10 ms·

Google's Inevitable Ruin Begins

55 points by Deprecated 16y ago

Deprecated 16y ago
I don't know if it will bring on ruin, but I certainly found the old image search much more friendly and usable. Both this and page preview seems like "another useless feature that someone thinks improves the experience when it does nothing but show off the fact that someone can code JavaScript or some other display manipulation language." Clean and fast wins the day with me ... Duck Duck Go?
- tariq 16y ago
  this. the "improved" image search is terrible. very finicky and even hard to use--hardly simple. re: ddg. regular user, but as others have pointed out already the ajax load for results is annoying (because it's slow and flashy/jerky).
  - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
    Note we now have html (non-js) & lite versions at http://duckduckgo.com/html http://duckduckgo.com/html & http://duckduckgo.com/lite http://duckduckgo.com/lite
    - tariq 16y ago
      excellent, just appended '/html' to the default browser search engine url. would be great if instead of having to use specific urls that this could be set up as a preference in settings. still, i'm a happy camper :)
      - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
        If you hit the front page without JS enabled it will automatically submit to the html version. And similarly, if you hit it with a textmode browser it will automatically go to the lite version.
- Dylan16807 16y ago
  I like the new one for the most part. Sometimes I would prefer the sizes to be listed under the image, but having the page full of images with minimal whitespace is nice; less clicking to see the results.
DanI-S 16y ago
OMG something changed, the end is nigh.
cullenking 16y ago
Yeah, a bit shock-jockish, which is funny considering the pcmag source. I forgot they even existed. Oh, probably because they dropped in relevance like a friggin rock.
Incubus 16y ago
Old men don't like it when things change, and assert their opinion as fact, trust me.
- ergo98 16y ago
  Old men? You could have just said people and been done with it. When Facebook moves a button there is outrage and mass demonstrations. You younguns and your confirmation bias. Amiright?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
werthog 16y ago
JD;DR. See also: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug-on-the-iphone http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug-... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1923151,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1923151,00.asp Has Dvorak ever been right about anything? (And no, he doesn't get credit for the keyboard layout, that was a different guy.)
- estel 16y ago
  In a list of great predictions of our time, "There is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in [the mobile phone] business" has to be right up there.
- fragmede 16y ago
  Prediction: Apple Computer Corp. will switch to Intel processors within the next 12 to 18 months. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,939886,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,939886,00.asp (Technically, he was short by 9 months, but Apple did the inconceivable, eventually.)
  - chc 16y ago
    I think this is an instance of the broken clock rule. People had been throwing this rumor around for years. That he repeated it at some point before it actually happened (but got the timing wrong even with a big window) is unremarkable. For example, the rumor is mentioned (though rightly dismissed as impractical at the time) in this eWeek article from 2002: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/Apple-Keeps-x86-Torch-Lit-with-Marklar/ http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/Apple-Keeps-x86-Torch-Lit-wit...
    - chc 16y ago
      Also, I just double-checked the dates. Apple switched to Intel in January 2006, which is 16 months past the end of his 18-month window, not nine.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    He predicted that Apple would switch to Itanium processors, they didn't, not even a little bit. This is as wrong as if he had predicted Apple would switch to ARM. The fact that Apple would have to switch off of the Power architecture for its systems was pretty obvious at the time. The idea that they would switch to Intel processors was not guaranteed but pretty obvious (I predicted it), given Intel/AMD's production volumes and performance characteristics. The idea that they would switch to Itanium was based on false premises and never came to pass.
qeorge 16y ago
John Dvorak seems to have an unlimited supply of complaints, and rarely anything constructive to say. Wikipedia suggests he's never built anything of his own. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. Perhaps that's part of it?
- grantheaslip 16y ago
  It's possible to be a good tech journalist without having coded something yourself (though that's not to say that Dvorak is a good journalist). Sure, it would probably be an asset, and a lack of technical context can make people write some stupid stuff, but not having built something does not automatically invalidate anyone's opinions. Most journalists have never worked in their fields, but nobody's complaining about that. The asinine idea that nobody's allowed to have an opinion about any tech company without being a programmer is getting old fast.
  - qeorge 16y ago
    Absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But Dvorak seems particularly quick to call tech companies stupid, and I wonder if that's a result of not having been in the trenches himself.
    - pyre 16y ago
      He's infamous for making statements that will generate controversy^Wpage views.
    - grantheaslip 16y ago
      He's pretty much made a career out of making inflammatory statements about companies whose fans get riled up easily. It's not a result of ignorance, it's a result of calculated attempts get hits on his articles (I think he's more-or-less admitted this multiple times). The obvious target has always been Apple, but Google (espcially Android) fanatics have been equally quick to get their backs up lately—maybe he's just diversifying.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
roadnottaken 16y ago
I think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt, for now.
rbarooah 16y ago
I've found the combination of google instant plus the new previews to be impressively useful when using Google professionally. I'm working with clojure at the moment which is new to me, so I find myself doing a lot of rapid-fire Google searches to answer "is there a library for x?" or "how do I do y?" like questions. Before instant and preview, I'd typically do a search and then open a list of the most promising answers in tab - and then possibly do the same with other variants of the search. Then I'd use keyboard shortcuts to move through the tabs and close the irrelevant ones. Now, I've found that I can usually refine the search to a single good one using instant, by looking at the immediate feedback of the results being returned, and preview lets me quickly see which of the results are junk and which are actually salient before I even get as far as opening them in a tab. They've made an operation that I do many times a day considerably faster and more interactive and reduced the cognitive load. This is usability where it matters - bringing information closer to my mind so I can get things done quicker. Most impressive to me is that these improvements seem make a more significant difference for the long tail of professional work, rather than the more trivial searches for new products or celebrity gossip etc. I'm thankful to see Google choosing this as a priority. I'm reminded of the famous Steve Jobs story about faster boot times saving lives: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Saving_Lives.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s... Google's saving lives too.
jameskilton 16y ago
Hahaha, just a few days ago this article hit http://www.fastcompany.com/1701119/adwords-is-dying-and-google-knows-it-and-they-are-doing-something-about-it http://www.fastcompany.com/1701119/adwords-is-dying-and-goog... which is a LOT better look into what Google is doing and why. The sky is not falling Dvorak, never has been, never will be.
drivebyacct2 16y ago
This article is awful. Terrible, terrible awful.
mithaler 16y ago
Rather astonishingly, he presents no data whatsoever on whether users (y'know, the ones who matter) actually like instant search and the new image search. Without that, his argument that Google is in some sort of "decline" because of their introduction can't be taken seriously, and the article is nothing more than a rant about how he dislikes them. This is a fact about John C. Dvorak, not Google.
joblessjunkie 16y ago
I like some of Google's recent changes, but I must agree that the new Google image search is a mess. I much prefer the old one.
- treeface 16y ago
  I don't really understand people's complaints on this issue. How could you not prefer to have hundreds of images on one page instead of clicking for the next page over and over? It's the difference between a mousewheel scroll and click/scroll, click/scroll.
  - joblessjunkie 16y ago
    My complaints are mostly around the Javascript mess that has stolen our direct access to the images. The image I want is usually in the top row of results anyway, so an endless collection of thumbnails isn't much help. I don't want to view an image in some kind of weird half-sized shadow box. I want to see it alone, at full size -- or directly download it. In the old Google image search, these tasks were as easy as a right click on a context menu. Now we get strange hover boxes that are only 50% larger than the thumbnails, and clicking a thumbnail takes you to a confusing pseudo-page that isn't the full size image, nor the actual source site. Who does this help?
siglesias 16y ago
This is the man who invented trolling and link-baiting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOHzHVF-4Mg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOHzHVF-4Mg At best it's satire, not to be taken seriously--if you get up in arms about what he says, he wins and joke's on you.
ergo98 16y ago
Dvorak could legitimately be described as a professional troll. "you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page....And because thousands of useless large thumbnails are loaded, a huge waste of user bandwidth takes place each time." Beware commenting on things you don't understand, because often it just makes you look like a fool. In this case, Dvorak apparently didn't notice that while all of the images "were on" the same page, they were simply placeholders until you scroll. If an image exists outside of the viewport, does it exist? Not necessarily. As to them being large images....welcome to the high speed world, John. We've graduated beyond dial-up. "So instead of being able to scan the entire page with a simple glance to find an image from say, usgs.gov, you have to put the cursor on each and every image and wait for a pop out with the information." Who searches for images by domain like that? Few users of Google image search, I suspect, with the average user casually looking for some images to "borrow" for their book report or blog. The source domain just doesn't really matter to most users, again speculating (though presumably Google has actually verified this). But say you really want to see images from usgs.gov? site:usgs.gov, e.g. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=site%3Ausgs.gov+cheese&#38 http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=site%3Ausgs.gov+...; And of course you can search by size (larger than, or a specific absolute size), and so on. There will always (always) be people who complain about change. John, in this case, is just plying his trollish trade, however.
- jshen 16y ago
  Beware splitting hairs when you are ignoring the main point. The new google image search is worse than the old one imo so dvorak's point stands even if he got a few technical details wrong. I also agree with him that it's a bad sign when a company seems to be doing things just because their competitors did something similar.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    Beware splitting hairs when you are ignoring the main point Splitting hairs? These are the specific things that he complains about being wrong with the new version, and they're ignorant bullshit. The new google image search is worse than the old one imo I think the new image search is vastly improved. I doubt I'm alone. For the purpose of finding images it is much more efficient and usable, and if you want advanced searching, it's still there for your advanced searching needs. But of course, we're just two people with subjective feelings. If Google changed it back, however, I wouldn't cry like a baby and pound my fists because it no longer specifically targets me and my personal usage needs. It is human nature that whenever something changes the complainers tend to be the loudest. The fact that you don't personally like it, and Dvorak affirms your opinion, says absolutely nothing to whether it was a good move for Google or the average user. Though I have no doubt that everyone with a gripe with Google's image search changes will we drawn into this discussion to add their "Rah rah yah yah!" I hope we're all wise enough to know how to judge that and to not overestimate the scope of that group. It's also suspect to argue that they did it "just because their competitors are doing it". Could it be that the state of the art on the tubes is improving? Did Apple add multitasking to the iPhone just because Android did it, or because it's actually a good feature to have?
clistctrl 16y ago
Personally I love the new google images. However I would quickly point out that some of the reasons people have left google is their frustration with the magnitude google relies on "the numbers" I highly doubt that the changes are hurting them, becuase if they were... they wouldn't keep it.
guscost 16y ago
I'm not going to actually go check, but I'm pretty sure the images still load one page at a time, when you scroll to the bottom of the last page (or farther). How can you have a job at PCMag and not acknowledge or even be aware of this?
ascott 16y ago
I disagree with the author, and think that he hasn't used google image search very extensively. "Instead of the single page of thumbnails, you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page." The (near) endless scrolling model works better for rapidly sorting large sets of images, not worse. "There is no information, just endless thumbnails. No sizes, no locations to scan, nothing! ... Now you have to place the pointer on top of each image for ... size and location information." If you are optimizing for a an interface for sorting the most images possible, removing text makes sense to me. Also, sorting options for the image size is now on the left, which I find more useful than reading text below each image. The pop-ups also contain controls which the author ignores that are very handy: similar images, and different sizes of the same image.
bkj123 16y ago
Putting 'Dvorak' in the title would have saved me some time.
- batasrki 16y ago
  I'd upvote you twice if I could. I actually audibly groaned when I saw who the author was. Didn't even read the article, I knew it was going to be full of crap. I can't believe I graced him with a pageview. Ugh.
- CamT 16y ago
  I was going to leave a snarky comment but yours saved me some time.
- Deprecated 16y ago
  Sorry, I see a lot of people don't care for Dvorak, I probably should have put his name in the title. I do think he occasionally has something interesting to say. Simple, clean, fast is why I've used Google and I think that is primarily what has made them a success. If they complicate their applications, will that be a detriment to their business? That's an important question.
kristaps 16y ago
Technology people may not like Google's recent work (me included), but two things must be kept in mind: 1. techies are the minority 2. Google is said to split test heavily, maybe even pathologically So if a new feature stays it's probably because non-technical people liked it and Google is probably doing the right thing from a business perspective.
aristidb 16y ago
You know a writer does not have a convincing case when he adds "trust me" to the first paragraph.
pyre 16y ago
Apple is dead! Long live Windows! BSD is dying! NetCraft confirms it! ... and now: Google is dying! John C Dvorak^W^W^WAn internet troll confirms it!
castis 16y ago
Knowing nothing about the man. I only got through the first paragraph before I realized the man has no idea what he's talking about. I am not likely to listen to anything he says says ever again. Edit: grammar;
xiaoma 16y ago
Yes! I agree completely with this. I was just trying to do an image search on google earlier today and it drove me nuts having to hover over each image to see the size and then get shunted off to some weird ajax light box display after finally picking one. It was bad enough that I abandoned the google search and went to baidu, which was actually the more minimalist option for once.
corin_ 16y ago
Agree with the many other people commenting here that the article was full of nonsense. And the idea that these changes spell "Google's inevitable ruin" is pretty hilarious. That said, I do hate the changes. I found the old image search far nicer to use. The most important negative change is that when looking for an image, I like to open up multiple options in new tabs, sort of making a shortlist from which to chose from later. To do this I, while scanning the images, click on ones of interest with my middle mouse button. With the new version of Google images, the images don't become actual hyperlinks until you have hovered over them for about a second, so there's a considerable delay when trying to open multiple images in new tabs quickly. I also dislike the live results stuff, I'm not sure if there's any specific reason or just because I'm used to the traditional method - I haven't actually used it nearly enough to know if I'd get used to it, given the chance. I use https://encrypted.google.com https://encrypted.google.com, which hasn't rolled out that feature, thankfully. (Possibly my issue is this: I'm a very fast typer, so I can complete my exact search query without it taking noticeably longer than completing half of my query, and it's therefore more efficient to wait until I get the most accurate results, rather than hoping that a less accurate search will have found what I'm looking for.)
- drivebyacct2 16y ago
  >With the new version of Google images, the images don't become actual hyperlinks until you have hovered over them for about a second, so there's a considerable delay when trying to open multiple images in new tabs quickly. That is patently untrue. [source: I just tried. I middle-clicked as many links as I could as fast as I could. Each one resulted in a new tab instantly]
  - corin_ 16y ago
    I just tried in Chrome and it's as you said. In Firefox, however, it's a different story (and FF is my primary browser.)
    - drivebyacct2 16y ago
      Oooh. I see.
hyperbovine 16y ago
Just when I was going to sell my Google stock, Dvorak goes and pays it his highest complement. Guess I'll wait a few more months...
kin 16y ago
I've been impressed by both the new image search and the web previews. With the introduction of Rock Melt, the instant page preview while simultaneously browsing my searches was a productive environment and now Google added it to their page. The image search I feel is even faster now that I don't have to click through every single page. Before I used Cool Iris. The whole point of image search is supposed to be a visual experience. If you liked an image, check its size. Also, why is his browser crashing? What's he using?
dasil003 16y ago
Flagged. Anything with Dvorak's name should be auto-flagged. If he ever raises an argument that's credible to the HN audience than that means he failed his own quality criteria: that is to write a specious argument designed to appeal to the uninformed reader but that fails any sort of detailed analysis so hard that anyone with half a clue who reads it will be compelled to debunk it and thus angrily drive traffic to the article.
anigbrowl 16y ago
Some valid usability criticisms, swamped in less useful ones and linkbaity headers. I actually agree that some of the new features are a little too bandwidth hungry, but am OK with that because I want to see greater demand for last mile broadband on the west coast. Reading about the speeds available on FIOS makes me cry. I'm surprised he didn't take a few stabs at Google News, which really does have fundamental problems. He has touched on them [1] but the criticisms are rather shallow and miss the mark. 1. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363874,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363874,00.asp. I don't like seeing Dvorak called a troll. Disclosure: I wrote for PC Mag in London for a while, so there's a bit of collegiality at work, but I've always seen him as a gadfly - a literary nickname for the horsefly, an annoying creature that buzzes and has a painful bite, but which perform useful functions of pollination, providing forensic evidence, and contribute to the weeding out evolutionary misfits. Trolls (by my definition) deliberately seek to mislead or irritate others for amusement's sake - occasionally everyone's, but usually only their own. Dvorak honestly thinks the things he complains about are broken, even if he's often wrong about how, why or what extent. He is the Ur-User :-)
louisalley 16y ago
dvorak is a troll

55 points by Deprecated 16y ago

I don't know if it will bring on ruin, but I certainly found the old image search much more friendly and usable. Both this and page preview seems like "another useless feature that someone thinks improves the experience when it does nothing but show off the fact that someone can code JavaScript or some other display manipulation language." Clean and fast wins the day with me ... Duck Duck Go?

tariq 16y ago
this. the "improved" image search is terrible. very finicky and even hard to use--hardly simple. re: ddg. regular user, but as others have pointed out already the ajax load for results is annoying (because it's slow and flashy/jerky).
- epi0Bauqu 16y ago
  Note we now have html (non-js) & lite versions at http://duckduckgo.com/html http://duckduckgo.com/html & http://duckduckgo.com/lite http://duckduckgo.com/lite
  - tariq 16y ago
    excellent, just appended '/html' to the default browser search engine url. would be great if instead of having to use specific urls that this could be set up as a preference in settings. still, i'm a happy camper :)
    - epi0Bauqu 16y ago
      If you hit the front page without JS enabled it will automatically submit to the html version. And similarly, if you hit it with a textmode browser it will automatically go to the lite version.
Dylan16807 16y ago
I like the new one for the most part. Sometimes I would prefer the sizes to be listed under the image, but having the page full of images with minimal whitespace is nice; less clicking to see the results.

DanI-S 16y ago

OMG something changed, the end is nigh.

cullenking 16y ago

Yeah, a bit shock-jockish, which is funny considering the pcmag source. I forgot they even existed. Oh, probably because they dropped in relevance like a friggin rock.

Incubus 16y ago

Old men don't like it when things change, and assert their opinion as fact, trust me.

ergo98 16y ago
Old men? You could have just said people and been done with it. When Facebook moves a button there is outrage and mass demonstrations. You younguns and your confirmation bias. Amiright?

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

werthog 16y ago

JD;DR. See also: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug-on-the-iphone http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug-... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1923151,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1923151,00.asp Has Dvorak ever been right about anything? (And no, he doesn't get credit for the keyboard layout, that was a different guy.)

estel 16y ago
In a list of great predictions of our time, "There is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in [the mobile phone] business" has to be right up there.
fragmede 16y ago
Prediction: Apple Computer Corp. will switch to Intel processors within the next 12 to 18 months. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,939886,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,939886,00.asp (Technically, he was short by 9 months, but Apple did the inconceivable, eventually.)
- chc 16y ago
  I think this is an instance of the broken clock rule. People had been throwing this rumor around for years. That he repeated it at some point before it actually happened (but got the timing wrong even with a big window) is unremarkable. For example, the rumor is mentioned (though rightly dismissed as impractical at the time) in this eWeek article from 2002: http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/Apple-Keeps-x86-Torch-Lit-with-Marklar/ http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/Apple-Keeps-x86-Torch-Lit-wit...
  - chc 16y ago
    Also, I just double-checked the dates. Apple switched to Intel in January 2006, which is 16 months past the end of his 18-month window, not nine.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  He predicted that Apple would switch to Itanium processors, they didn't, not even a little bit. This is as wrong as if he had predicted Apple would switch to ARM. The fact that Apple would have to switch off of the Power architecture for its systems was pretty obvious at the time. The idea that they would switch to Intel processors was not guaranteed but pretty obvious (I predicted it), given Intel/AMD's production volumes and performance characteristics. The idea that they would switch to Itanium was based on false premises and never came to pass.

qeorge 16y ago

John Dvorak seems to have an unlimited supply of complaints, and rarely anything constructive to say. Wikipedia suggests he's never built anything of his own. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. Perhaps that's part of it?

grantheaslip 16y ago
It's possible to be a good tech journalist without having coded something yourself (though that's not to say that Dvorak is a good journalist). Sure, it would probably be an asset, and a lack of technical context can make people write some stupid stuff, but not having built something does not automatically invalidate anyone's opinions. Most journalists have never worked in their fields, but nobody's complaining about that. The asinine idea that nobody's allowed to have an opinion about any tech company without being a programmer is getting old fast.
- qeorge 16y ago
  Absolutely, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But Dvorak seems particularly quick to call tech companies stupid, and I wonder if that's a result of not having been in the trenches himself.
  - pyre 16y ago
    He's infamous for making statements that will generate controversy^Wpage views.
  - grantheaslip 16y ago
    He's pretty much made a career out of making inflammatory statements about companies whose fans get riled up easily. It's not a result of ignorance, it's a result of calculated attempts get hits on his articles (I think he's more-or-less admitted this multiple times). The obvious target has always been Apple, but Google (espcially Android) fanatics have been equally quick to get their backs up lately—maybe he's just diversifying.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago

roadnottaken 16y ago

I think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt, for now.

rbarooah 16y ago

I've found the combination of google instant plus the new previews to be impressively useful when using Google professionally. I'm working with clojure at the moment which is new to me, so I find myself doing a lot of rapid-fire Google searches to answer "is there a library for x?" or "how do I do y?" like questions. Before instant and preview, I'd typically do a search and then open a list of the most promising answers in tab - and then possibly do the same with other variants of the search. Then I'd use keyboard shortcuts to move through the tabs and close the irrelevant ones. Now, I've found that I can usually refine the search to a single good one using instant, by looking at the immediate feedback of the results being returned, and preview lets me quickly see which of the results are junk and which are actually salient before I even get as far as opening them in a tab. They've made an operation that I do many times a day considerably faster and more interactive and reduced the cognitive load. This is usability where it matters - bringing information closer to my mind so I can get things done quicker. Most impressive to me is that these improvements seem make a more significant difference for the long tail of professional work, rather than the more trivial searches for new products or celebrity gossip etc. I'm thankful to see Google choosing this as a priority. I'm reminded of the famous Steve Jobs story about faster boot times saving lives: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Saving_Lives.txt http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s... Google's saving lives too.

jameskilton 16y ago

Hahaha, just a few days ago this article hit http://www.fastcompany.com/1701119/adwords-is-dying-and-google-knows-it-and-they-are-doing-something-about-it http://www.fastcompany.com/1701119/adwords-is-dying-and-goog... which is a LOT better look into what Google is doing and why. The sky is not falling Dvorak, never has been, never will be.

drivebyacct2 16y ago

This article is awful. Terrible, terrible awful.

mithaler 16y ago

Rather astonishingly, he presents no data whatsoever on whether users (y'know, the ones who matter) actually like instant search and the new image search. Without that, his argument that Google is in some sort of "decline" because of their introduction can't be taken seriously, and the article is nothing more than a rant about how he dislikes them. This is a fact about John C. Dvorak, not Google.

joblessjunkie 16y ago

I like some of Google's recent changes, but I must agree that the new Google image search is a mess. I much prefer the old one.

treeface 16y ago
I don't really understand people's complaints on this issue. How could you not prefer to have hundreds of images on one page instead of clicking for the next page over and over? It's the difference between a mousewheel scroll and click/scroll, click/scroll.
- joblessjunkie 16y ago
  My complaints are mostly around the Javascript mess that has stolen our direct access to the images. The image I want is usually in the top row of results anyway, so an endless collection of thumbnails isn't much help. I don't want to view an image in some kind of weird half-sized shadow box. I want to see it alone, at full size -- or directly download it. In the old Google image search, these tasks were as easy as a right click on a context menu. Now we get strange hover boxes that are only 50% larger than the thumbnails, and clicking a thumbnail takes you to a confusing pseudo-page that isn't the full size image, nor the actual source site. Who does this help?

siglesias 16y ago

This is the man who invented trolling and link-baiting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOHzHVF-4Mg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOHzHVF-4Mg At best it's satire, not to be taken seriously--if you get up in arms about what he says, he wins and joke's on you.

ergo98 16y ago

Dvorak could legitimately be described as a professional troll. "you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page....And because thousands of useless large thumbnails are loaded, a huge waste of user bandwidth takes place each time." Beware commenting on things you don't understand, because often it just makes you look like a fool. In this case, Dvorak apparently didn't notice that while all of the images "were on" the same page, they were simply placeholders until you scroll. If an image exists outside of the viewport, does it exist? Not necessarily. As to them being large images....welcome to the high speed world, John. We've graduated beyond dial-up. "So instead of being able to scan the entire page with a simple glance to find an image from say, usgs.gov, you have to put the cursor on each and every image and wait for a pop out with the information." Who searches for images by domain like that? Few users of Google image search, I suspect, with the average user casually looking for some images to "borrow" for their book report or blog. The source domain just doesn't really matter to most users, again speculating (though presumably Google has actually verified this). But say you really want to see images from usgs.gov? site:usgs.gov, e.g. http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=site%3Ausgs.gov+cheese&#38 http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=site%3Ausgs.gov+...; And of course you can search by size (larger than, or a specific absolute size), and so on. There will always (always) be people who complain about change. John, in this case, is just plying his trollish trade, however.

jshen 16y ago
Beware splitting hairs when you are ignoring the main point. The new google image search is worse than the old one imo so dvorak's point stands even if he got a few technical details wrong. I also agree with him that it's a bad sign when a company seems to be doing things just because their competitors did something similar.
- ergo98 16y ago
  Beware splitting hairs when you are ignoring the main point Splitting hairs? These are the specific things that he complains about being wrong with the new version, and they're ignorant bullshit. The new google image search is worse than the old one imo I think the new image search is vastly improved. I doubt I'm alone. For the purpose of finding images it is much more efficient and usable, and if you want advanced searching, it's still there for your advanced searching needs. But of course, we're just two people with subjective feelings. If Google changed it back, however, I wouldn't cry like a baby and pound my fists because it no longer specifically targets me and my personal usage needs. It is human nature that whenever something changes the complainers tend to be the loudest. The fact that you don't personally like it, and Dvorak affirms your opinion, says absolutely nothing to whether it was a good move for Google or the average user. Though I have no doubt that everyone with a gripe with Google's image search changes will we drawn into this discussion to add their "Rah rah yah yah!" I hope we're all wise enough to know how to judge that and to not overestimate the scope of that group. It's also suspect to argue that they did it "just because their competitors are doing it". Could it be that the state of the art on the tubes is improving? Did Apple add multitasking to the iPhone just because Android did it, or because it's actually a good feature to have?

clistctrl 16y ago

Personally I love the new google images. However I would quickly point out that some of the reasons people have left google is their frustration with the magnitude google relies on "the numbers" I highly doubt that the changes are hurting them, becuase if they were... they wouldn't keep it.

guscost 16y ago

I'm not going to actually go check, but I'm pretty sure the images still load one page at a time, when you scroll to the bottom of the last page (or farther). How can you have a job at PCMag and not acknowledge or even be aware of this?

ascott 16y ago

I disagree with the author, and think that he hasn't used google image search very extensively. "Instead of the single page of thumbnails, you get over 20 pages of large thumbnails all on the same huge page." The (near) endless scrolling model works better for rapidly sorting large sets of images, not worse. "There is no information, just endless thumbnails. No sizes, no locations to scan, nothing! ... Now you have to place the pointer on top of each image for ... size and location information." If you are optimizing for a an interface for sorting the most images possible, removing text makes sense to me. Also, sorting options for the image size is now on the left, which I find more useful than reading text below each image. The pop-ups also contain controls which the author ignores that are very handy: similar images, and different sizes of the same image.

bkj123 16y ago

Putting 'Dvorak' in the title would have saved me some time.

batasrki 16y ago
I'd upvote you twice if I could. I actually audibly groaned when I saw who the author was. Didn't even read the article, I knew it was going to be full of crap. I can't believe I graced him with a pageview. Ugh.
CamT 16y ago
I was going to leave a snarky comment but yours saved me some time.
Deprecated 16y ago
Sorry, I see a lot of people don't care for Dvorak, I probably should have put his name in the title. I do think he occasionally has something interesting to say. Simple, clean, fast is why I've used Google and I think that is primarily what has made them a success. If they complicate their applications, will that be a detriment to their business? That's an important question.

kristaps 16y ago

Technology people may not like Google's recent work (me included), but two things must be kept in mind: 1. techies are the minority 2. Google is said to split test heavily, maybe even pathologically So if a new feature stays it's probably because non-technical people liked it and Google is probably doing the right thing from a business perspective.

aristidb 16y ago

You know a writer does not have a convincing case when he adds "trust me" to the first paragraph.

pyre 16y ago

Apple is dead! Long live Windows! BSD is dying! NetCraft confirms it! ... and now: Google is dying! John C Dvorak^W^W^WAn internet troll confirms it!

castis 16y ago

Knowing nothing about the man. I only got through the first paragraph before I realized the man has no idea what he's talking about. I am not likely to listen to anything he says says ever again. Edit: grammar;

xiaoma 16y ago

Yes! I agree completely with this. I was just trying to do an image search on google earlier today and it drove me nuts having to hover over each image to see the size and then get shunted off to some weird ajax light box display after finally picking one. It was bad enough that I abandoned the google search and went to baidu, which was actually the more minimalist option for once.

corin_ 16y ago

Agree with the many other people commenting here that the article was full of nonsense. And the idea that these changes spell "Google's inevitable ruin" is pretty hilarious. That said, I do hate the changes. I found the old image search far nicer to use. The most important negative change is that when looking for an image, I like to open up multiple options in new tabs, sort of making a shortlist from which to chose from later. To do this I, while scanning the images, click on ones of interest with my middle mouse button. With the new version of Google images, the images don't become actual hyperlinks until you have hovered over them for about a second, so there's a considerable delay when trying to open multiple images in new tabs quickly. I also dislike the live results stuff, I'm not sure if there's any specific reason or just because I'm used to the traditional method - I haven't actually used it nearly enough to know if I'd get used to it, given the chance. I use https://encrypted.google.com https://encrypted.google.com, which hasn't rolled out that feature, thankfully. (Possibly my issue is this: I'm a very fast typer, so I can complete my exact search query without it taking noticeably longer than completing half of my query, and it's therefore more efficient to wait until I get the most accurate results, rather than hoping that a less accurate search will have found what I'm looking for.)

drivebyacct2 16y ago
>With the new version of Google images, the images don't become actual hyperlinks until you have hovered over them for about a second, so there's a considerable delay when trying to open multiple images in new tabs quickly. That is patently untrue. [source: I just tried. I middle-clicked as many links as I could as fast as I could. Each one resulted in a new tab instantly]
- corin_ 16y ago
  I just tried in Chrome and it's as you said. In Firefox, however, it's a different story (and FF is my primary browser.)
  - drivebyacct2 16y ago
    Oooh. I see.

hyperbovine 16y ago

Just when I was going to sell my Google stock, Dvorak goes and pays it his highest complement. Guess I'll wait a few more months...

kin 16y ago

I've been impressed by both the new image search and the web previews. With the introduction of Rock Melt, the instant page preview while simultaneously browsing my searches was a productive environment and now Google added it to their page. The image search I feel is even faster now that I don't have to click through every single page. Before I used Cool Iris. The whole point of image search is supposed to be a visual experience. If you liked an image, check its size. Also, why is his browser crashing? What's he using?

dasil003 16y ago

Flagged. Anything with Dvorak's name should be auto-flagged. If he ever raises an argument that's credible to the HN audience than that means he failed his own quality criteria: that is to write a specious argument designed to appeal to the uninformed reader but that fails any sort of detailed analysis so hard that anyone with half a clue who reads it will be compelled to debunk it and thus angrily drive traffic to the article.

anigbrowl 16y ago

Some valid usability criticisms, swamped in less useful ones and linkbaity headers. I actually agree that some of the new features are a little too bandwidth hungry, but am OK with that because I want to see greater demand for last mile broadband on the west coast. Reading about the speeds available on FIOS makes me cry. I'm surprised he didn't take a few stabs at Google News, which really does have fundamental problems. He has touched on them [1] but the criticisms are rather shallow and miss the mark. 1. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363874,00.asp http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2363874,00.asp. I don't like seeing Dvorak called a troll. Disclosure: I wrote for PC Mag in London for a while, so there's a bit of collegiality at work, but I've always seen him as a gadfly - a literary nickname for the horsefly, an annoying creature that buzzes and has a painful bite, but which perform useful functions of pollination, providing forensic evidence, and contribute to the weeding out evolutionary misfits. Trolls (by my definition) deliberately seek to mislead or irritate others for amusement's sake - occasionally everyone's, but usually only their own. Dvorak honestly thinks the things he complains about are broken, even if he's often wrong about how, why or what extent. He is the Ur-User :-)

louisalley 16y ago

dvorak is a troll