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 Preps Instant Search For Chrome 8

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the integration-proclamation dept.

Google 128

An anonymous reader writes "Google is apparently playing with a nifty integration of instant search inside of its Chrome browser. Typing in the URL bar will automatically bring up a search page, while URLs apparently can be completed much faster as well. It seems as if Google isn't running out of ideas for its browser anytime soon."

cancel ×

128 comments

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

I hope there's a way to turn this off (2, Insightful)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654092)

I would be worried, as I use Chrome at work, about searching for "po"..."st office". I mean, that term among many others.

There's always increased traffic usage, though I doubt that affects work much. I wonder also if they'll push this on the page where you have to choose a search engine (when you install it). "If you use google, you get this feature too."

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (3, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654172)

Tell me about it! I was searching for articles on milk and milk's affect in the mouth, lips, blowing bubbles, hair and saliva glands anyway, I mistyped and put in milf and BAM! these site with these naked women having sex and other things that I just can't say! How could this happen!?!

I mean really, no one actually goes out and searches for pornography! Google just puts it there when you accidentally mistype something.

You gotta be carful!

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (2, Informative)

froggymana (1896008) | more than 2 years ago | (#33656502)

I don't think that having it display something NSFW should really be an issue. When someone first mentioned something about this I was curious (good thing I'm not a cat) about what would happen if you do type something like "milf" or "porn" into google instant search. As it turns out google doesn't display any results for things of that nature and just says "press enter to search" which is no different than the "old" google.

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (1)

DikSeaCup (767041) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654236)

Me, I just had visions of a lot of people ending up at whitehouse.com, instead of where they wanted to go ...

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (1)

Eternal Vigilance (573501) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654492)

So you're saying there's an unexpected upside.

"And now here's a site Google thinks you'll really like."

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654672)

Me, I just had visions of a lot of people ending up at whitehouse.com, instead of where they wanted to go ...

Either way you're going to talk to a Democrat.

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654344)

Likely the same place you turn off the suggestion service in the current Chrome: Options->Under the Hood.

Amazes me that people cry about Google knowing what URLs you type in because of this and are too ignorant to turn it off. Sure, it'd be good if it were off by default, but I'm quite happy as long as there is an *option*.

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (2, Informative)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654390)

It seems likely that it will have some form of safe-search.

But then again, if they just made it so you can't turn it off, it would happen to everyone, so nobody would be getting embarrassed by it happening.

This would have the side benefit of giving you the "Google MADE me do it" excuse if you were ever caught browsing things you shouldn't have been at work. Just make sure they don't see you have 5 other tabs with equally suspicious titles.

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (5, Informative)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655444)

Google has already said that instant search will not search for 'adult themed material' even if safe search is off. Go ahead try typing in some of the most common porn searches. Anal, teen, hardcore, none of it will return results in instant search. And yes, I'm sure you will be able to turn off google instant just like you can now. http://www.google.com/instant/ [google.com]

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654472)

You turn it off by using firefox search bar.
In terms of usability, of a single text field and submit button, it's down hill from now on.

Re:I hope there's a way to turn this off (1)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654696)

or god forbid an Anal-yzer, power.

Awesome Bar? (2, Insightful)

morari (1080535) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654102)

So it's going to be like the annoying Awesome Bar that was implemented in Firefox?

Re:Awesome Bar? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654136)

People are still whining about that?

Re:Awesome Bar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654712)

So it's going to be like the annoying Awesome Bar that was implemented in Firefox?

I didn't read anything in the article about the browser coming to a grinding halt as soon as you start typing in it. So, nope.

Re:Awesome Bar? (2, Informative)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655208)

But Chrome's bar is still annoying in its own way. For example, I type "sla" and the first suggestion is slashdot.org, but then I hit "s" and suddenly the first hit is "google search for slas", and it takes it a good second to remember about slashdot again. And that's after disabling google suggestions; the default was even worse. It seems to do a really crappy job at indexing my browsing history, and gives priority to its useless searches instead.

Re:Awesome Bar? (2, Interesting)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655488)

I've got a cheat for you: Use the search engine list to make shortcuts! I created a Slashdot entry with the URL being slashdot.org. then I gave it the keyword "sd". Now I just hit sd and enter and Slashdot is pulled up immediately! You could use single letters if you prefer, but I have multiple shortcuts (GoogleMail, HotMail, etc) so its easier to use two letters for me.

Re:Awesome Bar? (2, Informative)

Sean0michael (923458) | more than 2 years ago | (#33656300)

I created a Slashdot entry with the URL being slashdot.org. then I gave it the keyword "sd". Now I just hit sd and enter and Slashdot is pulled up immediately!

Or you could use a perhaps more appropriate keyword for slashdot:

/.

Just sayin'.

Re:Awesome Bar? (1)

Gamma747 (1438537) | more than 2 years ago | (#33656944)

If you keep your right hand on your mouse, then typing "sd" requires less hand movement. (Especially if your left hand defaults to the WASD keys whenever you use a keyboard.)

Re:Awesome Bar? (1)

AnonymouseUser (1701830) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657814)

That is Opera's default shortcut for Slashdot. Just sayin'. [slashdot.org]

Re:Awesome Bar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33656402)

You don't need to do anything nearly this complicated. Since slashdot.org is the most common 's' website i type in, typing 's' then pressing enter gets me here already.

Re:Awesome Bar? (1)

Joe Snipe (224958) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657510)

Mine comes up with sinkmyship.com, so that's out. But it is'nt really complicated at all; keyword shortcuts are easy to set up for the power they offer. If you are using an actual search engine you type in the keyword and the search terms. that's it. If I want to search slashdot, ebay, craigslist, or any other standard search engine easy and often then setting the keyword to something simple is the best way to go. Check it out for yourself, just right click on the address bar...

Re:Awesome Bar? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655768)

One of my favorite Opera easter-eggs is the built-in Slashdot shortcut. Just type /. in the address bar and it brings you right to the front page.

Re:Awesome Bar? (2, Informative)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655244)

No, Chrome has already done that stuff for a while now. This overlays a google search page over your web browser as you type.

Re:Awesome Bar? (0)

justleavealonemmmkay (1207142) | more than 2 years ago | (#33656574)

But the Awesome bar IS awesome. by remembering a few keytstrokes, you can reach any page previously visited. It really IS progress if you actually try to use it. Actually, now that Firefox 4 has effectively killed plugin backwards compatibility, the Awesome Bar is the only thing that keeps me from moving to Chrome.

Yep, keep giving me (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654140)

bad excuses to not use chome (I guess I will have to one day...)

So they want our complete URL history? (4, Interesting)

wal9001 (1041058) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654144)

Sounds like a not too subtle excuse to send every URL you type back to your targeted advertising file at Google. Were there a separate search box, I'd be less cynical, but one has to wonder if this was always their vision for what the browser bar should do.

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654466)

Chrome already remotely sends that info for Google DNS (I think), URL suggestions, and malware detection services when you type an address into the URL bar. But it's easy to turn those three services off. So will this one be.

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (3, Informative)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654660)

Actually, Chrome has been doing that for ages with the existing suggestions. I setup a Squid cache for my house and found letter-for-letter requests coming from computers using Chrome. Try it yourself if you're curious--or you can just turn off suggestions.

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655732)

I noticed this from looking at about:cache

What you will from just typing in about:cache

http://clients1.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&hl=en-US&q=about
http://clients1.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&hl=en-US&q=abou
http://clients1.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&hl=en-US&q=abo
http://clients1.google.com/complete/search?client=chrome&hl=en-US&q=ab

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655188)

The interesting thing about Google Instant is that it was really a vehicle for Google to permanently enable Search Suggestions.

Previously on their webpage search options, you could turn suggestions on or off.

Now that dialog has been replaced with Google Instant on/off. Turning it off leaves you with the old style suggestions enabled (no way to disable). That, in turn, allows them to track everything you type. Don't be evil indeed.

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (2, Interesting)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655664)

Holy smokes, you are right. Where is EPIC and the EFF in all of this? This is far more insidious than I realized. Right now the only solution that I know of is to shut off javascript for www.google.com or use a menubar search in a non-chrome browser (with suggestions off)

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655688)

how the fuck is this even an issue? you're sending them your search terms anyway.

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (1)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655804)

Yes AFTER I hit not every letter I type into the search field.

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655858)

So, you're complaining that they're getting "asian gir", but don't mind that you send them "asian girls"? Or is your complaint that they're finding out what a lousy typist you are?

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (1)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655828)

ERRRRR, AFTER I hit <Google Search>

(plain old text is just that plain old text)

Re:So they want our complete URL history? (2, Informative)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655704)

Or just disable javascript for google.com

Huh? (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654178)

Hasn't this already been done in Opera and other browsers? How is this innovative?

Re:Huh? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654584)

Because Google is doing it.

Re:Huh? (2, Informative)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655038)

Chrome already does search-from-bar and live suggestions. What this does is put live search *results* over the page you're currently looking at. It's a browser extension of how google's .com search page works now. While it isn't a revolutionary feature, as far as I know nobody else has implemented it.

Features (5, Interesting)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654184)

I love Chrome, and don't miss Firefox at all (and especially don't miss my system being brought to its knees by the constant memory leaks that seemingly can't be fixed), but I wish they would focus less on whiz-bang features, and focus more on filling in the gaps in the core features. Things like "Print Preview" and "Properties" when you right-click an image come to mind.

Re:Features (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654422)

I love Chrome, and don't miss Firefox at all (and especially don't miss my system being brought to its knees by the constant memory leaks that seemingly can't be fixed)

On some systems Chrome has a memory overrun problem when you start chrome (it wants to use all the ram and then proceeds to use all of the swap). At least Firefox's memory leak takes hours.

Re:Features (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654494)

Things like "Print Preview" and "Properties" when you right-click an image come to mind.

If you'd like to see those implemented, please star/comment on these bugs:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=173
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=9278

Re:Features (1)

Potor (658520) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654556)

I agree, especially re: properties.

Re:Features (-1, Flamebait)

calderra (1034658) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654596)

Batten the hatches, we're running negative karma! Bloat is creeping into all development, and it makes me mad. MS scarily enough seem to be the only developer fighting it (or, not getting exponentially worse at it, just creeping up in linear fashion). Most new Linux OSs are more bloated than Vista- even Slackware is falling in line just tossing together all the latest versions of stuff and coming across as a totally generic package in the process. The leanest, meanest, while still being full-featured and stable OS is... Windows 7. OpenOffice is so bloated that I just type stuff in WordPad or Notepad and format it at work. Firefox takes so long to scan just a handful of plugins that I don't load it at all unless I have to run a specific plugin, so I use Chrome. Now Chrome's going to start throwing in useless features because they're the hot new stuff, while basic features lag behind. Thanks, PC dev community, you're slowly convincing me that Microsoft and Closed Source are the way of the future.

Re:Features (2, Insightful)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655242)

Just use links and gvim and never look back. Hell throw away the whole window manager and just stick with vim instead. It's not like you need those extra UI elements taking up your precious CPU cycles, right?

Re:Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654846)

Well as AFAIK Google Cloud Print is still in development, it kind of makes sense that Google would neglect on Chrome printing support: it's going to be deprecated 'soon' anyway. Being able to print automatically to any Google-account-registered printers, on any device, from anywhere with Internet connectivity, and with no setup required at all... is going to be truly awesome.

But I can't seem to justify the missing "Properties" right-click action. I found this recently-released extension however: Image Properties Context Menu [google.com] .

Re:Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654986)

What is with the naming convention for Chrome? I mean have there been eight successive major releases of Chrome since we are already at Chrome 8? Why not just call it Chrome and leave the version off the name? Why is the Microsoft product naming style being followed? "My genitals are bigger than your genitals syndrome?"

Re:Features (1)

SmilingBoy (686281) | more than 2 years ago | (#33656126)

What is with the naming convention for Chrome? I mean have there been eight successive major releases of Chrome since we are already at Chrome 8? Why not just call it Chrome and leave the version off the name?

Which is exactly what Google are doing! Can you find a reference to the version number on www.google.com/chrome [google.com] ? Are there pop-ups informing you that the new version is available? See! By the way, the current stable version is 6. They announced a while ago that they will reduce the time between major releases to around 6 weeks. So expect the stable version of Chrome 8 in the beginning of December. In a nutshell: the Chrome version number is really mostly used internally.

Re:Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655114)

Or God Forbid a Bookmarks Sidebar ...yeah...I think that I'll be migrating back to Firefox...

Re:Features (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655128)

Considering how long Microsoft has given up on I.E., how stagnant Firefox is, and how much trouble Opera has been as of late, it's nice to see a developer that's actually pushing forward with browser development.

Chrome is all of 2 years old. Recent "bloat" includes plug-ins and a show all downloads page. Keeping their browser synchronized with how their home page handles searching doesn't seem like bloat to me at all.

I don't know. I want those whiz-bang features, if they're actually useful. I want a reason to care about new releases. When Opera released mousegestures, it basically changed the way I interacted with computers. This isn't something like that, but it seems like a handy update that will slightly speed up something that happens dozens of times a day.

Re:Features (1)

avandesande (143899) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655452)

Firefox has been rock solid and the memory leaks appear to be fixed for quite some time.

Re:Features (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655864)

100% agree that Chrome is pretty good. It's missing some things though... and they don't seem interested in fixing them.

How about encryption of stored credentials on Linux? (Don't say gnome-keyring or kwallet either, I don't use Gnome or KDE and have no wish to start.) Such a huge bias toward Windows with Chrome.

How about support for selective blocking of javascript crap similar to NoScript?

Re:Features (2, Insightful)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655986)

Or reasonable tab overflow handling.

Re:Features (1)

fartingfool (1208968) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657832)

I love Chrome, , but I wish they would focus less on whiz-bang features, and focus more on filling in the gaps in the core features. Things like "Print Preview" and "Properties" when you right-click an image come to mind.

http://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/#enable-print-preview [peter.sh]

There is already a work in progress with a Chrome 7 switch for "Print Preview". The Chromium team doesn't recommend enabling these, but I've used a couple of them and have found them to be really useful. You just have only yourself to blame if something crashes.

I feel these are definitely worth looking at if you have the skills to enable them.

Lol, anytime soon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654188)

Wow! More ads, delivered faster!

What a brave new world.

Correct Me... (1)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654228)

... If I'm wrong, but doesn't Chrome and most other browsers do this already. I've used it several time sin the past few minutes. I skimmed TFA but I didn't see anything new except that page turn button.

Privacy concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654244)

Anyone concerned about the privacy implications of Google receiving **every** URL typed on chrome?

Re:Privacy concerns (1)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654498)

Like firefox already does?

Re:Privacy concerns (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655556)

Firefox doesn't phone home the urls to a server; it just searches your local browser history.

Re:Privacy concerns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33657580)

Anyone concerned about the privacy implications of Google receiving **every** URL typed on chrome?

No, but if I was I would turn the feature off. Google is the least of my internet privacy worries. They are the only company involved with little to gain, and everything to lose, by leaking private data.

My ISP can log everything I do, and they are run by people who I am certain have no interest in protecting my privacy. The web sites I visit all have logs, and even if they respect my privacy I bet at least some of them do not have adequate security to avoid data theft.

Google will continue to make a staggering amount of money as long as people use their search engine (and see the ads that are on search results). Unlike my ISP and web sites I use, Google has no lock in: It wouldn't cost my anything to use Bing or Yahoo from now on if I felt like it. So they have a huge incentive to keep their word on scrubbing search logs of any data that can be tied to a person. They have the technical competence to keep their promise. Why would they risk their amazingly profitable business by breaking their privacy policy?

Slow down (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654274)

Chrome 8? I'm still on Chromium 5 apparently, and it's from this year!

Re:Slow down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654432)

If I remember correctly, Chrome 5 is stable, Chrome 6 is the Beta channel, and Chrome 7 is the developer channel. those of us on the developer channel will be seeing Chrome 8 pretty soon (I believe they're on a 6 week version cycle now).

Java (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655994)

At least Google isn't as bad as Sun.

One day I was on Java 1.4, and then next thing you know, POOF, I'm on Java 5!

Nifty is a relative term... (3, Interesting)

feidaykin (158035) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654290)

I suppose it is "nifty" for folks that actually like the instant search feature, but I've been happily avoiding it by doing my searches through the URL bar in Chrome. Guess they'll take that option away, too? Oh well, I'm not going to nerd-rage about it like some of the posts I've seen on Slashdot. It's just a minor annoyance to me but I'll likely still use Chrome to browse and Google to search. I really like Chrome, mainly because it's one of the few browsers that's lightning fast when I have lots of tabs with Flash heavy content open. That's probably only because of my aging hardware, and it's not like Firefox is really sluggish on my system, just noticeably slower.

Plus Chrome has other neat features, like when I type the URL of a site I have searched before, you can search that site again by pressing tab, so I don't need to have a bunch of different search boxes for different sites like I do in Firefox. Anyway, I guess I'll reserve my judgement until it's actually implemented, maybe they'll do it in a way that isn't too irksome or distracting.

Re:Nifty is a relative term... (1)

ZsoL (902409) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654832)

Karma whore! :D

Re:Nifty is a relative term... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655182)

You know, I actually thought it might look that way, but I've been at "Excellent" for years so I guess it doesn't really matter. I saw the article shortly after it was posted, had an immediate reaction and thought I would just spew it out to see what others think. While getting moderated up gives me a warm fuzzy feeling sometimes, it's not something I obsess over too much since the moderators are fickle and what is modded up today can be modded into the ground tomorrow. For example, I've had posts of mine go up to 5, then down to 1, then back up to 3 in one day. Actually, I have only been logging into slashdot again this year. I sort of lost interest a couple years back and only recently got back into it. It's funny how many new memes and things there are to learn. For example, I had no idea what "FTFY" meant, and it's not like I've been avoiding forums altogether, just this one. Guess it was time to come out of my bubble on the Web. ;)

Re:Nifty is a relative term... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654922)

why not just click the "turn off instant search" button....

Re:Nifty is a relative term... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655192)

because if you set cookies to be erased at close you find that Google keylog^h^h^h^h^h^hinstant is back on. I found shutting off javascript for google.com to be the best solution.

Works on passwords too! (3, Interesting)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654298)

Hey! Did you know if you type in your root password into the search bar, it can list your computer in the search results?

It works on Slashdot too... see, here's mine: ********

/ accidentally his password in the google search bar the other day
// it's different now

Re:Works on passwords too! (4, Funny)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654400)

You accidentally the whole password into the search bar?

Re:Works on passwords too! (1)

allo (1728082) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655096)

how is baggdoorrr formed?

Re:Works on passwords too! (2, Funny)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654756)

Hey! Did you know if you type in your root password into the search bar, it can list your computer in the search results?

That would explain why there are about 1,050,000 results for hunter2 on Google.

Not good ideas, tho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654370)

Instant search is great... for Google's advert mining operations. For me, it's an annoying distraction. If I have any clue about how search engines work (which I do), then the fact that I"M STILL TYPING means that there's more information necessary to find the thing I want. WOrd completion... maybe MAYBE is useful. But trying to jump the gun and anticipate the whole words that I might type? That's a seriously bad idea for all but the most novice users.

It's crap. I turned it off after giving it a fair shake, but it's a solution to Google's problem, not a user problem. If Google's gonna built it into Chrome as a basic feature, I guess I'm heading back to Firefox.

Re:Not good ideas, tho (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654994)

riddle me this, if theyre already doing search suggestions (and thus sending letter by letter updates to google), what additional benefit does it provide Google to actually run the query?

Re:Not good ideas, tho (3, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655632)

I find it useful for refining results.

[Dominant concept] [sub concept 1] [sub concept 2] [refining concept 1] [refining concept 2] [additional info 1] [additional info 2]

Start typing. If you don't see what you're looking for, keep typing. Add terms and refinements. Keep going. Running 4 separate searches to find what you're looking for is slow. Seeing how you need to change your query to shape your results in realtime can be helpful.

Re:Not good ideas, tho (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#33656380)

Start typing. If you don't see what you're looking for, keep typing. Add terms and refinements.

Sounds like a good idea, but you can't trust it.

I forget where I saw it, probably here on slashdot. Trying searching for the book the "wisdom of whores" - the instant search stuff won't complete at all - it is as if there are no hits. Do a "real" search for wisdom of whores [google.com] and you get a bunch of hits - the first is the author's blog and the second is the amazon page for the book.

Re:Not good ideas, tho (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#33656904)

Yes. They have an adult filter on certain keywords. Enter one of those keywords, and you have to actually hit the enter key. This is pretty clear while you're typing, though, as all entries disappear and "press enter to search" comes up. So it isn't any slower than the traditional way where you have to hit enter for each search.

Do note that you can find the book if you type in "Wisdom of Elizabeth Pisani" without hitting enter, as Elizabeth is the author. So it's more of a keyword search than a content block. That may seem like splitting hairs, but if you just remember certain bits of information, you don't have to hit enter to see potentially sensitive results. I.E. when there are results, you can trust them to be as exhaustive as they would be if you hit enter.

Re:Not good ideas, tho (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657634)

Yes. They have an adult filter on certain keywords. Enter one of those keywords, and you have to actually hit the enter key. This is pretty clear while you're typing, though, as all entries disappear and "press enter to search" comes up. So it isn't any slower than the traditional way where you have to hit enter for each search.

For me, the "press enter to search" fades in after a few seconds. If you start backspacing before then you might miss it. Plus, its not obvious what's going on - if it (immediately) said "press enter to search without adult filter" or "completion stopped by SafetySearch" or even provided a way to turn off the filter like they do in other parts of google with the &safe=off URL parameter or a cookie for those who "log in" then I'd be less critical.

Version 8 Already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654372)

Obviously it is just version numbers, but Chrome is releasing version 8 while IE is still working on 9? I love to see the amount of effort being put into updating Chrome. MS could take a page or two from Google's handbook and offer a faster paced roadmap to IE. Like fixing some of the lingering CSS bugs and adding HTML5 support.

Re:Version 8 Already? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655140)

Microsoft could take a page or two from Google's handbook and offer a faster paced roadmap to IE. Like fixing some of the lingering CSS bugs and adding HTML5 support.

We're working on it! Coming soon*

* soon is between 4 and 7 years.

Search bar as temporary area (2, Interesting)

sea4ever (1628181) | more than 2 years ago | (#33654526)

I often use the search bar at the top as a temporary writing area for transient things, like to craft an URL which I would then paste into something else, or to write out an equation that I happen to see (Sometimes I use the browser to review notes)
It wouldn't be very fun if the page I was looking at suddenly vanished to be replaced by a search page, just because I was trying to crystallize my thoughts for a second. Of course I really should be using a separate editor for transient notes but it seems so convenient this way..

Re:Search bar as temporary area (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654828)

I use the run box for this. Just press WinKey+R. Or, you know, Notepad.

Re:Search bar as temporary area (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655238)

I use the run box for this. Just press WinKey+R. Or, you know, Notepad.

I actually do a combination of your suggestions. I have Autohotkey installed and mapped WinKey+N to run Notepad++. Combined with the autosave plugin you can type whatever comes to mind without fear of losing it.

Re:Search bar as temporary area (1)

sea4ever (1628181) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657428)

Ah, but I use linux with a tiling window manager. (Which means that I am usually working on one thing at a time, full-screen)
This makes the notepad solution pretty much impossible. Since opening any editor at all will either go full-screen, or take up a large portion of the screen if I resize it.

Re:Search bar as temporary area (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655166)

I use Firefox, and use my "Google" search bar that's right beside my URL bar (This is not a toolbar, part of firefox) for temporary text.

And Alt+Home to ACTUALLY use Google.

Re:Search bar as temporary area (1)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657614)

I use the Windows address bar for this (and for file paths - I don't think I've ever used them for URLs though since Chrome is so much faster). Anyone know of any good alternatives for Ubuntu?

More useless by the week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33654848)

I run Chromium as a second browser and it's becoming increasingly irritating. I especially hate the way they strip the "http://" protocol prefix and trailing slashes from domains and directories. A default HTTP GET is "/" not an empty string, similarly most servers are configured to send a redirect from "/dir_name" to "/dir_name/". That's how the protocol works but apparently some shmuck thinks it's somehow useful to hide such details from the user. This from a company whose own web service URLs still use indecipherable query strings at every given opportunity.

This new search thing sounds even worse, generally if I want to search for something in Chromium I visit google.com because there's no dedicated search box. Google should offer a moron mode for people who want google to have their entire browsing history on file. Guess it's time for me to go back to the Gtk webkit nightlies or arora.

Re:More useless by the week (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655278)

FYI: If you copy the entire URL from the URL bar you get the http:/// [http] added back on.

Re:More useless by the week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655750)

Thanks. I did already know that and it stands to reason since "http://" is a required component. The question remains, why is the browser doing extra work to deliberately display HTTP URLs incorrectly? I checked and it only strips the trailing slash for the root directory, not sub directories as per my original post. Still, to what end would they strip a sites root directory delimiter from the URL display?

Is it Google's idea of a clean URL and if so what is with query strings like this: "http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=search-term&btnG=Search". Surely "http://google.com/search/search-term" is cleaner and they can post the rest of the crap using hidden form elements?

On a positive note, it seems someone finally got around to adding support to Chromium for the X11 clipboard.

Missing feature (2, Interesting)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655090)

Okay, my Chrome pet peeve here.

Let's say you open a bunch of background tabs while reading a page. One of the tabs doesn't load for whatever reason, when it times out, instead of putting the attempted URL in the address bar it leaves some kind of about:blank internal page that tells you what happened. That's great, thanks for the info, now click refresh. Nope, the page is gone forever. Go back to the first page and hunt through the links comparing them against the loaded tabs and hopefully you find the one you wanted.

New features (1)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655176)

I love new features! I love new features with an off switch even more!

Why are you all such Google fanboys? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655204)

Did they run out of room at the Apple meet-up?

Instarhea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655358)

What is this instant results ChromeRhea? I recommend to everyone to come back to firefox!

Not New (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655380)

This is not new for Chrome 8. This already works in my Chrome 7 right now...

Too easy to embarass (1)

Ender_Wiggin (180793) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655610)

Today, my boss called me into his office to show me the web site of a potential business partner. When he began to type 'virginia' into google, it auto-completed his search with his recent search for 'virgin boy assholes'. I have to go on business trip with him tomorrow. I'm a young guy. FML

Taken from #36396 [fmylife.com]

Technically true (3, Insightful)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 2 years ago | (#33655826)

" It seems as if Google isn't running out of ideas for its browser anytime soon"...

That's true, but they are running out of good ideas.

metered bandwidth costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33655838)

I wonder what those who pay for their bandwidth in a metered way such as cell phone users or 95th percentile business users think of all the active searching behind the scenes. Despite what many of you think, bandwidth isn't free.

How about real performance fixes instead? (1)

AnswerIs42 (622520) | more than 2 years ago | (#33656174)

I could care less about searches.. but because chrome uses the least real estate, it is nice on my netbook... but IT IS HORRIBLE with system resources... I have to restart chrome at least three times a day to clean out the memory. And I only average 5-6 tabs being open. That is really sad for a browser.. that is worse than FF.. and if I could get FF to use less real estate as well, I would just use it and ditch chrome.

new suck-less web browser!!!!11! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#33656514)

If your sick of whining about which new features suck, bloat, missing functionality, then check out a new web browser that is entirely plugin oriented and 100% customizable.
http://www.uzbl.org/
I comes with no features and you can pick which plugins to add or write some yourself. You can easily hook in javascripts, python scripts, shell scripts and you can define/redefine any commands you like.
It's basically an API wrapped around webkit.

Personally, I don't use it. It's not quite mature enough for my liking, but I fully intend to switch to it in the new future. I'm sick of these bloated resource hog web browsers with redundant cutesy-pie features that only serve to annoy.

Warning: only for the uber-nerdy. Plugin collection is small, but growing.

Really? (0, Redundant)

rinoid (451982) | more than 3 years ago | (#33657318)

People really care about this?

Put me down as Who Cares.

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>