Google's Inevitable Ruin Begins
pcmag.com
pcmag.com
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&s...
Google's saving lives too.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-should-pull-the-plug-... 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.)
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,939886,00.asp
(Technically, he was short by 9 months, but Apple did the inconceivable, eventually.)
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-wit...
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.
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).
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 :)
Wikipedia suggests he's never built anything of his own. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride. Perhaps that's part of it?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Edit: grammar;
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, 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.)
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]
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.
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 :-)
It was bad enough that I abandoned the google search and went to baidu, which was actually the more minimalist option for once.
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?
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.
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.
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?
... and now:
Google is dying! John C Dvorak^W^W^WAn internet troll confirms it!
"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+...;
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.
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.
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?
It's very doubtful that either jshen or Dvorak "cried like a baby" or "pounded their fists". It's very doubtful that sort of comment will make anyone feel better or add much to the conversation. I agree with your point about complainers usually being the loudest, though.
That said, the new image search still bites. It's more time consuming than it used to be, at least for how I use it.
Dvorak was so incensed that someone moved his cheese (to draw from a terrible book) that he wrote an article predicting Google's "inevitable ruin" was beginning. This is the sort of over the top rejection of change that exemplified that childish response.
I personally prefer the older Google Images. For one, I lose the ability to scroll the website immediately after finding it. I do this, for example, when I'm searching for some algorithm by first finding a diagram that I think is clearer and then going directly to read the explanation, or when searching for a recipe by looking for the image first.
I find the new interface to be slightly cluttered to use (with all the animations and uncomfortable feeling when scrolling), At some point, Yahoo (and others) had pretty cluttered interfaces and people eventually shifted to Google, commonly citing simplicity. For this reason, I find that taking the leap to 'everyone complains about changes' to trivialize the fact that many people may, in fact, appreciate simple interfaces.
There sometimes is a superior interface, and discussing the pros and cons of a new interface is very valuable.
Indeed. So who claimed that all design preferences are equally valid? Oddly you seem to be inferring that I did, but I actually didn't, making your lead-in just some noise in hope of soliciting a bias from readers.
At some point, Yahoo (and others) had pretty cluttered interfaces and people eventually shifted to Google, commonly citing simplicity
But can you see that perhaps Google was pursuing simplicity by making their image search all about the images themselves? Further they made perusing large sets of images simpler.
For users who don't care about source pixel sizes or originating domains -- which I suspect is most -- that was just distracting noise on the page. Google simplified the search to a dense, and often beautiful, collection of images, with some powerful functionality on the left.
For this reason, I find that taking the leap to 'everyone complains about changes' to trivialize the fact that many people may, in fact, appreciate simple interfaces.
Everyone complains about changes, good or bad. That is a simple truism of the world. It does not trivialize the usability of the interface, which is why I specifically talked about the usability of the interface -- all Dvorak cares about is what used to be there and now isn't. He doesn't care about the advantages of the new interface, because all he's focused on is the negative change (for him).
It's ignorant bullshit.
It may be worse for you, but it is better for almost everyone else. Dvorak is getting two things confused here: first, he assumes that because of his special uses cases that aren't supported as well, GIS is overall worse now. Second, he assumes that because a certain Google property is worse, the entire company is headed for doom.
I don't think this is better for most people, and it certainly isn't better for me.
The scrolling instead of paging is a u no no in my book. For example I can look at 8 pages of images then quickly jump back to page 2 if I want to. I can't send a link to page 8, or bookmark it, and it breaks other u expectations. Maybe that's ok, but I don't see what gain overcomes those negatives.
Scrolling versus paging is a personal preference thing. I don't know the rationale behind that, but I know that some people prefer the smoothness of a scroll over the pages.
Stopping right here to reminisce for a minute.
When I was a kid, my parents bought me a subscription to MacUser magazine, because I was glued to our old 512. I would read the issues cover to cover. (I have particularly vivid memories of the April 1987 issue, which unveiled the Mac SE, the original Mac II, and the release of Dark Castle.)
Dvorak had a column on the last page of the magazine. It was basically an Andy Rooney routine -- he was a grump who liked to complain about messed-up technology. One of the first of his columns I read (some time in 1986) was a rant about his experiences trying to play ICOM's "Deja Vu", a fairly innovative adventure game with a noir theme.
Dvorak claimed to be unable to master the interface (point-and-click!), and described in great detail his attempts to fumble through the first few rooms. I was 9, and I thought it was the funniest thing I'd ever read that involved a computer.
At some point he stopped writing the column, and I lost track of him until I was out of college and suddenly he was a notable tech pundit. That has always seemed strange to me.
Wasn't he around til the bitter end of MacUser when they folded or merged with MacWorld or whatever?
Bonus points: video of Dvorak admitting he trolls Apple users in his columns.[2]