Slashdot Mirror


Google Preps Instant Search For Chrome 8

An anonymous reader writes "Google is apparently playing with a nifty integration of instant search inside of its Chrome browser. Typing in the URL bar will automatically bring up a search page, while URLs apparently can be completed much faster as well. It seems as if Google isn't running out of ideas for its browser anytime soon."

128 comments

  1. I hope there's a way to turn this off by iONiUM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would be worried, as I use Chrome at work, about searching for "po"..."st office". I mean, that term among many others.

    There's always increased traffic usage, though I doubt that affects work much. I wonder also if they'll push this on the page where you have to choose a search engine (when you install it). "If you use google, you get this feature too."

    1. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by AnonymousClown · · Score: 3, Funny
      Tell me about it! I was searching for articles on milk and milk's affect in the mouth, lips, blowing bubbles, hair and saliva glands anyway, I mistyped and put in milf and BAM! these site with these naked women having sex and other things that I just can't say! How could this happen!?!

      I mean really, no one actually goes out and searches for pornography! Google just puts it there when you accidentally mistype something.

      You gotta be carful!

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    2. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by DikSeaCup · · Score: 1

      Me, I just had visions of a lot of people ending up at whitehouse.com, instead of where they wanted to go ...

    3. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Likely the same place you turn off the suggestion service in the current Chrome: Options->Under the Hood.

      Amazes me that people cry about Google knowing what URLs you type in because of this and are too ignorant to turn it off. Sure, it'd be good if it were off by default, but I'm quite happy as long as there is an *option*.

    4. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by jpapon · · Score: 2, Informative
      It seems likely that it will have some form of safe-search.

      But then again, if they just made it so you can't turn it off, it would happen to everyone, so nobody would be getting embarrassed by it happening.

      This would have the side benefit of giving you the "Google MADE me do it" excuse if you were ever caught browsing things you shouldn't have been at work. Just make sure they don't see you have 5 other tabs with equally suspicious titles.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    5. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You turn it off by using firefox search bar.
      In terms of usability, of a single text field and submit button, it's down hill from now on.

    6. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by Eternal+Vigilance · · Score: 1

      So you're saying there's an unexpected upside.

      "And now here's a site Google thinks you'll really like."

    7. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me, I just had visions of a lot of people ending up at whitehouse.com, instead of where they wanted to go ...

      Either way you're going to talk to a Democrat.

    8. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      or god forbid an Anal-yzer, power.

    9. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by DJLuc1d · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google has already said that instant search will not search for 'adult themed material' even if safe search is off. Go ahead try typing in some of the most common porn searches. Anal, teen, hardcore, none of it will return results in instant search. And yes, I'm sure you will be able to turn off google instant just like you can now. http://www.google.com/instant/

    10. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by froggymana · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think that having it display something NSFW should really be an issue. When someone first mentioned something about this I was curious (good thing I'm not a cat) about what would happen if you do type something like "milf" or "porn" into google instant search. As it turns out google doesn't display any results for things of that nature and just says "press enter to search" which is no different than the "old" google.

      --
      "To prevent this day from getting any worse, I'll just read ERROR as GOOD THING" 1GJU8xLuDKDxEs4KLf8fAGyptoDsqvEsBT
    11. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by insufflate10mg · · Score: 1

      I'm a ghost-writer, I do research and write white papers, so Google Instant equaled faster research which equaled more research per time period, which equaled more money. This is only going to be another pay raise for me - w00t Chrome 8!

      PS: Don't write illegal things into a form on a modern website? Anyone halfway decent with computers should know websites can always log that sort of information.

    12. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any words related to porn or violence will not show up anything. Go ahead, type in 'milf' as you suggested in Google instant search and see.

    13. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by dugeen · · Score: 1

      That link only works for the next search you perform. The results page comes back with Instant set back on

    14. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some of the most common porn searches. Anal, teen, hardcore

      ...dude. And they call ME a pervert because I like leather and whips?

    15. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by SHaFT7 · · Score: 1

      I tested that this morning, and I found as I typed m-i-l, the searches continued to refine. If I typed the 'f', then NO searches came up, and it said "press ENTER to search". If I backspaced the "f" and added a "k", then instant search started working again. Seems they have some cool catches in there. FYI, I just tried the same thing with the word "porn". once I typed the "n", I got no instant searches. BTW, I have safesearch OFF and instant ON.

    16. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just yesterday, though, I was in a meeting where the presenter tried to pull up documentation on std::vector. Just because "adult themed material" isn't pulled up, it still doesn't mean it's entirely appropriate.

    17. Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off by m50d · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And then they shift the option in every release, until people get fed up of turning it off. And then they make it autoupdate to on. No, if something nefarious is on by default that's enough of a problem that we should call them on it.

      --
      I am trolling
  2. Awesome Bar? by morari · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So it's going to be like the annoying Awesome Bar that was implemented in Firefox?

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    1. Re:Awesome Bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      People are still whining about that?

    2. Re:Awesome Bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's going to be like the annoying Awesome Bar that was implemented in Firefox?

      I didn't read anything in the article about the browser coming to a grinding halt as soon as you start typing in it. So, nope.

    3. Re:Awesome Bar? by Shin-LaC · · Score: 2, Informative

      But Chrome's bar is still annoying in its own way. For example, I type "sla" and the first suggestion is slashdot.org, but then I hit "s" and suddenly the first hit is "google search for slas", and it takes it a good second to remember about slashdot again. And that's after disabling google suggestions; the default was even worse. It seems to do a really crappy job at indexing my browsing history, and gives priority to its useless searches instead.

    4. Re:Awesome Bar? by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, Chrome has already done that stuff for a while now. This overlays a google search page over your web browser as you type.

    5. Re:Awesome Bar? by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've got a cheat for you: Use the search engine list to make shortcuts! I created a Slashdot entry with the URL being slashdot.org. then I gave it the keyword "sd". Now I just hit sd and enter and Slashdot is pulled up immediately! You could use single letters if you prefer, but I have multiple shortcuts (GoogleMail, HotMail, etc) so its easier to use two letters for me.

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    6. Re:Awesome Bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of my favorite Opera easter-eggs is the built-in Slashdot shortcut. Just type /. in the address bar and it brings you right to the front page.

    7. Re:Awesome Bar? by Sean0michael · · Score: 2, Informative

      I created a Slashdot entry with the URL being slashdot.org. then I gave it the keyword "sd". Now I just hit sd and enter and Slashdot is pulled up immediately!

      Or you could use a perhaps more appropriate keyword for slashdot:

      /.

      Just sayin'.

      --
      Funtime Candy Wow! - my plan for eventually conquering Japan.
    8. Re:Awesome Bar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to do anything nearly this complicated. Since slashdot.org is the most common 's' website i type in, typing 's' then pressing enter gets me here already.

    9. Re:Awesome Bar? by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 0

      But the Awesome bar IS awesome. by remembering a few keytstrokes, you can reach any page previously visited. It really IS progress if you actually try to use it. Actually, now that Firefox 4 has effectively killed plugin backwards compatibility, the Awesome Bar is the only thing that keeps me from moving to Chrome.

    10. Re:Awesome Bar? by Gamma747 · · Score: 1

      If you keep your right hand on your mouse, then typing "sd" requires less hand movement. (Especially if your left hand defaults to the WASD keys whenever you use a keyboard.)

    11. Re:Awesome Bar? by Joe+Snipe · · Score: 1

      Mine comes up with sinkmyship.com, so that's out. But it is'nt really complicated at all; keyword shortcuts are easy to set up for the power they offer. If you are using an actual search engine you type in the keyword and the search terms. that's it. If I want to search slashdot, ebay, craigslist, or any other standard search engine easy and often then setting the keyword to something simple is the best way to go. Check it out for yourself, just right click on the address bar...

      --
      Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
    12. Re:Awesome Bar? by AnonymouseUser · · Score: 1

      That is Opera's default shortcut for Slashdot. Just sayin'.

  3. Yep, keep giving me by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    bad excuses to not use chome (I guess I will have to one day...)

  4. So they want our complete URL history? by wal9001 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like a not too subtle excuse to send every URL you type back to your targeted advertising file at Google. Were there a separate search box, I'd be less cynical, but one has to wonder if this was always their vision for what the browser bar should do.

    1. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Chrome already remotely sends that info for Google DNS (I think), URL suggestions, and malware detection services when you type an address into the URL bar. But it's easy to turn those three services off. So will this one be.

    2. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by jojoba_oil · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, Chrome has been doing that for ages with the existing suggestions. I setup a Squid cache for my house and found letter-for-letter requests coming from computers using Chrome. Try it yourself if you're curious--or you can just turn off suggestions.

    3. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The interesting thing about Google Instant is that it was really a vehicle for Google to permanently enable Search Suggestions.

      Previously on their webpage search options, you could turn suggestions on or off.

      Now that dialog has been replaced with Google Instant on/off. Turning it off leaves you with the old style suggestions enabled (no way to disable). That, in turn, allows them to track everything you type. Don't be evil indeed.

    4. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by MushMouth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Holy smokes, you are right. Where is EPIC and the EFF in all of this? This is far more insidious than I realized. Right now the only solution that I know of is to shut off javascript for www.google.com or use a menubar search in a non-chrome browser (with suggestions off)

    5. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how the fuck is this even an issue? you're sending them your search terms anyway.

    6. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by Pentium100 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or just disable javascript for google.com

    7. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed this from looking at about:cache

      What you will from just typing in about:cache

      http://clients1.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&hl=en-US&q=about
      http://clients1.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&hl=en-US&q=abou
      http://clients1.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&hl=en-US&q=abo
      http://clients1.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&hl=en-US&q=ab

    8. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by MushMouth · · Score: 1

      Yes AFTER I hit not every letter I type into the search field.

    9. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by MushMouth · · Score: 1

      ERRRRR, AFTER I hit <Google Search>

      (plain old text is just that plain old text)

    10. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're complaining that they're getting "asian gir", but don't mind that you send them "asian girls"? Or is your complaint that they're finding out what a lousy typist you are?

    11. Re:So they want our complete URL history? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and lose Google Maps.

  5. Huh? by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

    Hasn't this already been done in Opera and other browsers? How is this innovative?

    --
    I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    1. Re:Huh? by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      Because Google is doing it.

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

      Chrome already does search-from-bar and live suggestions. What this does is put live search *results* over the page you're currently looking at. It's a browser extension of how google's .com search page works now. While it isn't a revolutionary feature, as far as I know nobody else has implemented it.

  6. Features by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I love Chrome, and don't miss Firefox at all (and especially don't miss my system being brought to its knees by the constant memory leaks that seemingly can't be fixed), but I wish they would focus less on whiz-bang features, and focus more on filling in the gaps in the core features. Things like "Print Preview" and "Properties" when you right-click an image come to mind.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Features by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      I love Chrome, and don't miss Firefox at all (and especially don't miss my system being brought to its knees by the constant memory leaks that seemingly can't be fixed)

      On some systems Chrome has a memory overrun problem when you start chrome (it wants to use all the ram and then proceeds to use all of the swap). At least Firefox's memory leak takes hours.

    2. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Things like "Print Preview" and "Properties" when you right-click an image come to mind.

      If you'd like to see those implemented, please star/comment on these bugs:
      http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=173
      http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=9278

    3. Re:Features by Potor · · Score: 1

      I agree, especially re: properties.

    4. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well as AFAIK Google Cloud Print is still in development, it kind of makes sense that Google would neglect on Chrome printing support: it's going to be deprecated 'soon' anyway. Being able to print automatically to any Google-account-registered printers, on any device, from anywhere with Internet connectivity, and with no setup required at all... is going to be truly awesome.

      But I can't seem to justify the missing "Properties" right-click action. I found this recently-released extension however: Image Properties Context Menu.

    5. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is with the naming convention for Chrome? I mean have there been eight successive major releases of Chrome since we are already at Chrome 8? Why not just call it Chrome and leave the version off the name? Why is the Microsoft product naming style being followed? "My genitals are bigger than your genitals syndrome?"

    6. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or God Forbid a Bookmarks Sidebar ...yeah...I think that I'll be migrating back to Firefox...

    7. Re:Features by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Considering how long Microsoft has given up on I.E., how stagnant Firefox is, and how much trouble Opera has been as of late, it's nice to see a developer that's actually pushing forward with browser development.

      Chrome is all of 2 years old. Recent "bloat" includes plug-ins and a show all downloads page. Keeping their browser synchronized with how their home page handles searching doesn't seem like bloat to me at all.

      I don't know. I want those whiz-bang features, if they're actually useful. I want a reason to care about new releases. When Opera released mousegestures, it basically changed the way I interacted with computers. This isn't something like that, but it seems like a handy update that will slightly speed up something that happens dozens of times a day.

    8. Re:Features by Shikaku · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just use links and gvim and never look back. Hell throw away the whole window manager and just stick with vim instead. It's not like you need those extra UI elements taking up your precious CPU cycles, right?

    9. Re:Features by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Firefox has been rock solid and the memory leaks appear to be fixed for quite some time.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    10. Re:Features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% agree that Chrome is pretty good. It's missing some things though... and they don't seem interested in fixing them.

      How about encryption of stored credentials on Linux? (Don't say gnome-keyring or kwallet either, I don't use Gnome or KDE and have no wish to start.) Such a huge bias toward Windows with Chrome.

      How about support for selective blocking of javascript crap similar to NoScript?

    11. Re:Features by Interoperable · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or reasonable tab overflow handling.

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    12. Re:Features by SmilingBoy · · Score: 1

      What is with the naming convention for Chrome? I mean have there been eight successive major releases of Chrome since we are already at Chrome 8? Why not just call it Chrome and leave the version off the name?

      Which is exactly what Google are doing! Can you find a reference to the version number on www.google.com/chrome ? Are there pop-ups informing you that the new version is available? See! By the way, the current stable version is 6. They announced a while ago that they will reduce the time between major releases to around 6 weeks. So expect the stable version of Chrome 8 in the beginning of December. In a nutshell: the Chrome version number is really mostly used internally.

    13. Re:Features by fartingfool · · Score: 1

      I love Chrome, , but I wish they would focus less on whiz-bang features, and focus more on filling in the gaps in the core features. Things like "Print Preview" and "Properties" when you right-click an image come to mind.

      http://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/#enable-print-preview

      There is already a work in progress with a Chrome 7 switch for "Print Preview". The Chromium team doesn't recommend enabling these, but I've used a couple of them and have found them to be really useful. You just have only yourself to blame if something crashes.

      I feel these are definitely worth looking at if you have the skills to enable them.

    14. Re:Features by slack_prad · · Score: 1

      Same here. But my work policy doesn't let me use Chrome. They cite 'security reasons'. Firefox is ok though.

      --
      Sent from my desktop computer
    15. Re:Features by coryking · · Score: 0, Troll

      Damn Luddite. Why are you on a tech site bitching about tech? Upgrade your damn 486.

      Seroously. What is with the Luddites on this site?

    16. Re:Features by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      So if someone criticises Linux/OSS for getting bloated he's a troll and a Luddite?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:Features by m50d · · Score: 1

      Try konqueror. No adverts in the new york times, no giant corporate sponsorship, just quietly building a really good browser.

      --
      I am trolling
  7. Lol, anytime soon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow! More ads, delivered faster!

    What a brave new world.

  8. Correct Me... by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    ... If I'm wrong, but doesn't Chrome and most other browsers do this already. I've used it several time sin the past few minutes. I skimmed TFA but I didn't see anything new except that page turn button.

  9. Privacy concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone concerned about the privacy implications of Google receiving **every** URL typed on chrome?

    1. Re:Privacy concerns by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Like firefox already does?

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    2. Re:Privacy concerns by BZ · · Score: 1

      Firefox doesn't phone home the urls to a server; it just searches your local browser history.

    3. Re:Privacy concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone concerned about the privacy implications of Google receiving **every** URL typed on chrome?

      No, but if I was I would turn the feature off. Google is the least of my internet privacy worries. They are the only company involved with little to gain, and everything to lose, by leaking private data.

      My ISP can log everything I do, and they are run by people who I am certain have no interest in protecting my privacy. The web sites I visit all have logs, and even if they respect my privacy I bet at least some of them do not have adequate security to avoid data theft.

      Google will continue to make a staggering amount of money as long as people use their search engine (and see the ads that are on search results). Unlike my ISP and web sites I use, Google has no lock in: It wouldn't cost my anything to use Bing or Yahoo from now on if I felt like it. So they have a huge incentive to keep their word on scrubbing search logs of any data that can be tied to a person. They have the technical competence to keep their promise. Why would they risk their amazingly profitable business by breaking their privacy policy?

    4. Re:Privacy concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But as google receives the data, so does your ISP, and every proxy and machine involved in the request. Every keystroke you make will be stored on countless logs, and I mean keystroke, not just urls you actually went for.

      It's like the guy in some other post that talked about accidentally typing your password in the url bar. Granted, that's silly, but it just exposes information unnecessarily. Basically, the concerning issue is the trend: not even keystrokes are private anymore. It will only get worse as web and desktop developers everywhere start "integrating" the feature and services into their applications.

      Suddenly, you sneeze and they know.

      One has to draw the line somewhere, and for me, this is where.

  10. Slow down by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

    Chrome 8? I'm still on Chromium 5 apparently, and it's from this year!

    1. Re:Slow down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I remember correctly, Chrome 5 is stable, Chrome 6 is the Beta channel, and Chrome 7 is the developer channel. those of us on the developer channel will be seeing Chrome 8 pretty soon (I believe they're on a 6 week version cycle now).

  11. Nifty is a relative term... by feidaykin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I suppose it is "nifty" for folks that actually like the instant search feature, but I've been happily avoiding it by doing my searches through the URL bar in Chrome. Guess they'll take that option away, too? Oh well, I'm not going to nerd-rage about it like some of the posts I've seen on Slashdot. It's just a minor annoyance to me but I'll likely still use Chrome to browse and Google to search. I really like Chrome, mainly because it's one of the few browsers that's lightning fast when I have lots of tabs with Flash heavy content open. That's probably only because of my aging hardware, and it's not like Firefox is really sluggish on my system, just noticeably slower.

    Plus Chrome has other neat features, like when I type the URL of a site I have searched before, you can search that site again by pressing tab, so I don't need to have a bunch of different search boxes for different sites like I do in Firefox. Anyway, I guess I'll reserve my judgement until it's actually implemented, maybe they'll do it in a way that isn't too irksome or distracting.

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    1. Re:Nifty is a relative term... by ZsoL · · Score: 1

      Karma whore! :D

    2. Re:Nifty is a relative term... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      why not just click the "turn off instant search" button....

    3. Re:Nifty is a relative term... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I actually thought it might look that way, but I've been at "Excellent" for years so I guess it doesn't really matter. I saw the article shortly after it was posted, had an immediate reaction and thought I would just spew it out to see what others think. While getting moderated up gives me a warm fuzzy feeling sometimes, it's not something I obsess over too much since the moderators are fickle and what is modded up today can be modded into the ground tomorrow. For example, I've had posts of mine go up to 5, then down to 1, then back up to 3 in one day. Actually, I have only been logging into slashdot again this year. I sort of lost interest a couple years back and only recently got back into it. It's funny how many new memes and things there are to learn. For example, I had no idea what "FTFY" meant, and it's not like I've been avoiding forums altogether, just this one. Guess it was time to come out of my bubble on the Web. ;)

    4. Re:Nifty is a relative term... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because if you set cookies to be erased at close you find that Google keylog^h^h^h^h^h^hinstant is back on. I found shutting off javascript for google.com to be the best solution.

    5. Re:Nifty is a relative term... by PieSquared · · Score: 1

      Well the obvious way to implement it unobtrusively would be to show the "instant" results where it currently shows the pages from history and guesses at what you're typing. Possibly formatted more like google search results or something.

      But at the very least it should be easy to turn off. I mean, I currently use the search bar as a calculator occasionally, and I'm going to be pretty pissed if chrome decides to overwrite my current webpage with a search for a calculation.

      --
      Does a line appended to your comment give your post meaning in and of itself, or only in relation to those without?
  12. Works on passwords too! by rwa2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hey! Did you know if you type in your root password into the search bar, it can list your computer in the search results?

    It works on Slashdot too... see, here's mine: ********

    / accidentally his password in the google search bar the other day
    // it's different now

    1. Re:Works on passwords too! by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Funny

      You accidentally the whole password into the search bar?

    2. Re:Works on passwords too! by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey! Did you know if you type in your root password into the search bar, it can list your computer in the search results?

      That would explain why there are about 1,050,000 results for hunter2 on Google.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    3. Re:Works on passwords too! by allo · · Score: 0

      how is baggdoorrr formed?

    4. Re:Works on passwords too! by Steneub · · Score: 0

      You accidentally what the whole password?

    5. Re:Works on passwords too! by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      The URL www.hunter2.com can not be found.

    6. Re:Works on passwords too! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You accidentally the whole password into the search bar?

      I think that's why the recommendation is not to have a two character password, and not to use a dictionary word if you do...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    7. Re:Works on passwords too! by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1

      Nice.

  13. Not good ideas, tho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instant search is great... for Google's advert mining operations. For me, it's an annoying distraction. If I have any clue about how search engines work (which I do), then the fact that I"M STILL TYPING means that there's more information necessary to find the thing I want. WOrd completion... maybe MAYBE is useful. But trying to jump the gun and anticipate the whole words that I might type? That's a seriously bad idea for all but the most novice users.

    It's crap. I turned it off after giving it a fair shake, but it's a solution to Google's problem, not a user problem. If Google's gonna built it into Chrome as a basic feature, I guess I'm heading back to Firefox.

    1. Re:Not good ideas, tho by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      riddle me this, if theyre already doing search suggestions (and thus sending letter by letter updates to google), what additional benefit does it provide Google to actually run the query?

    2. Re:Not good ideas, tho by cgenman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it useful for refining results.

      [Dominant concept] [sub concept 1] [sub concept 2] [refining concept 1] [refining concept 2] [additional info 1] [additional info 2]

      Start typing. If you don't see what you're looking for, keep typing. Add terms and refinements. Keep going. Running 4 separate searches to find what you're looking for is slow. Seeing how you need to change your query to shape your results in realtime can be helpful.

    3. Re:Not good ideas, tho by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Start typing. If you don't see what you're looking for, keep typing. Add terms and refinements.

      Sounds like a good idea, but you can't trust it.

      I forget where I saw it, probably here on slashdot. Trying searching for the book the "wisdom of whores" - the instant search stuff won't complete at all - it is as if there are no hits. Do a "real" search for wisdom of whores and you get a bunch of hits - the first is the author's blog and the second is the amazon page for the book.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Not good ideas, tho by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Yes. They have an adult filter on certain keywords. Enter one of those keywords, and you have to actually hit the enter key. This is pretty clear while you're typing, though, as all entries disappear and "press enter to search" comes up. So it isn't any slower than the traditional way where you have to hit enter for each search.

      Do note that you can find the book if you type in "Wisdom of Elizabeth Pisani" without hitting enter, as Elizabeth is the author. So it's more of a keyword search than a content block. That may seem like splitting hairs, but if you just remember certain bits of information, you don't have to hit enter to see potentially sensitive results. I.E. when there are results, you can trust them to be as exhaustive as they would be if you hit enter.

    5. Re:Not good ideas, tho by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Yes. They have an adult filter on certain keywords. Enter one of those keywords, and you have to actually hit the enter key. This is pretty clear while you're typing, though, as all entries disappear and "press enter to search" comes up. So it isn't any slower than the traditional way where you have to hit enter for each search.

      For me, the "press enter to search" fades in after a few seconds. If you start backspacing before then you might miss it. Plus, its not obvious what's going on - if it (immediately) said "press enter to search without adult filter" or "completion stopped by SafetySearch" or even provided a way to turn off the filter like they do in other parts of google with the &safe=off URL parameter or a cookie for those who "log in" then I'd be less critical.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  14. Version 8 Already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously it is just version numbers, but Chrome is releasing version 8 while IE is still working on 9? I love to see the amount of effort being put into updating Chrome. MS could take a page or two from Google's handbook and offer a faster paced roadmap to IE. Like fixing some of the lingering CSS bugs and adding HTML5 support.

    1. Re:Version 8 Already? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft could take a page or two from Google's handbook and offer a faster paced roadmap to IE. Like fixing some of the lingering CSS bugs and adding HTML5 support.

      We're working on it! Coming soon*

      * soon is between 4 and 7 years.

  15. Search bar as temporary area by sea4ever · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I often use the search bar at the top as a temporary writing area for transient things, like to craft an URL which I would then paste into something else, or to write out an equation that I happen to see (Sometimes I use the browser to review notes)
    It wouldn't be very fun if the page I was looking at suddenly vanished to be replaced by a search page, just because I was trying to crystallize my thoughts for a second. Of course I really should be using a separate editor for transient notes but it seems so convenient this way..

    1. Re:Search bar as temporary area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use the run box for this. Just press WinKey+R. Or, you know, Notepad.

    2. Re:Search bar as temporary area by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Firefox, and use my "Google" search bar that's right beside my URL bar (This is not a toolbar, part of firefox) for temporary text.

      And Alt+Home to ACTUALLY use Google.

    3. Re:Search bar as temporary area by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      I use the run box for this. Just press WinKey+R. Or, you know, Notepad.

      I actually do a combination of your suggestions. I have Autohotkey installed and mapped WinKey+N to run Notepad++. Combined with the autosave plugin you can type whatever comes to mind without fear of losing it.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    4. Re:Search bar as temporary area by sea4ever · · Score: 1

      Ah, but I use linux with a tiling window manager. (Which means that I am usually working on one thing at a time, full-screen)
      This makes the notepad solution pretty much impossible. Since opening any editor at all will either go full-screen, or take up a large portion of the screen if I resize it.

    5. Re:Search bar as temporary area by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      I use the Windows address bar for this (and for file paths - I don't think I've ever used them for URLs though since Chrome is so much faster). Anyone know of any good alternatives for Ubuntu?

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    6. Re:Search bar as temporary area by m50d · · Score: 1

      Surely you can find a "sticky notes" app for whatever your window environment is. (I like the kde one, but I guess you're not using that)

      --
      I am trolling
  16. More useless by the week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run Chromium as a second browser and it's becoming increasingly irritating. I especially hate the way they strip the "http://" protocol prefix and trailing slashes from domains and directories. A default HTTP GET is "/" not an empty string, similarly most servers are configured to send a redirect from "/dir_name" to "/dir_name/". That's how the protocol works but apparently some shmuck thinks it's somehow useful to hide such details from the user. This from a company whose own web service URLs still use indecipherable query strings at every given opportunity.

    This new search thing sounds even worse, generally if I want to search for something in Chromium I visit google.com because there's no dedicated search box. Google should offer a moron mode for people who want google to have their entire browsing history on file. Guess it's time for me to go back to the Gtk webkit nightlies or arora.

    1. Re:More useless by the week by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      FYI: If you copy the entire URL from the URL bar you get the http:/// added back on.

    2. Re:More useless by the week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks. I did already know that and it stands to reason since "http://" is a required component. The question remains, why is the browser doing extra work to deliberately display HTTP URLs incorrectly? I checked and it only strips the trailing slash for the root directory, not sub directories as per my original post. Still, to what end would they strip a sites root directory delimiter from the URL display?

      Is it Google's idea of a clean URL and if so what is with query strings like this: "http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=search-term&btnG=Search". Surely "http://google.com/search/search-term" is cleaner and they can post the rest of the crap using hidden form elements?

      On a positive note, it seems someone finally got around to adding support to Chromium for the X11 clipboard.

  17. Missing feature by CODiNE · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, my Chrome pet peeve here.

    Let's say you open a bunch of background tabs while reading a page. One of the tabs doesn't load for whatever reason, when it times out, instead of putting the attempted URL in the address bar it leaves some kind of about:blank internal page that tells you what happened. That's great, thanks for the info, now click refresh. Nope, the page is gone forever. Go back to the first page and hunt through the links comparing them against the loaded tabs and hopefully you find the one you wanted.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Missing feature by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is a problem with release versions? Chrome 7 gives you a link on the page which you may click to refresh.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. New features by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

    I love new features! I love new features with an off switch even more!

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  19. Instarhea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this instant results ChromeRhea? I recommend to everyone to come back to firefox!

  20. Not New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not new for Chrome 8. This already works in my Chrome 7 right now...

  21. Too easy to embarass by Ender_Wiggin · · Score: 1

    Today, my boss called me into his office to show me the web site of a potential business partner. When he began to type 'virginia' into google, it auto-completed his search with his recent search for 'virgin boy assholes'. I have to go on business trip with him tomorrow. I'm a young guy. FML

    Taken from #36396

  22. Technically true by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    " It seems as if Google isn't running out of ideas for its browser anytime soon"...

    That's true, but they are running out of good ideas.

  23. metered bandwidth costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what those who pay for their bandwidth in a metered way such as cell phone users or 95th percentile business users think of all the active searching behind the scenes. Despite what many of you think, bandwidth isn't free.

    1. Re:metered bandwidth costs by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Despite what many of you think, bandwidth isn't free.

      No, but it wants to be! Oh, hold on, that's something else.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  24. Java by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    At least Google isn't as bad as Sun.

    One day I was on Java 1.4, and then next thing you know, POOF, I'm on Java 5!

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Java by badzilla · · Score: 1

      I cannot tell you how annoying I used to find this as a newbie to Java. The Java world has enough twisty confusions without unnecessary extra ones.

      --
      "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    2. Re:Java by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      Are there any aspects of Java that aren't unnecessarily complicated?

      Go try and tell a computer newbie what JRE is, its relation to Java, and why they need to install it.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  25. How about real performance fixes instead? by AnswerIs42 · · Score: 1

    I could care less about searches.. but because chrome uses the least real estate, it is nice on my netbook... but IT IS HORRIBLE with system resources... I have to restart chrome at least three times a day to clean out the memory. And I only average 5-6 tabs being open. That is really sad for a browser.. that is worse than FF.. and if I could get FF to use less real estate as well, I would just use it and ditch chrome.

  26. new suck-less web browser!!!!11! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your sick of whining about which new features suck, bloat, missing functionality, then check out a new web browser that is entirely plugin oriented and 100% customizable.
    http://www.uzbl.org/
    I comes with no features and you can pick which plugins to add or write some yourself. You can easily hook in javascripts, python scripts, shell scripts and you can define/redefine any commands you like.
    It's basically an API wrapped around webkit.

    Personally, I don't use it. It's not quite mature enough for my liking, but I fully intend to switch to it in the new future. I'm sick of these bloated resource hog web browsers with redundant cutesy-pie features that only serve to annoy.

    Warning: only for the uber-nerdy. Plugin collection is small, but growing.

  27. Really? by rinoid · · Score: 0, Redundant

    People really care about this?

    Put me down as Who Cares.

  28. I love Chrome but by krelian · · Score: 1

    I really wish they would focus on having the search bar offer good options from the browsing history and not from Google searches. Firefox's awsomebar is the last advantage Firefox has over Chrome, IMO. In FF I can easily get back to pages I use often or search my bookmarks through the address bar and the results are instantaneous while on Chrome searching the history is slow and half of the result are Google suggest results which are just not useful.

  29. CyberSearch anyone? by brettz9 · · Score: 1

    Even Slashdot users don't know about CyberSearch? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/7931/ or http://cybernetnews.com/cybersearch/ . This has been public at AMO since June 2008 and at their site earlier than that.... Granted, this one really ought to be built into Firefox (like Tree Style Tab) so more know about it, since it's not just a niche use.

    One particularly handy tip you might miss about the add-on: type "^" and then your search term to instantly search the site already loaded in the same tab (no need to define a keyword).

    1. Re:CyberSearch anyone? by brettz9 · · Score: 1

      I neglected to mention that you can also disable the Google page from appearing--I find I can often get a good enough idea about the site I'm looking for, just by looking at the URLs and titles in the URL drop-down... (Wonder if Chrome will actually let you do that and miss out on the ads...)

  30. Higher priority fixes by dugeen · · Score: 1

    They should be working on fixing the Google Update malware so that updates are only performed manually on user request.

  31. Re:GM by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    GM Called. They want their searches back.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine