Shareholders looking for something to talk about? It's still early, but maybe this and the dumb changes to the Groups interface show signs of Google falling under the influence of Wall Street just like everybody else does, do no evil or not.

    --
    Blogging because I can...
    1. Re:Fake or not, I hope Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You can already get page thumbnails, use the GooglePreview extension for Firefox :)

  57. Why are you guys so skeptical? by ZackSchil · · Score: 1

    When I went home from college for Christmas break, I saw this feature pop up a few times randomly on my search results page. It didn't look like it does in the article though. It said "Images" in a blue bar just like the word "web" in the photo. There were 4 image results (unlike the 3 on the linked image) and the background was blue like the bar. Then underneath it said "web" and continued as usual. I bet the feature has changed in appearance since then. It was around December 22nd at the time. Google is definitely working on this. Not a fake article. Besides, who would fake something lame like this?

  58. Totally missed the point by tod_miller · · Score: 1

    Google suggest actually PULLS DOWN results and thier number of hits, in real time, while you type. It is FSCKING AWESOME. As you type, br, it highlights britney spears 32459823745972395723957 hits, or brocolli pie 32459823745972395723957 + 1 hits.

    Here is the link because it is twatish to find:

    http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&complete=1

    And for the dude complaining about pr0n images, they already have an image search ok, and that has content filter ok, and there you go, quit complaining.

    That is like saying, Ford's new car is out, but shit, what if I hit someone with it? i.e. this doesn't change the playing field for image seach at all, and the images ARE not a big part of this.

    They are just integrating all thier tabs. I like the complete thingy they do. Nice javascript works in FF too.

    *lick*

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  59. Re:FAKE! FAKE! FAKE! by dotcher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps because if it breaks, only a smaller proportion of users are affected?

    Remember the latest Google site redesign - I got to see it around a month and a half earlier than its general release, if I visited Google from Uni.

    Whilst there's no evidence that's what they're doing this time, there's no evidence to the contrary either. I'll take a look when I get to Uni - if they're using the same subnets as last time, I'll probably see it.

  60. Ditto by blorg · · Score: 1

    ...with the site redesign, they were turning it on and off in Ireland for a few hours at a time a few months before they changed over. I even submitted a Slashdot story on it, but it was rejected.

  61. Preview images of search results (for Firefox) by eddydude · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is a Firefox extension that shows preview images (thumbnails) of the sites in the google search results page:

    GooglePreview Firefox extension

  62. google ! by chrisranjana.com · · Score: 1

    google rocks as usual !

    --
    Chris ,
    Php Programmers.
  63. A9? who? by DrHyde · · Score: 1

    Was A9 ever anything more than redundant?

  64. Too Much by Walrus99 · · Score: 1

    This (even if it is fake or just a try out) is what I was afraid of when Google went public. They claim to be adding more features, but they are just bogging down a good search engine. They have already added message boards to their search and that tends to give a lot of false leads. If they add images and books to the main search it will just create more results that you don't want. Keep the main search engine for web pages and have books, images, pdf, message boards in a separate search.

  65. Google Print FAQ by joker784 · · Score: 1

    At the bottom of the FAQ there is the following gem: *No library books were harmed during the making of these digital copies. :-)

  66. A9 Rocks by PepeGSay · · Score: 1

    A9 doesn't have book searches as it's top feature. It turn search into more of a full featured tool than google. The search history is awesome.

  67. Tin Foil Hat time for A9 users by tbase · · Score: 1

    Sorry if I'm a little late to the party here, but I had never heard of A9. So it was a little disturbing when I went there and it greeted me by my full name. Reading their privacy policy, it looks like it's nothing more than a way for Amazon to get more info on you and track you better so they know what to try and sell you.

    Hopefully Google won't be adding those types of A9 style "features". I don't care if A9 is "A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AMAZON.COM, INC.", I don't like it. At least they shout about it in the privacy policy of A9: "PLEASE NOTE THAT A9.COM IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AMAZON.COM, INC. IF YOU HAVE AN ACCOUNT ON AMAZON.COM AND AN AMAZON.COM COOKIE, INFORMATION GATHERED BY A9.COM, AS DESCRIBED IN THIS PRIVACY NOTICE, MAY BE CORRELATED WITH ANY PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION THAT AMAZON.COM HAS AND USED BY A9.COM AND AMAZON.COM TO IMPROVE THE SERVICES WE OFFER."

    It looks like Amazon's privacy policy allows them to do this, although they don't specifically say they might start a totally unrelated website and share harvested info between the two. Maybe it's just me, but I think that's pushing it.

    --

    666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
  68. Re:But will it be updated? - NO by Spyfox · · Score: 1

    Still can't find the torture images, so AFAIAC still being censored.

  69. When you upgrade from A9 by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    You use the K9 search method.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
  70. Well, that's cool. by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

    Man, there is just not enough time to keep track of OSS / FS!

    DOESN'T THAT JUST KICK ASS!

    Sorry this is offtopic. Maybe I'll stuff a copy in my journal. Back in the day, reading Linux Today and Slash, one could watch FS/OSS grow every day. It was cool in that everyone was a part of it.

    Today that is still true, but it's too big! Never thought it would come to that, but it has. We are really here and it feels great!

    (Pat's on everybody's back who worked hard to get us here. I stand in wonder. Honestly, I do!)

    --
    Blogging because I can...
  71. Not a hoax; it works (with link) by varun · · Score: 1

    I searched for "wallpaper"
    http://www.google.com/search?q=wallpa per
    and it gave me the aforementioned results.

    (I can't access my webserver from work, ergo no screenshot.)