Google Testing Completely Revamped Look

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Testing Completely Revamped Look

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 2, 2012 @06:20AM from the makeover-time dept.

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."

30 of 195 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Googlebashing every second article? by symbolset · 2012-01-02 06:22 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
1. Re:Googlebashing every second article? by thestudio_bob · 2012-01-02 06:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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...
  
  --
  The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
2. Re:Googlebashing every second article? by SharkLaser · 2012-01-02 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?
3. Re:Googlebashing every second article? by iserlohn · 2012-01-02 07:04 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  :. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
4. Re:Googlebashing every second article? by Dyinobal · 2012-01-02 07:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
5. Re:Googlebashing every second article? by dnewt · 2012-01-02 07:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
6. Re:Googlebashing every second article? by SharkLaser · 2012-01-02 07:27 · Score: 2
  
  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.
7. Re:Googlebashing every second article? by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-01-02 08:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
8. Re:Googlebashing every second article? by dnewt · 2012-01-02 12:26 · Score: 2
  
  "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.
Completely Revamped Look by Haedrian · 2012-01-02 06:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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.
1. Re:Completely Revamped Look by Ethanol-fueled · 2012-01-02 07:07 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
2. Re:Completely Revamped Look by Skreems · 2012-01-02 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
  The Urban Hippie
3. Re:Completely Revamped Look by ArundelCastle · 2012-01-02 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  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:I would never notice. by SharkLaser · 2012-01-02 06:29 · Score: 2

It's not only start page, it's across all pages.
It's like Google is becoming Yahoo by BLToday · 2012-01-02 06:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

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".
Classic by markdavis · 2012-01-02 06:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Classic by Mashiki · 2012-01-02 07:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
2. Re:Classic by Katatsumuri · 2012-01-02 07:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
3. Re:Classic by ralphdaugherty · 2012-01-02 10:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
Surprising Time? How so? by artor3 · 2012-01-02 06:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Osgeld · 2012-01-02 06:41 · Score: 2

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
Re:I, for one, by cultiv8 · 2012-01-02 06:44 · Score: 5, Informative

DDG gets search results from over 50 sources.

--
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Marketing drone in TFA sez: by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-01-02 06:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

"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.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
1. Re:Marketing drone in TFA sez: by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-01-02 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  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.
  
  --
  The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Why risk what works? by RobinEggs · 2012-01-02 06:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
One change would be welcomed by reboot246 · 2012-01-02 07:10 · Score: 2

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 of the unlucky testers by bashibazouk · 2012-01-02 07:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Click the gear icon. Select revert to classic.
For how long this will work...
SharkLaser is one of Apple Troll bonch's Accounts by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-02 07:49 · Score: 2, Informative

http://slashdot.org/~bonch
http://slashdot.org/~SharkLaser
Who the F uses the Google page anyway? by water-and-sewer · 2012-01-02 08:15 · Score: 2

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.

--
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
Re:I, for one, by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-01-02 08:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?

--
#DeleteChrome