Slashdot Mirror
Opinion: Google Unleashes Terrible New Update For Google News Upon the Net
Rei shares their opinion of Google's redesign of Google News: Google unveiled a "new look" for Google News, describing it as a "clean and uncluttered look." New design features include a mostly empty "In the News" box for trending-topics, most of which you probably don't care about; a double-height page header so that they can make the border around the search box inexplicably larger and add a four-option menu bar; large empty grey expanses that take up half the browser; and a new news section that presents half as many news articles per page. If you didn't think you were having to scroll enough when using Google News, don't worry -- Google's got your back with this new update. It's safe to say that Slashdot reader Rei is not so fond of the Google News redesign. Have you had the chance to view it yourself? What do you think of the Google News facelift?
This article in The Rogister is probably pertinent:
Kill Google AMP before it KILLS the web
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
In Firefox, this reduced the clutter to manageable levels:
.X20oP, .fkWPz, .FOvasf, .cZgiac, .JHzJp {
@namespace url(http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml);
@-moz-document domain("news.google.com") {
img,
display : none !important;
}
}
Google probably scrambles those class selectors, so we'll see what happens tomorrow.
It appears that many "related" items are repetitions (boo hiss) and where there isn't a related item, I was getting links to some horrible detox service.
I've previously searched on both pseudoxanthoma elasticum and adrenoleukodystrophy. Fortunately, I don't have both. That would make it very hard to hack user script to repair the effects of usranathema adrenocarddystrophy.
I gave up on Google news when they started serving up advertising fluff pieces as important news alerts. Now the worst thing about Google news it is a real bitch to clean off once you have installed, it most definitely does not die with a couple of clicks. Google have very much become shallow advertising driven arse holes and not to be trusted. They did some fine marketing with feel good research crap but it was just a charade to hide extreme corporate greed. Still not as bad as M$, no major corporate player (prying into peoples medical records via small business medical practices) is quite that bad but Google has managed to out evil Apple by quite a bit.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
The new design is beyond awful. I have been using Google News as my browser home page for years because it was a quick way to get an overview of headlines and blurbs I cared about, and this update completely ruins the usability.
Before, I could see 10+ stories, with a snippet for a few of them. Now, I can see at most 1.5 due to the bigger pictures and irrelevant "Related Coverage" and "More About" parts. Sometimes I can't even see the whole article card because Related and More take up so much space.
I just want a small picture or icon, headline, and 1-2 sentences from the article. That way I can get a rather complete 10+ article overview in a single page without clicking or scrolling, and even from multiple sections. Before, I could see Sci/Tech and World headlines on the same page as Top Stories. Now, I have to hit Page Down twice to get to just the first such story.
So yeah, they've lost a user who had Google News as default home page for a decade. Maybe if they add serious streamlining and compact modes, I'll return. But for now, https://www.bing.com/news is oddly enough a clean replacement. Google pushed me to use Bing ...
The news biz is failing, and their jobs drying up, so journalism degrees are becoming worthless.
Our economic and business system is increasingly shooting itself in the foot - perhaps I should say cutting its own throat. We are told about the marvellous benefits of free-enterprise, free-market capitalism and the competition it engenders. Unfortunately, capitalists and entrepreneurs hate competition and do their level best to eliminate it: Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Twitter are all exemplars of the trend.
As regards journalism, smaller companies have been bought up or driven out of business, with most of the media notoriously falling into the hands of six corporations. http://www.morriscreative.com/... And those huge corporations have very definite opinions about what news and view they want people to read. (Many of them are heavily involved with the federal government, so they act more like echo chambers than critical reporters).
At the same time, vested interests are seeding the media with 'techniques of persuasion', i.e., propaganda.
I find it hard to agree that this is a new problem, because vested interests have been doing this since the dawn of recorded history. (Indeed, one could probably find prehistoric cave art that basically says, "Zog is a mastodon's arse" or "Zog for War Leader!")
The remedy is well known and simple. Education, intelligent choice, and critical faculties.
"Gentlemen, you are now about to embark on a course of studies which will occupy you for two years. Together, they form a noble adventure. But I would like to remind you of an important point. Nothing that you will learn in the course of your studies will be of the slightest possible use to you in after life, save only this, that if you work hard and intelligently you should be able to detect when a man is talking rot, and that, in my view, is the main, if not the sole, purpose of education".
- John Alexander Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy, Oxford University, 1914.
Even with vast masses of garbage, cant and downright lies smeared across the Web, intelligent and astute readers should be able to find a small subset of sources that are usually accurate, or at least try hard to be. I know I have.
It's no shock then that journalistic standards are plummeting. Honesty and integrity in the news are getting harder to find.
One has to take into account what the vested interests are, what kind of information they wish to distort or conceal, and how much they are willing to pay. It's often said that Wikipedia is not a reliable source; but I have found it admirable for topics such as history, mathematics, and science. It's only when the subject becomes controversial - politics, religion, celebrities, sport, etc. - that money is applied and disinformation created. The same is broadly true of the mainstream media. I plan to watch Wimbledon on BBC TV, and I am not worried that Andy Murray's scores will be exaggerated or his opponents slandered. Most of the MSM's output is reasonably unbiased, but there are hot spots such as international politics.
I find plenty of honesty and integrity, but I have had to seek it out. Some journalists and organizations always seem consistent, rarely contradict themselves or each other, and never say anything I personally know to be untrue. Ralph Nader; John Pilger; Seymour Hersh; Paul Craig Roberts; Robert Parry; Gilbert Doctorow; Brian Cloughley; The Saker; Gareth Porter; Glenn Greenwald; Noam Chomsky; Andrew Napolitano; Robert Fisk; to a degree, anyone called Cockburn; Dave Lindorff; Fred Reed; Kevin Jack Perry; Ellen Brown... the list goes on and on and on.
If anyone is interested, try Counterpunch as a start. Maybe half of the material is thin, dubious or sometimes even cranky. Never mind; as Theodore Sturgeon said, 90 percent of everything is crap - so fifty-fift
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.