It's an old pic. I don't get paid for posting here so I am too lazy to upload another image when that image perfectly illustrates the lack of border or contrast between the last ad and first search result.
If you think another image shows things better, then WHY don't you link it instead of multiple posts attacking me personally, and lambasting Bing?
So we can't demand better from the 'Do no evil' market leader because Bing fails and sucks and Microsoft is the epitome of Evil? I don't get your logic.
Bing may be worse, but comparison to Bing is irrelevant, it's like comparing Walmart and a mom&pop store. The mom&pop store needs to do these evil things to survive, Walmart can treat employees and customers better because they make lots of profit. Also, Google is the one that claims not to "do no evil" on their site, which Microsoft is the very definition of evil and consumer hostile tactics (see Xbox One).
Google ads are CLEARLY delineated. Via several different methods. Color. A text notice, that won't be missed even using a text only black and white browser.
Search something simple like "Ford Fusion" All the adds are sequestered at the top and right side. All the Ads are labeled with "Ads related to ford fusion" All the ads are color coded.
Why not provide a screenshot for us instead of writing all that and describing it so painstakingly? Oh you can't because it shows your post is nonsense.
As shown in the screenshots in my post, there is no CLEAR border between the last ad and the first real result, as there is between the left ads and the right ads. What's the use of all the delineations when you can't tell where the ads end and results start?
Now go do the same search on BING. Its not so clear, in fact you are left guessing. Any tint is so subtle you can't really see it.
First, no one uses Bing.
Second, Microsoft(and Bing) are considered evil money grubbers who won't think twice about robbing an old woman to steal a penny, perhaps rightly so, so if you're comparing Google(who has the motto 'Do No Evil') to Bing and saying Bing is the same, you're not saying much there, except that Google is on the same level as Microsoft and is evil.
Third, as Slashdot likes to point out, Bing keeps losing billions of dollars, so they resort to doing such things which is somewhat understandable, while Google makes $14 billion revenue and $3.5 billion in profits, almost all from showing ads and increasing a lot every quarter, so they could ease up a bit on such dirty tactics. Google has a bigger market cap than the entire Microsoft.
>Be sure you turn off you ad blocker before you do these tests, because Bing slips in ads even with the ad blocker on, but Google doesn't.
Guys, we have found the lone Bing user on Slashdot!
Seriously, who really uses Bing here, especially for tech queries? I tried a couple of times and went running back to Google.
Your second link, in the comments has a solution to the problem presented in the article. If someone has a monitor that only displays 256 colors, and doesn't display my high color picture correctly, that is my fault how? How about creating a solution to the problem, an alternative CSS for Google that can be used on older / crappier monitors, rather than complaining?
That's it guys, no one can complain about any problem on any internet website if it's fixable by CSS or a browser extension, and if the "complainer" hasn't gone around to every internet user's home and installed it.
This is like Monsanto suing farmers for not removing every microscopic seed that got blown over from the next farm by the wind or by animals or insects.
Also, I loved how you totally ignored the fact that it's not just crappy monitors that cause the problem but it has been scientifically proven(see the link i provided in the post) that older people cannot see contrast well.
Now you're going to blame me for not inventing an anti-aging drug to fix the problem. I can see it coming.
Google and other ads are specifically designed to look like search results and exploit the fact that older people cannot see contrast of the background as well as younger people. Or even younger people using bad quality or badly calibrated monitors
I was reading their corporate motto "Do no evil" on their site, and then I saw your post and upped the contrast on my monitor and then saw the entire text that was hidden earlier, "Do no evil - except when it makes us money. In that case, be very very evil." !
You and the FTC must really be on to be something here!!!
Google and other ads are specifically designed to look like search results and exploit the fact that older people cannot see contrast of the background as well as younger people. Or even younger people using bad quality or badly calibrated monitors. (Or using Flux).
The contrast on the background is much lower than the federal 508 standard for contrast and I think has changed to over the years to a lighter shade as Google "optimizes" it.
One is an ad and one is a search result, is there much difference? Given the average quality of monitors, I think those are designed to fool even otherwise sharp eyes.
There is a border on the right of the ads but none on at the bottom. Google must be getting tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from the color change from blue to yellow, the ones shown in the example are about $50 to $100 for each click.
Guess they employ many behavioral psychologist super PHDs who tweaked the carefully and scientifically calibrated colors on ads and removed all contrast including borders to make many folks not realize where the ads end and the actual results begin. Forget about people going to paid websites and screwing websites that don't charge users that rank well organically because they're good and popular but don't give the Googolplex any money.
It appears to me that Bill Gates is using "philanthropy" to find ways to make more money. He discovers difficulties people have, asks for ideas for technology to fix those difficulties, and then turns those ideas into money-making projects for Intellectual Ventures.
What kind of nonsense is this? You and the moderators wouldn't hesitate to find some BS on Mother Teresa or Nightingale if they were somehow related to Microsoft.
You mean with batteries made by Sony? As such the issue wasn't isolated to Apple laptops but affected Dell, IBM, basically everyone who used Sony batteries. Yes Apple really was at fault for that.
Wait, don't people like you say that it's good to pay the Apple premium because they have better hardware?
If they have the same shit hardware as the rest of the OEMs why buy Macs and pay through the nose again?
Here are two other mighty convenient examples where Google made "innocent" mistakes by vacuuming more data to track users intrusively and show them ads. Not sure if they're evil or just incompetent.
Google Toolbar caught tracking users when 'disabled'
Google has updated its browser toolbar after the application was caught tracking urls even when specifically "disabled" by the user.
In a Monday blog post, Harvard professor and noted Google critic Ben Edelmen provided video evidence of the Google toolbar transmitting data back to the Mountain View Chocolate Factory after he chose to disable the application in the browser window he was currently using.
The Google toolbar offers two disable options: one is meant to disable the toolbar "permanently," and the other is meant to disable the app "only for this window."
In a statement passed to The Reg, Google has acknowledged the bug. According to the statement, the bug affects Google Toolbar versions 6.3.911.1819 through 6.4.1311.42 for Internet Explorer. An update that fixes the bug is now available here, and the company intends to automatically update users' toolbars sometime today.
The statement also says that the bug does not occur if you open a new tab after disabling the toolbar for a particular window. In the statement, Google goes on to say that the bug disappears if you restart your browser, but this doesn't quite make sense. If you're interested in disabling Google toolbar for a particular window, you aren't going to close that window.
"For that option to work as its name promises, Google Toolbar must cease transmissions immediately," Edelman says. "Fact is, the 'Disable Google Toolbar only for this window' option doesn't work at all: It does not actually disable Google Toolbar for the specified window."
It would appear that in saying the bug is fixed when the browser relaunches, Google is referring to a second bug Edelman uncovered. The Harvard prof also found that the toolbar continued to transmit data when he attempted to disable it through Internet Explorer's "Manage Add-ons" window.
With the Google toolbar, certain "enhanced features" require the transmission of data back to Google servers. These features include the ability to view a website's Google PageRank, essentially a measure of its importance on the web at large, and the new Sidewiki, a means of adding meta-comments to webpages. Using a network monitor, Edelman confirmed that if "enhanced features" are activated, Google collects domain names and associated directories, filenames, URL parameters, and search terms.
The user chooses whether to turn on "enhanced features," but Edelman argues that it's much too easy for a user to do so without completely realizing the consequences. The toolbar's standard installation routine launches a "bubble message" that pushes readers to turn on the features, he says, and it's less than clear about what data is being transmitted.
"The feature is described as 'enhanced' and 'helpful,' and Google chooses to tout it with a prominence that indicates Google views the feature as important," Edelman writes. "Moreover, the accept button features bold type plus a jumbo size (more than twice as large as the button to decline). And the accept button has the focus - so merely pressing Space or Enter (easy to do accidentally) serves to activate Enhanced Features without any further confirmation."
Yes, he continues, the message points out that the toolbar "tells us what site you're visiting by sending Google the url." But he argues this stops short of explaining that it collects everything from directories, filenames, and URL parameters to search keywords.
What's more, Edelman says, turning off "enhanced features" is more difficult than turning them on - especially for the averag
How do you ensure "blazing fast network access" and latency? Mobile networks are terrible for latency. Your post is an example of putting the cart before the horse.
People typically get banned on Xbox for cheating on multiplayer games, like using aimbots etc.
The question was about access to single player games if you got banned on multiplayer games
He said, of course you will have access. The parent post said you'd be banned from playing your single player games if you got banned on Xbox Live. So yes, the benefit is access to single player games when you're banned from multiplayer games for cheating or being an abusive troll using bad language etc. in voice chat. Hope that makes it clear.
Or perhaps he doesn't live in the Reddit and blogosphere vocal minority bubble hating on the PS4. Reddit posted a Facebook poll by Amazon about PS4 vs. XBox One multiple times to game it. The PS4 got only 38K votes, that shows how small the vocal minority is....
You totally failed to mention MajorNelson's take on the issue in your post and instead took the twitter rep statement as fact. If you didn't have facts as you admit now why make that post categorically stating without any caveats that one loses access to single player games on getting banned? Sorry for my outburst, but there are a lot of people already invested into the PS4 ecosystem who are using every opportunity to discount the Xbox One on internet forums, regardless of facts.
Since I would have to pay 500$ for it, will I be able to run my own software on the Xbox One.
Now if you claim that OP says money is immaterial, take an English and a Reading Comprehension course before posting again. Also, no one cares what you buy or don't, iPad and iPhone are selling tens of millions every quarter. Buy as many Raspberry Pis as you want.
The Kinect is required because they want to encourage game devs to use the Kinect. If it were optional, developers may skip using some features since they may not be available. I don't see how it won't work if cam is obstructed.
Slashdot Mirror
No I am not.
Instead of attacking me, how about posting a better screenshot that shows your point?
It's an old pic. I don't get paid for posting here so I am too lazy to upload another image when that image perfectly illustrates the lack of border or contrast between the last ad and first search result.
If you think another image shows things better, then WHY don't you link it instead of multiple posts attacking me personally, and lambasting Bing?
So we can't demand better from the 'Do no evil' market leader because Bing fails and sucks and Microsoft is the epitome of Evil? I don't get your logic.
Wrong, please read my other post first. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3904125&cid=44103749
See these screenshots.
The current Google page, the first is an ad, second is not. http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png
A few years ago http://www.ismoip.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Screenshot1.png
Before that http://cdn.userstyles.org/style_screenshot_thumbnails/58617_after.jpeg
Bing may be worse, but comparison to Bing is irrelevant, it's like comparing Walmart and a mom&pop store. The mom&pop store needs to do these evil things to survive, Walmart can treat employees and customers better because they make lots of profit. Also, Google is the one that claims not to "do no evil" on their site, which Microsoft is the very definition of evil and consumer hostile tactics (see Xbox One).
However, blaming the victims when a huge multibillion dollar multinational company is at fault is a great analogy. /no sarcasm.
This is pure Google-hate boiling over.
Google ads are CLEARLY delineated. Via several different methods. Color. A text notice, that won't be missed even using a text only black and white browser.
Search something simple like "Ford Fusion"
All the adds are sequestered at the top and right side.
All the Ads are labeled with "Ads related to ford fusion"
All the ads are color coded.
Why not provide a screenshot for us instead of writing all that and describing it so painstakingly? Oh you can't because it shows your post is nonsense.
As shown in the screenshots in my post, there is no CLEAR border between the last ad and the first real result, as there is between the left ads and the right ads. What's the use of all the delineations when you can't tell where the ads end and results start?
Now go do the same search on BING. Its not so clear, in fact you are left guessing.
Any tint is so subtle you can't really see it.
First, no one uses Bing.
Second, Microsoft(and Bing) are considered evil money grubbers who won't think twice about robbing an old woman to steal a penny, perhaps rightly so, so if you're comparing Google(who has the motto 'Do No Evil') to Bing and saying Bing is the same, you're not saying much there, except that Google is on the same level as Microsoft and is evil.
Third, as Slashdot likes to point out, Bing keeps losing billions of dollars, so they resort to doing such things which is somewhat understandable, while Google makes $14 billion revenue and $3.5 billion in profits, almost all from showing ads and increasing a lot every quarter, so they could ease up a bit on such dirty tactics. Google has a bigger market cap than the entire Microsoft.
>Be sure you turn off you ad blocker before you do these tests, because Bing slips in ads even with the ad blocker on, but Google doesn't.
Guys, we have found the lone Bing user on Slashdot!
Seriously, who really uses Bing here, especially for tech queries? I tried a couple of times and went running back to Google.
Your second link, in the comments has a solution to the problem presented in the article. If someone has a monitor that only displays 256 colors, and doesn't display my high color picture correctly, that is my fault how? How about creating a solution to the problem, an alternative CSS for Google that can be used on older / crappier monitors, rather than complaining?
That's it guys, no one can complain about any problem on any internet website if it's fixable by CSS or a browser extension, and if the "complainer" hasn't gone around to every internet user's home and installed it.
This is like Monsanto suing farmers for not removing every microscopic seed that got blown over from the next farm by the wind or by animals or insects.
The 400lb gorilla in search having an effective monopoly changed it from this http://cdn.userstyles.org/style_screenshot_thumbnails/58617_after.jpeg to this http://www.ismoip.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Screenshot1.png to this http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png to make more money by confusing people, and this is my fault because I haven't created a CSS style to change it(which is extremely trivial even for a beginner web dev)? Wow.
Also, I loved how you totally ignored the fact that it's not just crappy monitors that cause the problem but it has been scientifically proven(see the link i provided in the post) that older people cannot see contrast well.
Now you're going to blame me for not inventing an anti-aging drug to fix the problem. I can see it coming.
http://search.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3904125&cid=44103749
Not really. There's no border and barely any contrast.
See my other post.
Crap! Slashdot's "Post Anonymously" checkbox needs more contrast!
Google and other ads are specifically designed to look like search results and exploit the fact that older people cannot see contrast of the background as well as younger people. Or even younger people using bad quality or badly calibrated monitors
I was reading their corporate motto "Do no evil" on their site, and then I saw your post and upped the contrast on my monitor and then saw the entire text that was hidden earlier, "Do no evil - except when it makes us money. In that case, be very very evil." !
You and the FTC must really be on to be something here!!!
Google and other ads are specifically designed to look like search results and exploit the fact that older people cannot see contrast of the background as well as younger people. Or even younger people using bad quality or badly calibrated monitors. (Or using Flux).
The contrast on the background is much lower than the federal 508 standard for contrast and I think has changed to over the years to a lighter shade as Google "optimizes" it.
http://i.imgur.com/Wmdd0.png
One is an ad and one is a search result, is there much difference? Given the average quality of monitors, I think those are designed to fool even otherwise sharp eyes.
There is a border on the right of the ads but none on at the bottom. Google must be getting tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue from the color change from blue to yellow, the ones shown in the example are about $50 to $100 for each click.
http://ppcblog.com/fbf0fa-now-you-see-it
http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/01/31/is-google-intentionally-trying-to-minimize-the-fact-that-these-are-ads/
Guess they employ many behavioral psychologist super PHDs who tweaked the carefully and scientifically calibrated colors on ads and removed all contrast including borders to make many folks not realize where the ads end and the actual results begin. Forget about people going to paid websites and screwing websites that don't charge users that rank well organically because they're good and popular but don't give the Googolplex any money.
"Study:Contrast sensitivity gradually decreases with age"
http://www.eyeworld.org/article.php?sid=818&strict=0&morphologic=0
It appears to me that Bill Gates is using "philanthropy" to find ways to make more money. He discovers difficulties people have, asks for ideas for technology to fix those difficulties, and then turns those ideas into money-making projects for Intellectual Ventures.
What kind of nonsense is this? You and the moderators wouldn't hesitate to find some BS on Mother Teresa or Nightingale if they were somehow related to Microsoft.
You mean with batteries made by Sony? As such the issue wasn't isolated to Apple laptops but affected Dell, IBM, basically everyone who used Sony batteries. Yes Apple really was at fault for that.
Wait, don't people like you say that it's good to pay the Apple premium because they have better hardware?
If they have the same shit hardware as the rest of the OEMs why buy Macs and pay through the nose again?
Here are two other mighty convenient examples where Google made "innocent" mistakes by vacuuming more data to track users intrusively and show them ads. Not sure if they're evil or just incompetent.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/27/google_toolbar_caught_transmitting_data_when_disabled/
Google Toolbar caught tracking users when 'disabled'
Google has updated its browser toolbar after the application was caught tracking urls even when specifically "disabled" by the user.
In a Monday blog post, Harvard professor and noted Google critic Ben Edelmen provided video evidence of the Google toolbar transmitting data back to the Mountain View Chocolate Factory after he chose to disable the application in the browser window he was currently using.
The Google toolbar offers two disable options: one is meant to disable the toolbar "permanently," and the other is meant to disable the app "only for this window."
In a statement passed to The Reg, Google has acknowledged the bug. According to the statement, the bug affects Google Toolbar versions 6.3.911.1819 through 6.4.1311.42 for Internet Explorer. An update that fixes the bug is now available here, and the company intends to automatically update users' toolbars sometime today.
The statement also says that the bug does not occur if you open a new tab after disabling the toolbar for a particular window. In the statement, Google goes on to say that the bug disappears if you restart your browser, but this doesn't quite make sense. If you're interested in disabling Google toolbar for a particular window, you aren't going to close that window.
"For that option to work as its name promises, Google Toolbar must cease transmissions immediately," Edelman says. "Fact is, the 'Disable Google Toolbar only for this window' option doesn't work at all: It does not actually disable Google Toolbar for the specified window."
It would appear that in saying the bug is fixed when the browser relaunches, Google is referring to a second bug Edelman uncovered. The Harvard prof also found that the toolbar continued to transmit data when he attempted to disable it through Internet Explorer's "Manage Add-ons" window.
With the Google toolbar, certain "enhanced features" require the transmission of data back to Google servers. These features include the ability to view a website's Google PageRank, essentially a measure of its importance on the web at large, and the new Sidewiki, a means of adding meta-comments to webpages. Using a network monitor, Edelman confirmed that if "enhanced features" are activated, Google collects domain names and associated directories, filenames, URL parameters, and search terms.
The user chooses whether to turn on "enhanced features," but Edelman argues that it's much too easy for a user to do so without completely realizing the consequences. The toolbar's standard installation routine launches a "bubble message" that pushes readers to turn on the features, he says, and it's less than clear about what data is being transmitted.
"The feature is described as 'enhanced' and 'helpful,' and Google chooses to tout it with a prominence that indicates Google views the feature as important," Edelman writes. "Moreover, the accept button features bold type plus a jumbo size (more than twice as large as the button to decline). And the accept button has the focus - so merely pressing Space or Enter (easy to do accidentally) serves to activate Enhanced Features without any further confirmation."
Yes, he continues, the message points out that the toolbar "tells us what site you're visiting by sending Google the url." But he argues this stops short of explaining that it collects everything from directories, filenames, and URL parameters to search keywords.
What's more, Edelman says, turning off "enhanced features" is more difficult than turning them on - especially for the averag
How do you ensure "blazing fast network access" and latency? Mobile networks are terrible for latency. Your post is an example of putting the cart before the horse.
The first post troll under the bridge is having fun getting a lot of posts and attention on Slashdot.
People typically get banned on Xbox for cheating on multiplayer games, like using aimbots etc.
The question was about access to single player games if you got banned on multiplayer games
He said, of course you will have access. The parent post said you'd be banned from playing your single player games if you got banned on Xbox Live. So yes, the benefit is access to single player games when you're banned from multiplayer games for cheating or being an abusive troll using bad language etc. in voice chat. Hope that makes it clear.
I didn't need help, you did :)
No, see the last tweet here.
http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/sweet-billy-adam-orth.jpg?w=804
Thats a silly remark insulting rural places. Any company would fire anyone who made such comments.
Or perhaps he doesn't live in the Reddit and blogosphere vocal minority bubble hating on the PS4.
Reddit posted a Facebook poll by Amazon about PS4 vs. XBox One multiple times to game it. The PS4 got only 38K votes, that shows how small the vocal minority is....
Trying this again. Do you have a reference stating that games won't run if cam is obstructed?
You never have your phone around you when you are having conversations with people?
You totally failed to mention MajorNelson's take on the issue in your post and instead took the twitter rep statement as fact. If you didn't have facts as you admit now why make that post categorically stating without any caveats that one loses access to single player games on getting banned? Sorry for my outburst, but there are a lot of people already invested into the PS4 ecosystem who are using every opportunity to discount the Xbox One on internet forums, regardless of facts.
Re-read the OP post.
Here it is again.
Since I would have to pay 500$ for it, will I be able to run my own software on the Xbox One.
Now if you claim that OP says money is immaterial, take an English and a Reading Comprehension course before posting again.
Also, no one cares what you buy or don't, iPad and iPhone are selling tens of millions every quarter. Buy as many Raspberry Pis as you want.
Citation needed about that.
The Kinect is required because they want to encourage game devs to use the Kinect. If it were optional, developers may skip using some features since they may not be available. I don't see how it won't work if cam is obstructed.