I thought it was a commonly held thought that Google didn't want Chrome users using bookmarks because it directly competed with their search (and advertising).
Since launch, they've reduced the vertical space of the tab bar/title bar, even as screens gained more pixels.
Original design- https://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/small_12.html
The competition- https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Screenshot-of-Mozi...
the settings UI is absolutely awful;
depending on which appearance you choose, it either looks ugly or blurs together;
it frequently has visual glitches;
could certainly be more customisable appearance and shortcut-wise;
doesn’t allow you to have a title or marker as the top level tab;
as far as I can tell doesn’t let you save a session of tabs;
has an unpleasant glitch where if you drop a tab in the wrong place it’ll disappear behind the current window and never be reachable;
the new tab behaviour irritates me;
and probably a few more complaints that I’d have to actually open it up to remember
The whole point of vertical tabs is so you have enough characters visible to tell what the tab is. Tab trees waste this precious space.
I don't know much about Vivaldi. Can you tell me what its monetization model is? Does it strip the google crap out of chromium?
They do strip Google crud like FLoC, don’t pander to crypto scams and are employee-owned, you can check out their statements on Vivaldi.com. The only valid reason not to consider them would be that they are not open-source.
Of all of the terrible UI elements that have become fashionable, this is probably the one I hate the most.
Was it really? When Netscape Navigator came out, 640x480 was probably the most common resolution. It used significantly more vertical space than Chrome has ever done. What happened between then and the release of chrome to make vertical space more precious?
Desktop computers have had very abundant screen-space for a long time.
That’s not how it works. If you own the website Ford.com, Google won’t charge you millions to bid on the keyword "Ford". They _will_ do it if you are Chevy and are bidding on Ford.
https://twitter.com/jasonfried/status/1168986962704982016
I'm making an assumption we're all talking about the ads above the results, as afaik you can't pay to shuffle the real results
As for how much you pay for a click on any specific keyword, it isn't fixed and depends on two main things. I am simplifying here.
1. How related (google thinks) your page and ad copy is to the intent behind the keyword. More related = (generally) lower cpc
2. The reserve price that google sets for that keyword.
It used to be a second price auction in that you'd only ever pay 1p above the second highest bidder. It has now changed in that there is a reserve price for each keyword based on your page, ad copy and google's valuation of that keyword. This reserve price can be lowered or raised depending on how good and related Google thinks your page and ads are. It can fluctuate lots depending on your input but if google's valuation is high you'll never get it to pennies per click.
Insurance for injury claims for example will always be more than £10 per click no matter how good your page or ad copy is. Google just knows that those conversions are worth tons so people WILL pay high cpcs for them.
So in the Ford Chevy example, Ford's page is much more related to someone searching for Ford, Google knows the intent is likely to find a ford page so ford would pay FAR less than Chevy.
Chevy's page likely isn't matching the intent that google assumes the user has so their reserve price and hence final cost per click would be much higher.
Competitor bidding on google search is expensive.
Brand protection - bidding on your own brand terms - is (in my 7 years experience doing this) always incredibly cheap, 1 or 2 pence per click.
Temporarily intrigued, don't go too far out of your way for my curiosity.
Ad Rank[0] - this is the algorithm that determines essentially how much you pay like I mentioned. It's far more complex than my simplified explanation as it also takes into account context around the user. The device they're on, their previous searches etc. So a user who is on their 5th search for shoes and is now searching from their desktop may be more interested in a product page than an article since google may assume they're ready to buy now and they always buy from their desktop etc.
Ad Rank thresholds[1] - This is the friendly term for the reserve price I mentioned. It's the reserve price for a keyword based on all your inputs. Can go up and down depending on how relevant google thinks your stuff is at that moment for the user but generally google will set a floor for it.
Just more info[2] - more info from Google about how this stuff is worked out and what it means in practice.
If you google around "ad rank effect on cpc" you'll get more relevant stuff if you're interested.
[0] https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/1752122?hl=en-G... [1] https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/7634668 [2] https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/1722122
When you think about what google is trying to do with ads it does make sense. If they let anyone serve rubbish for any search, people will stop clicking ads and advertisers will stop using it. Google loses out.
It's in the users (arguably, depending on how you view ads), the advertisers and Google's best interest to incentivise advertisers to make their stuff relevant and good.
This is something you have to pay only if someone else is bidding on your own brand. Otherwise you’re already the first result and you don’t need any ad. This occurs only if you’re already a big player, and so $0.02 is nothing for you compared to what your competitors are spending. There’s nothing mafia-like here, it would be exactly the same (but much more expensive) in the physical world.
> This occurs only if you’re already a big
I see this for a tiny local food truck and accidentally click their ad instead of first result many times when ordering lunch, when I'm trying to not cost them by going through Google's "protection."
Yes, and that’s peanuts compared to the money they make from these clicks.
> I see this for a tiny local food truck and accidentally click their ad instead of first result many times when ordering lunch, when I'm trying to not cost them by going through Google's "protection."
I don’t see what’s wrong in having to pay to get back the first place when someone else is already giving money to overcome you.
I can never imagine e.g. my mum turning the bookmark bar off, but I can certainly imagine her just totally ignoring it/not knowing what it is.
Like not letting you add tags? not tagging definitely makes you use google search more.
> Things I'd add to browser bookmark managers someday:
> - Support for (persisting) bookmarks tags. From the post re: the re-launch of del.icio.us: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23985623
>> "Allow reading and writing bookmark tags" https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1225916
>> Notes re: how [browser bookmarks with URI|str* tags] could be standardized with JSON-LD: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1225916#c116 *
***
WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment "Integration with W3C Web Annotations" https://github.com/WICG/scroll-to-text-fragment/issues/4
***
W3C Web Share API & W3C Web Target API https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30449716