Slashdot Mirror
Google Testing a Radical Change By Turning People's Search Results Black (telegraph.co.uk)
Google may have plans to do a visual tweak to its search results. The company appears to be testing black search result links since the weekend, according to multiple reports. While some users are pleased with this tweak, many users have already posted their grievances on Google help forums. Some users note that it has become hard to tell which links they have already clicked. The Telegraph reports: Google puts a lot of thought into the exact colours it uses in its services -- and for a good reason. A few years ago its A/B test of different shades of blue -- nicknamed "50 shades of blue" -- earned the company an extra $200 million (£138 million). Designers at Google couldn't decide between two different blues, so they decided to test 41 shades between each blue to see which users preferred. In the test, Google showed each shade to one per cent of its users, and found that users were more likely to click on a slightly more purple shade.
"I really feel like I'm frenemies with #Google. Black links instead of blue in the search results? No. Just No. Bad Google. Bad Google."
We really need a new mental health initiative in this country.
Once you go black, you never go back.
How do we know it's a link if it's the same color as the text? The whole point of hypertext is that links are called out visually.
I'm not sure it's related, but I noticed over the years that Google's topic-sensitive ads grow less and less prominent compared to regular search results such that it's harder to tell the difference.
The placement and color of ads has grown closer to the regular results, such as the fading of the background color of the ads to almost white. I have interpreted this as increasing corporate slimeballery on Google's part, but welcome alternative interpretations.
And isn't this an accessibility issue, per ADA "Section 508"? I know our org's sites always get penalized for having allegedly insufficient contrast to distinguish context. Does Google have bigger lawyers than us, or have they just been lucky?
Table-ized A.I.
they decided to test 41 shades between each blue to see which users preferred. In the test, Google showed each shade to one per cent of its users, and found that users were more likely to click on a slightly more purple shade.
Way to give a meaning to noise.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
I actually saw them in a private browsing session and was confused why every link was 'read' (in private browsing). Was even more of a head scratcher when searches in normal mode were blue...
That black links matter.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
.
It got to the point, I started to wonder about google's deteriorating quality. So I went looking for another search engine.
First of all I'm having a problem with the way this is being approached.
It seems intuitive that if you have discovered that you can make 200 million dollars just by changing shades of blue, you would have already reached a point where you knew that blue was going to be *the* color.
This testing of black now seems to be saying that Google hasn't even determined which color is best, much less which shade of which color. This is assuming that the cites about the two hundred million dollars and the rest of the article are correct.
Interesting that 2 of the first 3 search results for black returned hits on the Black Panthers.
I've gotten the black links on one of my machines.
Functionality aside, they're just ugly.
is the Johnnie Walker. I was very much dismayed to see the links in that color, I figured either a Firefox bug or a malware.
To assert that Google "earned additional revenue" from this change, you also need to demonstrate that the addition revenue measured did not come from revenue they would have received regardless, had they waited longer.
By the similar kind of "logic", it wouldn't surprise me that one could justify using cocaine to treat ADHD in children. (They really did pay more attention for the duration of the comparative study.)
In any case, what seems clear enough is that this comparative study shook loose a significant chunk of pocket change that will now feed into their employee compensation formulas by year's end (whether one, or two, or three, or tens steps removed).
And that, of course, is what's most important at the end of the day.
Sad--when I saw the headline I was hoping that Google would stop with the blindingly white background on everything and provide a dark interface. At least for now I can use Stylish to make Google dark, but there's way too many blindingly white web sites and apps out there and if Google were to change, it might encourage some others to do so as well. Twenty years from now I'm sure Slashdot will be covering studies showing that this generation's eyes have been destroyed by all the excessively bright white UIs.
Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
Got my hopes up, I thought maybe they were testing a black background instead of white. I have been using a combination of the Stylish Add-on and the Dark Fusion style from userstyles.org to achieve this for quite some time now. But, it would be nice to be able to set this right inside of Google's Options.
https://userstyles.org/styles/...
Nevermore.
What seems obvious to me is if you can no longer tell which links you've previously clicked on you'll click on them again later in a future frustrating search for info you found before. This "making 200 million dollars" just by changing the shade of blue was not because of the shade of blue, but simply because most people can't tell the difference between a previously clicked link and one they have never visited before because the blue/purple shades are so close.
This is ridiculous MBA-style generated lunacy that my father had to put up with 20 years ago when recent MBA graduates took over to "make more money" and ran a multi-billion dollar telephone company straight into the ground.
If they want to increase "link click" revenue even more they should simply change each title to "Title 1", "Title 2", "Title 3", etc with no detail below thereby removing all chance of someone knowing if they ever visited the link before so the next time they search for the same info they have to once again click on every link until they find the same info they had found the last time they had performed the same search.
Idiocy. Someone needs to create a Chrome plug-in that will adjust Google search link colors back to what is useful for people.
I've experienced Google fucking around with the colour of search results, for years or more now, and every time, I've always wondered if maybe there was a virus or some other kind of hijacking going on, presenting me with a duplicate/altered version of the Google search page - I actually spent a lot of time, investigating this to find out.
Turns out it's just Google performing a fucking experiment without my permission...not impressed.
I see a blue link and I want it painted black...
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
If you go to settings in DuckDuck you have the option of setting up which color to use for search results. Default? Black and shades of.
> test 41 shades between each blue to see which users preferred
> found that users were more likely to click on a slightly more purple shade
Note the word choice- we're told that users "prefer" this shade of blue. They didn't get this by asking them, or doing a study about what is most pleasing to look at. Their metric? Clicks. They measure everything by clicks.
Pretend I have a magical color- we'll use Octarine- that ups the click rate to 100%. Wow! Users must really "prefer" that color, right? If you went to a website and the color made you click more links, would that have helped you use the website?
What are you choosing the color for? If you seek to maximize clicks for your own selfish purposes, then you will push out 41 shades of blue and choose the one most profitable to YOU- clicks. If you seek to maximize usefulness, then you have a harder metric- which color results in the users clicking the CORRECT links, and ignoring the INCORRECT links? It seems that you are looking for the color that inflicts the LEAST persuasion or dissuasion- the color that is the "most neutral". Perhaps a color that engages whatever part of your brain makes better than average decisions. As a user, you don't go to google to open all the links, or to not open any of the links. You go there to open the CORRECT links.
I bet someone knows what that color is. I bet if they tell everyone, someone could write an addon that would fix it clientside. I mean, there's so many cognitive missteps on a daily basis, wouldn't it be great to have one fewer?
I'm not sure I see any added value to this, and I think some strong arguments can be made that it is a bad idea.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
For good or bad, executives and marketers "care" about fads; and things like helpful shading and visually-distinct hyperlinks have been falling by the wayside (at least for "main" site pages). Earth is run Ferengi's, not Vulcans. Form over function; get used to it.
Table-ized A.I.
" In the test, Google showed each shade to one per cent of its users, and found that users were more likely to click on a slightly more purple shade. "
This seems like a classic example of how to misuse statistics.
I'm 100% more likely to click on a link that's relevant to me, I don't give a flying fuck about what color the link is. And neither does anyone else.
Make the links Black, who gives a shit.
But when you do that, you better dam well make previously visited sites a different color so that we don't lose functionality.
This sounds like the lollipop volume control debacle all over again where functionality takes a back seat to some pompous overarching design philosophy.
If I were to make a list of what's most important in UI design, the first 2 spots would both be "functionality". How it looks is tertiary at best.
I'm sure that they determinED blue WAS the best choice. Actually they just confirmed what Yahoo and others had already proven. When they did that, 94% of users were using Windows with a CRT and mouse.
Ten or fifteen years later, most users aren't using Windows, a CRT, or a mouse. They're using Android, a 4" LED screen, and a finger. To me it makes sense to go back and double-check UI choices that were good before and see if they are still best.
This is simple, and happens in almost all organizations. They have a new group manager who has to show some achievement. Oh! Look, I have revolutionized google search!!! Now all links are black." WOW. Talk about innovation.
Call me racist, but I don't like black links. No siree, not one bit.
I thought safari was broken when it happened, the black links are much harder to read on a phone.
I was having an issue with open office over the weekend. Somehow a collaborative paper got corrupted. I had no idea about it but OO got all screwey and kept having issues. I went to Google the problem and noticed my links were all Black after a while. I started to think that maybe the issue was that my box was hosed and started doing all this scanning, etc. I couldn't find anything. Eventually i found the issue with OO - and somehow on their own, the links went back to normal color. This explains it
How do we know it's a link if it's the same color as the text? The whole point of hypertext is that links are called out visually.
CSS can be used to change the followed link color. http://www.w3schools.com/css/c...
The problem is if someone's browser overrides that setting, for example.
Some people find darker backgrounds easier on the eyes--there is less light emitted so it is not as big a change from ambient indoor light.
However, studies have shown that black text on a white background results in easier focus, so there are some people where black-on-white is better than white-on-black. https://ux.stackexchange.com/q...
Conclusion: if you can afford (or benefit significantly from) user customization, pick the least offensive default based on market research but leave both options available. If you don't, some of your users will migrate to another search engine.
Real lawyers write in C++
Earth is run Ferengi's, not Vulcans
Ferengi's what?
And it looks like you a word there.
I've been using DDG, and it has the superior black font.
Should be "by Ferengi's". Sorry. Mondays are impervious to proofreading.
Table-ized A.I.
How many people remember the way your search terms used to be highlighted in color on Google's cached copy of a page?
I would always click to the cached copy rather than the original page. When your eye was immediately drawn to the highlighted words you were searching for, it was a huge timesaver (especially on large pages; no need to use your browser's Find command).
Now multiply that time savings by the billions of Google searches that are conducted every year. The loss of that feature is a major hit on the productivity of the human race.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I'm really hoping someone at The New Slashdot (nice having you aboard whipslash!) will un-fuck the link to comments so they're:
a) below TFS
b) not always black, so I can determine if I've visited the particular comment thread yet.
Those changes were certainly backwards-facing.
I hated it so much I stopped using Google and moved to duckduckgo. I hope they record the fact I stopped using Google after using it all the time for years and change me back.
To me it makes sense to go back and double-check UI choices that were good before and see if they are still best.
Yeah, because we clearly don't have enough ever-changing-in-the-most-stupid-way UIs... Let's just mess around once more with the life of millions of people just to get some basic numbers we'll interpret as incompetent ignorants, instead of trying to understand the we're dealing with and taking intelligent decisions, as professionals, scientists, experts...
Usability, accessibility, and testing have been reduced to wild chimps trying to force shaped pieces in random shaped holes... It is so pathetic...
They are whole fields, with many important resources easily available on the web... But so many 'developers' believe they can do better, their own way, without even putting any real effort into it...
And then you get GNOME 3, Firefox 4, and their later versions, for example... systemd and most associated 'tools' too, of course...
You find a very similar issue in computer security, with the consequences we all know.
In another, partly associated field, it's also like 'futurists', maybe some guys with some architecture knowledge, who draw "the city of their dream", with some bits of reasons, if not excuses, here and there, and call it "the perfect city we should aim for in the next decades/centuries"...
Arrogant idiots...
Checky here: https://www.google.co.uk/#q=cunt
Then log-off from Google and never login back.
That should send a powerful enough message.
I remember when Gmail was blue and didn't strain my eyes... Can I have that back please? And don't touch the effing links. Thanks!
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
....and I want it painted black.
Sorry, still wrong.