Google Testing Completely Revamped Look

SharkLaser writes "Google's search engine has always looked pretty much the same since it was introduced in 1998. However, Google is now testing a revamped look that is the largest change the search engine has ever done to its website. The new look strips the black bar running horizontally at top and places it as an openable menu on the left side. The move is said to promote Google's other services without making the search engine too cluttered. The new side menu is also more similar to Chrome OS and allows Chromebook and Google's website to have the same look and feel. Another consequence of the move is that it now takes users two clicks to enter other services such as Images and News, which is said to improve the amount of ad clicks and visitors advertisers get. Considering that European Commission is examining claims of Google downgrading rival websites and U.S. senators are calling FTC to inspect Google for unfair practices, the move comes at a surprising time."

Comments

Googlebashing every second article?

[symbolset]

Getting desperate much? Is this a new year project? Submitter is almost exclusively a Googlebashing troll.

And the Googlebashing has no connection to the rest of the fine summary.

Slow news cycle I guess. Let's put something else in the queue.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[thestudio_bob]

Yes, I agree 100%. I relish the days that /. was unbiased with all the submitted articles about MicroSoft, Apple, Oracle, Python, C++, JavaScript, Religion, Governments, Global Warming...

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[SharkLaser]

Why do you think it's bashing? It's reporting news. Just because it's Google doesn't mean they should not be reported, just like Microsoft, Apple and other companies. Or are you saying we should give Google a pass on every time just because you love them?

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a mediocre company and its only redeeming feature is that it's slightly better than all its competitors at its core competency: general Internet search.

In this way, it's settling itself in the place Microsoft enjoyed for the last 20 years with its OS+desktop Office combination.

As it has followed Microsoft so it will mature like Microsoft. Why not report things as they are, even if you don't like the facts?

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[iserlohn]

Google products (mostly services) represents a completely different paradigm to Microsoft products (mostly software), call it post-desktop or whatever, but it's not even fully-realized yet. It's a bit pre-mature to compare them to Microsoft.

It's so hard to tell between paid shilling or general idiocy nowadays.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Dyinobal]

I just find the inclusion of stuff about the law suits to be really stupid. I get that you wanted to fill out the summary since the entirety of the article could be reduced down to. Google has slightly changed the look of their site, making their non search related features more prominent.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[SharkLaser]

It's relevant because the lawsuits are already about Google promoting their own services over competitor ones in search results. This move might be because they needed to move the promotion off the search results and give them space in more prominent "Google's stuff" place, or they didn't care about the investigations and just went full force promoting their own services. Regardless, it is relevant.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Dyinobal]

Giving prominence to your own services on your own website is hardly controversial. Looking at your article submissions I would say you are pushing an agenda of your own. This is the internet though and it's not like you can even expect real journalists not to push their own views. Still you could be less obvious about it.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[dnewt]

If it's true, of course it's controversial; not to mention anti-competitive and therefore illegal. It's all about context. The vast majority of content on the internet is found via search engines. Google are the dominant player in the search engine market. Clearly, using their market position as the gate keeper of all things internet to push their plethora of other services is very anti-competitive and hugely controversial.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[SharkLaser]

It is when they're pushing them in the usual search results. It's somewhat cheating, and certainly not honest. That's why Google is probably giving them that prominence by moving them to better places, but outside the search results. That's what EU has been giving them trouble for, anyway.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[omfgnosis]

Real journalists are supposed to push their own views. That is an integral part of journalism.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like hell it is. Real journalism is about reporting facts and *maybe* asking some leading or interesting questions about said facts. Journalists that push their own views belong solely on the Op-Ed page of a newspaper, despite what the idiots at FOX, CNN, and just about every other major news source in the US would have you believe.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[omfgnosis]

Journalism is necessarily directed by interest, and the questions asked are necessarily directed by distinct concerns about distinct details. The world is composed of innumerable facts, and to report all of them without discrimination is to completely undermine journalism. To be a journalist is, inherently, to discriminate between which facts are important and which facts are unimportant. That is by definition pushing a view.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[symbolset]

Illegal is for the courts to decide. In the US at least they seem to be leaning in favor of the first amendment. In the US the content of a US website is a freedom of speech issue beyond the power of the government to regulate. At least for now.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[93 Escort Wagon]

Yes, I agree 100%. I relish the days that /. was unbiased with all the submitted articles about MicroSoft, Apple, Oracle, Python, C++, JavaScript, Religion, Governments, Global Warming...

You spelled "Micro$oft" wrong.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[bonch]

The editors choose what gets posted. Slashdot has historically been a very pro-Google website, and there is plenty of dirt posted on its competitors every week. Google's antitrust concerns are real news.

You claim there is Google-bashing "every second article," but there hasn't been. The previous Google stories have been about services that Google cut off. That's just news.

You didn't refute anything at all in the linked articles. Your strategy to attack the submitter and dismiss the submission outright simply because it has negative news about a company you like is so sycophantic that it's almost disgusting, as is the fact you got +5 Informative for it. For every "Googlebashing troll" on Slashdot, there are 50 fanboys, so let's not get all uppity and demand that Slashdot filter its story publishing just to fit your ideal worldview.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[bonch]

Giving prominence to your own services on your own website is hardly controversial.

It is if you're a monopoly. Microsoft got into the same trouble over Internet Explorer in the 1990s.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Look at this--not a refutation of ANYTHING in the submission. Just angry accusations and a demand that Slashdot not post anymore news that's bad about Google. And it gets +5 Informative!

Symbolset, like other Google fans who post here, wants Slashdot to post nothing but good news about companies he likes and bad news about companies he hates. He wants Slashdot to pat him on the shoulder for having a certain position.

What a load of CRAP.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[lightknight]

"If it's true, of course it's controversial" -> it's their own website. They are free to promote or not promote whomever or whatever they life. They are a business...it would be like forcing McDonalds to show advertisements for Burger King.

"not to mention anti-competitive and therefore illegal. It's all about context" -> most competition is anti-competitive. By their very nature, companies are always trying to outmaneuver other companies.

"The vast majority of content on the internet is found via search engines" -> so write your own search engine, and do not promote your own services over others. They're aren't magic, and can be created to be fairly awesome with a few thousand lines of code. I'm planning on writing my own, as it happens, because I have become so dissatisfied with Google's results as of late; I will probably share it with the public, and have it run off of BitCoins (to pay for the servers and whatnot); when the balance hits zero, the public gets cut off. And there is a lot more to the internet than the world wide web, but I digress that the younger generation lacks the attention span or technological understanding to experience all that's hidden; the world wide web has always been nothing more than the tip of the iceberg.

"Clearly, using their market position as the gate keeper of all things internet to push their plethora of other services is very anti-competitive and hugely controversial." -> they aren't the gate-keeper of all things. Yahoo, Bing, Baidu and so forth all offer competition. It's just that for the English-speaking search engine market, Google has been kicking the snot out of its competitors for a few generations. There have been others, ranging from Netscape, Altavista, Excite, Lycos, and so forth. When someone came along with a better search engine, the other companies started hemorrhaging money; given Google's insistence on natural language queries (as of late) and switch to boolean ORs over ANDs for standard queries, they should be dead or at least diminished in a generation or two. Marketing has gone insane inside that company, meaning it's nearing its end. Does anyone know what Google's founders are doing these days?

 

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[symbolset]

Everything gets bashed here. Frankly I find the quality of bashing inferior at least - a long-dead issue about a deprecated google app engine that was cute but impractical and unpopular, and a non-newsworthy page redesign issue with non sequitur low-risk and very old regulatory FUD just tagged onto the end without any rhyme or reason. If you're going to bash Google, at least put some effort into quality bashing and not bring this weak sauce. And hey, does it have to be twice an hour on the same target? Can you at least space it out a little?

I didn't suggest filtering submissions. I suggested putting something else into the submission queue. And who could have a problem with that?

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Chuck Chunder]

If it's true, of course it's controversial

Unfortunately an almost meaningless assertion these days due to people seeking to establish "controversy" as a tactic in achieving some other goal.

not to mention anti-competitive and therefore illegal.

How so? It's pointless to make such a statement without saying why. Merely offering other products seems entirely unproblematic under established competition law. For example it seems to me there' no evidence of tying, anyone is free to choose which of Google's products they do or do not use. Similarly Google seems to steer well clear of other behaviours that could be problematic under competition law Google seems to steer well clear.

Simply saying "anti-competitive and therefore illegal" is at best lazy or ignorant, at worst shows contempt for real discussion and betrays desire to foster "controversy" for some other aim.

If there's something you think Google is doing that (even possibly) runs contra to the law then please state what it is and what aspect of the law it runs afoul of.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[bonch]

You're 100% wrong. Google's customers are advertisers, and in web advertising, they are most definitely a monopoly. The services are given away to attract the product--you.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[dnewt]

"If it's true, of course it's controversial" -> it's their own website. They are free to promote or not promote whomever or whatever they life. They are a business...it would be like forcing McDonalds to show advertisements for Burger King.

Competition law exists because things really aren't that simple. In a capitalist society, healthy competition is what helps ensure prices are low and products are constantly improving. At some point, a company can do so well in one market sector (yes, usually because they've earned it), that they can use that leverage, if they so choose, to gain an unfair advantage in another market sector. Sure, there's a grey area, but there's limits. This is well established under monopoly and dominance provisions within competition law. Regarding your Burger King comment, I don't think anyone (certainly not me), was suggesting Google should be forced to unduly increase the prominence of their competitors. We're talking about organic search results here, not ads. The European Commission's concern centres around Google's supposed tactic of giving undue prominence to their services in organic search results. If they are doing so (and I'm not suggesting they necessarily are) then, to me, that clearly seems like an abuse of a dominant position in one sector to gain an unfair advantage in another. If a company that runs a competing tool to one of Google's ancillary services needs to have their own market leading search engine to effectively compete with Google, then there's something wrong there that's ultimately detrimental to consumers. That's why competition law exists.

they aren't the gate-keeper of all things. Yahoo, Bing, Baidu and so forth all offer competition.

My use of the phrase 'gate-keeper of all things internet' wasn't meant in quite such a literal sense. I was just referring to their dominant market share. Yes, there are competitors to Google (Bing, Yahoo, etc). That's fairly irrelevant to the issue we're discussing though. It's the fact Google are using their dominance in the search market to possibly gain an unfair market share in other areas.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[whoop]

How about timeliness? This has "revamp" been going on for a few months. One of my less-used accounts had it turned around Thanksgiving. Aha, I've found a nice article on ti going back to November 29.

Overall, Google has been "Plus"-ifying most all it's services. It's not unexpected.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[dnewt]

How so? It's pointless to make such a statement without saying why. Merely offering other products seems entirely unproblematic under established competition law [wikipedia.org]. For example it seems to me there' no evidence of tying, anyone is free to choose which of Google's products they do or do not use. Similarly Google seems to steer well clear of other behaviours that could be problematic under competition law Google seems to steer well clear.

With respect, things are a little more complicated than can be understood from a Wikipedia article. Using your dominance in one market sector to in such a way as to give you an unfair advantage over competitors in another market sector is one of the main reasons competition law exists. If a company that runs a competing tool to one of Google's ancillary services needs to have their own market leading search engine to effectively compete with Google, then there's something wrong there that's ultimately detrimental to consumers if it's allowed to continue.

Maybe I should re-iterate the fact that my whole post was predicated with "If true". I made no mention of whether I believed Google were engaging in such practices.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[dnewt]

Simply saying "anti-competitive and therefore illegal" is at best lazy or ignorant, at worst shows contempt for real discussion and betrays desire to foster "controversy" for some other aim.

That's a little strong. Bordering on trolling if you ask me. I merely didn't think it was necessary to explain the link quite so explicitly.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

If it's true, of course it's controversial; not to mention anti-competitive

Stop right there!

I'm a bit thick - please explain how Google is anti-competitive? Are they stopping other player in the advertising game? Are they threatening companies that buy advertising by adjusting prices on the basis of exclusive contracts?

I spend a lot of money on paid advertising with a five of the major search engines (Google is number 3, despite the alleged monopoly) - and only one of those companies has ever asked if I used another company (Bing). And they didn't offer me any incentive to drop Google.

I guess if you climbed into the ring with Tyson you'd be claiming he was anti-competitive too.

and therefore illegal. It's all about context. The vast majority of content on the internet is found via search engines. Google are the dominant player in the search engine market. Clearly, using their market position as the

gate keeper of all things internet

Reaching much?

to push their plethora of other services is very anti-competitive and hugely controversial.

Try applying that bullshit "logic" to icecream. Vanilla is the dominant flavour - lets get those kangaroo courts of shillsters going.. or is this just a misinformed tall poppy thing?

Don't see you calling for any pitchfork and flaming torch rallies against the two biggest by far search engines? I'm sure you've got a rational reason for that.

Thanks for keeping the standards high.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[perryizgr8]

microsoft made it impossible to use netscape? or anything else? i think you didn't quite understand the whole matter.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[perryizgr8]

same could be said for microsoft.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[fast turtle]

The main problem with the trolls is their so inefective. I mean goodness, they're not even ugly enough to crack my screen just from looking at their posts. What we need are some ogres that are ugly nuff to curdle milk in the cow, fracture your screen with their reflection and mean enough to untangle a gordian knot

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[dnewt]

I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads. Secondly, I'm saying that abusing your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another is anti-competitive. That's not an unusual statement to make. You may not see it that way, but to use the word "bullshit" in response just highlights your inability to have an intelligent debate in a respectful manner.

Thanks for keeping the standards high.

Wow, surely you're able to have an intelligent debate without resorting to troll like comments such as that. Do you say that to everyone who disagrees with you? Do you hear me calling your logic "bullshit"? I think you may need to take a look at your own standards.You may not agree with me, but that was totally unnecessary.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Waccoon]

Indeed. I get annoyed when people still herald the clean and fundamentally unchanged design of the Google front page, saying the company is dutifully staying true to its roots.

Other than that pop-up in the upper right corner urging people to install Chrome, of course. You can indeed close it, but it shows up every time you use a non-Chrome browser.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads.

I'm yet to see any evidence of that - despite the amazing coincidence of an inquiry taking place in the US at the same time as in Australia.

All I heard so far is people saying it happens - but failing to supply a shred of proof. So I call bullshit.

First the claim was that Google was giving paid advertising (like I buy) an unfair advantage over "organic search results"... In Australia, despite refusing to "prosecute" because they were unable to find an evidence to support the claim ACMA was still dragged to an Inquiry instigated by a company called Sensei (maybe you should do a little research and find out what happened there). Result - dismissed, as the "unfair" advantage is bullshit. The claim that by putting clearly marked, different coloured, ads at the top of search results - it was "unfair".

You'll see media stories run by companies owned by ex-Australian Rupert Murdock that "Google got off" - do yourself a failure and look at the actual finding. No one got off - fines were levied - just not against the company being accused.

Now the story (like yours throughout this thread) has changed - and the distortion is hidden within the search results. Funny that the same people complaining that people game the search results and that Google benefits from it - now claim that when Google relegates the gamers off the front page (Rusty Compass and their 10s of thousands of spammy link farms backlinks) it's proof that Google is taking an "unfair advantage".

It used to be a fact that search engines distorted search results for money - no one complained to the courts then did they? Instead it created the market opportunity that created Google - relevant search results.

Secondly, I'm saying that abusing your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another is anti-competitive.

How? When? You make a lot of claims and keep lugging those goal posts round the field but so far you haven't pointed at a single fact. Having failed to demonstrate an abuse of the position in the market (third) you now want to build another case on it? There's a term for that - grasping.

That's not an unusual statement to make.

Relevance?

You may not see it that way, but to use the word "bullshit" in response just highlights your inability to have an intelligent debate in a respectful manner.

Oh it's a debate now is it? Grow up - you want "respect" then present some facts instead of opinions. To call a lot of baseless fan boi FUD the basis for an "intelligent" debate is to abuse the word "intelligent" and distort the purpose of a debate. Either a company broke the law, or the didn't. It's not a matter for debate.

But let's mince words shall we? I'd call you a liar and you say I'm offensive (though you're still a liar). You'll say I need to prove what your saying is not true, and that everyone knows what you're saying is right. I'll point out that you don't have any proof and you'll argue that's proof of the conspiracy - and that we just have a difference of opinion.

I think you may need to take a look at your own standards.You may not agree with me, but that was totally unnecessary.

Obviously I don't agree with you - I consider it good manners to present facts before flinging shit - if you cannot present any facts to support your claims you're hardly in a position to pat yourself on the back for taking the moral high ground. There's a term for that sort of behaviour too - you're a bullshit artist and guilding the truth with manners doesn't change that fact.

You fail to back your slime and slander - then avoid the issue like a weasel by having the audacity to take the moral high gro

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[tehcyder]

t's their own website. They are free to promote or not promote whomever or whatever they life. They are a business...it would be like forcing McDonalds to show advertisements for Burger King.

And similarly, Microsoft should have been allowed to promote thieir own web browser?

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[tehcyder]

And in the same way, users of Windows could easily download Netscape Navigator and use it instead of Internet Explorer.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[tehcyder]

No they didn't. I can't decide if you're ignorant, stupid or paid to do this. Microsoft got into trouble because they made it almost impossible to use the alternatives. They're still trying to do this with Bing.

Funny, I managed to use Netscape on Windows quite happily in the 90s until Netscape themselves fucked things up with Navigator/Communicator 4.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[coolmadsi]

Real journalists are supposed to push their own views. That is an integral part of journalism.

The original news link is from the BBC, which is required to be as un-biased as possible when reporting news.

Any bias and pushed viewpoints are from the submitter of the article to slashdot (arguably irrelevant to the actual article and just added to push their viewpoint further). Whether someone who submits a link from an actual news source and adds their own biased commentary to slashdot is a Real journalist is also up for detate (but risks invoking the True Scottsman fallacy)

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

It is when they're pushing them in the usual search results. It's somewhat cheating, and certainly not honest.

So because I pay Google to advertise my sites - my sites shouldn't appear in the search results as well? Why? The do with Bing, Yahoo, and Yandex.

That's why Google is probably giving them that prominence by moving them to better places, but outside the search results.

Probably? Probably? Is that what they taught you to say at shill school? I don't think so - I think they told you to "sound convincing, if you state it like a fact the fools will believe it's a fact".

That's what EU has been giving them trouble for, anyway.

No it isn't. Not even close. Keep guessing - or use a search engine, it'd be quicker - any one - the answers the same. Allegations of breaching privacy - yes. Paid armies of lobbyists with agendas like yours trying to convince people that Google "monopolises" search results and advertising. Yeah - in the same way the local water supply monopolises beverages.

Did you really think that tattoo of Bill Gates on your butt looked cool?

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Giving prominence to your own services on your own website is hardly controversial.

It is if you're a monopoly. Microsoft got into the same trouble over Internet Explorer in the 1990s.

If Google had popups warning you that your non-Chrome browser was a risk, if Google had no set prices for advertising - and told you it'd cost you double (or more) if you used other advertising companies, if Google copied every successful app that ran on Android and released their own version with Android and made it as hard as possible for the original app to be used on Android, if Google offered management golf club and holidays under the table in return for over-riding the purchasing decisions of the tech department (and if Google's head of marketing hired convicted murderers as "bodyguard" and threw chairs, or threatened journalists, maybe if Brin's dad arranged to have the other buyer for the Backscratch algorithm stuck in a holding pattern over the airport while Brin stole the deal) - then you wouldn't be such an obvious shill for MS. Because unlike NicknameOne I find it statistically improbable that you could be so wrong and not seriously hurt yourself trying to climb onto a chair and type this bullshit.

You are from fivers right? I thought so - you're the girl who'll do anything in a shower for $5 - I thought I recognised that tattoo of Bill Gates on your butt.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[tehcyder]

It's so hard to tell between paid shilling or general idiocy nowadays.

I think the main idiocy around here recently has been fanboys calling people paid shills just because they don't think that Apple/Google/whoever are the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel, or that Microsoft are more evil than Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler put together.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[iserlohn]

Actually, it is a compliment to call somebody a paid shill. It at least he or she is getting paid for mouthing such useless drivel. Certainly smarter than doing it for free.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[omfgnosis]

required to be as un-biased as possible when reporting news

That's a BBC policy, but it doesn't address the expectations we should have of journalists. Nevertheless, the policy itself (if it is as worded, which I doubt) is at best implemented after the bias of omission, and at worst would result in a completely meaningless stream of non-news. The purpose of journalism is to provide information, illumination and context about important facts. Every facet of that pursuit is biased—determining which facts are important, determining what context should be included or discarded, determining what is illuminating about the topic or revelation being reported, and determining which information to include or omit—and it should be biased. The alternative to biased journalism is no meaningful journalism. This isn't a comment on human nature, it's a comment on the nature of information. There is simply too much information for journalism to be both unbiased and useful. A good journalist knows this and provides us a service by employing that knowledge judiciously.

Any bias and pushed viewpoints are from the submitter of the article to slashdot (arguably irrelevant to the actual article and just added to push their viewpoint further).

That is clearly not the case. Here is some text from the BBC article:

Google is facing scrutiny for the way its own services appear in its search results.

Last month, two senators called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether Google was exploiting the fact it had a majority of both search via PC and mobile devices.

"A key question is whether Google is using its market power to steer users to its own web products or secondary services and discriminating against other websites with which it competes," Senators Herb Kohl and Mike Lee wrote.

The Financial Times has also reported that the European Commission was examining claims that Google "downgrades some rival websites in its search results, while playing up its own services".

Here is relevant text from the summary:

Considering that European Commission is examining claims of Google downgrading rival websites and U.S. senators are calling FTC to inspect Google for unfair practices, the move comes at a surprising time.

The "biased" portion of the summary reflects the "unbiased" BBC article and provides some links for context. I know this is slashdot and we're not supposed to read the articles or even the summaries, even when pointing out details of either, but come on!

Whether someone who submits a link from an actual news source and adds their own biased commentary to slashdot is a Real journalist is also up for detate (but risks invoking the True Scottsman fallacy)

Here I think your doubt is especially relevant and important, but I should add that I wasn't interested in defending the summary submitter's journalistic credentials (I have no idea who the person is, and reposting an article to a news feed alone doesn't necessarily make one a Scottsman, True or otherwise), but instead I was interested in challenging the notion of "unbiased journalism", a thing that doesn't and shouldn't exist.

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[dnewt]

I'm not sure we're going to get very far, but here goes...

I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads.

I'm yet to see any evidence of that - despite the amazing coincidence of an inquiry taking place in the US at the same time as in Australia.

All I heard so far is people saying it happens - but failing to supply a shred of proof. So I call bullshit.

First the claim was that Google was giving paid advertising (like I buy) an unfair advantage over "organic search results"... In Australia, despite refusing to "prosecute" because they were unable to find an evidence to support the claim ACMA was still dragged to an Inquiry instigated by a company called Sensei (maybe you should do a little research and find out what happened there). Result - dismissed, as the "unfair" advantage is bullshit. The claim that by putting clearly marked, different coloured, ads at the top of search results - it was "unfair".

Now the story (like yours throughout this thread) has changed - and the distortion is hidden within the search results. Funny that the same people complaining that people game the search results and that Google benefits from it - now claim that when Google relegates the gamers off the front page (Rusty Compass and their 10s of thousands of spammy link farms backlinks) it's proof that Google is taking an "unfair advantage".

Yes, I'm aware of the history, but thanks for the lesson. Perhaps I need to spell out the fact that, "these anti-competition complaints" is referring to those mentioned in the links in the article. Believe me, the point I've been making hasn't changed since my original comment. Perhaps your interpretation is off. You're clearly convinced that you have me suss'd, so I doubt telling you you're way off would make much difference.

Secondly, I'm saying that abusing your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another is anti-competitive.

How? When? You make a lot of claims and keep lugging those goal posts round the field but so far you haven't pointed at a single fact. Having failed to demonstrate an abuse of the position in the market (third) you now want to build another case on it? There's a term for that - grasping.

That statement is so hypocritical. You keep quoting this apparent fact that Google is third in the search engine market. Practice what you preach. Perhaps if you dropped this rubbish about me having some sort of hidden motive to spout anti-Google FUD, then you'd be able to grasp the fact that it's not that I've failed to demonstrate an abuse, it's that I don't even suggest there is one! My original comment was predicated with "If true". You seem to believe that's being a weasel. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's also central to my point and you've chosen to gloss over that. I'm merely debating hypotheticals. Not pie in the sky hypotheticals, but ones that are relevant to current events and the original article. I happen to not have much of a view either way as to whether Google are abusing their market position. If anything, I doubt they are. My whole point has nothing to do with trying to say Google is being anti-competitive; it was in response to someone suggesting that it if competitors claims about Google giving prominence to their own products in organic search results were true, it was simple as "Wow, they're promoting their own products on their own website. That's hardly controversial." I disagree. If that's FUD, then I'll eat my hat.

That's not an unusual statement to make.

Relevance?

Fortunately, I'm under no obligation to meet your criteria for relevance in my own posts. I said it because you somehow seem to believe it IS an unusual statement to make.

You may not see

Re:Googlebashing every second article?

[symbolset]

Bonch, if you want a fight I would enjoy a good /. war right now. I could use it. Let's GO!

I would never notice.

[rueger]

Agreed that this is hardly earth shattering news. I have to ask though, does anyone actually use the google.com start page? I'm either using Gmail, or search from the URL Bar in Chrome, or from the dedicated Google box in whatever other browser I'm using. The only time I see Google's start page is when I do a fresh install.

Re:I would never notice.

[SharkLaser]

It's not only start page, it's across all pages.

Re:I would never notice.

[Trepidity]

I rarely see the start page, but this looks like it affects the results pages also.

Re:I would never notice.

[rickb928]

I use the start page mostly to avoid gmail in my face. Funny how I use Google more to search than for mail. And Bookmarks. And Reader.

Re:I would never notice.

[93 Escort Wagon]

I use a customized iGoogle page as my start page.

On a side note - I'd forgotten Google used to include an exclamation point in their logo. Bring back the exclamation - make Google exciting once again! They should just steal Yahoo's, since they really don't deserve one anymore...

Re:I would never notice.

[tehcyder]

I have to ask though, does anyone actually use the google.com start page?

Yes, it's better than most as a homepage as it loads quickly and doesn't make your eyes bleed. I suppose most people use facebook now though.

Completely Revamped Look

[Haedrian]

"Completely Revamped Look"

Its hardly as if they turned the front page into a clone of yahoo with too much information yelling at you.

They just moved the top to the left. I don't see why this is even news.

Re:Completely Revamped Look

[Ethanol-fueled]

This is profound because Google's appeal is in its simple, link-based appearance. Now it's beginning to look like a MySpace, with all the boxy web2.0 menus, and that's not good. Take a look at Youtube, and consider that may be the direction they're heading.

Like all big companies who hunger for constant growth, Google will only get worse as time goes on, and may even face a speedier than usual decline unless they actually sell shit (real hardware or software products, not just sets of "mouse clicks") like Microsoft and Apple do. Unless sekrit CIA and NSA funding is keeping them afloat.

Re:Completely Revamped Look

[Skreems]

and may even face a speedier than usual decline unless they actually sell shit (real hardware or software products, not just sets of "mouse clicks") like Microsoft and Apple do

You must not have looked recently... they have stores for music, movies, and books, and have for at least 6 months or so.

Re:Completely Revamped Look

[ArundelCastle]

It's really not news to anyone who uses Google products. It's their Google+ menu now on the search page.
In general they are whitespacing and boxpadding things up, but this new menu is basically my current iGoogle pulldown menu with icons.

Re:Completely Revamped Look

[ulricr]

I don't think you looked at google.com today and looked at the screenshot of the new look. it's a minor change.

I, for one,

[jhesse]

am shifting my interweb searching to search engines that don't productize me.

Re:I, for one,

[symbolset]

That's one vote for Bing: the Decider engine. Anybody else looking to bing their own Internet?

Re:I, for one,

[cultiv8]

+1 for duckduckgo, local Philly startup, will be default search engine for Linux Mint 12.

Re:I, for one,

[nschubach]

But it really doesn't find good results and now that I know it has Bing for it's search, I see why. It has some neat features, but I actually tried to use it and ended up going back to Google because I couldn't find stuff.

Re:I, for one,

[cultiv8]

DDG gets search results from over 50 sources.

Re:I, for one,

[nschubach]

Isn't using Yahoo technically still using Bing? I wonder if the results are counted twice if they come up in Yahoo and Bing over-inflating the result.

Re:I, for one,

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'd never even heard of DuckDuckGo, and then suddenly I see all sorts of "testimonials" in this thread. That seems really odd, especially given that, according to Wikipedia, it is now starting to occasionally be ad-funded (whereas before it was totally funded by its developer). Coincidence, or astroturfing?

Re:I, for one,

[Kenshin]

Astroturfing? In MY Slashdot?

It's more likely than you think.

Re:I, for one,

[Toonol]

It's been slowly building on Slashdot for a while now, at least six months. I gave it a trial run and it seemed fine. Didn't quite cause me to change my habits and leave google, but I wouldn't have minded. It's decent, and I've recommended it as an alternative a couple times.

Not everything is all shills and secret conspiracies.

Re:I, for one,

[eulernet]

Do you remember Google when it started ?

Every geek on Slashdot was speaking about it, because it was so much better than the other search engines.
In a few years, Google became the company we know.

Now, Google is not the most preferred search engine anymore, there is no real competition, but DuckDuckGo seems to be a nice contender.

Re:I, for one,

[dudpixel]

er, duckduckgo is powered by bing, so not really a search engine at all. just an interface to another one.

Re:I, for one,

[eulernet]

Not really (taken from another post):
http://help.duckduckgo.com/customer/portal/articles/216399-sources

Re:I, for one,

[dudpixel]

ah, good work. That article is making me think I should give it a go. Sounds interesting.

If nothing else, it sounds like they're attempting to bring competition back to search - may they succeed!

Re:I, for one,

[mgblst]

Just wondering what else you haven't heard about? the iPhone, Android.... wikipedia... the sun?

DDG has been making progress in certain circles, some people really love it. I haven't, i still like google, but i have been hearing about it for a year now, maybe longer.

It's like Google is becoming Yahoo

[BLToday]

I get the old version of Google if I'm using my desktop but the new one with my laptop. It's very annoying. Reminds me of the multiple versions of yahoo that I use to get. And worse, it's starting to feel that google.com is turning into the latest "portal" website.

The new interface requires more mouse movement than the older and cleaner google. It now takes one drop menu and one side expansion menu to get to "finance". Plus, sometimes my search query doesn't transfer from "web" (now "search") to "images" or "finance".

Re:It's like Google is becoming Yahoo

[gl4ss]

well they do have a portal version of their site... going back a while already. (igoogle.com)

it's just that people don't actually want to use it so they have to bring it to the main page.

Re:It's like Google is becoming Yahoo

[jbengt]

I get it on my desktop at work, but not my laptop at home.
Though it does not require me to perform an extra click, it still annoys me, because for some reason it is always already dropped down.

Classic

[markdavis]

Google would do well to offer something like-

http://classic.google.com/

That turns the clock back even more. No animations, no music, no pop-up junk on the side for search results (instant previews or whatever they call it), etc.

I think that Google might need to offer new stuff to attract the type of person that finds the likes of Bing amusing. Having choice is a good thing. However, forcing [yet more] eye candy on people is going to alienate those (like me, who are already irritated) who just want minimal, fast, simple. Something that isn't distracting, irritating, CPU loading, complex, and doesn't use mouseovers or javascript. Personally, I would even prefer a new domain for it, like cgoogle.com so it can be easily whitelisted.

Re:Classic

[Mashiki]

Sure would be nice. But google seems to be having a "automaker" complex. "We're so big, we're so great, we're so kick ass. The peons will take what we give them and like it. Where else will they go?" For those that don't get it, GM, Ford, Chrysler, AMC and so on said the same thing back when Japan was crushing them in the 70's and 80's. AMC didn't survive. Chrysler nearly didn't.

Yeah I really don't like the changes at all, and by going with what's been said on their groups pages? The majority there don't like it at all. But then again, those are the people who can find them.

Re:Classic

[Katatsumuri]

You can try http://www.google.com/m - not exactly what you want, but might be useful in some cases, like old computers or slow connection perhaps.

Re:Classic

[markdavis]

Oh, right you are, anonymous coward. I *must* be the only one, since others have already agreed and modded the posting to the max now.

You are a troll.

Re:Classic

[ralphdaugherty]

Google would do well to offer something like-

http://classic.google.com/ [google.com]

Everytime they screw up the Google search page (which I have made my home page since 1999) I try to find a way to disable it and revert to the classic mode, and if I can't find it, type a bunch of searches on the latest Google screwing with the search to see how others are coping with it (or not).

And each time I find quotes from that Marisa whatever saying she will do whatever she wants to it, they want to be on the cutting edge (or at least not left behind by Bing's changes or whatever).

This is only happening to my laptop so far, not my desktops, but doesn't appear to be a way to revert it.

The experience with Google is slipping day by day, attributed to Marisa's (or whatever her name is - I don't feel like Googling it in a rant against Google) perpetual meddling with it as that constitutes her justification for existence at Google.

But everything else is worse. If it gets bad enough I'll use scripts to display the Google pages the way I want but it hasn't come to that yet. She's basically a major annoyance to me so far.

Re:Classic

[markdavis]

Indeed. About as meaningless as postings from anonymous cowards?

Re:Classic

[Sosarian Avatar]

I'm not sure what's worse, the changes Google has made, or the way they've been blowing off thousands of rational (i.e. not ranting) user complaints about it in their forums.

After becoming frustrated with those changes a few months ago, I started using Dogpile as my primary engine for the search operators (which give me much better results) & simpler interface. Mixing that with Yubnub.org so I can move my search terms between all different engines has been working out really well.

Re:Classic

[u64]

Get the classic normal Google back, the secret magic is giving UserAgent Opera/8 to Google.
(may brake if any Google-employee reads this, so enjoy while you can)
BrowserMasquerade addon

Only way to get Google to understand that you're unhappy with them is
to use more Search Engines, all search engines on one page.

AdressBar search,
about:config
keyword.URL
https://duckduckgo.com?kf=-1&ku=1&ky=-1&kx=g&kg=p&q=

bring back the 1998 design.

[gl4ss]

it's way better. why do you think I'd like to have links to my mail and notifications on my page? if I wanted a fucking portal I'd have stuck with altavista.

Re:bring back the 1998 design.

[tehcyder]

it's way better. why do you think I'd like to have links to my mail and notifications on my page? if I wanted a fucking portal I'd have stuck with altavista.

What's wrong with having a link to gmail on Google's page? That's the easiest way for most people to access it, who wants to bother with a separate email client nowadays?

Surprising Time? How so?

[artor3]

How is it a surprising time? A few ongoing legal procedures means that they can't make aesthetic changes to their website? Also, it does not take "two clicks" to enter Google Images - just a mouseover and a click.

I'm pretty sure the last two sentences were just tacked on as flamebait, as they are either false or unrelated.

Great ... more javablot

[Osgeld]

for shit I (and many others) dont care about, if we did we would have clicked the links at the top of the page, we are not stupid or blind but thanks for thinking we are

Google is like a TV network

[Eponymous Coward]

How is Google using search to promote their other properties any different from FOX airing ads for upcoming shows during a football game? If they didn't have any real competition, I could understand it, but the search market has lots of competitors.

Re:Google is like a TV network

[ninetyninebottles]

How is Google using search to promote their other properties any different from FOX airing ads for upcoming shows during a football game? If they didn't have any real competition, I could understand it, but the search market has lots of competitors.

If you have overwhelming dominance in one area, it is illegal to leverage that dominance to gain in other markets. It is legal to bundle shampoo and conditioner and sell them as a package right up until you gain dominance (guidance is 70%) of either the shampoo or conditioner market. As far as I know, no one has alleged Fox has 70% market share of, well any market. Google, on the other hand is estimated to have reached this dominance in several markets including mobile advertising where some put their market share as high as 98%. Bundling their other services then becomes a question for the courts.

All that said, the summary for this article was a bit off in that revamping their main search page does not seem to have bundled any more or fewer services with their search.

Re:Google is like a TV network

[Eponymous Coward]

Last I heard, Google had less than 65% market share. Not very dominant if you ask me.

Re:Google is like a TV network

[ninetyninebottles]

Last I heard, Google had less than 65% market share. Not very dominant if you ask me.

65% is fairly close, but then you have to specify a market to have a share of it, and a lot of antitrust law deals with defining the relevant markets. Take a subset of customers, like mobile phone users, then subtract out all of the services that don't work for mobile users and does Google have more than 70% of the remaining share? Is that influencing other markets where they have bundled a service with their products? Then again, you have to also remove non-relavent shares of the market, where they are not bundling, like users of search that use the search on their browser but are not directed to Google's bundled services.

It is certainly an area of concern for them these days and they may well be in violation of the law, but they have a lot better numbers on it than we do.

Re:Google is like a TV network

[Eponymous Coward]

It depends on what it is that you are saying Google has a monopoly in. Their search market share is about 65%. I would say it isn't a monopoly because there are basically no barriers to entry for a new competitor. If it went to court, it would be easy for Google to show how things like Facebook and Apple's Siri are disrupting their business.

If you define their business as advertising, then it might be a different story. I have no idea what their market share is in online advertising.

Re:Google is like a TV network

[ninetyninebottles]

No, you can't "define" markets by choosing arbitrary subsets, like "search engine providers with 'oogle' in their name, or Application search providers for mobile computers with an 'apple shaped' logo on them. The entire market is the entire market.

You're an idiot. You have to define what the "entire market" is in order to meaningfully discuss or evaluate it.

Re:Google is like a TV network

[ninetyninebottles]

It depends on what it is that you are saying Google has a monopoly in. Their search market share is about 65%. I would say it isn't a monopoly because there are basically no barriers to entry for a new competitor.

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding why we have antitrust law. It is not about insuring other companies can compete in a market and destroy the monopoly. It is about making sure the monopoly does not grow to influence other markets and damage commerce in general. If the point was to prevent monopolies we'd make monopolies illegal.

Regardless of what barriers to entry there are, the question at hand is if Google has enough influence in a given market, that they have to obey specific laws with regard to how they tie other products and services to the aforementioned market.

If you define their business as advertising, then it might be a different story. I have no idea what their market share is in online advertising.

The law applies to all markets Google is playing in, so both search and advertising markets. For example, it would not be at all strange for the courts to look at the mobile phone advertising market, where Google has ~98% share and then see what other products Google is tying to mobile advertising. If Google did something like charge advertisers twice as much for ads on non-Android phones, Google would have a big antitrust problem. So far, however, I haven't seen any really glaring abuse (although I also have not really researched it).

Marketing drone in TFA sez:

[Daniel Dvorkin]

"If you compare the original Google home page to today's version, you will see that a makeover every so often can certainly be refreshing."

This is quite possibly the single stupidest meme in the long, sad history of stupid web design memes, and it's been the death of many a once-fine site. No, a makeover on a familiar (good) interface is not "refreshing." It's irritating, especially since it pretty much always means adding clutter to something that used to be clean and functional. It is usually pushed on users with a patronizing explanation, after a "beta" period in which people loudly and repeatedly point out its flaws, and the new interface eventually becomes the default (or only) choice with none of the problems found in "beta" addressed.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there's something wrong, fine, fix that and leave the rest alone. And for God's sake, listen to the users.

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez:

[Cinder6]

I sort of disagree--change can be refreshing, but can easily be a hassle. On the PS3, Netflix has changed the design quite often. Sometimes it's for the better, and sometimes it's not. The worst design change was when they briefly took away the "recently watched" section from the home screen. Made watching TV shows a very painful process.

That said, I like Google's current design a lot better than the old design(s). My only complaint is that the black at the top doesn't match other Google properties. The new design looks better, but I'm surprised you have to go through more motions to open something common, such as image search. That's a silly move in my mind, and it seems like it would be better to have the main menu items always visible, with the extended menu items showing up on mouseover for each root menu item (sort of a combination of the new look and the current look). Also, having "Google" show up in the top left and the center of the page looks redundant.

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez:

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, I'll admit to being something of an interface Luddite -- most of my favorite web sites looked better, IMO, 10+ years ago. If we could have 20th-century interface simplicity with 21st-century connectivity, I'd be a happy camper. I have no idea if this is a majority opinion or not.

If the majority of users of a site I frequent prefer a new interface, as long as the content's good, I'll generally go along with it. What bugs me, like I said, is the combination of change-for-change's-sake with the patronizing way such changes are usually presented, including vague claims of "users love our new interface" when it's obvious that user preference runs strongly against it. Three of my favorite sites (Slashdot, Salon.com, and Weather Underground -- at least http://classic.wunderground.com/ is still available in the last instance) have done this fairly recently, so I'm kind of twitchy about it.

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez:

[The End Of Days]

I agree. Who do these people think they are, trying new things and working to progress the state of the art? Don't they know that people want things to stay the same way forever?

I'm only going to continue to use their excellent, free services grudgingly, because it's not exactly what I want it to be, and that's evil.

Can we start spelling it G$$gle yet?

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez:

[Cinder6]

I can get behind change for the sake of change being a poor motivation. But if you are going to make functionality improvements, I see that as a good reason to change aesthetics. As a random example (because I happened to be on the site when I got the reply notification), GOG's current interface blows away their old one. Their old one was fine, but the new one has a lot more functionality, and they tied that functionality addition with a UI facelift. I think that's a good way to do it, because having a visual change encourages users to look for other changes, and thus discover the functionality changes.

Moving links around because you're bored, though, isn't worthwhile, unless it's to simplify or improve flow. (Microsoft Office is a prime example of this, seemingly moving icons around all over the place for no discernible reason. I'm not a ribbon hater, but there are some fairly obvious ways it could be improved.)

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez:

[VortexCortex]

Welcome to the Internet.

If you don't like using their "cloud", GTFO.
-The Internet

P.S. If you don't have the snap to figure out that it's YOUR BROWSER that's displaying their content, and that you can control YOUR BROWSER such that it can be customize the pages it displays however you like: Well then, I don't have the patience to teach you how to do it... You'll just have to "Bing" userscripts yourself, (ugh...).

P.P.S. My local grocer changed his store layout to make it easier for their stockers, thus saving them money and providing me better services. Fortunately I'm a human not a statically programmed state machine, and I adapted quite easily. I find it humorous that you should complain about minor changes to anything.
Adapt or become extinct -- It's a law of nature you know?

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez:

[badboy_tw2002]

I can get something like the /. changes, but there's still a search box and a button. What's different about the primary UI? Is it harder to search? Are people actually confused about it?

Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez:

[mysidia]

This is quite possibly the single stupidest meme in the long, sad history of stupid web design memes, and it's been the death of many a once-fine site.

It's a great argument against using cloud computing

You never know when your service provider want to do a "makeover" of the visual interface, ruining your productivity.

Compared to the horrible changes happening to Gmail, the so called "new look", the search interface bastardization and "makeover" to make the UI more complicated and harder to use are just benign.

It doesn't even make sense. "Cookies" and user preferences were invented in the 1990s. Why the hell are users still getting forced to switch to new UIs, when the simple capability has long existed to provide users a choice, and even the possibility of user-specific custom UIs?

Why risk what works?

[RobinEggs]

Google used to receive mystery emails from this random guy, one every month, containing nothing but a single number.

After puzzling over it a while they realized this value was the number of words on their homepage that month; it was this guy's way of reminding them that a simple interface was working well and contrasted distinctly with the likes of yahoo!.

Fast forward to today, and the double-layer of scrolling frames on the new front page looks suspiciously like Word 2010 or Facebook. Not nearly as bad, mind you, but suddenly showing some disturbing similarity.

I bet that guy wants to punch them in the face right now.

Google: you make the vast majority of your money on the ads that go with your simple, powerful search engine. Don't fuck it up by filling your products with endless references to your other products and trying to control the entire internet.

Re:Why risk what works?

[mysidia]

I bet that guy wants to punch them in the face right now.

These days Google has implemented spam filtering, so the periodic e-mails with numbers in them probably wind up in /dev/null

Come to think of it... I think any e-mail to google winds up in /dev/null, after being answered by an automated system that basically tells you "Little Ant, why don't you try go posting in the forums, or something"

Re:Why risk what works?

[jjoelc]

Not to troll (No.. Really...) but I do wonder how many of the people bemoaning the new changes Google is making are the same people who, when another one of Google's services is retired (health, etc..) say "Today was the first time i ever heard about Google%NowDeadService%..."

I think they have a pretty hard line to walk. They now offer so many services, but everyone complains when there are more than 5-10 words on the homepage? How would YOU solve that dilema? I don't think they are doing too bad a job at it.

Re:Why risk what works?

[stephanruby]

After puzzling over it a while they realized this value was the number of words on their homepage that month; it was this guy's way of reminding them that a simple interface was working well and contrasted distinctly with the likes of yahoo!

Or may be, there was no reason, and this guy was one of these folks here.

Not a fan...

[bashibazouk]

I had no idea it was limited. As one of these random testers I'm not a fan of the new look. I just switched back to the old look for gmail and calendar. The old look while not as clean in over all design presents the information much clearer. The borders are of higher contrast and text is easier to read. Also going from gmail to calendar used to be a single link, now it requires clicking the drop down menu, going to the bottom for more, then back up to the top for calendar.

But as I use ad block + and give google no money, I'm neither customer nor product so I guess I can't complain...

One change would be welcomed

[reboot246]

The page as it is now is fine, but it needs one thing changed. The black bar with gray text is hard to read. Why are web designers so obsessed with making their pages so hard to read? A little more contrast please.

It extends to programs, too. A lot of photographic software has a gray on black interface. Give me a choice of skins or at least a break!

Re:One change would be welcomed

[adolf]

The page as it is now is fine, but it needs one thing changed. The black bar with gray text is hard to read. Why are web designers so obsessed with making their pages so hard to read? A little more contrast please.

Isn't this part of what CSS what supposed to do?

Re:One change would be welcomed

[MichaelSmith]

Probably using metrics which measure how long test subjects spend looking at certain elements. Being hard to read slows down the user and makes the element seem more important to analysts.

Re:One change would be welcomed

[Spectre]

That said, white on black is better, and Green on black is more stylish-retro. I am annoyed at how mush mobile device power is wasted just because everyone thinks my screen must look like a white sheet of paper.

It is also a shame that there's this behavioral bug in every OS where if you use a white-on-black theme, you'll quickly find many programs with that ignore your OS font color and try to override with black-on-black text, causing issues. This includes Eclipse and myriads of IDEs where you can configure syntax highlighting but "base" text/non-keywords stay black.

This, times infinity!

Not only is it hard on battery-operated devices power consumption, display devices longevity, but also the viewer's eyes. Dark text on a luminous background is painful, especially in an otherwise dimly lit environment.

Signed,
An old dude who thinks computing took a downturn after the demise of the Hercules graphics card ... (only semi-tongue-in-cheek)

New?

[rbowen]

I guess I'm special. I've been seeing this "new" look for a couple of weeks now.

Re:One of the unlucky testers

[bashibazouk]

Click the gear icon. Select revert to classic.

For how long this will work...

SharkLaser is one of Apple Troll bonch's Accounts

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/~bonch
http://slashdot.org/~SharkLaser

Re:why o why

[isama]

I'm almost scared to ask, what is the difference between using capslock and shift? It seems like too much effort for me, but how could it affect a program?

Why can't people speak English?

[afabbro]

From the article:

"Constant revision and improvement is part of our overarching philosophy," he said.

What is the difference between an overarching philosophy and a philosophy?

Re:Why can't people speak English?

[Andreas Mayer]

What is the difference between an overarching philosophy and a philosophy?

One additional point in Bullshit Bingo?

Re:Why can't people speak English?

[artor3]

You can have a philosophy on specific issues, e.g. "Having a clean, minimalist main page is central to our design philosophy". An overarching philosophy gets applied to everything, from the webpage to the cafeteria.

Who the F uses the Google page anyway?

[water-and-sewer]

Lots of complaining going on here. I probably wouldn't like the new look myself, as I much prefer simple, uncluttered interfaces anyway. But I can't remembrer the last time I had to go directly to the google.com website. Searches happen through the dedicated search box in Opera or Firefox, not by navigating to google.com. I also don't use any of their services, from calendar to google apps.

Now get offa my lawn.

Re:phase i: do no evil

[bonch]

Google tends to exploit positive feelings about open source to bring devoted techies to its defense. It uses Linux, gives away free services, and talks about openness and patents--all predictable, hot-button issues for a crowd like Slashdot's. Just look at the first comment to this very article, which is an angry defense of Google and a dismissal of the entire submission that ends with a demand to "put something else in the queue".

The problem is that Google doesn't follow its own words about openness, patents, or fairness, but there are posters here who do not want to see negative discussion of Google at all, and if there is bad news about them, they exaggerate the amount of it to make it sound like there's been too much of it posted. They want Slashdot to be the place they go to get good news about the companies they like and bad news about the companies they hate, like a virtual pat on the back for feeling a certain way.

Re:phase i: do no evil

[0ld_d0g]

OTOH, techies are also the same people who can exploit Google back. i.e. Install privacy addons, No-Script, Ad-Blockers etc and use Google services without giving anything "back".

With Google you take what you get. Yeah maybe you wont get the Capital-F-Freedom that Stallman or the kind F/OSS supporters want, but you get positive business news associated with Linux. Why wouldn't Linux supporters like that? You should remember how it was earlier with companies being able to fund negative press campaigns against Linux.

With Google its not all sunshine and rainbows. Its always bad when one company controls any market segment. We do need more competition in search & web advertising.

They are not getting enough ADHD users

[Colin Smith]

They are the ones who click the adverts.
 

Re:why o why

[norriefc]

I'm almost scared to ask, what is the difference between using capslock and shift? It seems like too much effort for me, but how could it affect a program?

Unsure why but our company laptops are locked down by Safeguard and all passwords use a random combination of upper case characters and numbers, if the user holds down shift while entering the characters it will not be accepted, if they enter it with capslock on it is fine. Perhaps the fine denizens of Slashdot could explain why.

more clicks sucks

[hyperion2010]

So I was cursed with a cookie to test this new shitty interface. All I have to say is that it continues Google's tradition of increasing the number of clicks it takes to get to anything important. I'm so fucking sick of having the number of clicks it takes to do something as simple as get to gmail or docs increase because some retarded interface designer ran some unrealistic user survey. GOOGLE: STOP INCREASING THE NUMBER OF CLICKS IT TAKES TO DO SOMETHING.

Keep it classic and less clicky slow

[omfglearntoplay]

Keep it fast and simple Google, don't be dumb here! That side bar sucks a big one!