Google in 1998
google.com
google.com
It gives the user a very good, immediate overview of the results without bad, distracting UI noise all over the place. Sometimes less is definitely more.
Not that it bothers me much though, I've long switch to duckduckgo. They are actually innovating at this search-engine game, much unlike Google.
Depends on the goal. Right now Google wants users to click on ads so if they make everything confusing, ads seems refreshingly simple. Also a link to a non-Google site means less chances on clicking on Google ads so they stuff search with Youtube crap, Local, Images...and they stretch the ads vertically to take virtually all the screen on top resolutions etc. A lot of times Google results for expensive keywords are totally out of whack, but ads are perfect.
Google is ripe for disruption and couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks. If they lose the Mozilla and iOS traffic it's a nice start. If we had a government, they wouldn't allow Google with all that market share to buy more.
That which i have mentioned doesn't even touch the search algorithm itself, which I probably don't even have to say anything about because it's common knowledge how far ahead google is in that aspect too, not to mention all the search related settings you can configure if you have a google account, which also are quite massive.
Competition is good, but at this point there is no competition yet.
[1] - http://www.google.com/help/features.html [2] - http://i.imgur.com/rN0Vge0.png
Oh but I am. It's nice that you are attempting back your point with concrete examples, but none of those examples impress me. Those features are implemented in a way which I dislike.
And that's the thing here: Google has stopped innovating, at least as far as features I appreciate is concerned. Yes, that is subjective, but so are most of your points as well.
Personally I much prefer DDG's response[1] to your one search query. I think the focus-nessed of that response is much more impressive and innovative than Google's attempt.
Does Google even have a "Official site" feature yet? That's one of the few things which I use every day with DDG. It's one thing less I have to worry about when looking for things which are new to me.
I agree. But, as always, we're not the customer, we're the product. Google continues to innovate on things that make money. Why would you expect a profit-seeking company to do otherwise?
It is a source of great sadness to me that Google's algorithm, and the misuse of it be SEO scumbags, has fucked the web as a fun place to get information.
Even if we remove the scumbags we see a degraded web experience. Here's one example.
Play Dough recipe:
---- You need:
2 cups plain flour (all purpose) 2 tablespoons vegetable oil 1/2 cup salt 2 tablespoons cream of tartar 1.5 cups boiling water (adding more in increments if needed) food colouring (optional) few drops glycerine (optional- adds more shine!)
Method:
Mix the flour, salt, cream of tartar and oil in a large mixing bowl Add the boiling water Stir continuously until it becomes a sticky, combined dough Add the food colouring and glycerine (both optional) Allow it to cool down then take it out of the bowl and knead it vigorously for a couple of minutes until all of the stickiness has gone. * This is the most important part of the process, so keep at it until it’s the perfect consistency!* (If it remains a little sticky then add a touch more flour until just right) ----
With images this is, at most, a couple of hundred kB. But the page I get this from is over 2 MB.
(http://theimaginationtree.com/2012/04/best-ever-no-cook-play...)
It's a suboptimal experience. It's not even the ads that I dislike, I'm pretty tolerant of them. it's all the other junk and cruft. A 1998 WWW site would have had a recipe, and then had reasons for including the different ingredients, and an explanation of what happens if you don't have them. (and maybe it would have been collaboratively written by a Usenet newsgroup for their faq.)
Of course now that I've said that, it'll probably be gone soon...
First, professional courtesy. Search was a very small world in 1998 (that is, in terms of people working in the field). There was an academic quality to the industry, with a lot of freshly minted college kids, teachers and universities involved.
Second, a stamp of confidence in their technology. That is: if we're not doing a good enough job, we deserve to lose, and here's our competition.
Third, money. Companies often paid to be listed at the bottom of search engines. In 1998 Google was still highly reliant on partners that used their search technology (they were battling eg Inktomi in this respect).
I have used Google since the beginning. I was amused, when I updated my personal website at the beginning of this year, to discover that most of the pages on my site still had a paragraph specifically recommending Google, as if most people had never heard of it. That's how enthusiastic I was about Google when I first discovered it. (I discovered Google when it was still Backrub, but examining which search engine spiders visited my site.)
https://www.google.com/ncr#q=google+in+1998&safe=off
The ncr part is "no client redirect", this should keep you on google.com instead of redirecting you to a localized version.
Besides, it ruins much of my browser behavior, shortcuts for example don't work at all, such as backspace. A barebones page would have been a better fit in the target environment (the web).
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?complete=0&hl=en&pws=0&safe=o...
to disable autocomplete, personalised search results and safe filter.
I cried a bit when they made the cached link a 2 click process.
Altavista.com: Redirects to yahoo.
Excite: still up
HotBot (boy there's one I haven't heard of in years): still up
InfoSeek: redirects to go.com, which appears to now host the site of Disney's holding company.
Deja.com (which I think I remember): redirects to google groups
Yahoo: still up
Amazon: still up
dmoz.org: still up
egroups: redirects to yahoo groups
2013: "About 709,000,000 results (0.38 seconds) "
My how we've grown!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNames
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2067393/RealNames-To-Cl...
Try this instead: http://web.archive.org/web/19980505193939/http://www.altavis...
GoogleScout wasn't around until 1999: http://googlepress.blogspot.com.au/1999/09/googles-new-googl...
Also, I think 'Cached' used to be called 'View old version', having done some research.
http://web.archive.org/web/19981111183552/http://google.stan...
....oh.
What's really interesting is that the link to Amazon in 1998 looks basically like Amazon today. There's one site that hasn't really changed at all in 15 years; instead of switching fonts around, they built fulfillment warehouses instead. Interesting when you look back into the past.
[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/19970418094812/http://www.eule.de...
You know, despite it being around almost forever (I think they tried removing it once, right?), I've never really used "I'm feeling lucky". I just never feel that way when I'm using Google, I guess.