Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Instant Announced

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the thats-faster-than-before-then-right dept.

Google 408

GCPSoft writes with this quote from a Google announcement: "Google Instant is a new search enhancement that shows results as you type. We are pushing the limits of our technology and infrastructure to help you get better search results, faster. Our key technical insight was that people type slowly, but read quickly, typically taking 300 milliseconds between keystrokes, but only 30 milliseconds (a tenth of the time!) to glance at another part of the page. This means that you can scan a results page while you type."

cancel ×

408 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know what would make it instant? (5, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510882)

Getting rid of that annoying fade-in effect.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (1)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510934)

Yes. That horrible fade-in, and all the other recent horrible 'enhancements' should be removed.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510940)

They did that.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (5, Interesting)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511022)

Just tried it out and holy jeebus is it fast. My only qualm however is that, when I know what I'm looking for, it's a little distracting watching all of the results flash by as I type. Almost seizure inducing. It's very cool, but it would be nice if I could control the refresh rate with finer granularity.
On another note, a quick refresh rate can pull up some non-professional images if one isn't careful. For instance in typing latent dirichlet, 'la' pulled up a partially clothed/nude image of lady gaga.This might have been a bit awkward if safe-search wasn't on.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (2, Interesting)

orangesquid (79734) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511182)

Is it just me, or was google instant available before the /. story about the google light-up-letters story even posted? :confused look:
Yes, it is surprisingly fast, and it is great for relieving boredom. For example, I started typing llll, lllll, llllll, lllllll, etc., to see how long a string of l's I could make before it said "Press enter to search" and stopped giving me results. It seems like I needed a string of about 30 L's. It looks like the cut-off is about 5,000 hits.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511372)

Is it just me, or was google instant available before the /. story about the google light-up-letters story even posted?

Google rolls features out early to random people for testing.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (4, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511408)

On another note, a quick refresh rate can pull up some non-professional images if one isn't careful. For instance in typing latent dirichlet, 'la' pulled up a partially clothed/nude image of lady gaga.This might have been a bit awkward if safe-search wasn't on.

Searching for vagrants or penal colonies is definitely not recommended at work.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511136)

if you don't move your mouse and just have focus there in the window, it never fades in. or something like that. there's a trick.

you shouldn't *need* any tricks; but this is the modern google. they 'went commercial' and so its not the same as the old google.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (4, Funny)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511232)

Man is Slashdot the largest collection of conservative whiny techies in the world or is it just me? Perhaps if that fade-in is so resource intensive you may want to change from your C=64 with coupled modem to something a bit more recent? I know I know, all that extra memory and CPU speed just encourages "sloppy programming" but trust me it's worth it.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (3, Insightful)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511396)

Nobody cares about the resource usage. It is annoying to have to wait an extra second, or however long, before you can do what you're trying to do. Yes, one second is an incredibly negligible amount of time, but the fade provides literally zero benefit, for some people. Negligible amount of nuisance + zero benefit = net negative utility = bad idea.

Re:You know what would make it instant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511316)

If you use Firefox, add the following to your usercontent.css file:

    #fctr,#ghead,#pmocntr,#sbl,#tba,#tbe,.fade {
        opacity:1 !important;
    }

It works for Google (4, Funny)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510922)

Let's just pray Slashdot never instates a "post as you type" feature.

Re:It works for Google (4, Insightful)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510984)

If they did, at least all the "Candlejack will get y...... [no carrier]" or "I torrent all the time and the CIA has never knocked down my doo... [end of line]" posts would make *some* semse.

Re:It works for Google (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511366)

Maybe they were dictating...

Re:It works for Google (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511434)

Unfortunately it wouldn't help anyone fix their spelling mistakes.

Re:It works for Google (2, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510994)

Let's just pray Slashdot never instates a "post as you type" feature.

Have you ever used talk (old command line program)? Could you imagine if the comments section was some kind of massive talk system. I wouldn't be surprised if someone is reading this thread right now who will go off and try to make it happen. I guess Wave was kinda like that.

Re:It works for Google (2, Funny)

samkass (174571) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511002)

Let's just pray Slashdot never instates a "post as you type" feature.

Wasn't that Google Wave? And haven't they added that feature to Google Docs?

Is this really that different? (-1, Troll)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510928)

And btw.. Google, are you trying to make us forget that you and Verizon have been plotting to destroy net neutrality?

Go Away Idiot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510964)

My god are there still retards still trying to spread that lie?

Get a fucking life idiot.

Just like Yahoo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510950)

Ohh. This is just like 2005 when Yahoo created the same thing in search.yahoo.com

Pity no one knows about it.

Re:Just like Yahoo (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511080)

What in gods name are you blathering about? Yahoo search does not and has never done this. Are you confusing instant search with search suggestions? If so, you're a fucking moron.

Re:Just like Yahoo (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511444)

You posted Anonymously... so you obviously do know that calling him a fucking moron was probably a bit harsh.... no?

Wasteful requests. (3, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510958)

Our key technical insight was that people type slowly, but read quickly, typically taking 300 milliseconds between keystrokes

I think what they meant to say there is that there was a group at Google that had nothing better to do than make this happen.

All that instant searching thing can be helpful at times, but it can also be wasteful of bandwidth, CPU resources, etc. The only place were I've found it essential is on youtube search on my bluray player where I don't have a keyboard to type letters, it can savea A LOT of time. Of course, I normally type 80 words a minute.

Re:Wasteful requests. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511038)

Yea, me too. I type well over 100 wpm (about 100ms a character) and the whole refresh of the page (and the refocus it requires) takes longer than typing and hitting enter.

How do I opt out?

Re:Wasteful requests. (3, Informative)

falsified (638041) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511146)

Seriously? It's one of the first questions answered in the FAQ.

Re:Wasteful requests. (0)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511204)

Our key technical insight was that people type slowly, but read quickly, typically taking 300 milliseconds between keystrokes

Of course, there's a downside to this. I can spot a typo or grammatical solecism at 40 paces, and this can actually be painful. There are times when I wish I could join the preliterate hordes infesting Slashdot and ...

What. ?
Profit?
I wish...

Re:Wasteful requests. (2, Insightful)

nazsco (695026) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511330)

yeah, it took 2.5sec to unfreeze the page while it was loading on my crappy firefox.

anyone here still uses the google front page to search?

i mean, browser has a keyboard accesible, always-there, box for search.

So when did this happen? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510960)

What is this, the unofficial Google PR site?

Fuck guys, there is *life* beyond Google you know...

Re:So when did this happen? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511074)

What is this, the unofficial Google PR site?

Only when it's not an official Apple fanboi site

Re:So when did this happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511328)

So true friend. And whomever marked me as a Troll, take a hard look at the last 100 listings and see just how many of them are about Google. Faggot!

Yeah it's crap. (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510970)

This "constant updating of results as you type" makes my Hotel dialup connection run even MORE slowly than it did before.

Even on high-speed DSL, it slows things down. Why can't these web developers get into their heads that not everyone has a 1 megabit pipe? (Or if it is available, don't want to spend ~$60/month to get it.) I remember one of the things taught developed in the 90s and early 2000s was to "optimize" their pages to use as few kilobytes as possible - like squeezing GIFs down from 50 to 10KB. Apparently that paradigm got thrown out the window.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511032)

P.S.

I also hate their new Image search page which, instead of just displaying image, runs some CPU intensive script that expands/shrinks images as you pass over them. What used to be a fast, pleasant browse is now like walking through molasses. It's so annoying that I'm trying to figure out how to turn if off and go back to the "old" plain images without any kind of Java enhancement.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511108)

Then turn it off in your preferences like they clearly state on their information page or diable javascript for their site. God you're a miserable prick.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (-1, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511160)

>>>Then turn it off in your preferences like they clearly state on their information page or diable javascript for their site. God you're a miserable prick.

Repeat that while logged in, so I can damage your karma the same way you damaged mine. Anonymous Coward. Oh. And there's no way to turn-off the annoying "popup" images that Google now uses during Image searches. It doesn't exist in the preferences.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511322)

Oh and another thing. I've been out of work for almost two years now (minus an all-too-brief 3 month contract as a temp engineer). I think I have a right to be miserable Mr. AC.

The world IS miserable in case you haven't noticed. Like those idiots who are saying, "If the Ground Zero Mosque is built, let's bomb it." I will not silence my opinion about that, or Google, or anything else just because you don't like it. So frak off Anonymous Coward.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511334)

Wasn't my mod, but thanks for proving my second point.

Please Take Note (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511086)

You don't win anything by proving what a fucking idiot you are to everyone.

In the future just keep your dimwitted mouth shut.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (2, Interesting)

tekrat (242117) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511100)

Oh yeah, amen brother. You know how many web pages now have images that are linked 1MB BMP files that could have been optimized down to 30k JPGs? Oh my god, and how many people now design sites assuming you've got a 1240 by 1024 monitor?

I still surf using a Pentium 3 and a CRT that doesn't support any more than 1024x768. Slowly but surely, I am being locked out of the web. I think it's high time to fire up the NeXT station, load up Omniweb and see what little still works.

What annoys me most is that the same kids making these enormous web errors tend to look at the internet mostly through their iPhones, and yet, they never "get" that there's a discrepancy. The current crop of 17yr olds is the stupidest generation since cavemen.

Oh yeah, and for the record... "Get off my lawn"

Re:Yeah it's crap. (-1, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511238)

>>>some college kid

If you want to pay to upgrade me to a $50/month connection because webmasters like to stream megabytes of crap, instead of optimizing pages to fit in a few kilobytes... feel free to do so. What's that? You can't afford it? Well guess what. Neither can I.

It is unacceptable for webmasters to design sites that don't work properly on 1 megabit/s or less connections.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (0, Flamebait)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511420)

Then don't use the web. We don't care. Really.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (1)

TyFoN (12980) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511122)

They have an "off switch" if you don't want to use it ;)

Re:Yeah it's crap. (4, Insightful)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511248)

First, it uses a small fraction of the bandwidth of a low quality video. It's only sending small amounts of text. Second, it automatically shuts off on low bandwidth accounts. Third, if it seriously slows down your computer, you probably have malware (probably the result of being asinine, your complaints seem to agree with this possibility.) Fourth, bloatware only applies to useless features. Try using it more than (oh... how long has this been out... two hours?) before blathering. Fifth, YOUR FACE. Sixth, YOUR MOM.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511400)

>>>Second, it automatically shuts off on low bandwidth accounts.

Interesting. It didn't shut off on my DSL - I guess that's not considered low bandwidth? Neither did it shutoff on Dialup, probably because I have web accelerator (compression) turned on, and Netscape ISP's caching appears to be high bandwidth.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (1)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511526)

8 "kilobits" per second is still "1,000 bytes/characters per second." Even if 100 characters are dedicated to IP/Port information or something of the sorts, that's leaving 900 unique characters for results information. I highly doubt DSL is being slowed down by this sort of connection, which means you're probably just full of bologna.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (2)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511254)

So ... turn it off? If there was no way to turn it off, you'd have a pretty good point... but Google seems to do ok with the allow-people-to-turn-it-off stuff...

For people who DO have a a relatively good connection, it's nice.

Re:Yeah it's crap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511390)

Yes. I blame .NET and a lot of the other XML-based technologies, along with heavy JavaScript usage. I happen to work at a place where bandwidth between locations is small and we've had to take drastic steps to make the .NET applications and general web browsing appear to be faster. Even when it means allowing it to step on critical processes' bandwidth.

Anon because despite some of the issues, I like my job.

No IE6 support (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510976)

Google has locked out thousands of businesses that have never upgraded browsers. Of course, that's the new trend. Weather.com doesn't work with IE6 either. Pretty soon Slashdot will not support ^^&#$%&... NO CARRIER

Re:No IE6 support (3, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511162)

Google has locked out thousands of businesses that have never upgraded browsers.

I tend to see it has thousands of businesses denying themselves access to services because they aren't willing to upgrade. It's not Google's fault that businesses refuse to upgrade. They're going to be left behind, end of story. I stopped testing on IE6 a long time ago. People need to move on and upgrade if they expect to use all of the features of the internet, that's just a simple fact. You can't expect all of the newest technologies like CSS3 and canvas to work in IE6, it's just not going to happen, ever.

Re:No IE6 support (1)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511164)

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Re:No IE6 support (2, Informative)

Gruturo (141223) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511168)

Dropping IE6 is a good thing. It's hideous and not just aesthetically, but also from a security and standard support/compliance standpoint. I'm not advocating alienating all Internet Explorer users altogether (even though I quite dislike it), but dropping IE6 specifically is a *good* thing to do. Yeah some companies still force it on their users, shame on them (the companies).

Re:No IE6 support (1)

schon (31600) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511442)

Google has locked out thousands of businesses that have never upgraded browsers.

Bullshit.

I Just tried a search on Google, and it worked just fine. The "instant search" feature wasn't available, but it was in no way "locked out."

If IE6 was "locked out" of Google Search, then it wouldn't return any results at all. Not porting a new feature to an obsolete program is not "locked out".

It's live now, and (4, Interesting)

ultraexactzz (546422) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510978)

...it scared the hell out of our secretary about 10 minutes ago. "How does it know?!?" she said. I guess it found her city with just "city" in the box - pretty impressive, I thought.

Re:It's live now, and (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511292)

Doesn't do that for me. My Android phone can find my location easily, though.

Re:It's live now, and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511336)

Except, they've been doing that for a while now. They can easily identify your city (or a close approximation) by your IP address. Ever notice if you search for "restaurant" it will show you restaurants in your area? The new part is that it can show it to you before you finish. Most people aren't going to search for "city" by itself (maybe "city of Los Angeles") so it seems new, but really it isn't.

Re:It's live now, and (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511452)

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hears of men? The Google knows!"

Re:It's live now, and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511476)

Does the same thing for "rental cars in", "homes in", "lawyers in", and "restaurants". Borderline creepy.

I'd rather wait a few seconds for better results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33510982)

I'd rather they would try to get each of the results pages before displaying them. Nothing more frustrating than doing a search, seeing a result that looks like exactly what I'm looking for, clicking it and getting a 404. I'd rather wait 1-2 seconds every time I search than waste 10-20 seconds on dead results.

It's Easy! ...to disable! (4, Informative)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33510988)

Just go to the Google homepage, wait five years for the fade in, click "Settings" -> "Search Settings"

Find the setting for "Google Instant" (hint, bottom of preferences list), select "Do not use Google Instant" and press Save.

Now if there was some easy way to disable the horrible, over-scripted image result page layout I'd be a happy camper!

Re:It's Easy! ...to disable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511058)

Just go to the Google homepage, wait five years for the fade in, click "Settings" -> "Search Settings"

The fade in happens the moment you move your mouse. If you're waiting five years for it to happen, it's because you haven't made any mouse movements in five years.

Re:It's Easy! ...to disable! (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511154)

What the hell is a "mouse"?

Seriously though, the workstation/connection I have here at work I could move the mouse on Friday and the screen will update by Tuesday. To which I ask, what's the bloody point of it?

Re:It's Easy! ...to disable! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511114)

What if I don't have a google account? How does this work?

Not if you clear your cookies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511144)

No, it is default ON

Re:Not if you clear your cookies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511188)

Wait, you mean if you don't save cookies, websites won't remember your settings?! Stop the presses!

Re:It's Easy! ...to disable! (4, Informative)

TyFoN (12980) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511166)

Somehow you missed the "Instant is on" drop down right next to the text entry field (to the right).

Re:It's Easy! ...to disable! (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511216)

Yup, though to be fair I am legally blind.

Re:It's Easy! ...to disable! (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511496)

The only thing to the right of the text entry box on http://www.google.com/ [google.com] is "Advanced Search" and "Language Tools". You have to move the mouse and wait for the fade-in to see them. Firefox 4.0b5 on Snow Leopard.

Re:It's Easy! ...to disable! (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511200)

Deactivate JavaScript for google?

Re:It's Easy! ...to disable! (1)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511470)

Surely I'm doing something wrong. I didn't see the "balls" everyone said was there. I didn't see the automatic search everyone said was there. And my Google Preferences has no mention of the term "Google Instant" or anything similar.

If it helps, I use the regular http://www.google.com/ [google.com] address and I sign in to my account automatically. Tested with Firefox 4.0b4 and 4.0b5 on Snow Leopard.

Useful, for slow typists. (3, Interesting)

lainproliant (1412961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511000)

This is definitely useful for those who type slow, but its sort of startling for those of us who type faster. Thankfully it can be disabled: http://www.google.com/preferences?hl=en [google.com]

Re:Useful, for slow typists. (1)

lainproliant (1412961) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511056)

Well, it was there... hmm.

Re:Useful, for slow typists. (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511492)

If you type fast, and make that a plus point, why are you wasting time going all the way to the main Google page to do a search?

Censored (5, Funny)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511016)

The instant search thing seems to be censored. I type Por and wait and it doesn't suggest porn at all. I type Porn and wait for some suggestions and it doesn't do anything at all. Whats the point when the thing is filtered?

Re:Censored (2, Interesting)

lazorz (1544583) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511242)

Nice catch - just tested it.
Keep typing a normal query string - it will keep updating the page as you go, but then add "porn" at the end and all the results suddenly vanish! Even with safe-search Off! :P

Also, max string length = 100 chars, over 100 chars you need to press "Search", same as with "porn"

Re:Censored (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511260)

That's probably because they didn't want to be sued by some irate parent when little johnny was searching for hints for the game portal but as he typed "por" he was suggested porn.

Re:Censored (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511286)

Welcome to Google server 17. It's safer here.

Re:Censored (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511422)

The suggestions must be ranked by popularity. After all, nobody looks for porn on the internet, right?

Re:Censored (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511436)

Because I'm at work.
turn off safe search in your prefs and see what happens.

On an aside:
We have a paranoid-strict content filter at work...
I turned off safe search and I think I just lit up IS's indicator panel like a Christmas tree :-)

That was fun. Tons of little "this item was blocked" pictures as images tried to come up...

You can turn it off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511060)

I have it now, and don't really like it. You can turn it off if you're logged into Google, and go to your search settings / preferences. Near the bottom is a setting for Google Instant. You can turn it off. I did.

Isn't this search.yahoo.com? (1)

Grubbsie (264805) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511090)

Looks awfully similar to me.

I prefer Google fresh brewed. (2, Interesting)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511138)

Instant always has that - erm - processed taste.

Okay, what's different with this than having search results show up in the google bar on Firefox, IE or in my Android google widget?

So stupid on so may ways (2, Insightful)

devent (1627873) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511152)

First, what's the point to search on "L" "Li" "Lin" "Linu" "Linux" "Linux " "Linux U" "Linux US" "Linux USB"? Second, the whole page is moving and now I can't concentrate on a good search string. What do people with slow internet connections do? What do people with connections paid by traffic do, now they have to pay 10-100 times the traffic for no purpose or advantage.

Now I have to deactivate JS on google, thank you very much.

Re:So stupid on so may ways (1)

Araghorn (551797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511270)

or you can just disable instant search, right next to the search bar

Re:So stupid on so may ways (3, Insightful)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511302)

You didn't even read the announcement. It doesn't do a search for "L" "Li" ...etc, it predicts what you're going to type and gives you results for that. For example, try typing "weather" and you'll see weather results before you're done typing. Follow up with "weather for "... and a nearby city, you'll see results for that city. Also, it's sending small amounts of text. Video eats up hundreds of times more bandwidth.

Re:So stupid on so may ways (1)

MrWeelson (948337) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511386)

See earlier replies, when you first search with the new grooviness, on the results page next to the search box you will see 'Instant is on'...?
Click it, choose 'Off', job done, no drama.

Normal Google again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511504)

Getting back Normal Google again by setting Browser's HTTP_USER_AGENT to 'Opera' or similar.
Though Google have disabled the 1+1 math ability.

Goats... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511220)

Heh, just tried typing "Goatse", and it would happily show results up until the last letter: A complete blank screen.
Aww.

Does not work that way. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511226)

Our key technical insight was that people type slowly, but read quickly, typically taking 300 milliseconds between keystrokes, but only 30 milliseconds (a tenth of the time!) to glance at another part of the page. This means that you can scan a results page while you type."

By giving me partial results while I'm typing, you distract me, slow down my typing even more, and delay the good results I'll get from a complete query.

Google.com ? (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511280)

I hope I'm not the only geek that never goes there. Why waste the clicks? Just go to the search engine window in the browser. Double good when you can select where you want to search such as Wikipedia, Youtube, Dictionary, or the hundreds of others.

I always visit Google.com when new things like this come up or they have fancy Google pics, but I don't see the reason to go there.

It's way too distracting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511288)

What do we want to find when using a search engine? Specific information. What happens when we want to find a Dallas dentist and we see tons of crap for Dallas city hall or the Cowboys? It's useless. It's great as an option but don't turn it on by default. Cut the crap Google.

Have the eyebleach handy (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511300)

For when you're searching for "big black couch" to refurnish your rec room.

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511318)

Sure, it's got a few kinks.. but this is already useful for me. When it's ironed out, I expect the complainers will prefer something like this too.

Q Slashdotters with "technical" objections. (0, Troll)

BlueKitties (1541613) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511360)

I can hear the rumbling already. BEES, THOUSANDS OF THEM. And by bees, I mean people with supposedly technical objections trying to sound smart. Oh Slashdot, the one place where hordes of wannabees (BEES!!!!) try to sound smart.

Ad revenue driver? (2, Insightful)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511370)

Is this supposed to drive up ad revenue? Do they get the same kickback for a 300ms view as a 3.0s view?

Re:Ad revenue driver? (4, Interesting)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511500)

Talking about ad revenue, where do those suggestions come from? I typed "s" and the first three suggestions I got: skype, staples, sears. "e" - ebay, espn, expedia. "m" - myspace, mapquest, msn. Randomly tried typing two letters: "be" - best buy, bed bath and beyond, bevmo. etc.

Wouldn't some common word or a name of a pop star or whatever be the most likely thing people will search for rather than almost exclusively company names? Weird.

Doesn't work on Opera. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511380)

Wich is great! I don't even remember the last time some "feature" wasn't "supported" on this browser that saved me the hassle of turning it off.

Thank you google.

Easy Fix For This (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511388)

The fix is www.altavista.net. Seriously though, it's a very good exercise to live online for an entire day without Google. Try it. That includes making sure that your browser makes no outbound connections to google or e100 while you are surfing other sites. Good luck.

Where's the Opera support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33511456)

I have to wonder why Opera is not on the supported browser list. I can't imagine it's a technical issue because Opera is well known for having the most compliant browser out there (well, at least during a time where other browsers were scoring poorly on the Acid test while Opera was at 100%).

It really makes me think that there's a conspiracy out there to ensure Opera never becomes popular. Stuff like this happens a lot with browser related news too. Opera is always thrown in the mix but it's done in such a way that it makes Opera seem like it's at a disadvantage or not worth checking out despite Opera usually being the pioneer for features that later become available in other browsers.

"That's 11 hours saved every second." (1)

DieByWire (744043) | more than 3 years ago | (#33511490)

So... 110 hours of using Google Instant should get me 500 years into the future. Then maybe, just maybe, I'll know if the Cubs win a World Series.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>