Google Instant Announced

GCPSoft writes with this quote from a Google announcement: "Google Instant is a new search enhancement that shows results as you type. We are pushing the limits of our technology and infrastructure to help you get better search results, faster. Our key technical insight was that people type slowly, but read quickly, typically taking 300 milliseconds between keystrokes, but only 30 milliseconds (a tenth of the time!) to glance at another part of the page. This means that you can scan a results page while you type."

Comments

You know what would make it instant?

[Gordonjcp]

Getting rid of that annoying fade-in effect.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[DeadDecoy]

Just tried it out and holy jeebus is it fast. My only qualm however is that, when I know what I'm looking for, it's a little distracting watching all of the results flash by as I type. Almost seizure inducing. It's very cool, but it would be nice if I could control the refresh rate with finer granularity.
On another note, a quick refresh rate can pull up some non-professional images if one isn't careful. For instance in typing latent dirichlet, 'la' pulled up a partially clothed/nude image of lady gaga.This might have been a bit awkward if safe-search wasn't on.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[TheGratefulNet]

if you don't move your mouse and just have focus there in the window, it never fades in. or something like that. there's a trick.

you shouldn't *need* any tricks; but this is the modern google. they 'went commercial' and so its not the same as the old google.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[Atzanteol]

Man is Slashdot the largest collection of conservative whiny techies in the world or is it just me? Perhaps if that fade-in is so resource intensive you may want to change from your C=64 with coupled modem to something a bit more recent? I know I know, all that extra memory and CPU speed just encourages "sloppy programming" but trust me it's worth it.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[Garble Snarky]

Nobody cares about the resource usage. It is annoying to have to wait an extra second, or however long, before you can do what you're trying to do. Yes, one second is an incredibly negligible amount of time, but the fade provides literally zero benefit, for some people. Negligible amount of nuisance + zero benefit = net negative utility = bad idea.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[nacturation]

On another note, a quick refresh rate can pull up some non-professional images if one isn't careful. For instance in typing latent dirichlet, 'la' pulled up a partially clothed/nude image of lady gaga.This might have been a bit awkward if safe-search wasn't on.

Searching for vagrants or penal colonies is definitely not recommended at work.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[vux984]

Personally excessive fade effects annoy me because I spend a lot of time using tools like vnc, remote desktop, citrix ica clients, etc. Fades are generally slow, clumsy, and downright obnoxious when viewed remotely.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[CarpetShark]

30 seconds in, I found it MUCH better to just get rid of the whole thing:

http://www.google.com/preferences

Seriously... who made the decision to go with this? I suspect it's the same person that decided to ajaxify google images. Both are horrible, unusable things that just get in the way.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[Albanach]

But you can search before the fade in. The cursor is already in the box. Just type and hit enter.

The whole point of the fade in is to make sure there's no garbage coming between you and Google's main objective, search.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[sakdoctor]

If I wanted my search engine to be stuffed full of shit, I would have used yahoo from the 90s, then migrated to bing.
Ever since google started messing up their front page by, you know, adding stuff, I started using the firefox search box. This had the side effect of diversifying the search tools I use, and about:blank really is the best homepage.

Now call me a conservative whiny techie, but never having to see obnoxious random "experiments", and logo doodles ever again is a huge step forward.

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[tverbeek]

The C64 didn't use an acoustically-coupled modem; it used a 300baud handset replacement that plugged into a port on the computer and connected directly to the base of a desk or wall phone.</pedant>

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[Abstrackt]

Searching for vagrants or penal colonies is definitely not recommended at work.

I can see the issue with searching for "vagrants" but I never got any bad results for "Australia".

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[daveime]

Jesus Christ, then he'd have to move his mouse all the way to his bookmarks toolbar and click something !!!

HE DOESN'T HAVE TIME FOR ALL THAT SHIT !!!

Re:You know what would make it instant?

[CarpetShark]

Give it some time. You won't want to disable it if you stick with it for a few days.

Of course not. I'll have blown a hole in my skull by then ;)

It works for Google

[Drakkenmensch]

Let's just pray Slashdot never instates a "post as you type" feature.

Re:It works for Google

[jonnythan]

If they did, at least all the "Candlejack will get y...... [no carrier]" or "I torrent all the time and the CIA has never knocked down my doo... [end of line]" posts would make *some* semse.

Re:It works for Google

[eln]

Maybe they were dictating...

Wasteful requests.

[suso]

Our key technical insight was that people type slowly, but read quickly, typically taking 300 milliseconds between keystrokes

I think what they meant to say there is that there was a group at Google that had nothing better to do than make this happen.

All that instant searching thing can be helpful at times, but it can also be wasteful of bandwidth, CPU resources, etc. The only place were I've found it essential is on youtube search on my bluray player where I don't have a keyboard to type letters, it can savea A LOT of time. Of course, I normally type 80 words a minute.

Re:Wasteful requests.

[falsified]

Seriously? It's one of the first questions answered in the FAQ.

Yeah it's crap.

[commodore64_love]

This "constant updating of results as you type" makes my Hotel dialup connection run even MORE slowly than it did before.

Even on high-speed DSL, it slows things down. Why can't these web developers get into their heads that not everyone has a 1 megabit pipe? (Or if it is available, don't want to spend ~$60/month to get it.) I remember one of the things taught developed in the 90s and early 2000s was to "optimize" their pages to use as few kilobytes as possible - like squeezing GIFs down from 50 to 10KB. Apparently that paradigm got thrown out the window.

Re:Yeah it's crap.

[BlueKitties]

First, it uses a small fraction of the bandwidth of a low quality video. It's only sending small amounts of text. Second, it automatically shuts off on low bandwidth accounts. Third, if it seriously slows down your computer, you probably have malware (probably the result of being asinine, your complaints seem to agree with this possibility.) Fourth, bloatware only applies to useless features. Try using it more than (oh... how long has this been out... two hours?) before blathering. Fifth, YOUR FACE. Sixth, YOUR MOM.

Re:Yeah it's crap.

[Gruturo]

I was (and still am, to a degree) quite a rabid anti-bloat advocate. I cringe when I see 250k JPEGs used when a 25k PNG would have done better (esp. on non-photos, like comics, graphs, designs, maps) or when some idiot saves something at JPEG quality 100 when 95 would be indistinguishable to a human and yield a 60% space saving (btw, curse you Photoshop, and curse you Adobe, for Flash and your horrible PDF software (but not the PDF format!) while I'm at it).
I loved the Bandwidth Conservation Society website.
In 2003 I used to run some generated HTML through some old code beautifier which as a side effect auto-CSSized it yielding a decent space saving over raw, before serving it to browsers. And I'd still be doing it if I had to run a website, even if I was sure noone would notice the difference.

But I'd really have a hard time calling this new Google Instant thing a waste. It's a new gizmo which needs more bandwidth to perform a useful function. I'm not its target (I type *way* faster than their target audience, usually looking at neither the keyboard nor the screen until I press enter, and most my queries are through Firefox's search box since I just type Ctrl-K, searchtext, Enter, BAM, way too convenient (and works in Chrome as well) but I readily recognize it as useful to millions (maybe not those who just stare at their keyboard while they slowly hunt and peck, not even realizing their query / address was autocompleted 20 seconds ago, making me twitch at the sight of this daily absurdity. Never mind bookmarking the damn thing, or those newfangled RSS aggregators. Or the heresy of a keyboard binding :-) ).

Disclaimer: I'm totally a Google whore. Hey I even tried using Wave to do stuff. Once.

Re:Yeah it's crap.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Repeat that while logged in, so I can damage your karma the same way you damaged mine.

Do you mean by making you look like an idiot so people modded you down? Or are you presuming they moderated your post?

And there's no way to turn-off the annoying "popup" images that Google now uses during Image searches.

At the bottom of the image search page is a link "Switch to basic version". You're on Slashdot, figure it out from there.

It's live now, and

[ultraexactzz]

...it scared the hell out of our secretary about 10 minutes ago. "How does it know?!?" she said. I guess it found her city with just "city" in the box - pretty impressive, I thought.

Re:It's live now, and

[Locke2005]

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hears of men? The Google knows!"

It's Easy! ...to disable!

[decipher_saint]

Just go to the Google homepage, wait five years for the fade in, click "Settings" -> "Search Settings"

Find the setting for "Google Instant" (hint, bottom of preferences list), select "Do not use Google Instant" and press Save.

Now if there was some easy way to disable the horrible, over-scripted image result page layout I'd be a happy camper!

Re:It's Easy! ...to disable!

[TyFoN]

Somehow you missed the "Instant is on" drop down right next to the text entry field (to the right).

Useful, for slow typists.

[lainproliant]

This is definitely useful for those who type slow, but its sort of startling for those of us who type faster. Thankfully it can be disabled: http://www.google.com/preferences?hl=en

Censored

[Dyinobal]

The instant search thing seems to be censored. I type Por and wait and it doesn't suggest porn at all. I type Porn and wait for some suggestions and it doesn't do anything at all. Whats the point when the thing is filtered?

Re:Censored

[Affenkopf]

# The search term violates our autocomplete policies. We aim to provide you with relevant search queries, but we exclude a narrow class of search queries related to pornography, violence, and hate speech.

Useless feature without porn.

Re:Censored

[Dyinobal]

Why did I get modded funny?

Re:So when did this happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this, the unofficial Google PR site?

Only when it's not an official Apple fanboi site

Re:No IE6 support

[amicusNYCL]

Google has locked out thousands of businesses that have never upgraded browsers.

I tend to see it has thousands of businesses denying themselves access to services because they aren't willing to upgrade. It's not Google's fault that businesses refuse to upgrade. They're going to be left behind, end of story. I stopped testing on IE6 a long time ago. People need to move on and upgrade if they expect to use all of the features of the internet, that's just a simple fact. You can't expect all of the newest technologies like CSS3 and canvas to work in IE6, it's just not going to happen, ever.

Re:So stupid on so may ways

[BlueKitties]

You didn't even read the announcement. It doesn't do a search for "L" "Li" ...etc, it predicts what you're going to type and gives you results for that. For example, try typing "weather" and you'll see weather results before you're done typing. Follow up with "weather for "... and a nearby city, you'll see results for that city. Also, it's sending small amounts of text. Video eats up hundreds of times more bandwidth.

Re:Ad revenue driver?

[clarkkent09]

Talking about ad revenue, where do those suggestions come from? I typed "s" and the first three suggestions I got: skype, staples, sears. "e" - ebay, espn, expedia. "m" - myspace, mapquest, msn. Randomly tried typing two letters: "be" - best buy, bed bath and beyond, bevmo. etc.

Wouldn't some common word or a name of a pop star or whatever be the most likely thing people will search for rather than almost exclusively company names? Weird.

Pity the slow typer...

[bobdotorg]

... who gets most of the way through a search for goatseller

The other nice feature is hidden

[sconeu]

in the panel on the left.

Select "more search tools" and then select "Fewer shopping sites"